Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zak | Hacker News Reader

I wonder how difficult it would be to get the restrictions on pseudoephedrine rolled back now that it appears unlikely they're accomplishing their original goal of limiting the methamphetamine supply. Concern (legitimate and otherwise) over ability to breathe is a popular topic in politics lately.

View on HN

Difficult. Dianne Feinstein was the figure behind the changes, as part of her war on drugs. She wanted pseudoephedrine made prescription only too.

https://www.drugcaucus.senate.gov/press-releases/feinstein-g...

ironically, OR and MS, the states listed in that report, are so far the only 2 that are starting to roll back the restrictions.

Our elected officials seem adverse to admitting something doesn't work well and rolling it back, unfortunately.

Every time she's mentioned, there's something to make me dislike Feinstein more than I already did. It does seem likely her strong opposition would be a high bar to clear, though as the oldest current senator, she may not be a factor for a long time.

It really is amazing how someone manages to be on the wrong side of seemingly everything, and yet is locked into office past the point of senility.

This means that either your calibration mechanism for 'wrong side' is flawed, or the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes.

Speaking for myself, am shocked and outraged that red senators and other congresscritters are consistently on the wrong side of seemingly everything, yet they keep getting elected. Of course, my political calibration mechanisms are quite in tune.

Feinstein is weirdly not aligned with the left or the tech industry given where she's from. Her strong anti-drug and anti-encryption stances are easy examples.

If I had to pick a single organizing principle to describe her positions it would be a bureaucratic sort of authoritarianism (as distinguished from the strongman authoritarianism of someone like Donald Trump).

I do believe the system is rigged in a way that consistently produces bad outcomes. The US Senate is structured to reward voters for keeping incumbents in office, and plurality voting virtually guarantees two dominant parties.

Feinstein's hard authoritarian and surveillance state preferences haven't endeared her to many people who are also shocked and outraged by the usual collection of utterly repugnant red senators, so option B there.

> the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes.

Yes. That one.

"Real" change (ie, still a useless liberal democracy, but at least a bit more in service to the people) would start with voter reform and getting rid of FPTP entirely.

You wouldn't like the results of either of those if you like "extreme" positions.

- The most popular replacement for FPTP (which is biased away from centrism) is RCV (which is biased towards it).

- FPTP does turn it into a two-party system, but US parties are weak. They don't control who joins them, who gets elected, or how anyone votes. In the UK you can actually get fired from the party for voting wrong.

I don't care about "extreme" positions in the context of liberal democracies. I can confidently say that there are great improvements we can make within them while also supporting abolishing them entirely. I like to be at least somewhat pragmatic.

RCV/STV is absolutely an improvement on FPTP in almost every way.

As far as strong vs weak parties, that seems to be an issue with the UK. FPTP and weak-parties are separate sets. You could have FPTP with closed party membership, or RCV/STV with weak parties.

> the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes.

The system doesn't have to be rigged to produce bad outcomes. Most outcomes are bad, so only a system which is nearly perfect has any hope of producing good outcomes.

Another arrow in my quiver for why the US is honestly not a country to bet on for the next 20 years.

The only countries with better demographic trends than the US are in Africa.

India?

Yeah once in a while she does something and I think "ok, that makes sense." But she's generally a broken clock.

Hate to do this but hopefully she will step down at some point, willingly or not due to her age.

Wow, I did not know Oregon had repealed that already. Apparently, this past June: https://www.chpa.org/news/2021/06/oregon-repeal-unnecessary-...

IIRC, early attempts to repeal failed stalled. (I presumed due to some pharm lobby)

I wonder if Covid and focus on flu like symptoms led to it getting “fast tracked.”

Looks like pseudoephedrine OTC products became available for sale January 1st 2022. https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2022/01...

I made the drive from Portland to Vancouver, WA multiple times over the years (usually while sick) to resupply with something that worked.

Glad that is done with.

Pessimistic me says not likely. Once these regulations are put in place, it is nearly impossible to get them removed. It takes a literal act of Congress. Now you have to spend useless energy against attacks of "soft on crime/drug abuse/etc" types of nonsense for suggesting removing an item from the list. Don't bother resorting to facts. Those are useless in the emotional knee jerk reactions that will ensue.

It's happening slowly. Oregon had pushed it all the way to requiring a prescription to get pseudoephedrine. It does still require a visit to the store pharmacy and showing your ID to prove you are an adult, but at least you can buy it without a prescription now. I think only a couple states ever went that far. But at least it is a step back in the right direction.

The ID check isn't for age verification. Federal law requires IDs to be recorded* to enforce restrictions on the maximum quantity that an individual is permitted to purchase per month.

* Edit: Where the word "recorded" appears, this comment previously said "scanned and submitted to a central database". While most states use a central database, the comment reply below pointed out that this goes beyond the minimum that federal law requires.

I am not aware of a centralized federal database. My understanding is that federal regulations stipulate that the pharmacy must see photo ID and take note of who bought the pseudoephedrine, when, how much, and keep that information logged either on paper or electronically. To be available to law enforcement on request.

The Oregon law does have a central database requirement, however I believe this is in all cases a decision made by each state individually.

You are correct, I was conflating two separate steps of the process. Federal law only requires keeping records and these could technically be done on paper. In practice, more than two thirds of the states participate in a central electronic database called the National Precursor Log Exchange.

> how difficult it would be to get the restrictions on pseudoephedrine rolled back

Likely a non-starter until the FDA revokes phenylephrine's designation as a decongestant.

WHY DO YOU WANT CHILDREN TO GET METH?--Opponents of rolling back restrictions on pseudoephedrine

But more seriously, the FDA ends up regulating something like 30% of the economy and getting them to deregulate something is near impossible

Pseudoephedrine restrictions were recently was rolled back in Oregon, where you had to have a prescription to get it. Now we're able to buy it over the counter with ID. So it can happen!

The restrictions the state places on us largely function as a one way ratchet, alas. There is a lot about American drug policy that is wildly unpopular, and yet here we are.

A huge portion of the issue is that we’re largely ruled by people who don’t need to deal with any of the inconveniences they cause; if any senator or rep has a runny nose I’m sure they can get an aide to sort it out for them. The rest of us are not so lucky.

It probably still makes it a lot more difficult to make meth in a "homelab", as alternative synthesis paths are probably a lot harder. So they're leaving it to the "clandestine pros", ironically ;).

Also, in legislation, it seems like making things illegal passes several orders of magnitudes more easily, than anything that gives normal citizens more rights.

Very difficult. Regulations live on regardless of their negative effects because there's very little incentive to get rid of them.

For a long time, I've had the idea in the back of my mind that all laws should have expiration dates, and the maximum duration shouldn't be very long (12 or 18 years would be two or three senate terms in the US). Ideally, it would be combined with something to keep the scope of each bill narrow.

It wouldn't work because what would happen would be a mass reapproval of all regulations.

What I'd like to see is a constitutional amendment that the total body of federal laws and regulations can't be any longer or more complicated than a person of average intelligence can be taught in a week.

Or simply require that they be read in the house / senate before a vote. Not "read" but actually read, word for word out loud, by the sponsor.

> It wouldn't work because what would happen would be a mass reapproval of all regulations.

Sunset provisions are an idea I tentatively like until I consider what happens with the fucking stupid, pointless "debt ceiling" crap Congress has decided to make themselves do. I imagine how fun it'd be watching months of idiotic brinksmanship over keeping murder illegal, because one group of legislators wants to grand-stand about abortion. Then repeat for practically everything else.

No thanks.

I used to think a limit on the total size of the law like that would be a good idea, but some areas of regulation are inherently complex. I still hold a related position: an adult of reasonable intelligence should be able to easily learn all the laws that they're likely to encounter, and learn which fields are subject to detailed regulation.

To give an example, the regulations governing design of commercial aircraft can almost certainly be simplified from their current state without killing people, but probably cannot be simplified to the point that someone who isn't already an expert on aircraft design can learn them in a week without killing people. Knowing that field is subject to special rules is enough to avoid accidentally violating the regulations.

Currently there's no limit to the complexity that governments can inflict on us. Since there's no garbage collection process for laws/regulations, we wind up with an enormous body of legislation and regulation which almost nobody understands or adheres to. It's terrible for the rule of law.

Sunset provisions are popular actually. Jimmy Carter put that idea on his platform in '76, and it was carried out to some extent, and his own state was the example that sold people on it. I sense that they have waned since.

I believe there are restrictions on the breadth of laws but they are not honored very effectively.

Worse, there is an incentive to keep them going as there are entire industries and associated careers built around them.

That's actually evidence they're good, since nobody's built a country with so many successful industries and no regulation. They wouldn't be able to solve the coordination problems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com