Hacker News Reader

Comment by hotpotamus | Hacker News Reader

I've never had a problem getting pseudoephedrine, though it is behind the counter in a pharmacy these days. There are limits, but they are well over what I would consider a therapeutic dose. I don't know if that varies state-to-state, but I doubt it's a federal issue.

View on HN

Pharmacists and pharmacy techs are given "training" on how to identify supposed fraudulent sales. e.g. if your hair is long or you otherwise look like a person who would manufacturer amphetamines (whatever that looks like) they won't sell it to you.

So, congrats to you for looking like a fine upstanding person and not like a clandestine drugs manufacturer.

Anyone can by pseudoephedrine, but there’s a system that checks to make sure you haven’t exceeded your monthly limit, and if someone is talking about meth or makes a joke about meth while buying pseudoephedrine, it might raise a red flag, but generally pharmacies sell it to anyone since there’s really no workaround the the monthly limits.

> Pharmacists and pharmacy techs are given "training" on how to identify supposed fraudulent sales. e.g. if your hair is long or you otherwise look like a person who would manufacturer amphetamines

I am sorry, what? Maybe I have just been lucky my entire life, but that has never been my experience. I used to have long hair for many years, and I haven't had a clean-shaven face in years. Dark circles under my eyes is a common thing. I also have ear piercings, and I dress in baggy non-assuming casual clothing most of the time. Not once was I ever questioned about or refused any behind the counter drugs at any of the pharmacies I've been to across multiple states. They do ask for an ID to purchase those behind the counter drugs, but I am pretty sure they are legally obligated to do it for everyone, due to the regulations that the thread is talking about.

Also, I believe you meant to say "methamphetamines". There is no illegal amphetamine manufacturing epidemic (and I am not aware of there ever being one), but there was a methamphetamine one.

perhaps it's different in your state, but in mine you can only get one box/month regardless of how much is in the box. and the size of the boxes available varies. if you manage to get a 96-count box then that's enough for once/day of the regular dose (2 tabs/day) plus some extra. but 96 is often sold out across many local pharmacies (I'd guess about half the time I try), and then the next best option is 48. this means you don't have enough for once/day (I need 2 tabs once/day as prescribed by my doc). sometimes all that's available is 24-count. or none at all. add to this that the state verification system goes down with some frequency, and on those days nobody can buy at all (and you don't know until they have your box within arms reach and you're trying to pay). so every month I end up on a hunt for this medication that is extremely frustrating and sometimes doesn't result in me getting what I need. meanwhile meth rages anyway--while domestic production went down after the sudafed restrictions, consumption continues due to illegal imports.

https://reason.com/2009/09/28/hoosier-grandmother-arrested-f...

This outrage-bait is curiously at odds with the sentiment in the sibling post by /u/fnordfnordfnord. Do you want front-level employees to judge whether somebody "look like a person who would manufacturer amphetamines" or not? If the answer is yes, then people who look sketchy in some random pharmacy worker's opinion are the only ones to get arrested, whether or not they're actually up to anything. If the answer is no, then yes indeed it's correct to arrest grandmas who break the law because we're not allowed to judge whether they look like they're cooking meth or not.

Personally, no, I don't really want front-level employees refusing to sell sinus medication on a whim. It doesn't really work for alcohol (i.e. it doesn't stop kids from getting alcohol, but does create headaches for adults). Alcohol is, in aggregate, probably more destructive to society.

But it's also wrong to arrest grandmothers on drug charges and send them through the system for a violation of some legislator's arbitrary limit. Turns out it didn't solve the meth problem, but it did make the world a little worse to live in.

Also, I think describing the article as "outrage-bait" is in poor taste for this site. A different implication might be that when criminal charges are tied to an action with the intent of limiting an activity, those charges will inevitably be applied to "the wrong people" (maybe you?) for a different activity, and that we should be skeptical of problem-solving-through-force.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com