Sadly, far too many laws, once on the books, are never considered for removal, even when the original reason for their enactment no longer applies.
Unless enough of us voters badger our congress critters to repeal the "hide the PE" law, it will continue to sit behind the counter.
Its interesting how Americans are so trained to interpret everything as a failure of government we will find a way to think that the law that prevents meth makers from using sudafed is outdated because meth makers are prevented from using sudafed.
They switched methods, and the new method seems to be more cost-effective so it's unlikely they'd switch back even without the restrictions.
You see, it's not about dealing with large-scale operations. It's about keeping that one neighbor you have who always makes poor choices from grabbing 1000 boxes of Sudafed and blowing up their house. They don't care what the industrial process is, they care what they can get away with in their living room.
Throttle access to pseudoephedrine sufficiently and they will look elsewhere. Make it easy to get and they'll DIY. You know, I even admire the DIY spirit involved. I just don't admire the externalities.
There is a cheap process to make meth, and there’s another process that involves Sudafed. Banning Sudafed does not stop meth production. But here you are still supporting a ban on Sudafed - because of what some theoretical person might do with it ignoring that they’re doing it now without it.
I don’t believe this is a logical failure, I believe whatever culture you grew up in imparted this way of thinking.
It's almost like people in fact do base their choices on what's easily available.