IFish Fishing Forum banner

Sudafed over the counter in Washington?

35K views 22 replies 19 participants last post by  gottafish 
#1 ·
Can you guys still buy Sudafed without a prescription in Washington?
 
#4 ·
And you can too, just to be clear. An Oregon resident can buy it in WA, but as duckboy mentioned it is behind the counter and you need to produce ID and sign for it. And there is a limit per transaction of 96 pills. But no prescription is required.
 
#8 · (Edited)
That's one way of looking at it, but I am of the opinion that it is just another example of a bad, over reaching law, with "good intentions", that does more collective harm to society than good.

Every person who needs a legit dose of a long established and useful medication must now submit to the whole ID, sign for it, and be scrutinized by a pharmacist, or if in Oregon, take the time and expense of a doctor's office visit to get a prescription for it.

This is another example of a poor legislative effort to solve a problem with an overly broad law, which unduly burdens law abiding citizens, and does little to truly impact on the use of meth.

I'll start another thread about the ballot initiative this coming election in Washington which will nearly double the price of eggs and put a lot of old time farmers out of business because PETA and others, like the Humane Society, want chickens to have flock coops and not individual cages.

big kahuna
 
#16 ·
The law was never intended to directly reduce meth use. It was directly intended to reduce meth labs that were contaminating hotel rooms, rentals, timber stands, etc. And it did a fine job of doing that.

Millions of tax payer dollars are no longer going to clean up meth labs. It hasn't stopped it, but it sure has saved us tax payers a bunch of money.
 
#20 · (Edited)
The law was never intended to directly reduce meth use. It was directly intended to reduce meth labs that were contaminating hotel rooms, rentals, timber stands, etc. And it did a fine job of doing that.

SGT - Your concern re neighborhoods and the dangers of hazardous materials is certainly valid and no one would think otherwise, but the challenge is for us as a people to enact laws that prohibit and target the undesirable behavior, while at the same time not creating an undue burden on society and/or making otherwise legitimate activities illegal.

HB 2485 was signed by Gov T K which is the law we are discussing. A reading of the Introduction or Purpose section of the law makes it clear that the primary concern or goal of the law was to establish a coordinated effort of prevention, enforcement and treatment.

The problem with laws such as this, is that it gives the illusion of making societal progress on a problem. The USE stats for meth have not plunged - indeed, small scale lab operations have been diminished, but my point initially was, and is, that broad sweeping laws which impact every single citizen with an added regulatory burden are not the way to address issues like meth use.

Since small meth lab use has gone down, but consumption of the drug has not, one can assume that it is being produced either in better hid locations or in fewer, but larger locations. In either event the net environmental hazards are the same: equal amounts of meth produce equal amounts of hazardous by product. It may just not be down the block from you, but to equate being "out of sight" with actual progress on arresting the use of the drug, and its many many social costs, is a dangerous thing to take comfort in.

You stated that the law was never intended to directly reduce meth use, but rather to reduce small meth labs. To the contrary, the law was intended to put a dent in the easy accessibility of meth, and thus its use. The law also sought to put an integrated system of child protection, prevention, and criminal apprehension in place. Reading the committee reports further evinces that the concern was not primarily about keeping hotel rooms etc clean and bio-hazard free, but rather to keep our communities clean and free of the plague of meth.

Again, good intentions often make really bad laws - this is one of them. I am sure hunters can see a similar pattern in the efforts to ban individual ownership of weapons because bad guys sometimes use weapons to commit crime. Most people used to use Sudafed for entirely legit purposes too. t bk
 
#17 ·
"Once the scourge of law enforcement agencies, home-based methamphetamine labs have virtually disappeared in Oregon.
That hasn’t, however, decreased use. Instead, meth-related arrests are increasing. Hermiston Police Chief Dan Coulombe said earlier this month that meth-related incidents in Hermiston actually rose in 2010, while marijuana-related incidents dropped slightly.

Part of the reason for the reduction in meth lab numbers is Oregon’s progressive laws that make psuedoephedrine a prescription drug.
Psuedoephedrine-based cold medicines are used to make meth in small home-based labs. Under Oregon’s law, passed in 2006, the people who run meth labs have a hard time getting enough psuedoephedrine to make their product.


Since the laws were enacted, the number of meth-lab incidents in Oregon has averaged less than two per month. Last year, there were just 13 reported meth-lab incidents in the entire state.
Before the laws went into effect, Oregon averaged nearly 39 meth-lab incidents per month.


In comparison, the Drug Enforcement Agency reported that in 2009 there were 76 meth lab-related incidents in Washington state, and only 13 in Oregon.
“Meth labs are really non-existent,” Hermiston Police Chief Dan Coulombe said. We don’t encounter labs.”


Hope this helps.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top