I think the drugs are working!

[xiphias]

Codeine, how I love you, how I love you,
My dear old codeine.
I'd give my lungs to be
Filled wth C-O-D-E-I-N-even know my
Cough is waiting for me ambushin' for me
If I'm out of codeine
The folks at the docs will see me no more
When I skip out on the ER

Codeine, Codeine, I'm coming down with something
Doctor, Doctor, I love the old folk's home.


Um, it's not my best work, and some of it is entirely nonsensical or just vaguely stream-of-concousness, but I'm not convinced that's inappropriate.

Comments

[yardlong.livejournal.com]

Yes indeed, codeine can be a friend. :)

[felis-sidus.livejournal.com]

Ohh-kay. Maybe just a tad too much codeine? At least you're having fun!

[mightydoll.livejournal.com]

What you really want is Ephedrine. But you can't get that there 'cuz someone figured out how to make meth out of it.

Best cold medicine out there, though.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I thought it was pseudephereine that you could make meth out of. That's why you have to ask the pharamacist for it, rather than just get it off the shelf. And we do have that in the house.

It just doesn't have any kind of cough supressing effect.

[felis-sidus.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's pseudoephedrine that's been taken off the shelves for fear somebody will make meth out of it. Don't get me started. Once I get on that soap box, it's really hard to get me off. Ephedrine is the natural chemical that pseudoephedrine mimics. Both are decongestants. Ephedrine is also a bronchodilator. I'm not sure if pseudoephedrine has that effect. As you say, neither are cough suppressants. Besides, you seem to be enjoying the codeine.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Well, someone did explain the process to me, and it DOES sound damn easy, although it either uses, or produces (I forget which) some highly volitile gasses, which would keep ME from making the stuff except in an actual lab with actual lab equipment and protocols.

Still, if you are crazy and stupid, I think you can basically do it with a stove, some garbage bags, and basic stuff like that.

As I understand it, methamphetamines are, y'know, kind of dangerous as street drugs go. But the REAL danger is the fact that meth labs blow up.

As annoying as the process has been (and, please understand -- I'm STILL against it), it does seem to have pushed some of the production of methamphetamine back to "meth labs" rather than "home meth labs". In other words, the annoyance factor of the new rules seems to have been enough to push producers into making large batches in wholesale lots, rather than many, many places making small amounts, in a "distributed production" model.

I don't think it's had that much effect on the total amount of methamphetamine available -- but it's moved the production either into more industrial/commerical areas, or into wilderness areas, rather than being in residential areas.

And so, if you consider that the purpose of the law was less to shut down meth, and more to shut down meth labs -- that it wasn't to protect against the danger of the drug, but rather to protect against the danger of the process of the production of the drug, you could count it a mild success.

A mild success that makes a mockery of a number of principles of freedom, and is yet another reason to be ashamed of the USA PATRIOT Act, mind you.

I'm still against it.

Ranty McRantypants...

[linenoise.livejournal.com]

I happened to be at the pharmacy recently. And I looked at what the limit was.

5 boxes. I've never even *thought* about buying 5 boxes at once. But I could. Completely legally. And then come back every 24 hours and buy 5 more boxes. Or just drive to the next pharmacy just down the block and buy 5 boxes from them.

So, really, it does *nothing* to actually stop people from getting their hands on psuedoephedrine. It just grossly violates my privacy, and introduces a crapton of useless bookkeeping and paperwork. Paperwork, btw, that costs taxpayers money.

Grrrr.

Re: Ranty McRantypants...

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yes. It does not do anything to stop people from getting their hands on pseudephrine. It does, however, leave a paper trail explaining WHO got a lot of pseudephrine recently. If you see one guy getting his or her max five boxes from several places, and there's crystal meth in the neighborhood, you've got a suspect.

Because five boxes of Sudafed, or twenty boxes of Sudafed from four local places, every day, is just not enough Sudafed to make it commercially viable to manufacture in home labs, especially when, if you DO do that, there's a clear paper trail pointing right at you.

What do I dislike about this law? As you say, it's an invasion of privacy. I dislike any law which restricts my freedom of action when I have done nothing to merit it. And pretty much our whole pharmacalogical oversight legal apparatus in the United States is littered with 'em.

But, frankly, the thing which upsets me most about this law is that it was passed as a rider to the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act.

This law is not, on its face, absolutely outrageous. I'm against it, but I believe that you could have an open debate about its merits, present the reasons for and against it, and vote for or against it. If that's what had happened with this law, I'd grumble about it, but accept it.

But the way this was passed just shows how broken the legislative process in the United States is. And THAT'S what upsets me about the law -- that it was never looked at, considered, argued about, and voted on, in a manner consistent with a free and open representative democracy.

[felis-sidus.livejournal.com]

It's not the inconvenience that bothers me, it's the violation of my constitutional rights. The government should not be able to investigate the medicines I take at will, without any evidence that I've been violating some law. There's the small matter of unreasonable search and seizure.

If the goal was to make it difficult for someone to acquire enough pseudoephedrine to make meth, then drugs containing pseudoephedrine should have been made prescription only. The problem with the current system is that the pharmacy's records of who bought what pseudoephedrine products are not protected medical records. They are open to the government at the government's pleasure. No court order, nothing. All the government has to do is to connect to the pharmacy's computer system. If the government wants to see what prescription meds I've been getting, they have to get a court order, and even then the pharmacist has some discretion in responding to the order.

If there's concern that people of limited means might not be able to get a prescription for one of these pseudoephedrine-containing products, the solution would be to allow a doctor to write a single, long-term prescription with unlimited refills. Then each person would have to get a prescription only once, the records would be kept, and would be available to government agencies with legitimate need to see them, based on appropriate evidence.

The current law sets an unhealthy precedent for unrestricted government access to personal information. And as for success, I haven't seen anything that would incline me to believe that this law has prevented anyone from setting up a meth lab, has caused meth labs to be relocated, or has reduced the number of explosions and poisonings related to illegal meth labs. Even if any of those things had been achieved, IMO it would not be worth the loss of constitutional rights. Once you give up a right, it can be extremely difficult to get it back because of the role of precedent in our legal system.

And then there's the problems people are having getting meds they legitimately need. One pharmacist recently told me that it's not unusual to have a parent come in with a doctor's orders to get pseudoephedrine-containing meds for two or more children, only to be told by the pharmacist that only one of the orders can be filled because to fill both would exceed the legal maximum. The parent has to decide which child must do without medication. The pharmacist said that a few times he's thought a distraught father was going to come over the counter after him. No parent should be forced to make that kind of a choice simply because the government finds it easier to cast a wide net than to do actual criminal investigations.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I agree.

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

If you're gonna do opiates, you should go listen to some Iggy Pop or Lou Reed. Or maybe just read Coleridge's "Kubla Khan," which was written when he awoke from an opium dream.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Wow. You look a lot like a spam account doing a very clever targeted spam advertisement for a drug clinic.

Normally, I just delete these and report 'em -- but, a) there's a chance you're NOT just a spambot, b) drug rehab is less offensive than a lot of other things you could be hawking if you ARE a spambot, and c) if you are a spambot, you're a damn well targeted and well-designed one.

You get to stay, even if you are a bot.

And if you're a human, hi! Welcome!

zWDRnoKlGLL

[(Anonymous)]

dors.txt;5;5

[(Anonymous)]

Oh come on. Stop it. I don't find it funny at all. making poetry about drugs?! This is a clear sign of drug addiction (http://www.drugrehabsunsetmalibu.com/drug-addiction/).