Reconciling assholes for nearly a decade.

Welcome to the nanny state...

...where although your doctor recommends two weeks' worth of pseudoephedrine to treat your head cold, it's illegal to buy more than 4 days' worth at once. And if you buy the 4 days' worth, you have to show your driver's license so they can write it in the little book so the police can come rifle through it when they please to decide if they think you might have a meth lab in your basement.

However, if you want to walk into the pharmacy with a concealed pistol under your coat (presumably so that when you get pissed off that you can't buy all your medicine, you can pull it out and start gunning people down), _that's_ perfectly legal.

Yes, kids, pseudoephedrine is now more dangerous than guns.
Permalink Kyralessa 
January 10th, 2006
Without commenting on the comparison with (concealed) guns, you do realize how dangerous meth labs are? And the characters who operate them? And that most of their raw materials *are* over-the-counter stuff bought from pharmacies?

What would your approach be, increased electronic surveilance?
Permalink  
January 10th, 2006
> What would your approach be

Legalize drugs and let people make their own decisions.
Permalink son of parnas 
January 10th, 2006
"Legalize drugs and let people make their own decisions."

<screeching mother voice>

But what about the chilllldrennnnnnn?????!!!!!

</>
Permalink sharkfish 
January 10th, 2006
Everyone knows you can't make meth out of children.
Permalink Devil's Advocate 
January 11th, 2006
Both drugs and guns are only as dangerous as *people* make them.
Permalink ping? 
January 11th, 2006
"Both drugs and guns are only as dangerous as *people* make them."

this is why I leave my meth and my glock in the care of my 4 year old daughter. she is just to innocent and pure to ever do anything dangerous with these neutral objects.
Permalink _ 
January 11th, 2006
Let the gun people kill the meth people. Problem solved and no one gets hurt. Well, no one worth saving that is.
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 11th, 2006
My wife just bought about a month's worth of pseudoephedrine two weeks ago... she didn't have to do anything.
Permalink KC 
January 11th, 2006
No - in a nanny state said doctor would have written a presciption, you'd have a paid your &#163;6* and you'd have gone on your way. Unless it was a controlled drug like methamphetamine or heroin - in which case you would have been required to sign a separate register and supply proof of identity. It would still cost &#163;6*.

*unless you were old, young (under 16), a student in full-time education, poor or unemployed.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 11th, 2006
* Or had kids and were in the low to middle income bracket.
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 11th, 2006
*or had a prepayment certificate or special exemption based on particular medical conditions.

I think we should stop there we'll make 'em jealous...
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 11th, 2006
* or NICE had decided your required drug was too expensive and your doctor wasn't allowed to prescribe it to you.

Jealous yet?
Permalink Andy 
January 11th, 2006
As someone who spends well over $400 in prescription costs monthly, I hereby decree that none of you has anything to bitch about.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 11th, 2006
My understanding was that the local Health Authorities (or whatever they call themselves these days) decide prescribing policy. NICE reports give advice which they can (& sometimes do) ignore...and of course the option to go private like our American cousins does remain open.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 11th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics