Maybe We Need Less Democracy and More Corruption

The Drug War Chronicle notes that bills requiring a prescription for cold and allergy medications containing pseudoephedrine were blocked in Oklahoma and dropped in Kentucky this week. A supporter of the Oklahoma bill, Rep. Doug Cox (R-Grove), pre-emptively blamed its defeat on "blood money for the pharmaceutical industry," referring to campaign contributions from manufacturers of Sudafed and other products that contain pseudoephedrine, a methamphetamine precursor. Republic Report, dedicated to "investigating how money corrupts democracy," implicitly endorses that interpretation:

Whatever influenced these members of the Oklahoma legislature to vote against this anti-meth bill, one thing is certain: they came from different ideologies and from different parts of the state, but they all had strong financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

Here is another thing that is certain: This bill, which doubled down on an ineffective, counterproductive policy in the service of a doomed, disastrous crusade against an arbitrarily chosen set of psychoactive chemicals, should never have been introduced, let alone passed. Although you might expect the leftish folks at United Republic (which publishes Republic Report) to understand this point, their default assumption seems to be that any policy opposed by big corporations must be good. In this case, however, the corporations are united with consumers against the arrogant, liberty-constricting demands of moralistic drug warriors. Likewise, when Rick Santorum supported lower beer taxes as a Pennsylvania senator, he was advancing the interests of consumers as well as those of the brewers and beer distributors who gave money to his campaign fund. If this is what corruption looks like (as opposed to the brand practiced by United Republic Senior Fellow Jack Abramoff, which involved using government to handicap the competition), we need more of it.

Addendum: Commenter Libertarian2 reminds me of a link I meant to include: instructions on how to make pseudoephedrine out of "readily available N-methylamphetamine."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pre-Emptive Snark||

    This is like the worst comment thread ever.

  • ||

    Hah! You ain't seen nothin' yet.

  • Pre-Emptive Snark||

    I've seen it all, my good man.

    Not that I am not forever being proven wrong.

    For instance! [insert next thread here]

  • der||

    I'm an attractive, caring, honest, good hearted women in search of bilover to explore bisexuality. I, so I got a profile(lily green) on --Datebi dot c'0m--. It's the first and safe place for men and women looking for intimate encounters, casual encounters. Come in and discover the excitement you deserve! ^_^

  • Suki||

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A supporter of the Oklahoma bill, Rep. Doug Cox (R-Grove), pre-emptively blamed its defeat on "blood money for the pharmaceutical industry," referring to campaign contributions from manufacturers of Sudafed and other products that contain pseudoephedrine.

    Big Pharm (or perhaps reality) Cox blocked the Congressman of a resume padder.

  • Almanian||

    Open Thread OT:

    In another thread, SugarFree SugarFreed the link for the site to vote to make him a moderator.

    And that would be....perfect. PERFECT. Almost meta.

    SugarFree - MY LIFE FOR YOU!!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A moderator? Moderator of what?

  • Almanian||

    Who cares?

    I was thinking Moderator of The Republican "Debates", or Moderator of The Next Senate Grilling of a SCOTUS Nominee, which would be AWESOME!

    But I think it's to be Moderator of rectal's blog or something...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    SugarFree ain't the first person who comes to mind when I think moderation.

  • ||

    No, that would be Barack Hussein Cuntbama, the great centrist peacemaker.

    /Naive, clueless dipshit/useful idiot in 2008.

  • ||

    Did you look at the URL, dude?

  • ||

    You really failed to notice that therereallyisntapetition.org might mean something?

  • Almanian||

    And you all didn't recognize how meta my posting of his posting was?

    COME ON, GUYS! PROGRAM! GET WITH IT!

  • ||

    SugarFree SugarFreed the link for the site to vote to make him a moderator

    No way. This is real? "SugarFree" wants to be an authoritarian censor?!

    Links! Citations! Proof!

  • ||

    Here it is, 4:05 Mountain Time, and I still have not received confirmation of the veracity of Almanian's quite possibly slanderous remarks re one "SugarFree" and his aspirations, to wit: Official Censor.

    I must say, this "libertarian" site" leaves me somewhat cold, if not utterly doubtful.

  • ||

    it doesn't matter which timezone you're in, you only waited 12mins for a response.

  • ||

    Still waiting!

  • ||

    at 30mins, if you still haven't gotten a response, you have to consider that you might just be a dick that no-one wants to respond to.

  • ||

    a dick that no-one wants to respond to

    Google "irony, definition"

  • Almanian||

    On topic:

    Getting transferred back to Michigan, and one of the wonderful bonuses is that I'll no longer be able to purchase Bronkaid or Primatene tablets, as I can in Ohio.

    Even in Ohio, I have to show ID after doing the perp walk to the pharmacist - but I can GET them. I don't take them much since I quit smoking, but every once in awhile when I get wheezy from the dogs or a shit ton of pollen or whatever.

    So I'm stocking up. Legally. But...why should anyone have to do that?

    Rifuckingdiculous, and fuck you in the ass, Congressfuck Coxucker, with a red hot poker purchased with Mexican druglords' "blood money", you authoritarian fuckstick.

    And same for the rest of our Overlords who feel the same way. I hope you die of an asthma attack because you don't have access to OTC TEH BAD DRUGZZZ, motherfuckhead.

  • Almanian||

    I forgot to say, "Have a nice day."

  • ||

    We always read that in.

  • ||

    And same for the rest of our Overlords who feel the same way. I hope you die of an asthma attack because you don't have access to OTC TEH BAD DRUGZZZ, motherfuckhead.

    Oh, don't worry. THEY have access to the finest psuedophedrine, no questions asked.

  • ||

    Remember "liberty or death"? The Founders spin in their graves ever-so-fast.

  • Metazoan||

    My thoughts exactly. Thank you for this idiotic war on people with stuffy nose, Coxucker.

    Maybe it is the drug lords' blood money that led him to support this bill?

  • ||

    how dare you suggest that one our Noble Elite could be corrupted by the influence of the cartels. That can, will, and never has happened. Ever. Foreva-eva.

  • Christina||

    My new favorite movie is Machete by Robert Rodriguez. Lots of violence and nudity. Danny Trejo is fabulous as the title character. The casting as a whole is wonderful.

    Spoiler Alert: the asshole anti-immigration Congressman from a border state who is pushing for a border fence is in cahoots with the Mexican cartel.

    http://youtu.be/I16020r--oM

  • nicole||

    Are you actually legally able to stock up? Because that alone now almost reaches "awesome and amazing" level. Be careful you don't buy too much too fast, unless that's miraculously not an issue in Ohio still.

  • Robert||

    Ephedrine's prescription-only in Mich.? Or just plain off the market?

    There's been a movement afoot for some time to get nonprescription asthma drugs off the market, because supposedly "asthma is not appropriate for self-care".

  • Libertarian2||

    How to make Sudafed from Meth. Good to know!
    http://heterodoxy.cc/meowdocs/.....osynth.pdf

  • Ruffleburg||

    Just had a great idea for a new show. Its about a high school chemistry teacher with a cold who, when unable to purchase cold medicine from his local pharmacy, enlists a former student to obtain illicit methamphetamines and "cook" them into pseudoephedrine in order to relieve his symptoms. Still trying to come up with a clever name for it...

  • The Theoretician||

    Breaking Wind

  • ||

    Because pharmaceutical companies make so much money off of over-the-counter nasal decongestants, as opposed to prescription drugs.

  • ||

    It's a politician -- he's not supposed to make sense.

  • ||

    The "blood money" from the Mexican cartels supporting this bill was insufficient to ensure its passage?

  • ||

    another heinous speculator with no faith in the Righteous, Self-Sacrificing, Nobility Of The American Ruling Elite.

  • Paul||

    Although you might expect the leftish folks at United Republic (which publishes Republic Report) to understand this point,

    One day Reason will understand why the Left is philosphically behind drug prohibition: It attacks corporate profits.

  • ||

    It makes the state vastly more powerful, too, as a side benefit.

  • ||

    I'm beginning to think that Almanian's "SugarFree/Censor" comment was just a big fat Greek hoax.

  • Tony||

    Corporate and public interest do coincide in this instance. Doesn't mean they always do. A corporation that can bribe politicians not to pass an antidrug law can also bribe them to loosen up on safety regulations for something. The underlying problem is getting legislators to act only in the public interest. That may sometimes harm or benefit a particular industry. Oh well. The reason democratic government exists is to be the agent of the people, whose power is supposed to trump that of other factions. Why should industry get to control public policy at all?

  • tarran||

    Because they're people too, you blithering jackwagon!

  • Tony||

    And those people, individually, have just as much a right to vote as other individuals.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|3.1.12 @ 7:02PM|#
    ....."The underlying problem is getting legislators to act only in the public interest."....

    HAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAA, HAAA! Snurfle, sniker! Oh, stop it!
    That's GREAT, shithead!

  • cw||

    What's the public interest? Who gets to decide?

  • Tony||

    The public. Who else?

  • curious||

    So who is this "public" anyway? Can you introduce me to him/her?

  • Tony||

    I expect some liberals knee-jerk against corporations on this one. That's nowhere nearly as big a fundamental hypocrisy as libertarians favoring drug liberalization while simultaneously favoring maximum corporate power over public policy. That situation presents few incentives for makers of legal drugs (the ones that kill people) to allow for alternatives you can grow in your back yard.

  • Paul||

    That's nowhere nearly as big a fundamental hypocrisy as libertarians favoring drug liberalization while simultaneously favoring maximum corporate power over public policy.

    That's demonstrably untrue. Libertarians are continuously attempting to separate corporate and business interests from corporate policy while liberals continuously try to enjoin them.

  • Tony||

    The only way you're doing that is saying you're against it. The policies you favor, such as unlimited corporate spending on elections being free speech, create the system you claim to be against.

    I just realize that separating corporate and government power requires government to be more powerful.

  • Paul||

    The only way you're doing that is saying you're against it. The policies you favor, such as unlimited corporate spending on elections being free speech, create the system you claim to be against.

    No, Tony, we support Free Speech, full stop. Segregating which organizations and associations of individuals can speak politically and which ones can't is the dangerous road that Liberals warned be about in the 70s, and now embrace in the aughts.

    I even support a Union's right to free speech (aka "unlimited spending please ignore in-kind contributions where speech becomes money etc.) Funny that.

  • Paul||

    Other organization's right to unlimited spending on elections I support:

    The Sierra Club
    NRDC
    Greenpeace
    ACLU

  • Jeffersonian||

    I'll add the NYT to that mix.

  • Jeffersonian||

    I prefer being a corporate shill over being a book-burner (which is what the Solicitor General admitted would be the effect of affirming rather than overturning the lower court's ruling in C.U.).

    Liberal fascism at its finest.

  • #||

    "The policies you favor, such as unlimited corporate spending on elections being free speech, create the system you claim to be against."

    No, the policies you support of an endless regulatory and tax manipulation regime are what create the incentive for rent seeking.

    Who lobbies more? The highly regulated CitiGroup or the relatively unregulated Wall Mart?

  • curious||

    Tony, since you say the corporations control the government, wouldn't making the government more powerful just make the corporations more powerful? If not, why not? How would a government currently controlled by corporations break out of that control? If that was to happen, who would then fill the power vacuum left by the no-longer-in-control corporations?

  • Paul||

    corporate policy

    meant 'government policy'. Green subsidies not withstanding.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|3.1.12 @ 7:03PM|#
    ..."That's nowhere nearly as big a fundamental hypocrisy as libertarians favoring drug liberalization while simultaneously favoring maximum corporate power over public policy."...

    Just once, shithead, try posting without an embedded lie.

  • cw||

    By Tony's account, maximum union power is A-OK.

  • ||

    I actually preferred needing a prescription for my allergy medication, since I could get it phoned in to the pharmacy and pick it up at my convenience, and could get a significant stockpile at one time to cover vacations or other stretches when it was inconvenient to buy new.

    Under the current half-assed system, I need to maintain a spreadsheet to track when I can buy more, wait in line to speak to a pharmacist, show my driver's licence, sign separately for receipt of the medication and for payment, etc. etc.

    And, of course, I have to have a prescription for the o-t-c allergy medication anyway, in order to use my health savings account to pay for it. So while I sympathize with the big, evil corporations trying to look out for their own interests in the face of the torch-bearing meth-hating mob, I really don't see much benefit to the medication user in this one.

  • ||

    i don't know about your state, but in WA the limit for personal possession is FIFTEEN GRAMS

    RCW 69.43.120

    you would have to be in possession of 21 boxes of sudafed congestion (30 mg per / 24 dosages per box) to run afoul of the possession law

    it doesn't take a spreadsheet to avoid that possession limit

    these laws are a pain in the ass for legitimate consumers, that aside.

    after shoulder surgery, i could walk in to a pharmacy with a script and an insurance card and get oxycontin or dilaudid and they didn't even CHECK MY ID.

    but you want to buy a box of bronkaid (ephedrine) and they need driver's license, signature, etc. etc.

    it's pretty ridiculous

  • Shut the fuck up||

    i don't know about your state, but in WA

    Which has fuckall to do with the FEDERAL law that limits PURCHASING you ignorant, illiterate twat.

    was usually short lived as methamphetamine producers eventually found a way around the new regulations.

    Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 as an amendment to the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act.

    Daily sales limit—must not exceed 3.6 grams of pseudoephedrine base without regard to the number of transactions
    30-day (not monthly) sales limit—must not exceed 7.5 grams of pseudoephedrine base if sold by mail order or "mobile retail vendor"
    30-day purchase limit—must not exceed 9 grams of pseudoephedrine base. (A misdemeanor possession offense under 21 U.S.C. § 844a for the person who buys it.)


    Yes asshole you need a spreadsheet.
  • ||

    i'm aware of that, but contrary to paranoid beliefs the feds have neither the time nor the inclination to go after average joes for this stuff.

    the overwhelming majority of drug offenses, and especially as concern POSSESSORY offenses happen under state law.

    so... yawn...

  • Shut the fuck up||

    i'm aware of that, but contrary to paranoid beliefs the feds have neither the time nor the inclination to go after average joes for this stuff.

    THE PHARMACIES ADHERE TO FEDERAL GUIDELINES ASSHOLE, AND THEY TRACK AND REPORT ALL PURCHASES.

    How fucking stupid are you that you totally miss the point and shoot off about who is enforcing what?

    DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS BEING DISCUSSED IDIOT?

  • ||

    and again, the feds are not going after average joes for this stuff.

    so, no... your spreadsheet worries are baseless

    as many have shown (read the book : three felonies a day), federal laws are so broad and all encompassing, it's hard to even walk down the street without violating some federal law.

    and again, it's largely a baseless worry in regards to your personal jeopardy

  • Shut the fuck up||

    and again, the feds are not going after average joes for this stuff.

    And AGAIN, that has fuckall to do with my point.

    How fucking dumb are you?

  • Shut the fuck up||

    and again, it's largely a baseless worry

    except that the federal law imposes a limit which is the standard at pharmacies, and is below the amount that my family correctly uses for its intended

    Apparently you're so fucking stupi that you think "baseless worry" means the same as "have been told that you cannot buy medication you need"

    You really have no idea what the fuck is being discussed do you?

  • dunphy||

    I was stupid and said something dumb because i didn't know the federal law

    and now i'm trying to look less dumb by changing the subject to some stupid crap about state vs federal enforcement or some stupidity, i'm dumb i dunno

  • everyone who knows dunphy||

    yeah we know

  • ||

    yawn

    the federal law is largely irrelevant for reasons explained. it's mainly an admin restriction on the pharmacies. iow, an inconvenience

    it's the state laws that realistically can place you in jeopardy

  • Shut the fuck up||

    "the federal law is largely irrelevant"

    What the fuck are you lying about idiot, the federal law is the standard

    Did I miss "irrelevant" being redefined as "the standard in most pharmacies in the US" or something?

    How fucking stupid are you?

  • robc||

    ITS NOT ABOUT GETTING ARRESTED! ITS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PURCHASE THE PRODUCT.

  • Shut the fuck up||

    And the law YOU quote, you moronic twit, doesn't even apply to what we're talking about fuckwit.

    (e) A person in possession of more than fifteen grams of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine, their salts, isomers, or salts of isomers in their home or residence under circumstances consistent with typical medicinal or household use as indicated by, but not limited to, storage location and possession of products in a variety of strengths, brands, types, purposes, and expiration dates.

    Why are you so fucking stupid?
  • Shut the fuck up||

    ^" (2) This section does not apply to any of the following:"

  • dunphy||

    hi, i'm a pretend cop who doesn't know the law!

  • everyone who knows dunphy||

    yeah, we know.

  • ||

    troll-o-meter: .01

    i'm still waiting for all the stories of people being hauled into federal court for violations of this law (who aren't ALSO under indictment for actual manufacturing etc.)

    in brief, the feds use this as a tack-on and as a way to spur further investigation based on exceeding the initial limit

    they are not indicting joe blow (no pun intended) for misreading his spreadsheet

    the law is stupid, but ... talk about a baseless worry

  • everyone who knows dunphy||

    i'm still waiting for all the stories of people being hauled into federal court for violations of this law

    Then you're missing the point idiot.

  • ||

    yawn

  • Shut the fuck up||

    "yawn"

    really? you're wrong on the law and wrong on the facts and that's the best you got?

    I believe it.

  • other cops||

    "yawn"

    why thanks dunphy, you always know how to open wide for authority

  • Shut the fuck up||

    I CANNOT buy the necessary amount of this product for my family because the federal law prohibits my purchasing of that much product.

    We use it for its intended purpose.

    Stop trying to make this about who is arrested idiot, people can't get their fucking medication and you're too stupid to bother understanding the discussion.

  • ||

    omg. help help!!!! you are being oppressed!!!!

    jesus. the humanity!~!!

  • Shut the fuck up||

    That's it?

    I am not allowed to buy medication for my family because you do a shitty job catching meth-heads, and your response is

    "omg. help help!!!! you are being oppressed!!!!

    jesus. the humanity!~!!"

    Well as it turns out, this time you're right asshole. I am, it's nice of you to FINALLY be honest about SOMETHING.

  • MNG||

    "omg. help help!!!! you are being oppressed!!!!

    jesus. the humanity!~!!"

    Super classy dunphy, the guys a dick but you outshine him for acting like its ok to keep people from their medication.

  • Apatheist||

    You'll notice that once he realizes he's made a fool of himself, dunphy goes full troll and hides.

  • everyone who knows dunphy||

    Word

  • Playa Manhattan||

    " I really don't see much benefit to the medication user in this one."

    Umm, how about not having to go to a doctor to get a prescription? Unless you like paying unnecessary co-pays and sitting in waiting rooms...

  • FTC||

    Henceforth, The Star Spangled Banner must be be dropped as the National Anthem. Land of the brave, home of the free is clearly false advertizing.

  • Pedantic Lurker||

    It's also not in the song.

  • ||

    Is it okay if they affix the Alabama state drug tax stamp?

    http://www2.dothaneagle.com/ne.....r-3332560/

  • Sevo||

    dunphy|3.1.12 @ 8:31PM|#
    "and again, the feds are not going after average joes for this stuff."

    Somehow, this doesn't make me happy.
    I was in the service (Navy), and there were plenty of regs which were selectively enforced. Make a superior unhappy and, guess what?
    Sorry, dunphy, the fact that it *might* not be enforced is not a positive.

  • MJ||

    "Although you might expect the leftish folks at United Republic (which publishes Republic Report) to understand this point,..."

    I would fully expect a leftist not to understand how a government policy could be counterproductive and disastrous.

  • Almanian||

    This is the worst chat room, EVER

  • Robert||

    Anybody here try phenylephrine (Neo-Synephrine, Sudafed PE) instead of psuedoephedrine? How's it compare?

    The options have dwindled since they took phenylpropanolamine off the market. I suppose for ephedrine you could take enough herbal ma huang (ephedra) product. They tried to take that off the market, but couldn't make it stick.

  • ||

    Phenylephrine is fucking useless. You might as well take a sugar pill, you'll get more relief from the placebo effect.

  • ||

    I gotta agree. It is pretty close to placebo.

  • ||

    The only thing I've found that works even a little, is Zyrtec, which is thankfully genric.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement