Oh good grief. In an attempt to prevent the manufacture of meth, Oregon, and Mississippi now require prescriptions to buy Sudafed (and equivalents), and three states—including California (of course)—are thinking of so requiring. Can we say raising health costs? Secondhand Smokette is on the case. From her column, “The War on Users of Cold, Allergy Drugs:”
You know the war on drugs has gone too far when politicians keep ratcheting up restrictions on cold and allergy medications in order to prevent kitchen drug labs from buying pills and converting them into methamphetamine. In 2005, Congress passed a law requiring consumers to show a driver’s license or other ID in order to purchase Sudafed and 14 other over-the-counter cold and allergy medications. The buyer must register in a logbook.
I’m one of those who continues to think the war on drugs is worth fighting, and so I do not object to this minor inconvenience to make the manufacture of meth a little more difficult. But when the Mexican drug cartels and meth entrepreneurs figured ways around the difficulties, some brainiac conceived the prescription remedy.
That’s a step way too far. Imagine being stuffy and wanting a what used to be an over-the-counter drug to clear the nasal passages—and having to visit your doctor to get a prescription. I have to pay $25 every time I see the doctor. He would then bill the insurance company for an office visit. Not only would this raise my cost to about $40 for the Sudafed, but what with everyone with a minor cold or allergies having to go to the doctor to get a prescription, it would make it harder for people with real health issues to get appointments. And imagine the doc’s frustration at having to waste his or her time on Sudafed prescriptions. That’s not why they went to medical school!
Such laws would harm the country because it would add big bucks to the cost of health care:
The Consumer Healthcare Products Association warned that if half of Americans who use pseudoephedrine drugs had to visit a doctor to get a prescription, it would cost $750 million per year. Meth addicts won’t be burdened by any new laws. It’s the law-abiding who will pay.
I think states making Sudafed a prescription drug—and not because of the danger it poses to people when properly used—interferes with interstate commerce. Hence, I think the Feds could preempt the field and stop these laws in their tracks. Congress should.
