Oh don’t I know it. My girlfriend is a therapist in a drug treatment program so I’m well aware that meth addiction hasn’t disappeared or abated, at all, as a result of this stupid law.

Although frankly my biggest annoyance with the entire issue is really just the fact that whenever I get sick in the wintertime it’s impossible for me to find a cold medication that works (like NyQuil used to). Although the 2005 law actually allows the production of cold medication with pseudoephedrine (with the stipulation that it must be moved behind the pharmacists counter so that customers are treated like potential drug dealers every time they buy it) that move negatively impacted sales of the effective cold medication that Vicks decided it wasn’t cost-effective to put out two types of NyQuil (one with pseudo-ephedrine, one with phenylephrine) and discontinued the less profitable one, which just so happened to be the type that worked. It may be somewhat petty, but honestly I think that the methamphetamine law is the piece of legislation I hate more than any other, mainly because I hate being sick and I hate the fact that I have to suffer every cold and bout of the flu now because a bunch of goddamned politicians made it impossible for me buy something that allows me to get a good night’s sleep when I get sick (which makes the recovery time even longer) so they could pander for votes and fill their campaign chests. I literally hate every single Congressman who voted for that piece of shit law and I honestly hope they all die of the fucking flu…slowly and painfully.

And yes, I realize that my position on that is more than a little extreme, but that’s also about how much I hate being sick when cold and flu season strikes :)

Like with the methamphetamine act that made it impossible to find cold medications with pseudoephedrine…that was very likely done in part to give preference to domestic producers of phenylephrine (the ineffective replacement that drugmakers now use instead of pseudoephedrine).

It is true that a couple of large drug manufacturers supported the various pseudo-ephedrine laws, both state and local. It seems as obvious why they would do that as why certain candy manufacturers supported moving the fall Daylight Savings Time date to after Halloween.

There was an interesting and unintended consequence of the various pseudo-ephedrine laws, both state and federal The production of meth domestically, especially in amateur meth labs in people’s homes, has fallen dramatically, just as the proponents of these laws said. However, the amount of much purer meth manufactured in Mexico and imported into the US has risen dramatically. The downstream consequence of this is that there is just as much meth being bought and sold and used in the US as always AND now we are buying imports and sending our drug money to Mexican drug cartels.

Many of the same people in favor of these laws are also opposed to free trade and think that the “trade deficit” is a bad thing. That’s fairly ironic.

Yup, and even then the free market can usually sort those things out better than the government can.

Clean Energy Act of 2007 is screwed up too. Goodbye incandescent light bulbs, hello higher costs for food.

“What the doctor’s usually claim is that the television ads result in patients coming into the office demanding they be given a certain drug.”

My uncle’s a doctor who’s shared horror stories about patients who attempt to be their own physicians or pharmacists so I can certainly understand the concern, but the idea that regulatory laws can prevent stupid people from doing stupid things is a pretty naive assumption. All they usually end up doing is infantilizing people who are capable of making smart, informed decisions by treating them like idiots.

I agree with you about sites like WebMD as well…an informed patient may sometimes be more difficult to deal with but it’s also a person who may be able to provide more information to a doctor than an ignorant patient can provide which can only help treatment. It’s also someone who may be tying up less of the doctor’s time with issues that may best be solved with home remedies.

What the doctor’s usually claim is that the television ads result in patients coming into the office demanding they be given a certain drug.

The way I look at it is there is nothing wrong with giving people information, and that’s what these ads do. I admit that it was creepy on some level back in the late 90s to see Bob Dole promoting Viagra, but if it caused someone to go to their doctor and talk about a medical problem that some people don’t talk about out of embaressment, then it’s all for the better.

To use the logic of the doctors and others who want to restrict the drug ads, we should also be talking about shutting down websites like WebMD because they allow people to look up their symptoms and come up with a diagnosis.

I didn’t see articles about that when I was searching but I’ll take your word for it. I agree that it’s a bad deal and I’m not really surprised. For most government regulation of this sort there usually appears to be a corruption/protectionism/privilege angle in there somewhere. Like with the methamphetamine act that made it impossible to find cold medications with pseudoephedrine…that was very likely done in part to give preference to domestic producers of phenylephrine (the ineffective replacement that drugmakers now use instead of pseudoephedrine).

For Dingell it’s pure Nanny Statism, for the doctors who support it (and the AMA has lobbied against these ads for awhile now), it’s pure elitism from a protected guild.

“Second, there’s the protected-guild elitism of doctors who believe that only they are qualified to pass medical information along to the general public.”

I don’t think that’s really the concern with Dingell…judging from his issues page he comes off more as one of those pro-socialized medicine types who thinks it’s a mortal sin for doctors or drug companies to make any profit off their work. Despite his lack of a residency, Jarvik is actually a doctor and I didn’t see anything about other doctors condemning the ads so I think it has more to do with the Nanny Statism than anything else (although sometimes economic protectionism or special privilege does play a role in these sort of things).

First, there’s the Nanny State elitism of the politicians who don’t believe that Americans are capable of learning about issues that impact their health on their own.

Second, there’s the protected-guild elitism of doctors who believe that only they are qualified to pass medical information along to the general public.