Today I Got The Libertarian Up


Last night I got very, very ill.  Those of you who came across me on social media know I was barely coherent, and having trouble thinking to the end of a sentence.

Truth is, I’ve been sickish since Dan came home, almost two weeks ago.  He brought it back.

It’s a virus. My son and DIL had it before us, and it takes forever to get rid of.  The first week is extreme tiredness, and then the sinus and ear infection hit, which is where I am right now.

Having seen husband go through this, and hit the chest stuff, I don’t WANT it. I also don’t have time to be this ill.  We’ve been looking for a particular medicine that all our medical friends told us to have, but we couldn’t find it in any store.

Finally someone told us it contains sudafed, so it’s behind the counter and you have to sign for it.  Which meant, instead of the drive-through, we had to go into the store and spread this joy, potentially.

As we were signing for it I said something like “This is crazy. We’re sick, we just want the stupid med.”

The cashier said, “Well, that’s what happens. A few people spoil it for everyone.”

I didn’t answer, because, why would I? I don’t want to have security called, and I was hitting that level.

But in the car, I told my husband “So, because of a few sh*theads, the government has to make it impossible for us to get necessary meds.  What sense does that make? So 1% of people want to kill themselves, and we’re going to twist ourselves all our of shape to stop it?  It won’t work. And it will make the rest of us suffer.”

Look, as I said before, I’m very conflicted on legalizing drugs. I think they should be legalized simply because I don’t believe the government should have power over them. But I don’t think Pot is magical and frankly I think most drugs are more trouble than they’re worth.  And yes, I’ve gone through some pretty rough patches unmedicated, because I want minimal interference with my system. (note we’re seeking help for bad virus two weeks in…) Because everything has a price.

But this? Let’s keep people from making meth, by making a beneficial medicine hard to get?

Adult humans are not 2 year olds. If they want to destroy themselves, they will. If you make it impossible for them to cook/make/take meth, they’ll take something else.  We’re now at a point where scary designer drugs appear every year. (See Flaka.)

Isn’t a culture of responsibility, with severe punishments for the things you do WHILE ON DRUGS and/or because of drugs better? Isn’t treating adults like adults better?

You’re not going to save EVERYONE.  Some people really want to destroy themselves.  I see trying to keep things from kids (though educating them not to get on this sh*t is better, honestly. Not full proof, no. Some also want to destroy themselves. But better.) But adults?

Let people grow up.  We are not wards of the state.

I remember spending a year (when kid was 2) per kid playing keep away.  That’s because 2 is “the happily suicidal age”.  But as soon as possible, I taught the kid to be safe, instead.  Yeah, sometimes they still hurt themselves. No, #2 son, you shouldn’t have danced in socks on the edge of a cast iron tub, to entertain your brother. In my defense, it never occurred to me ANYONE (much less a four year old) would do that, so I never told him not to. But that’s the point. You can’t anticipate everything.  You can tell the kid not to run with scissors, but you’ll probably forget “and don’t run holding chandelier crystals, because they’re pointed.”

And adults who really want to kill themselves will find ways. I don’t understand why the rest of us must be kept from medicine, because a few will want to destroy themselves.  Tell them what it’s doing to them, and they let go.  A few will turn around.  And many will destroy themselves.

They’re not two years old. The government is not their parent.  Let them go.

332 thoughts on “Today I Got The Libertarian Up

  1. I was barely coherent, and having trouble thinking to the end of a sentence.

    The temptations are near overwhelming.

    1. OMG I could tell stories about some of the manuscripts she’s sent me to edit.

        1. I know sweetie, your kindly old uncle teases because he loves his little Portagee niece.

  2. Take care Sarah as the Idiots will always be with us.

    True, we can hope that they will stop making the Laws. 😦

    1. We can hope, but as long as a certain body temperature and number of tree rings is all you need to vote, I doubt it.

      I still remained unconvinced most people really want to have freedom as opposed to license.

    2. As I understand it, when Trump took office he directed a policy that at least two regulations be removed for every new one enacted. Last I heard the ratio was more like 10:1 so there was obviously a whole lot of dead wood there to trim.

        1. The hardest part is figuring out the crap from the necessary stuff. For instance, most building codes are there for a reason*, but having to get signed off by five different departments who can’t be bothered to talk with one another isn’t useful.

          *”Many Bothans died to bring us this information” is the way I usually think of it, though “These regulations are written in blood” is equally good at assuring attention. Little things like seeing someone complain about public buildings *having* to have doors open outwards, and immediately bringing to mind several specific large-scale disasters that led to that…

          1. Actually, a large chunk of building code is not really necessary. A lot of newer ones are only marginally better than the old code. Some portion of it is very necessary.

            Just because something is a good idea doesn’t mean everyone should be forced to incorporate it in a new structure or when they re-model.

            (I have to get a permit and submit a plan to build a shed? Oy. Put up partitions and finish a rec room? Put up a canvas, wood, or metal patio cover? Really? I’m sure I’ve broken some code by installing the night light fixtures near the toilets in the bathrooms (new boxes running off other outlets).)

          2. Yup much of Fire code comes out of experience. Ever notice that any revolving door has doors on each side that open outwards? That came from the Cocoanut Grove fire in Boston ( ) that killed almost 500 people. One of the big issues was that many of the unlocked exits were revolving doors and with the panic the became stuck full of people preventing others from exiting. Recently I noticed at the new work at the Boston Garden (The Hub) there is a revolving door which has only one emergency exit and it is offset by 20-30′ from the revolving door. It appears Boston officials are unaware of Kipling and Gods of the Copy Book Headings and gave a waiver for this nonsense.

            As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
            There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
            That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
            And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

            Lets hope they don’t have to relearn this lesson.

            1. Philadelphia, I am advised, requires six-foot firewalls between row-houses. This undoubtedly made sense when brick was about the best they had t work with, but modern materials should alleviate that need, and building codes updated to reflect that (e.g., “Six-feet of brick or thermal equivalent“) — except we know that there are many ways to game that “equivalent” and, at a guess, six-feet of bricks also provides a pretty good barrier to sound.

              Theoretically, Building Codes should be periodically revised from the first page to reflect changes in materials, methods, etc. and NOT simply amended every few years. Sadly, that would provide an opportunity for gamesters to exploit opportunities for profit and that is why we cannot have nice things.

              1. Six feet of brick? Are you sure?

                I’ve been in Baltimore row houses when I was a kid. I do not remember that sort of thing, at all. Can’t find anything at all online that supports that, either–All the pictures look like it’s more likely to be six inches, rather than feet…

                1. Beloved Spouse grew up in Center City, Philadelphia row house, child of an employee in the DA’s office and has always declared it so. I opted against taking a sledge to the wall to check.

                  I daresay Philadelphians do not model their building codes on those of Marylanders.

            2. The Jesuit University Church in Vienna, Austria has an odd, very large, window behind the high altar. This is not the standard liturgical or baroque design. It was added after the horrible 1831 city theater fire, and serves as an emergency exit, should the front (only) door be blocked.

    3. I think that, so long as idiots keep making laws and keep surviving the experience, they — or others like them — will continue. There really is no hope of relief.

      1. To borrow a sentence structure from the lunatics (don’t worry; the content will infuriate them enough to compensate):

        What do we want? The Court of Political Justice!

        When do we want it? NOW!

    4. It is no more likely that idiots will stop making laws than that laws will stop idiots from being such.

        1. ALL novels are improved by addition of a wallaby, nearly as much as the presence of a manatee.

          But shame on you for not providing a link, enabling all interested parties to buy the book! TXRed and a wallaby? Who says there’s a shortage of books offering value for money?

          At the very least, a title would be useful.

            1. Hmmmmm … wallabies rarely want anything to do with Dikes, as we are gentle, humour-loving creatures. I s’pose the thing is infected with Amazon’s KindleFx (or whatever it is called) virus, rendering it unreadable on alternate devices? Stooped Amazon. I don’t much like reading it on my Nook and sure don’t want to spend for Kindling. Way I sees it, if the Good Lord wanted us readong on electronic devices He wouldn’t have given us so many trees.

              I don’t s’pose you sell direct?

              1. Ping me and let me know which format you prefer. You can get my e-mail from the “About” page on my blog. (almatcboykin DOT wordpress DOT com)

  3. Skimming, but… $HOUSEMATE is *grudgingly* for legalization after having 17 years as a volunteer EMT/Paramedic “scraping people off the street.” It;s NOT that he figure the drugs are anything at all near harmless nor even as not-as-harmful as proponents say, BUT that the “War on Drugs” has done even more damage that the wretched drugs themselves. (And $HOUSEMATE would likely still want some not truly legal. PCP, for example.)

    I don’t LIKE the idea of full legalization – I’ve worked with enough “burnout boys” that I cannot consider even “mere marijuana” harmless.. and yet.. some *adults* can have a bit of this or that on Friday night and then put it aside for the next week and live a normal life. And others… always need that next hit/dose/etc. And the predictors… don’t. The most responsible MJ user I’ve known.. was an alcoholic. He didn’t ‘need’ the first drink, but if he had it, he did ‘need’ the next one, and the next, and… but he could set other stuff aside. I do not pretend to understand it.

    I suspect and fear that legalization will lead to the false idea that “It’s legal, so it’s harmless.” It’s more, “It’s your own damn fault if you [screw] yourself up.” But since everyone is a Victim and not responsible for themselves… ouch.

    1. Surrendering in the War on Drugs has its costs too, unfortunately, as Colorado has found out. While I still believe in the principle that every adult ought to be allowed to make his own decisions on the subject, I’m not sure how I would vote if I got to do the “legalize marijuana” thing over again.

      1. It’s not so much a surrender as a plebiscite held by means of user’s feet. Big-S Society decided to ban/control these substances at the same time that they tried outlawing “smut” and alcohol. Didn’t work–Same sort of ad-hoc plebiscite was held, the smut-users and the drinkers won.

        Recognition of that fact isn’t a surrender. It’s more a recognition of facts on the ground–The public wants their dope, and will do damn near anything to do it.

        That being the case, it’s about time we turned it into a freakin’ commodity item, quit making criminals wealthy off of satisfying that market, and started treating the whole thing as a medical/moral issue, not a legal one.

        The reality is that so long as drugs are socially acceptable, they’re going to be used. Until and unless the general public is willing to treat drug users and sellers exactly the same way they would react to finding out their neighbors were shooting child porn films in their backyard, you’re really not at a social position to ban the drugs effectively. Most people are more than willing to “look the other way” when it comes to this stuff, so that tells us that it’s really not that big a deal to them that the banning and illegality would be effective.

        Plebiscite has been held, already: De facto, the public wants and will have its drugs. Only way to deal with it realistically is to treat it as a medical issue, and do what we did with cigarettes, making it socially unacceptable to abuse them.

        It’s a function of that thing I was talking about the other day: Human behavior is a result of an ongoing conversation that individuals have with their environments. You have signals or cues for behavior, among which are things like laws, regulation, and social pressure. The signal of law is a societal message: “Don’t do drugs”. The actual environmental signals are that a.) drugs are really socially acceptable, ‘cos people don’t turn you in to the cops all the time, and everyone is using them, b.) drugs feel good and scratch an itch some folks have, and c.) consequences are not that severe–You can use drugs reasonably, and still have a life. Those are the actual signals in the environment that people pay attention to, and we’ve thus turned the message-signal of law into merest noise.

        It’s about time we recognized that fact, and abandoned the effort, moving on to another path–Medicalize the issue, and start ensuring that the signals the users are getting are in tune with reality and the message.

        I bet money I could put an end to about 90% of drug use in the inner city, simply by getting out there and saying something like this: “OK, from today, all drugs are legal; in fact, they’re subsidized. We’re doing this because we want all the losers using them to keep quiet and kill themselves with drugs. We are, however, making Narcan illegal; if you overdose, nobody is saving your ass…”.

        Then, put it out that The Man is planning to pump drugs into those communities to encourage the people in them to just quietly kill themselves with them, and that any drug user is to be supported, with dealers brought into the White House to shake their hands and thank them for service to the nation. At the same time, publicize how much money we’re saving in welfare for every dead addict… Hand out awards to dealers based on how many they manage to kill off…

        I’d be the monster forever, but I can about guarantee you that you’d see a huge drop-off in inner-city drug use.

        1. Your idea has merit, until the Democrats realize you are reducing their voter base.

          1. If they’re dead, then they’re still the Democrats voter base in Chicago.

        2. Should’ve seen my son’s face when I was trying to explain why people do recreational drugs some time ago, because it got mentioned in something he watched. He’s 12. ‘But why would you want to fry your brain for fun’ was pretty much his face.

          Me: “Some people don’t want to deal with reality, or their problems, or well, life’s responsibilities in general. Reality’s still there, so are the problems, and the dishes, laundry and the need to buy groceries. Taking drugs doesn’t stop you from getting hit by a bus.”

          Son: (paraphrased) “If I want reality to go away for a little while I read a fantasy book.”

            1. Thanks. It’s not as smooth as silk (he has a bit of the ‘intelligent but lazy’ streak, he’s gotta learn to be a swot) but somehow the kids aren’t running around screaming and breaking their heads from falls so I guess we did something right.

        1. Not to cavil, but I recently got my ass handed to me by someone over this issue, and I reluctantly have to admit that he had a point.

          Blaming California and Californians for the ill-effects of what most of us non-Californian’s call “Californication” isn’t quite… Accurate. The reality is that California was merely the site of the initial cancerous growth, because it’s natural environment attracted all the whackos in the country for the easy living and pleasant climate.

          My Californian defender of traditional California pointed out that the vast majority of the things we object to about the “California mentality” are things that came to California from outside the state–As he put it, “Someone shook the country, and all the fruits and nuts wound up in California…”. He’s not wrong–Look at where Pelosi and Feinstein actually came from; they’re not actually California natives, they’re basically carpetbaggers from the Northeast.

          Your normal native Californian was not this crazy; those folks are still there, living in the hinterlands, and trying to make a living with the crazies running the state. They didn’t vote for the crazies, either–This was all stuff done by the migrants that came in during the golden years of California’s glory. The vast majority of the voters and residents in the urban areas are not actually native Californians, once you go back a generation or two.

          So, yeah… Blaming it on California isn’t really fair, or accurate; most of the nutters went to California from other regions, ruined the place for everyone else, and now they’re moving on like so many metastasizing cancer cells. California was just the first state where they reached critical mass, and ruined the place. They’re like locusts, but they’re locusts that congregated in California from all over the country, so blaming California for it is unfair to the memory of the California-that-was, and the actual native Californians.

          It’s also something that helps make it more difficult to diagnose and treat the problem, when we say it’s down to these people being Californian. It’s not–They were like this before they went there, they made California what it is, and we’re thinking that it’s strictly a Californian problem, when the reality is that what’s happened is that it’s more the effect of congregating enough fruits and nuts in the same place that we get the spontaneous generation of granola-heads…

    2. Sounds like more of a binge drinker than a true alcoholic.

      And the thing is, I wouldn’t mind drug legalization so much if it weren’t for the fact that the same people who want it also want single-payer health case, which means there’s a good chance I’ll be subsidizing the costs of their drug habit.

      1. I don’t know many (any?) Real Libertarians (TM)* who are for single-payer healthcare, but most (all?) are for drug decriminalization, if not legalization.

        *Let’s forget the (oxy)moronic so-called ‘Libertarian Socialists’. Please? They’re as bad as the socialist so-called ‘anarchists’.

        1. I don’t know what the capital “L” libertarians believe any more, especially after the jokers that ran in 2016.

          And the “libertarian socialists” are easy to understand. They’re the spoiled teenagers who never grow up whose philosophy is, “I should be able to do whatever I want, and someone else needs to clean up after me.”

        2. I’m with Zsuzsa. As far as I’m concerned, in 2016 the Libertarian Party declared itself the “as long as I can get laid and get high, the government can take over everything else” party.

          1. I gave up on being an active LP member after witnessing the Portland Massacre of 2006. My decision to withdraw was confirmed two years later when they nominated Bob Barr as their Presidential candidate. Really? Bob freakin’ Uber Drug Warrior Barr? YGBSM!

            1. The LP jumped the shark ’round here when the Arizona branch decided to put their own nominee on the ballot several elections ago rather than the national party nominee.

          2. Sadly the Libertarian party has always been a joke. Mostly because of its candidates. Two Nanny state super statists whose ONLY even vaguely Libertarian position is Marijuana legalization? Give me a break. I may be particularly contemptuous of Mr. Weld. He was governor of my state for several years and basically he was a (slightly) less corrupt version of our Usual Dem Pols.

      2. Oh, it will be far more direct than that: as soon as the feds legalize it, it will be illegal to refuse to hire / forbidden to fire the user no matter how many of your employees they kill operating machinery while stoned because Americans With Disabilities Act.

            1. That’s alcoholism, not just being drunk- and the very article you cited says that an employee can be fired for violating a reasonable rule of conduct even if it is related to their condition, which in this case is alcoholism.

              1. So I should be willing to give some druggie or drunk 1 free shot at my customers and employees, plus a free trip through our “process is the punishment” legal system where any OJ jury can take my business when he takes me to court to say I didn’t give him a chance? I don’t theenk so, Lucy.

    3. BUT that the “War on Drugs” has done even more damage that the wretched drugs themselves.

      Just the police militarization would be enough by itself.

      Too many people were just peachy with it so long as it was only the icky druggies getting stepped on.

      I suspect and fear that legalization will lead to the false idea that “It’s legal, so it’s harmless.” It’s more, “It’s your own damn fault if you [screw] yourself up.” But since everyone is a Victim and not responsible for themselves… ouch.

      Ahh, this is one of the slipperiest slopes around. Once you ban something for being dangerous you create the idea that dangerous things are banned, and then of course have to ban all the other dangerous or potentially dangerous stuff.

      The reverse takes cultural wisdom. And that is only ever learned from pain and suffering. Hopefully we don’t have to endure too much of it.

      1. As I said, when the government is forcing me to hire them the government should be compensating me for the “privilege”. Until then, I’m not going to vote for it.

    4. “It’s legal, so it’s harmless.”
      Exactly. That’s the mentality I’ve been dealing with here in Colorado.
      You know, like giving the kid a sip of wine at holidays. Or not locking the liquor cabinet around your teenager.
      They figure that if it’s legal, letting the kid have some is no big deal.
      Now change that from booze too Marijuana, or heroine or meth. Suddenly that cavalier attitude is a lot more serious.
      If I could trust people to be mature adults and actually use their brain, we wouldn’t need laws and regulations on almost… anything.
      At the other end of the spectrum, I don’t want a Nanny State taking care of all of us. They’ve done a terrible job so far, and I don’t see it getting any better.
      I guess my issue is not with laws themselves, but with a society of idiots that don’t have the good sense of a sea sponge.
      That’s a lot harder to change than laws or politics.

      1. You know, I never baby proofed my house. I had friends who did, and the kids would find themselves in a store or visiting someone and get in real trouble.
        I world-proofed my kids. I mean, I did some elementary stuff, like put the meds up high. And the detergent at the back of the counter. But mostly I told them “Touch that, bad, will hurt.” Never had a problem. WHich I knew I wouldn’t, because my mom never baby proofed HER house. Nor grandma. And the houses are FAR more dangerous.
        Maybe we need to do the same with society?

        1. Some baby-proofing (as in putting the poisons out of reach) is just common sense. But oh lordy, the trouble I had when we took the mobile eldest up to visit Grandma’s, and there wasn’t even basic sense applied, since she was taking care of her elderly mother—with dementia—and there’s no way you can baby-proof a house that has to be accessible for someone elderly.

          I had to follow that child around every single moment he was awake, because remember your comment about cheerfully suicidal two-year-olds? Yeah, that’s how old he was.

          1. Same with us with our home and our child. Of coarse the dangerous stuff normally kept under the sink were already in higher cabinets, where the door, drawer, opening cat couldn’t get to it. Also had nothing on shelves to be pulled over … cats … But go to my SIL, where the MIL lived, put the kid on a harness, and he was not allowed out of our sight. MIL “Bet you don’t do this at your folks house.” Well, no. Duh. They had some sense left. (FYI. SIL and much older nieces just rolled their eyes. Guess who gave us the heads up?) We had a climber from the time he could roll over to whatever to pull him self up.

            1. my parents baby/toddler proofed their kitchen when my nephew was prone to get into the cabinets. The first time he tried to get one of the cabinets open, he gave a slight yell of frustration and sat on the floor. They ignored him for a bit and when they went to check on him (it was a bit too quiet for a bit too long) he was sitting in the same spot, but every cabinet door was opened up wide and he was grinning.

              1. My oldest nephew did the same thing. Fortunately he was more interested in sprinkling himself with Jack Daniels (screwed shut? Hah!) than drinking it at two.

    5. Is $housemate weighing the risk that the increase in artificially induced dangerous weirdness from legalization might also result in a de facto legalization of the quiet discreet murder of weirdos?

      Because law is a shared compromise, and the murder statutes also likewise depend on some consensus that we do not fully understand.

      1. Best case would be something like DUI. Since booze is legal, the moral push against drunk driving upped the social costs of the act. [Excepting politicians, of course, especially those named Kennedy]. Free sodas for the designated driver, as a socially meritorious act, along with Uber minimizes undesirable behavior. This would probably work fine for Marijuana. For Meth and PCP, shoot the b*stards is probably the best solution.

        1. Big issue is there is no decent quick test (like a breathalyzer) for THC. And of course we have no clue what dosage response is like (and probably varies heavily person to person, thus giving some folks “bad” trips) as THC research has been effectively verboten for 50+ years. So LEO’s have to fall back on the old classics (walk a straight line etc) but these tests seem less impinged by THC than the actual levels of intoxication would suggest.

          1. I propose a simple roadside test of reflexes to determine impairment sufficient to not allow operation of a motor vehicle.

            Officer informs suspect that, on the count of three, the officer will punch suspect in the nose. If suspect is able to get guard up in time, the suspect is presumed capable of driving.

            All roadside tests to be recorded and put up on subscription (minimal fee*) video channel.

            *payments to be distributed amongst officer charities, anti-drug awareness programs, drug abuse treatment programs, and other appropriate recipients. Some portion ought certainly go to treatment for arthritic officer hands.

            1. “sufficient to not allow operation”

              Not sure I could pass that one. Stone cold sober. But then not 100% sure I can pass the traditional ones the applied, regardless (stupid knees, hips, etc.)

              Hmmm, how to avoid … I know, don’t get pulled over.

            2. You’re trying to be funny, but I think that there’s going to have to be something done along this line–Purely objective tests of reflexes and judgment, standardized so as to make them fair and easy to administer in the field.

              After all, it doesn’t really matter about intoxication, or what is causing that intoxication: What matters are those reflexes and judgment skills. If you don’t have them, you’re dangerous.

              Add in that there are massive differences in toleration for various things; I have a friend who should not ever be allowed to operate motor vehicles when she’s been taking Benadryl, but she’ll never “pop” for one of the current sobriety tests. She’s still a damn risk to the world, though…

              Then, there was my stepdad, who I’m certain was a better and safer driver slightly drunk than sober (or, really, really drunk…). Sober, he was over-confident and constantly taking risks. Slightly drunk? Cautious and a lot safer to share the road with. Really drunk, yeah… The man was a menace.

              What we are really going to need, going forward, is some sort of cognitive/reflexive test that determines current state of driving ability.

              1. Trying, sir? Trying? Ah well, no accounting for taste.

                I was actually attempting to couch a serious proposal in humorous mode. Clearly there will be no officers punching people’s faces as their union would balk at the damage done to knuckles. As well, there will be some people at either extreme: incapable of avoiding the blow even though sober as a priest while others are more capable of dodging a blow while inebriated due to abundance of practice.

                But tests of perception and reflex are the critical element and might be achievable with virtual reality headset.

    6. Somewhere I read, in regard to the drug legalization – is that we will have a choice between a law problem, and a public health problem. It’s an either/or. Our choice as to which problem we will have.

      The kid dancing in socks on the edge of a bathtub, because you had never thought to tell him NOT to do that? Reminds me of my mother telling us not to put pyracantha berries in our mouths. So my brother stuffed them up his nose, instead…

  4. I have the instructions for turning street Meth back into psuedo-ephedrine. It only causes fires going the other way. The site offered it up because it is much easier to buy meth than sudafed.
    Yes. This is how stupid the “Do something!” politicians are and how badly they are losing the “War on Drugs”.

    1. When I was in Flat State and Really Flat State, we used to joke that the biker gangs made a fortune every spring turning meth into cold-medicine. The grad students even had a network set up to help the students and faculty without in-state residency get allergy meds. We detested the law, even the hard-core socialists.

  5. I buy frequently-used OTC meds in bulk. Tylenol, Benadryl, etc. Cheap enough to get a few months’ worth at a time. I use to get Sudafed that way, in bottles of 100.

    Then they put them in blister packs. Then they put the blister packs behind the counter. Then they required ID. Then they limited how much you can buy.

    At each step, the prior measures not having worked, they made it more inconvenient for us. 𝑨𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒓, 𝒇𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒆𝒅 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒔.

    1. I count myself lucky I hate Sudafed et al and the side effects prevent me from even considering taking the stuff.
      What’s really ugly though is as hard as it is for y’all to get it so you can use it, the Meth makers are still making meth, so it sure ain’t stopped them, now has it?

      1. Seeing as the majority of meth is fabricated from bulk pseudoephedrine rather than otc cold meds of course not. It might make some of the homebrew shake n bakes less available but easy enough to get the precursors over the “border”

        1. well silly us for expecting laws to A: Make sense & B: EFFIN’ WORK

          (btw wpde. it gave notification of someone liking a reply, but waited to show me several replies made well before that.)

          1. It does what its supposed to do. Makes proles think something is being done, inconveniences the underclass, and makes politicos feel powerful

    2. And let’s not forget that so many of the people who demanded that people show photo ID to get a small box of sudafed ore the same ones who insist that people being asked to provide the same photo ID to vote is an outrageous act of racist hate.

  6. And the sudafed ban came after the only other effective decongestant (PPA) was pulled from the market.
    Now that’s a more complex situation. After more than 50 years of use, including decades in OTC products one study (after other studies that couldn’t reach a conclusion) found a small increase in stroke risk – primarily in young women with high blood pressure. At the time PPA, in addition to cold/allergy products was being used at maximum recommended strength in OTC diet pills. Can you think of anything less likely to be taken according to directions?

    Because it was patented in 1938 the FDA warnings made it not worth the legal risk for anyone to continue making it for human use (it’s available for canine use) even though it was safe & effective for the vast majority. If they had applied the same standards to aspirin that too would have pulled that from the market.

    The precautionary principal is an ongoing problem even when not written into law if it can be enforced indirectly.

    1. Which is why some preppers obtain ;veterinary’ medicines for use WTSHTF. After the Big One, the FDA & the USDA & all the other Fe(de)ral alphabet agencies will be out of the picture for quite some time, so why not?

      1. All the online places seem to want a vet’s prescription. I know what flea meds work for my dog, but my vet quit carrying them. Is there a way around that?”

        1. Yes. There is a method for either you, or your vet, to submitting prescriptions. Haven’t done it. But checking at, looks like you order the item, when checking out, they get the name of your pet, name of your vet and clinic information, so they can call to verify/obtain the prescription. Other sites likely have their own procedures. Costco the vet just wrote a prescription, just like the doctor did, took it in and they filled it. Our local Costco has flea/tick meds but not what we use. I got 2 of the 3 heart pills our last dog required from Costco (yes, those 2 were 1/3 the cost our vet could provide them at.) The 3rd one (really expensive one, of coarse) was one that Costco didn’t carry.

          1. Unfortunately I rarely find I have a case of Ich so this doesn’t help much… 🙂

        2. It shouldn’t matter if the vet “carries” them as long as they’re willing to provide a prescription to the on-line provider. Depending on the specific laws and vet professional societies ethics codes in your state, it may also be illegal for them NOT to, much like a car dealer can’t restrict you to their service department by voiding your warranty.

    2. not worth the legal risk for anyone to continue making it for human use (it’s available for canine use)

      You’re telling me it has gone to the dogs?

      LUCKY SOBs!

  7. They’re not two years old. The government is not their parent. Let them go.

    All the way back in 1992 at the town hall debate pony tail guy ™ asked all three candidates:

    “The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with, by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it….”

    A non-insignificant portion of the population want the government to be our parents.

    At some point, we’re going to need to segregate “children of the state” and “adults” into two groups just like we do “children’ and “adults” with different laws.

    I have some notes on a world based on that, but the two stories I tried were too clearly polemics to be finishable, much less readable.

    And yes, it is me, but different email because work blocks WP login and the laptop isn’t setup.

    1. A non-insignificant portion of the population want the government to be our parents.

      Children do NOT get to vote for Mommy & Daddy. They take what they’re given to. A large number of us prefer to be able don’t think we have to sue for emancipation.

  8. As I said yesterday, “they absolutely want to maintain complete control over actual medical use of drugs, and restriction and control of any new ones. That promotes their absolute control over both healthcare providers (jail those who give too much or save too many people), and absolute contol of life or death of those who actually need those drugs.”

    Nobody with 2 working brain cells is going to argue that paradise will descend upon us and no one will ever abuse drugs if they are legalized; but Ox is right, the War on Drugs has had worse consequences for more people than we’d have had with complete non-regulation of drug use.

    In the case of MJ use, enforcement did nothing but drive up the prices, making it extremely profitable for the gangs and cartels, while doing nothing effectual to actually stop it. And the higher prices encouraged more crime to steal the money needed to buy the weed. Now if it had never been criminalized, people would have grown it in their gardens for mere pennies, not wasting their hard earned dollars for it, and avoiding any crime spree. Plus they wouldn’t have been denied tuition assistance or access to other government programs to get them out of poverty, or get an education, etc. Sure, you’re going to have bad behavior instances from people on weed. You punish the badly behaving, you don’t spank the ones who smoke and behave themselves.

    1. My grandfather, born in 1904, like most of his peers smoked some ditchweed as a teenager. He didn’t have to buy or cultivate it – cannabis grew almost anywhere it wasn’t eradicated.
      Then he went to college, then to work and had a very successful carreer and life.
      Making cannabis illegal is responsible for most of the harm it has caused. It turned a weed into a desirable product, enriching criminals and decreasing respect for the law.

      1. Heh. Ditchweed. Industrial cannabis grown for hemp fiber and ended up going wild. I remember seeing fields of the stuff in Lincoln Nebraska as a kid and wondering why nobody was going nuts over marijuana there.

        1. At least some of it was planted on purpose by migrant workers. They would pick it when they came through the next year. My Grandpa had 160 acres in strawberries, and a fine crop of ditchweed.

          1. Hemp/ditchweed is low-potency.

            The modern stuff is far, far more potent, with lots of resultant side-effects, plus the additional side effects from screwing around with the genetics to get modern wonderweed.

            1. Yep – the ditchweed was more Hemp than Pot, but because Pot was illegal there was more profit (and lower risk) in bringing high potency MJ to the market. You don’t have to smoke half an ounce to get buzzed so you will pay more for your ounce. Now that we’ve crossed that potency bridge, of course, there’s no going back.

            2. Every time a drug warrior* says this they ignore that it was their policies that caused the situation. The argument reduces to “we made the situation so bad that it is now permanent”. I await their taking the responsibility for that………

              * drug warriors who, mysteriously, are never volunteering to be at the front of the stack. Just like the gun grabbers. Funny that.

              1. Disagree. If marijuana had been 100% legal everywhere in the country for the past umpteen years, supply and demand forces would still have caused it to increase in potency, because that’s what so many of its consumers want. They’re smoking it for the high, not the flavor, after all.

                1. Concur.

                  Just as Opium became Morphine became Heroin, pre Prohibition.

                  The modern stuff may have uses. It also now has more problems. Bathtub gin also has side effects, many due to quality control issues. So did friends’ homebrew Mead .(Apparently a little lemon juice for acidity goes a long way to prevent nasty-headache ketones from forming.)

                  The legalization crowd does the debate no good by painting pot as harmless. It is not, nor is booze, nor tobacco, nor caffeine. Jumping out of airplanes and skiing also have negative consequences.

                  The Prohibition crowd also ignore reality, as the damage done to society by the “war” is huge and visible to even the most short sighted.

                  Ultimately, the argument becomes “should self-harm be regulated?” At the Federal level? -That- seems silly.

                  1. Be careful with that lemon juice in the mead; yeast doesn’t like Vitamin C.

        2. Yep. Where I grew up, it was literally all over the place, and eradicated *as* a weed. See, the local farmers had been paid by the Government to grow the stuff for the war effort back in the 19teens, and once established it’s kinda difficult to get rid of.

          1. I understand [both of these may be urban myth] a few farmers in Kentucky were authorized by the Government to grow seed stock of the hemp variety in case the need for hemp resurfaced. Also, sterilized seeds are added to bird seed as some birds needed a small diet for proper plumage.

      2. Proving of course once again that prohibition doesn’t work (as socialism and appeasement don’t work either-just think PSA Prohibition, Socialism and Appeasement-just don’t do them).

      3. Comparing ditchweed to even simi-modern pot is approximately like eating a cake that was baked with a shot of rum for flavoring, and expecting it to give you a reasonable idea of how you’d respond to a jaegerbomb.

        Short version, selective breeding for THC not only increases the THC– it also decreases the other compounds, including known antipsychotics.

        1. Mild homebrew beer is not malt liquor is not wine is not whiskey is not “tractor fuel”

          That is not the point of course. The question is

          shall the State prevent self-harm, “for our own good”?

          I think not, as almost anything can be defined as self-harm by some self-important busybody, thus leading to a most horrific tyranny.

            1. Problem being, using it this way begs the question.

              Tyranny is uncontrolled power.
              This is drawing the legal line someplace other than that which this or that one person in the discussion wants. (These days, generally rather distant from what the author of said quote would’ve imagined.)

            2. And now I got to wondering what the exact context was, discovered it was half an hour of searching to find that the line is from a collection of essays that seems to have been published in the 70s, there is no hint on WHICH essay it’s in, so I ordered the e-book and will try to get a post for Sarah out of it.

              God in the Dock, BTW.

              1. Since I have God In The Dock, I just had to look up the article.


          1. Well, no, the original point was that you knew someone who had used feral hemp and hadn’t suffered bad effects, and you were using that as a metric for modern pot.

            I think not, as almost anything can be defined as self-harm by some self-important busybody, thus leading to a most horrific tyranny.

            As it happens, that’s a two-edged sword. Someone desperate enough to justify harm can just as easily find a way that any harm a person suffers is their own fault.

    2. Look, if the US had decided that it wasn’t going to invade the Japanese home islands or Germany, and wasn’t going to bomb anyone either, and let the situation fester to the current day, there would be people whining about the war with the axis being a mistake, and less costs from not fighting, and all that rot.

      I don’t think I’ve yet met the libertarian who has shown themselves willing to personally eat the costs of impure, improperly manufactured, or poorly tested pharmaceuticals being permitted to have the same advertisement and sales rights as the pure stuff.

      1. Duh, Fake drugs, sorry that is FRAUD and illegal as hell.
        Besides the criminal charges they would be sued.

          1. So far this year, I have had 3 recall notices from CVS re: tainted with carcinogen, and twice had medicine diverted to another pharmacy due to shortage of supply due to recall.

        1. And that is different in substance from the fraud in legalizing Marijuana as we have done? It is still illegal at the federal level. There are implicit claims to safety and to quality control (it is impossible for plant matter to be as consistently dosed as a carefully manufactured pill), and to medical supervision that are not being realized.

          It is probably impossible for a legal drug supply to meet current pharmaceutical grade specs and economically replace an illegal drug supply in pricing and availability. If the government is paying the additional overhead, the government is keeping records, and no habitual criminal is going to be happy about being in those records.

          If you carve out a legal exemption for recreational supplies, and make it easy enough to add to that the junkies are satisfied, people wanting affordable pharmaceuticals and desperate enough to take the quality hit will also want to use the carve out. As a practical matter, this isn’t like the difference in regulatory hurdles in getting your hands on water and on, say, chlorine triflouride.

          As for civil suits, one of the people who posts here at times, his handle sort of like William Oblivion, discussed murdering a relative of his to keep that relative from making bank off of marijuana product liability lawsuits.

          When I pointed out that marijuana liability being more lucrative than alcohol liability, if true, was something that it would be desirable for the voters to find out about, he responded that litigation was not scientific evidence. (An utterly bullshit objection. Commonly used with regard to criminal justice reform. Scientifically valid criminal punishment would be something like collectively punishing poor or vagrants, and looking for statistical changes in the crime rate. (My temper has not been even enough to return much since to ESR’s blog, given available time.))

          Face the facts. There are holes in some the pro legalization arguments that make the people providing them look retarded or brain damaged. Yes, the true problem may simply echo chamber prevention of devil’s advocate improvement of rigor. Yes, the counter arguments I make cause me to appear disturbed. I am fine with that.

          Your point on fraud would stand if California, Colorado, Oklahoma, et al., were prosecuting marijuana fraud to the extent that pharmaceutical fraud is restricted. I would find your point on civil litigation more credible if I were not still so enraged with William.

          Sir, Good Day.

  9. I am a small L libertarian bordering on Heinlein’s rational anarchist.
    It’s been my belief that the government would be much more successful with a policy where anyone could go to a free clinic claiming addiction and be offered two choices: either a free ride in a detox facility, or a permanent maintenance dose prescription for government certified pure opiates.
    While at the same time make it a capital offense to share those drugs or to get someone else hooked on them.
    I’m thinking a few years of Darwin on steroids then a much more crime free situation over all.

    1. And you make the pure stuff from the poppy we buy from the Afghans. Just a thought.

  10. I joke with the pharmacists when I go to get my spring-time box or two “I need to sign the poison register.” They chuckle, because one of them actually is old enough to have seen the old books you signed and listed what you needed the arsenic and/or strychnine for.

    1. I used to joke that that it’s a pain because I don’t know how to know meth; going on to add that I think I know how to make TNT, but nobody has any sense of humor about that anymore so a perfectly good joke killed.

      1. The sad/weird thing is that I have at least an idea of how to make methcathinone – crystal meth’s ugly ‘big brother’ that is so very nasty that even the folks who though Chernobyl was a neat idea went, “Sholy Hit! This stuff is WAY too dangerous!” — I did NOT set out to learn this, but the information is just lying around. And no, I will NOT go into any detail – and I have NOT even considered attempting it. I first hear of methcathinone in the mid-late 1980’s due to a murder within a couple miles of where I then lived. And that place was Generally Recognized as Wonderfully Dull. Things didn’t happen in the area. Except that did.

        1. One day in BioChem at Baylor the professor checked the doors and then told us today he was going to teach us hot to make Barbiturates and other Drugs. A different day he announced that today we would learn how to make Phosgene and other War Gases and weapons.

          Bitch of a class but interesting.

  11. Chiming in to wish you to get well soon. It’s a messed up situation with meds – even here, now that we’re part of the great-and-totally-not-socialist European Union, occasionally we have to endure restrictions on painkillers like Nimesulide (I think I’m the only one in my family to not use the stuff), though the GPs are usually understanding enough to prescribe it.

    I mean, I understand restrictions on condition-specific drugs, particularly given the chance they might be rare to find and (or even because of) the number of morons trying to self-medicate for conditions that really don’t tolerate that sort of thing. But when it comes to general purpose painkillers and symptom relief drugs, the whole “you can get high on it” deal doesn’t make much sense to me. You can get high on glue, but that doesn’t mean office supply stores should get monitored by the DEA. *sigh* This is why we can’t have nice things…

    1. I suspect the restriction on model glue that I used as a kid- to build models- is why there aren’t any kids building plastic models anymore.

      But then, there are a lot of dying hobbies.

      1. I remember when Testor’s came out with “non-toxic” model glue. The lemon scent made ,easy nauseous and it didn’t work worth crap. I stocked up on the real stuff. Built at least one model a week (mostly WW I I aircraft and armor ) until HS work took up my time.

      2. Nah, I remember when I thought it would be cool to build a little model. Soemthing Star Trek.

        $45 in the mid-90s was waaaaaaay too rich for my blood.

      3. And the Testors model glue of of the 60’s and 70’s had nothing on the actual dope used to stick paper and cloth to earlier models (and actual aircraft). I think the main solvent in that stuff was diethyl ether with a touch of toluene… There’s a reason dope is called that…

        And yeah the lemon scented stuff only succeeded in sticking your fingers together, it did nothing for polystyrene models…

  12. You think Flaka is bad? look up Krokodil. Or better yet, don’t; you can’t unsee what it does to its users.

    Damnear anything that disrupts various signalling pathways can be used to get high. Which is just about any chemical, suitably processed… and let’s ban rope, because some people get high on being hanged until they pass out. So, yeah. Drugs make for bad shit, but stopping one leads to worse with another. For those determined to experience natural selection, I say let it do its job and stop imposing on the rest of us.

    1. Yes but not over regulating drugs doesn’t give the FDA and some elected officials power they have now. Some power junkies will do Anything At All to get it and keep it.

    2. In Russia they still have a problem with people huffing gasoline to get high.

      Man, that’s gotta be one rough way to get a buzz…

      1. Umm recently I saw that folks were huffing wasp spray for the propellants. The active ingredient in that is a kissing cousin to Sarin (AKA GB). To quote from Dr. Pournelle and Niven. “Think of it as evolution in action”.

        1. Yeah, which is why several Iraqi airbases were found with bunkers full of drums prominently labelled “insecticide”. The Sarin detectors went nuts, of course, but “No WMD here”.

          1. And Tabun (AKA GA another close relative) was originally discovered when looking for insecticides in a variety of organophosphate compounds. Honestly I’m surprised the chemists investigating this stuff initially in Germany lived to tell about it. Lab safety in the 30’s (hell lab safety in the 70’s) was essentially, don’t eat it, wash your hands before touching anything or eating a meal.

  13. Adult humans are not 2 year olds.
    *slams foot down* Yes you are! *pouts* You’re a poopyhead, too!

    Isn’t a culture of responsibility, with severe punishments for the things you do WHILE ON DRUGS and/or because of drugs better?
    RESPONSIBILITY?!? Who wants responsibility?! I want to be taken care of. Now let me engage in these dangerous practices – like sex, drugs and mushrooms – ’cause I want to. (But, I better not get hurt! ‘Cause I’m special!)

      1. Mr. Houst no need to harm an active Hickory tree for a switch. The little sapling/suckers off the root are far preferable. Or so my Maternal Grandfather thought. I can promise you I was not stupid (or stubborn) enough to want to interact mor than once with that part of a hickory tree, unlike some of my other male cousins.
        The female cousins got to deal with the withering glare and disappointment of my maternal grandmother. We male cousins would prefer to expose our backsides to Grandpa’s tender ministrations than have to deal with that…

    1. College student tried to sue her school because they didn’t stop her protest/riot and she wandered into traffic. On a freeway. And then (try not to be amazed) got hurt.

      Why are people?

  14. Back in the day there were whole classrooms of kids getting high off the fumes of fresh spirit duplicator copies with that really distinctive purple ink and the often ridiculously potent fumes the things gave off when still slightly damp.

    As for the harm the War On Drugs has done, let’s start with the way it’s neutered multiple constitutional amendments including but not limited to the right to the presumption of innocence that’s a completely lost cause when it comes to WoD inspired civil forfeiture laws.

    Oh, and there is an alternative to dealing with having to sign your soul away to get the good antihistamines. It’s been around since 2012, and is no doubt still applicable. I suspect the Hunnish chemists would be able to tell you how accurate the process is…

  15. You’re not going to save EVERYONE.
    Let’s take it a minor step further and say “It’s not your job to save anyone.” Because it really shouldn’t be. Leave “saving people” to the firefighters and the evangelists. Definitely keep it away from the power of gov’t.

    1. Retired Coast Guard friend of mine used to say their primary mission was violating the laws of natural selection.

    2. The safer you make things, the more you encourage [people] to neglect safe practices. It’s like the idea that guardrails tend to make drivers less cautious.

  16. I’m still (probably over) thinking about my position on drugs.

    Being a pro-liberty/freedom kinda guy, I don’t like the government telling me what I can and can’t do. Never mind that I decided long ago that drugs weren’t for me, I don’t like the government saying me nay (and I don’t think they should say YOU nay either).

    There are also the social costs of illegalization. Treasure spent on the “Drug War” (with little to no benefit… face it people, it’s not a winnable war). Innocent people caught in the crossfire. The creation of a criminal industry that only enriches the kinds of people who don’t think twice about destroying lives and killing people.

    But then I wonder about where the line should be. I understand some of the reasons that prescriptions are required for some medicines. Some of that stuff is dangerous, and if people were able to buy anything they wanted over-the-counter that could be dangerous. Could that also cause fewer companies to manufacture and sell medicines because they are afraid of being sued by people using them incorrectly? I donno. On the other hand, I would love to have access to some antibiotics and other medicines to keep aside in case the preverbial shit hits the fan. If I went into a pharmacy and asked to buy them, do you think the pharmicist would just say “Sure thing Mr. Viking Sir… Here ya go!” NOPE! (but the fish store will… but is that really a good idea? I donno… I read about it on the Internet so it HAS to be safe, right? LOL!)

    Years ago, I read about a country (frankly I don’t remember a lot of details, but I think it was Portugal) basically all-but fixing their national drug problem by legalization, and shifting a protion the money they would have spent on “Drug War” to setting up voluntary treatment.

    My biggest worry where legalization is concerned is how that which is not banned becomes mandatory. No, I don’t think they’ll start forcing people to take drugs, but I wouldn’t put it past the Left to make drug addicts a protected class if legalization happens. I don’t own a business, but if I did, I would want the right to refuse to hire drug addicts (and alcoholics, and maybe smokers if they smell bad). I also wouldn’t want to have to pay for addicts to sit around and smoke dope all day while I have to work to pay my bills.

    So, my position right now boils down to wanting the government to “Get off my lawn” with regards to drugs. I’ve donated to legalization movements (mostly because I wanted the CD they were giving away if you donated… drat cousin of mine “borrowed” it and never gave it back grumble grumble) Do I trust my fellow citizen with the responsibility? Hells no, but as long as I’m not having to pay for it, they can go screw themselves up however they want.

    Aw fooey… Sorry such a long comment…

    1. I agree with employer’s shouldn’t have to hire anyone on drugs, legal or not, including alcohol or smokers, regardless of how detected (smell, or test). They chose their poison, you choose to support or not. Also, don’t think that society should pay for it. No benefits if you indulge*. You can not pay for food or rent, don’t pay for drugs, alcohol, or smokes (regardless of what kind, edible or not.) No protected classes.

      That is one thing about Oregon’s legalization of MJ. Employer’s can still drug test. If you fail, they don’t have to hire, they can fire, for cause. Problem is under current economy, employers are finding it difficult to get employees. Depending on the job, employers may only test if there is an accident. OTOH depending on who is hurt, and how bad (beyond the person who tests high or drunk) the company is opening themselves for a huge lawsuit.

      Already know of parents whose child was killed by hit and run driver that netted over 2 mil because, even though criminal drunk charges couldn’t be brought, civil suit could, and win (guy did spend 18 months in county, and lost driver’s license for 10 years. Guy had other driving issues that meant he never should have been driving commercially that the company had to overcome to have him driving. Despite loosing his license for 10 years. About 11 years after killing a child, he got his “first” DUI.) I suspect that unless you know someone involved, or do the research yourself, you are never going to know bad things are happening.

      * Key word is “indulge”. Got cancer or other major diagnosis, different story.

      1. Once again, something too easily abused. just add to the list whatever you conveniently need to fit your political desires, and you have a huge unemployable underclass.

      2. My big problem with how they legalized drugs was just this: None of the follow-on effects were addressed in the legislation.

        Are employers even allowed to say “No drugs…”? How is liability to be handled, when you factor in the lengthy latency on things like THC? How do you deal with DUI, when it’s a drug that’s not easily field-tested for?

        The status quo wasn’t perfect, but if you’re gonna change it…? You’d better figure out all the second- and third-order effects, and address those before that change takes effect. Or, it doesn’t go through.

        I’m waiting for the first case to come up where someone is blood-tested THC-positive, caused an accident, and they try to sue that person’s employer for the accident. It’s gonna be an ugly few years before case law gets worked out, under this new regime.

        1. “If it’s GOPe or a Dem, I’ll vote R, but we keep trying to find better candidates. The loony left is managing to anger and arouse the republicans in state. Glad the repub state legislature did the no-quorum rick, and managed to make it stick.”

          TLC stays in the blood a longer than alcohol. Indulge alcohol Friday or Saturday night, no sign by Monday. TLC, indulge Thursday and still in blood on Monday or later. Some say that if your job says “No sign of drugs and you indulge, you can’t get hired, or you get fired, to bad.” But the employer must follow up on random tests, not just when accidents happen to have a chance of getting by liability. No, they don’t want me on a jury in a case like this.

          Son’s job, manufacturing. They do drug testing on hire, have all along. But now employee’s are coached how to insure various drugs aren’t detected. The company, used to, do *semi-random lottery drug testing of X%** of employees, as well as testing when accidents of specific severity occurred. They are now only testing of individuals involved in accidents.

          * semi-random – somehow the individuals suspected (known to) of indulging got included.

          ** X% – if above didn’t cover the percentage (or more) needed by company policy, others were pulled in by lottery.

          Yes. Would result in firings. Someone was ready to take their place. Now, they run understaffed. Still have turn over. Turn over is “grass is greener”; might even be true, sometimes it isn’t, as evidenced by the return rate.

          1. i got ‘semi random’ed repeatedly in the military until they ‘caught’ me ‘with opiates in my system’ – the one time my doc gave me a week’s supply of tylenol 3 to give me some pain relief.

            1. My last year in the Marines, I angered someone high up in my chain of command, and wouldn’t you know it, my name ended up on EVERY SINGLE random drug test list until I got out. “Wow, what bad luck for the computers to select you so often!” I was told. Except, I happened to know some of compliance people, and they showed me the printouts. Every time my name hand-written at the bottom. It was annoying, and I made absolutely sure to stay away from anything that might cause a false positive. No nutritional supplements*, or poppy seed anything for me!

              *A friend of mine popped positive on a drug test because of a weight lifting supplement. There was newer test that the Marines used that showed the difference between actual drugs and the weight lifting supplement, and the weight lifting supplement company paid to have that test performed, BUT the CO refused to look at it because it was done outside the Marine Corps. Sad day, that friend was a really good Marine (one of a very few that, in my opinion, exemplified what a Marine should be.)

    2. They say that about Portugal. It’s bullshit. Wat happened was some things weren’t illegal, so people weren’t arrested for them. Voila, problem solved. Addiction as big a problem as ever.
      BUT it goes beyond that. Apparently it’s not even true EVERY drug is legal. It’s more like you don’t get persecuted for small quantities on your person. you still can’t LEGALLY buy them. (A gentleman who immigrated this year told me. Look, I haven’t been sick while there for… 30 years? so I don’t go to the pharmacy. And if I got sick mom would get my SIL to prescribe the meds for her, so the insurance would pay for it. So, yeah. [and yes, not strictly honest, but you don’t argue with my mom. It’s not worth it.])

      1. The really aggravating thing is that we don’t get honest reporting from anyone on the actual results of what Portugal did. All I see is the blue-sky BS from the legalization activists, and zero real information about how it is working… Or, not.

        I’m of the mind that what we’ve got is a de-facto situation where drugs are basically legal, anyway. There’s as much availability today as there was when I was in high school, when I could probably have put my hands on whatever I wanted within 30 minutes with just a few judicious phone calls. It’s no different today, which kind of makes the “War on (some) Drugs” look ridiculous.

        People want their chemical highs. They’re gonna do what it takes to get them, regardless of the laws we write. You want to address the issue, the only way to do it is to change the minds of the users about the desirability of using, and law is a very ineffective tool to do that.

        1. The really aggravating thing is that we don’t get honest reporting from anyone on the actual results of what Portugal did.” anything.


      2. I’ve always wondered how much truth was in that story about legalization in Portugal.

        If reporting gets any worse, maybe we will be able to read the news and assume the opposite is true. Sadly, it’s starting to sound that might even go for more Libertarian news sources.

        1. I’ve been pissed at Reason for years because of that “we won’t tell you what you don’t need to know, because it might cause you to draw the wrong conclusion” junk.

          I know I’ve told the story before, but I think the last straw was the cop who was in an officer involved shooting. They reported that his video cut off shortly before the shooting.

          I dug around for the video, since they only had one still from early in the “confrontation”….they did tell the truth. Technically.
          It cut off because the guy who was shot BEAT IT TO BITS WITH A SHOVEL while he was trying to take out the cop’s head. Last shot was the back of the shovel.
          Which was, indeed, shortly before the guy with a shovel was shot…..

          1. My understanding is that the Rodney King video that was shown over and over again by the media, was only the last part of that video footage. Now, I’m not saying that police officers involved didn’t go overboard, because I truly believe they did. However, when the entire video is viewed, instead of just the last part, their reaction is a bit more understandable. Again, not saying it was right and just, I’m just saying more understandable.

    3. The creation of a criminal industry that only enriches the kinds of people who don’t think twice about destroying lives and killing people.

      Not “creation” at all.

      The Cartels are just the same bastards who were doing this stuff back when California’s big fight was that the locals were Spanish, not Mexican, and Mexico could go shove it.

      It’s arguable that the war on drugs has effectively directed their attention in the US away from more normal passtimes, like slaving or trying to take over towns.

  17. Aside from the fact that *it’s none of the government’s business*.

    Oh, if I take drugs, I might marginally increase the costs to society? Yeah, I might. That’s the price of freedom. YOUR freedom.

    Because if you say the gov’t can tell people what not to do, and put people in prison and even kill them, not because of what did happen, but because of what MIGHT happen, well, dude, I hate to have to explain it to you, but a justification like that can be used to ban, restrict, or control ANYTHING. And is.

    No, you don’t have to be a big-L Libertarian to believe in freedom (thank God). But you can’t believe in freedom and believe in restricting people’s freedoms for very, very minor “maybes” You can’t believe in freedom and believe in making a frickin PLANT illegal.

    And finally, let’s be honest: most of the opposition to druggies is from the “ick” factor. It’s just another form of Oikophobia, with different oiks. All that BS about social risks and social costs is just that: BS. Oh, not that there aren’t any risks and costs, there are; these are people we’re talking about here. But if people REALLY thought the societal costs of drug use were so very terrible, they’d be working their asses off to ban alcohol. They aren’t. Therefore they’re hypocrites, and just bigots.

    1. They tried banning alcohol once, and it was a mess. There are still groups that want to, but they know full well the votes aren’t there, so they go after smaller groups. And one day I want to hear them explain how it is in any way Constitutional to restrict the sale of alcohol to a whole category of legal adults. If they are too dumb to drink, why do we let them vote?

      The cold fact is that far too many people have the desire to ban behavior they don’t personally enjoy. We all know about the fight over homosexuality (which the Left is fixing to lose by going on to the Trans idiocy we’re seeing now.), but I have literally heard people complaining that folks shouldn’t be ALLOWED to spend money on watching (politically incorrect) sports.

      Ok, I don’t ‘get’ being a sports ‘fan’ either. But BAN it? What planet do these buttinskis live on?

      How about we give our neighbors the right to go to Hell in their own way? And, at the same time, if we’re into something people think of as weird, not forcing people to paste on a false smile and pretend it’s all good? I figure, nobody much wants to know about my sex life, and I don’t much want to know about theirs.

      How Odd is THAT?

      1. These folks are salivating over having power over others. Also they are so full of themselves that they think that they alone know the one true path to follow and that there won’t be any unintended consequences.

      2. Ok, I don’t ‘get’ being a sports ‘fan’ either. But BAN it? What planet do these buttinskis live on?

        Sigh. Odds are good you subsidize it; better than 100% if you live in a city with a major league franchise. Baseball, football, basketball, even soccer: if there’s a major stadium you were probably taxed to finance it.

        This also applies to college teams unless we’re talking a private college and not always even then — it depends on a number of things, including whether venue sales are taxed at customary rates and whether the property on which it stands is taxed.

      3. There are some sports (curling comes to mind) that I think should have one of those “Do not operate a motor vehicle…” applied.

        Otherwise, agreed.

        1. Well, it is legal to drink while playing curling, unless you are at the Olympics. Making allowances for team skills going up or down, and training to take the effects of drink taken into account, are part of curling tactics and strategy.

          1. I did not know that!

            Okay, that explains the appeal – it’s actually a capacity contest, so beloved by most men (and some women). Also explains why there were more booze commercials (at least the one night I watched it in Toronto) than the typical NFL game…

      4. And at least when they banned alcohol, they were honest enough to realize that the Constitution didn’t give them the power to do so and managed to finagle an Amendment through to do so. Lasted a decade and a half or so, and was rescinded as a Bad Idea. Nixon and his nascent War on (Some) Drugs – stroke of the pen, Law of the Land (and its actual legislative descendants).

        1. Nixon was good for that. Where is the clause in the Constitution that gave him the right to put in a 55 mile an hour speed limit?

          1. Nixon needed Congress to do that.
            And the law they passed didn’t actually prevent States from having whatever speed limit they wanted. It just made having a top speed limit of 55mph a requirement for receiving highway funding from the Federal Government.
            Just another example of why it’s a bad idea to fund good works by passing the money through D.C. first. There are always strings attached.

            1. And it only went away when the first western state was coming up on actually taking the Feds up on that dare, going to a >55 limit and telling the Feds where to shove their highway money.

              Can’t have the states thinking they are sovereign and stuff, and might be able to get by without the Federal largesse – that line of thought is far too dangerous. So they repealed it, causing future generations to have to try and figure out what Sammy Hagar was signing about.

              1. naah, a lot of people still drive through cities on freeways, where the speed limit does indeed go down to 55.

            2. There are always strings attached.

              Strings attached? Strings? And Bonaparte was a half-pint Corsican.

    2. If you take drugs, there is zero cost to society.
      If you take drugs and behave badly, then there’s a cost to society. Singing loudly when everyone is trying to sleep. Getting in accidents. Hurting yourself in a society that is required to provide healthcare (EMTALA requires emergency rooms to provide care to get you stabilized regardless of your ability to pay. Which means they raise the prices for the rest of us to cover the deadbeats, the poor, and illegal aliens.)

  18. Some years back my (local, I despise chains) pharmacy started to be a lot more OCD about not talking about what meds you were getting and about privacy in general. They told me it was the result of new Federal privacy requirements. I did some research and read somewhere (so God knows if it’s true) that a Congresswine was asked how that viagra was working for him in front of his wife…who didn’t know he was taking it, or had a reason to take it.

    My reaction was “Nitwit! If you’re cheating on your wife, you’re SUPPOSED to get caught!”

    1. But the wife wasn’t unhappy with him until AFTER she found out, yes?
      And no, I’m not advocating for extra-marital affairs. I’m just a poor old dumb white guy and trying to make one woman happy is a full time job.

    2. Oh, hell. When they were doing the whole “Republicans want to stop the pill” I was on the pill (for a medical condition. My system was SO messed up I was slightly more likely to get pregnant ON the pill. Eh.)
      The doctor had always handed over the prescription, cheerfully, etc.
      Suddenly she was whispering and passing it underhand so my husband wouldn’t see it.
      (rolls eyes.)
      Being the triplated bitch I am, I made it a point of saying autist-loud “Thank you for my prescription for the pill.” 😛

      1. Well, the wife’s gynecologist is hooked in via computer (all of her doctors are), so she never has a paper Rx.

        But I always pick up her prescriptions, being marginally less crabby about standing in lines. Being a paranoid type, I always tell the clerk in a quite audible voice what the prescription is supposed to be, and the dose where applicable. So I would march up to the counter, say “Prescription for $SPOUSE$. It should be after three years, I can’t remember the brand name.”

        I don’t remember any odd looks – but then, I have a force field that bounces just about all of those right off. Now, of course, probably only the pharmacist and I know what thyroxine is, that being her only prescription med right now.

        1. I usually call in hubby’s prescriptions, and mine for that matter, which is automated by which you put in the prescription #. But occasionally I go to the refill window instead (like last time because I was picking mine up.) Both the refill window and pickup cashier want you to name the medications … Really? They want me to correctly pronounce them? Without help? I end up showing them the medication list in Notes in my phone, and then proceed to massacre the pronunciation. Haven’t failed to have anyone assist with doing it correctly. Come on already. They get a name, birth date, and correct address what else do they want. Even more fun when I pick up mom’s for her, I always get her birth year wrong. What she’s going to complain I’m making her younger?

          1. Ours (big chain) just confirms the address.

            Never have a problem pronouncing them – but then medicalese / pharmacese are the two foreign languages I learned at my parent’s knees. Except for some of the brand names. (And some are just plain stupid. I mean, “Viagra” really sounds like something I need for my lawn.)

            1. Prevnar 13 sounds like a colony planet on the fringes of the Klingon Empire. Vraylar was the fellow who founded it.

              1. They string syllables into nonsense words to use as names. That way they don’t run into trademark collisions in Buttcrackistan or some local “trade name” that’s only valid in one particular US state.

                1. I had been under the impression it had something to do with Scrabble tiles or large arrays of 26-sided dice. Thanks for the enlightenment.

  19. If we treat everyone as responsible adults, and only penalize behaviors that hurt others,

    What will the legislators -do-?

      1. Go live on the economy in Venezuela or Zimbabwe for six months would be a start. Without access to their bank accounts or internet.

    1. and only penalize behaviors that hurt others

      No, thank you.

      I’ve been on the pointy end of THAT one more than enough.

      You think the war on drugs is bad, just imagine what they can do with the idea of behavior, hurt, and others.

      1. I was thinking in terms of “battery” and “theft”.

        You can demonstrate a real harm to your life, liberty, and property.

        “What you said makes me mad!” is an indication of self-harm, not harm from another.

        “Your false statements damaged my reputation.” is already covered, imperfectly, by law.

        1. All of it is already covered, imperfectly, by law.

          Just you disagree on where the line that folks should be allowed to care should be drawn.

          Law inherently requires judgement. Which is where libertarian theory hangs up every time, because it’s an attempt to minimize the amount of trouble that can be caused by judgement– and generally involves people trying to define any judgement they need to use as not being judgement at all, but rather a matter of basic reality.

          It’s an attempt to be as rational as possible, which is why it is so incredibly attractive. Just runs into the same human problem as any other system.

      2. See “speech is violence” and the various pseudo scientific proofs because “stress”.

        1. Verbal or visual harassment–such as broadcasting pr0n on the side of a school building, or flashing, or incitement to violence….

          None of it actually causes physical harm.

          That’s besides what is already recognized as verbal harassment outside of the “speech is violence” guys, usually in part because of them abusing the prior standards of what one does not do.

          Hell, look at the flat-out child abuse of making kids think that they’re going to die from climate change, that mommy serving them meat is identical to torturing a bunny to death, that if they’re not miserable and cold during the winter the very rain will burn their skin off when it falls.
          All three examples from activists in schools. None of that caused physical damage. Quite obviously, it is still abusive.

  20. Made it through surgery. Not feeling good, but as per expectations. Pain meds helping, but every 4 hours or bust, sez the nurse. Kind of loopy. Cold pack and the comfy chair right about now.

    Thanks for the thoughts and prayers.

    Sarah; will read further later. Hope you are on the mend.


    1. No Pete, you can’t go harvest the back 600 acres with the combine while you’re on pain meds.

      1. 13 acres total. Will b totally ignored. Need the meds to build in bloodstream before I feel humanoid.

  21. Back when Sudafed was a new drug my doctor gave it to me because of terrible sinus headaches I would get (the Good Lord, in His wisdom, decreed that – for me – breathing was optional and I would work at it if I wanted to continue.) I used to buy the damned things in bottles of 100 pills, like aspirin. Restocked every two – three years, never tried to make a Meth of them. I grumble this tale to the pharmacist every time I have to go through the rigmarole of buying some for the medicine cabinet. Worst of all, the formula for it which worked best seems to have been pulled from the market entirely.

    Sigh. I am told that prior to the Vietnam War many schools not only had gun teams, many had shooting ranges on property.

    This world sucks, y’know? I hope the next one isn’t so burdened with [buttheads].

      1. Thing is, if you’re actually trying to look for meyh cookers, it makes sense to log it.
        “Hey, this guy buys fifty boxes of Sudafed a week at different locations. I don’t think he’s using all that for his allergies.”
        Still intrusive and annoying, but at least you can still buy it.

        1. I actually got to hear that in action when I was picking up a prescription. It wasn’t Sudafed, but pain-pills, and the assistant pharmacist called her boss over, because the individual had taken prescriptions to four different pharmacies in two cities. The boss said, “Alert Dr. [Redacted] and then call the hot-line.”

    1. You’re lucky. West by God Virginia now requires an actual written scrip from your provider to get Sudafed, even though that is more than the Feds mandate. My dad has to stick up when he comes to visit me in neighboring state that *only* requires ID and your agreement to sign away your life and firstborn child. But I can go pick up hubby’s post-op opioid scrip without question or a need to sign the log. It’s ridiculous.

      Worse is this push to to make more and more things controlled. I used to be able to write for Tramadol without a DEA, now it’s schedule 4. They have made Lyrica scheduled because “it makes some people euphoric” and are talking doing the same to gabapentin despite neither being particularly notable drugs of abuse (and literal Lifesavers for those with neuropathic pain, which doesn’t respond to other sorts of painkillers). And then the response to the opioid crisis by my management (more from fear of liability or getting in trouble with the Feds than any real concern for patient care) is to restrict our prescribing of *all* controlled medications regardless of category. And severely restricting my ability to managing long term conditions.

      *Shuts up before going into hour-long off-topic rant about the current abandonment of chronic pain patients in the name of “doing something”.

      1. Before my mother passed away last year from complication of pancreatic cancer, she was referred to a “pain specialist”.

        The “pain specialist’s” job was more to make sure my 86 year old mother wasn’t abusing opioids instead of actually managing her pain. Literally her pain wasn’t under control until she went into hospice care and had a morphine drip as needed.

        I’m a little testy about this, yes.

        1. I’m so sorry. I am seeing way too much of that sort of thing and it is so frustrating. And angering. I can’t imagine watching a family member suffer unnecessary like that.

          The last state conference I attended they touted all the stats about how successful their new opioid prescribing rules have been and how much the number of overdose deaths from legal opioid use had dropped with the drop in prescriptions, while completely ignoring the other side of the exact same chart showing a nearly identical rise in use/overdose of illegally obtained opioids. All my state has done is move folks onto the black market but that isn’t important because, hey, we’re no longer liable for what happens.

        2. Saw an idiot on TV talking about how there’s no such thing as chronic pain.

          The short, sane version of my response was that THERE was someone who’d never had a serious injury or health issue.

          1. no such thing as chronic pain“?

            Not only have I a (partially) rebuilt knee that says otherwise, but I can arrange to provide concrete (well, cinder block) evidence to convince you otherwise.

          2. Give me three minutes with them and they’d not only change their tune, they’d go on the lecture circuit…

          3. I saw an article today saying that women who’ve had C-sections don’t need opioid painkillers. They should make do with Tylenol and Motrin, because 2% stay on them for inappropriate lengths of time (however long whatever government agency making the recommendation was defining that as).

            I’m sure glad that the two times I was gutted like a fish was before we seeing the pendulum too far back towards the prohibition sure again. I can’t imagine having to go through that on Tylenol.

            1. *facepalm*

              Look, I have a genetic tendency towards a really high pain tolerance, and the only time I used opioids after being released was the first time, an emergency c-section after some 12 hours of labor.

              Using me as a normal baselines is insane.

              Going off of my own “oopses,” the ladies who are on it for an “inappropriate” time actually had a secondary injury– doing too much before they were healed enough. Which can be as simple as lunging half out of bed to catch a kid, or having a 3 year old who jumps on mommy the second day home.

          4. May that idiot crack a tooth and have an exposed root with no access to a dentist for 6 months. I once spent about 4 hours in that state between the dentist visit and an emergency root canal. Couldn’t touch any pain meds but NSAIDS as I had to drive to the second dentist. I hate needles but would have dropped on my knees and begged for the novacaine if the dentist had asked at that point…

            1. My mom rolled a pickup, shattered her collar bone, and walked 15 miles before being picked up by a snowplow driver. She climbed up into the snowplow, too, adn climbed down at the hospital.

              Establishing a baseline for what I mean by “high pain tolerance.”

              She swore tooth pain was the absolute worst, and the one time in my lifespan she had a serious tooth issue dropped everything to go to the doctor.

              1. the only time I was on opiates (and keep in mind I had emergency caeserean with first child after 3 days WITH BABY CROWNED!) was when one of my teeth went nuclear Christmas eve. Needed ondotologist for removal. I spent Christmas in lala land. BUT wihtout MAJOR pain killers I just cried and screamed.

              2. Yup Nothing quite so nasty as dental pain. There’s a Roburt Burns poem (address to the toothache) that really covers it, but unless you’re from Glasgow (and maybe not even then) you’ll need an annotated version as it is heavy with 18th Scots dialect and effectively incomprehensible. Only reason I know it is there’s a modernish setting of it all strange harmonies and dissonance that matches the poem to a tee that I sang in a group long ago.

          5. Front left-hand corner of right knee.
            Front right hand corner of left knee.
            Steel toed boots for best results.

            Ladies, important safety tip: never try for the balls. Guys are experts at guarding those. Go for the knees. If you break their kneecap or rip the lateral ligaments, they can’t chase you.

            1. as i said, foot applied to back side of kneecap. the nice flat spot mother nature provided at about 120 degrees is your target, stamp it.

              1. Couple of different tricks there. One is, kick the kneecap to the outside of the knee. In gross anatomy I discovered there’s not a lot holding it in the center where it belongs.

                The other one is application of boot to tibial plateau, direction from medial front to lateral back. If you can get enough stomp in there, all the lateral side ligaments will tear and the joint will rotate out of place.

                Both will need major orthopedic surgery, months of recovery, and they’ll never be right again. Best to save those for when you’re going to die otherwise.

                Then there’s always the cop’s favorite, striking the femur just above the knee for maximum pain and minimum permanent damage. Medial or lateral, both massively painful.

                Boot to the back of the knee is a killer, but lots of mass needed to make that one work.

        3. Classic example of the problem of “that which is seen vs that which is not seen.” We see the hazards of drug abuse but are blind to the effects of laws restraining drug usage. Too few in the Gaslight Media are capable of recognizing this problem, much less communicating it. It is extremely simple to create a ten-second shot displaying the traumas of the drug addict, much more difficult to convey the pain experienced by those whose access to pain-killing drugs is constrained. John Stossel is, to the best of my knowledge, about the only reporter who has managed that feat.

          Compounding the problem are “successful” reporters who’ve moved up the media food chain, becoming assignment editors and producers, sending reporters out to bring back the kind of stories they want to publish.

  22. because of that law, Sarah, a mutual friend/acquaintance can’t actually buy enough sudafed to treat himself when sick.

    1. You said “when sick,” implying he’s not sick all the time. Can he just keep buying at the same rate when healthy so he has extra stocked up?

  23. My problem is that legalizing drugs would be a medical nightmare on so many levels. Between ODs, people burning their brains out, secondary medical issues (oh, we are going to see so many from pot legalization…), things that I haven’t even thought of…

    And, you know that if we did this, our local Leftists would both claim that we are not doing enough and fail to spend anything on taking care of the end results.

    But, I agree that the War on Drugs isn’t a good idea, either. But, there’s not any good options beyond legalization, drug law enforcement, or the Kratman Option (1). And, the War on Drugs might be safer to people and our souls than the other two options.

    (1)-The Kratman Option is this-take a year’s supply of “hard” drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc, etc, etc). Lace with poison with a LD>50 based around the low end of the average “regular user” dose. Flood the market with the drugs, so prices go so low as to be insane. Wait for the bodies to smell. It’s a solution

    1. You don’t need to lace poison with the hard drugs, they ARE sufficient poisons in and of themselves.

    2. My problem is that legalizing drugs would be a medical nightmare on so many levels. Between ODs, people burning their brains out, secondary medical issues (oh, we are going to see so many from pot legalization…), things that I haven’t even thought of…

      Unfortunately we don’t get a choice in this; the social damage has already been done. We can either continue to pretend to manage the problem forever, all the while making it worse. Or we can bite the bullet and deal with the stored up hell once and for all.

      (1)-The Kratman Option

      Already been tried. Our Glorious and Wonderful Federal Government released a batch of poisoned alcohol during prohibition and killed a bunch of people. When the first batch didn’t do the job they tried it again on a larger scale.

      Don’t need camps or roving execution squads for the state to murder people.

      1. Already been tried. Our Glorious and Wonderful Federal Government released a batch of poisoned alcohol during prohibition and killed a bunch of people. When the first batch didn’t do the job they tried it again on a larger scale.

        I know that the story sounds great, but getting tired of hearing it, and it grows every time….

        Actual story was that during Prohibition, as they do now, industrial alcohol was altered so you couldn’t drink it.

        Bootleggers stole it and sold it anyway, and people died.

        That is NOT the government “trying to poison people.” That is criminals stealing stuff and not giving a good or even bad damn if it kills the customer.

        1. Some methanol [and fusil oils] occur during fermentation. Shouldn’t be lethal, and proper distillation can eliminate the methanol. Now, during prohibition, I doubt care was taken when the Revenuers are out beathing the bushes. I also understand [Family folklore] there were “tricks” to speed fermentation, most likely increasing toxicity.

          1. There was a thing where folks were using vehicle radiators, too, wasn’t there?

            That’s why the last-ten-years-or-so “the government tried to poison everybody!” thing is so obnoxious.

        2. Many of the opioid drugs come with a liver poison – tylenol, built in. Take more than the prescribed amount and wreck your liver. Your caring government at work.

        3. I went and dug up my source, as it had been years since I encountered it. Turns out that it was explicitly talking about denatured alcohol. Which is weird as I thought denatured alcohol was something that Everybody Knew About, and thus in remembering the story it never occurred to me that that would be the subject.

          All it means is that dividing up who is guilty to what degree is rather complicated.

          And though hobbled, the point still mostly stands: the most that the Kratman option will achieve is to kill off a bunch of users before they become too much of a “debt to society”. Then the black market will adapt, probably in a way that is far worse for everyone than it is now.

          The level of naivete it takes to think you can out-adapt a black market makes me look like the Ancient Fountain of all Wisdom.

          1. Which is weird as I thought denatured alcohol was something that Everybody Knew About, and thus in remembering the story it never occurred to me that that would be the subject.

            *nod* Which is why the guys trying to use it for conspiracy fodder are very careful to phrase it l as “poisoned alcohol that was sold,” ignoring the part where it was no secret that the alcohol had been denatured– which is, indeed, poisoning it– and that people stole it, and sold it for drinking, anyways.

      2. Our Federal Government also tried that with marijuana.
        They “encouraged” the Mexican Government to destroy marijuana fields they discovered by spraying them with paraquat. Of course, as soon as the federales left the growers would harvest and process that crop.
        Paraquat residue is pretty darn poisonous when smoked.

    3. So far, from a public safety POV, the Canadian legalization of cannabis has been… nothing. Its literally nothing. There’s no change better or worse.

      The one positive so far is medical cannabis, there’s a lot of chronic conditions that respond to it. It has less side effects than the regular medicines used for those conditions.

      However, due to the gold-plating required to get government grow licenses, legal weed is roughly 2/3rds to 3/4s more expensive than the same old illegal weed that’s always been out there. The big problem there is the criminals MIX IT with stuff.

      There’s your Kratman Option right there.

    4. > medical issues

      So my medical insurance goes up. To match my car insurance. A lot of people don’t realize it, but the states with legal pot have had such an increase in car wrecks that insurance premiums go up statewide to handle the claims.

  24. One of the reasons for this idiocy (at least why pharmacies didn’t fight it at all) is not so much trying to keep people from making meth – it was that loss rates from “grab and runs” were going right through the roof. Same reason they have the security tags on Tide detergent, and you have to get a store employee to get them off like they are booze. (There’s other things that have those now, since the lifters always shift their targets to “most salable with the least chance of being caught.)

      1. Does that one company still run the commercial on that? Those were amusing. (To me – but I buy the Kroger 20 packs that aren’t worth locking up. YMACV.)

    1. A friend of mine who works at a local chain hardware store says the most common item lifted is the little rubber washer that goes in the female end of a garden hose.

      1. Archeologists will be digging up lost hose washers for the next 10,000 years..

  25. I get to have frequent encounters with these “lost souls”.

    Legalization isn’t the answer. We have enough non-functional people by choice without adding to it. Plus society doesn’t deal with these peoples problems or their consequences now.

    While society has some responsibility of assistance to it’s members, the individual has a responsibility not to burden society to an extreme just to get their fix.

    1. Yeah. I also don’t think that actively enabling people being burdens on others is good for society in the long run. (Such as, as a particularly insane example, those people who identify as amputees actually getting one or both limbs amputated to ‘suit their bodily identity then those same people now qualifying for disability…)

      1. I think mental illness qualifies as a disability.

        (Seriously: if you have the urge to become, of your own free will, an amputee, seek counseling)

  26. I always figured if people were going to make meth they would just steal from the drug store when it gets delivered or something like that.

    1. They do. I can’t remember what the actual program is called, but if you look up when the DEA was shut down last year, that was one of the sections that wasn’t, because it’s self-funding from fees on tracked medical supplies. Something like Diversion prevention or….I know diverting or diversion is part of it.

      Classifying it as a tracked drug means that there’s records of when it’s happening– and makes it hard for someone on the inside to just walk it out.

      1. Classifying it as a tracked drug means that there’s records of when it’s happening– and makes it hard for someone on the inside to just walk it out.

        Unfortunately what happens in the real world is that the criminals start just robbing pharmacies. Which is tacitly approved by the major companies as they all have the “do whatever the thug wants” policy.

        So we have:

        1. Most people forced into more Papers Please.

        2. More crime. (including more shootouts if you are the guy on the reddit CCW sub that works at a small independent pharmacy and thus is able to carry).

        3. No reduction in drug production.

        TL;DR: it is just like every other intervention that has been tried.

        1. Your theory is testable.

          Has there been a resulting increase, much less huge spike, in pharmacies held up so that the thieves can steal all the Sudafed?

      2. When you stop and think about it, it’s only a matter of time before we have 3D molecular printers that will be able to make about anything you like, with the right feedstock.

        At that point, what point banning anything? The average Joe will be able to fab whatever chemicals he likes, in the privacy of his own home.

        This is why I’m of the opinion that the only effective way to deal with things like drug abuse is in the minds of the users, just like with murder and other things. You cannot effectively stop someone from committing mass murder by banning things–That deal in Japan at the anime studio is Exhibit “A” for that fallacy. Dude killed 30 or more with just some flammables and some knives–Which he could have created for himself, given enough time and patience. So, what point to banning gasoline and sharpened metal?

        The problems are inside the minds of the people doing these things, and that’s the only place to effectively attack the problem. You don’t want drug abuse? Work on the addict, and the reason they’re doing what they are. There is no easy answer to this crap, and the mentality that “Well, we’ll just protect people from themselves by making it illegal…” is just wishful thinking. Your kid wants to kill themselves because they find life is too painful…? Yeah, well… Good luck with stopping them from dulling the pain. If nothing else, they’ll sit in the rubber room you create for them, and bang their heads on the walls until they get that delicious dump of endorphins to deal with the physical damage…

        You get down to it, there’s really no stopping drug abuse without dealing with the inner problems, and those are not even vaguely addressable via the law.

        At some point, we’re gonna figure that out.

        1. That deal in Japan at the anime studio is Exhibit “A” for that fallacy. Dude killed 30 or more with just some flammables and some knives

          You’re missing the point: it is well-established scientific fact that guns, which exist only to kill things, can compel otherwise peaceful people to murder. The science on that is as settled as the science on man causing global warming or the way in which the stars and planets compel human destiny.

          1. Especially of the gun is black and scary. Everyone knows those can break out of the gun-safe and go out on their own to terrorize innocent neighborhoods. *wise nod* I know its true because I heard a congress-critter say it on the nightly news!

            1. But, But being against Black Guns is …. RACIST!!!!!
              Instead of banning them just force all the AR15s to have the Hello Kitty colors. No more scary Black Guns. Simple solution.

          1. Customs
            That is the sequence. Customs are the subconscious expectations for “right” behaviour. Mores are customs that represent the absolute truth to the particular group and are the norms people consider vital to their well being. Laws are the codification of mores into standards that are enforceable by official sanction, whereas customs and mores are enforced by unofficial sanction.

            Using lawn care for an example: the type of lawn/yard you maintain is loosely defined by the customs of your neighborhood. Failure to maintain to neighborhood standards usually produces snarky remarks and “turning” of tepid shoulders. Should your lawn/yard vary too far from expected standards (mores) — such as letting it “go natural” rather than invest in seed, fertilizer, weed suppressants and regular mowing — the likelihood of becoming subject of increasingly dark glances and neighborhood gossip increases, with the possibility of being recipient of anonymous notes wrapped around rocks thrown through your windows. Taken too far, such negligence can produce city building inspectors visiting and offering explicit advice as to what is required to get back within code, with potential fines and imprisonment for failing to take that advice.

            Each level depends on the acceptance of the underlying strata for its effectiveness (N.B., the next level above laws is taboos — I presume you are adequately familiar with those.) Laws not based upon custom, custom not premised on mores, are likely to be both disregarded and loosely enforced, as was once the case for Driving Under the Influence: frowned upon but usually over-looked so long as no serious damage occurred. Sure, it was a cudgel to be used against chronic trouble-makers but rarely applied to the well-to-do and well-behaved.

            All of which is an over long introduction to the crux of the problem: all law depends upon a general cultural homogeneity. A community is law-abiding to the extent it agrees the laws make sense, express shared values — an issue I gather the Swedes are coping with as they discover that admitting large numbers of refugees from significantly different cultures and leaving them unassimilated poses problems. If the (call it) host culture has an expectation that women are free to dress as they like, exposing as much skin as they are comfortable with without greater response than an appreciative (and glancing) male gaze but the guest culture expects that any woman exposing more than minimal epidermis is errrr … “for rent” and that interested customers are free to ahhhh … ‘squeeze the melons” there are bound to be “misunderstandings” due to improperly read signals. As all cultures I am aware of have an expectation that their males will protect the privileges of their females these misunderstandings may even escalate into violent confrontation.

            Which is why people arguing for cultural diversity are idiots possessed of a patina of understanding. In some cultures people are expected to be able to “hold their drinks” and still behave according to customs, while in other societies the excuse of “I’d been drinking” was nearly a universal solvent to any social fix.

            1. I think that the distinction is that customs and mores are more internal controls, while law is an external one that doesn’t have the same sort of import to the individual.

              Law says “Don’t kill anyone”. Customs and mores demand that you do, when the motivation is powerful enough, like in cases where gang members feel “dissed”. Which is obeyed?

              There’s also the question of which element in the hierarchy of social control is more likely to be followed in cases of extreme exigency. The law tells you that killing someone is illegal; religion and cultural values and mores tell you that doing that is immoral, and your instincts tell you that when you catch someone in your nine-year old daughter’s bedroom raping her, that you beat him to death with whatever comes to hand. Which do you listen to?

              For most of us, the “letter of law” would be utterly silent, in that situation. Values and mores inculcated from upbringing and conditioning will be much more powerful, and you might manage to avoid actually braining someone with a chair leg, but the legality of the situation is going to be mostly immaterial to your response, in the moment.

              Law, in my opinion, is pretty much simply the codification of custom and mores such that those of us who have the “correct” customs and mores can enforce them on those who don’t. Who really aren’t observant of those customs and mores in the first damn place…

              1. I think that the distinction is that customs and mores are more internal controls, while law is an external one that doesn’t have the same sort of import to the individual.

                *shakes head*

                Oh, hell no.

                Customs and mores have informal enforcement systems. This is why they have to be constrained by laws, too. Laws require evidence. They’re systematic. Even when broken, they beat custom all to hell on being impartial.

                Imagine them being king– by putting the worst queen-bee or idiot jock at the head of the social structure.

                1. I think we’re talking past each other. A bit.

                  The point that I’m getting at is that the “law” is a poor and in the end, ineffective influence on behavior. Tell someone “Don’t kill, or we’ll put you in jail…”, and then remove the legal structure entirely? What happens then?

                  Tell that same person “It is immoral and against scripture to kill…”, dump them into that same scenario where the law has evaporated, and then what?

                  I think you’re making the same mistake that a lot of people do, in ascribing “civilization” and all that implies, to the external institutions and mechanisms of civilization’s enforcement regime. That’s a mechanistic view, and one that ignores the reality that there is more to the question than just the external enforcement agents. Take a truly civilized man, one who has internalized all the values and mores of civilized behavior, dump him into a situation where there is no civilization, and he’ll recreate that civilization around him. Take a basically barbaric person, whose behavior is only constrained by consideration for what he can get away with inside the strictures of civilization, remove them from that civilization by whatever means, and what are you going to get? A barbarian who will revert to type as soon as it is convenient to them.

                  In the end, civilization does not reside in the institutions of civilization, but in the man. The law is a mere formalization and an enforcement mechanism for the barbarian at heart who has managed to find a place in that civilization. The barbaric are never truly members of it, only forced participants.

                  1. The point that I’m getting at is that the “law” is a poor and in the end, ineffective influence on behavior.

                    And I am saying that I do not agree, because you are only looking at the stress points.

                    And then, you’re looking in an insanely law-abiding selection.

                    Yes, I know the insanely bad subcultures of the US you dealt with.

                    Remember some of the non-US ones you also dealt with. (I seem to remember you had those, too? Mostly I remember your skill at explaining exactly how bad the bad here is.)

                    You’re looking at cases that are so far above “normal” for the rest of the world that it is breathtaking; the little old lady whose son joined the Army, used his first paycheck to buy her a gun, and she shot the guy who came in her window with a knife a few weeks later? And they released her without punishment or taking the gun and guarded her house?
                    That is crazy-talk in most of the world.
                    Yeah, first world, something CLOSE to it might happen.


                    She’s dead.

                    Heaven knows we hear enough about those in the “and that’s why guns are bad” arguments in Catholic circles. 😦

                    Our laws are actually enforced, even if not perfectly, and so they MATTER.

                    1. Look, Fox, the point I’m making is that the law is only a codification and statement; the real question is whether or not the individual follows that law without there being something to enforce it.

                      Drug laws are a perfect example of this: Dude wants to get high. Knows it’s against the law. What does he do?

                      He gets high.

                      Sure, he’s not going to do it in front of the cops, but that’s about the limit of effectiveness, for law alone.

                      Second case, where the individual has an ingrained mental set of constraints that tell him not to get high, that getting high is wrong? He doesn’t do it. Hell, the first guy may have those internal constraints, like “Oh, watching the kiddoes tonight, no dope…”.

                      Just like every other formal construct, the “law” is utterly ineffective when put up against the barbarian with poor impulse control. You want to stop those people from doing things you don’t want, you need to work on inculcating actual impulse controls, and those need to work in the absence of enforcement mechanisms.

                      You’re making the mistake that I think a lot of people do, in that you think that the forms and institutions are what’s keeping civilization afloat and running. They really aren’t, because once the underlying internal controls no longer exist, then so too does civilization vanish.

                      Consider the Romans; for a long time, under the Republic and early Empire, the idea that the son of a Roman citizen might lop off his thumb to avoid military service was outrageous; someone doing that would be ostracized and vilified in all respects. The Romans of that era didn’t even have laws addressing that sort of thing, because it was unthinkable.

                      Later on, it was a common ploy of the aristocracy, so that their sons wouldn’t have to serve in the legions; the Late Empire needed laws against such things, and had to enforce them with draconian vigor. Scions of the Roman elite families still did the “thumbing” thing, and they were not outcast–Because everyone else in their class was doing the same thing.

                      The law is meaningless absent the internal controls which it is a mere expression of, and we’ll oftentimes find that the law is only codified and enforced once those controls lapse. Early Rome really didn’t have a problem with people maiming themselves to avoid duty in the legions; it was only in the Imperial era that that became common. First reference I can find to that happening was during the reign of Augustus, and he confiscated the property of the man who did that to his sons, and sold him into slavery. By the late Imperial period, there were only fines being levied for the offense.

                    2. Look, Fox, the point I’m making is that the law is only a codification and statement; the real question is whether or not the individual follows that law without there being something to enforce it.

                      Well, no, there isn’t.

                      Because that requires ignoring that the individual will choose to do things, or not, in part because they are legal or not.

                      This is a rather significant portion of the population.

                      Deciding to ignore them, because some folks won’t do it, is silly.

                      As my grandfather put it, a lock only stops an honest thief– ad a law is only a half-born lock.

                      Dude wants to get high. Knows it’s against the law. What does he do?

                      No, you are starting way before the starting bell.

                      Dude doesn’t really want anything.

                      Someone TELLS him that he wants to get high.

                      …what does he do?

                      Well, if “You want to get high” dude is the only voice, they got a hell of a head start.

                      If the head start is “getting high is illegal, and incidentally stupid,” then……


                      Again: you are looking at laws as trying to STOP FOLKS WHO REALLY WANT TO DO STUFF.
                      Laws don’t, and can’t, do that.
                      Laws say “hey, that’s a bad idea.”
                      They offer a route to punish an action.

                      Laws work on the folks who don’t really want anything right now.

                      Think Corella’s undecided.

                2. this is why [customs and mores] have to be constrained by laws, too.

                  See: Spanish Inquisition. The law acts to limit the effects of informal penalties.

                  It is also why laws attempting to limit bullying are doomed to fail; they can only limit how the bullying is done.

              2. Law … is pretty much simply the codification of custom and mores

                I though that was what I wrote. That is why laws not rooted in customs and mores tend to be ineffective. Laws contrary to customs and mores are bound to be broken.

            2. Heh. Am having a sort of similar discussion over a Lela Buis’ place about attitudes and people’s choices, obedience to the law and keeping to a certain level of social moral standards of behavior being the key to improving the lot of everyone. It’s a rather delightfully pleasant conversation, and Lela is patient about my tendency to ramble.

          2. Fox, I think that’s the fallacy.

            Law doesn’t do squat to change minds. It’s like the “Don’t walk on the grass” signs down at the park–There’s no enforcement, nobody pays attention to them.

            For a period there at Fort Lewis, on North Fort, people would literally chose to risk death, rather than walk on the Sergeant Major’s grass–To include senior officers, civilians, and everyone within range of that maniac’s voice. He had everyone so thoroughly conditioned not to walk on “his” grass that people reflexively tweaked when he had them do it in the course of doing parade ceremonies on it: No joke–You could see people do a stutter-step moving from the pavement to the grass at the transition. We were that conditioned.

            Note: No signs, no written rules, not even a policy letter. Just a braying brazen maniac who’d no social filter, and who would deliver a 30-minute ass-chewing at the drop of a hat for transgressors. I still laugh my ass off remembering the face he made when one of the extra-duty kiddoes was horrified at being told to mow said grass–His objection was that he’d have to walk on it to do so, and he wasn’t being a smart-ass, either. That lunatic CSM had so thoroughly conditioned everyone in the brigade that his quad was sacred ground that people were afraid to step on it even to do lawn care.

            The law means nothing in the face of internal controls. Inculcate those, and you don’t need law, because people won’t break their internal reflexes except in extreme exigency. I know this because I watched one of my guys throw himself onto the pavement rather than fall onto the Sergeant Major’s holy grass, when he wrecked his bike on a bit of broken curb.

            Looking back, I’m kind of in awe he managed that bit of insanity. Funny thing was, he wasn’t out there at all hours of the night or day, either–It was just that when he spotted someone cutting corners or otherwise transgressing, they got an outbreak of Tourette’s that R. Lee Ermey would have been impressed by. His reputation as a mad dog did the rest…

            1. Law doesn’t do squat to change minds. It’s like the “Don’t walk on the grass” signs down at the park–There’s no enforcement, nobody pays attention to them.

              1) I didn’t say they change minds. I said they influence minds. Those who haven’t made a conclusion are where changes are made.
              2) “Unenforced laws” are not the sum of all laws. At some bases, the ‘don’t walk on the grass’ is actually enforced. And thus people don’t walk on the grass. (Pensacola, spring of ’02, it consisted entirely of “hey! Don’t walk on the grass, you’ll kill it!” and…people didn’t walk on the grass.)

              Simple mental experiment, imagine your psycho with a sign that said “don’t walk on the grass.

              Folks would, most likely, not walk on the grass every time there was a sign.

              On the flip-side, “it’s not illegal” is a go-to pressure point for those trying to get the unwilling to take an action.

              1. Contrast the effect of “It’s not illegal…” with “That’d be wrong…”.

                Which is more persuasive? The outer influence of legality, or the inner sense of right and wrong? Which is more likely to be influential on the conduct of the individual?

                Hell, we have cases where convicted criminals have stopped other convicts from killing guards, or hurting innocent people. Which do you suppose was more effective at motivating them to do that? The internal sense of right and wrong, or the shaky edifice of the law, which they’d violated at least once already?

                I think this is the point I’m not getting across: The formality of law is meaningless, unless you believe in it. That belief isn’t sourced in the law, or the threat of external punishment. It’s an internal constraint: “I must not break the law…”. If you don’t have that constraint, then nothing about the law is going to make you obey it, other than a certainty of consequence if you do not.

                Which is why I’m saying that in the final analysis, the law is immaterial. It’s what is inside the heads of the men who choose to obey or disobey those laws that is important, because without those internal self-imposed strictures, they’re not going to pay attention to one jot of all those fine laws that are written up, down at the courthouse.

                Where we’ve gone off the course in a lot of aspects of modern life is that we’re no longer effectively inculcating these things in the common run of people; we’re breeding our own set of unconstrained barbarians, thinking that the rule of law and appreciation of consequences are things that just happen; absent the mothers of the world not teaching the right values to their kids, which happens a lot in those areas that are becoming increasingly uncivilized, nothing about the “law” can fix things.

                1. Contrast the effect of “It’s not illegal…” with “That’d be wrong…”.
                  Which is more persuasive? The outer influence of legality, or the inner sense of right and wrong?

                  THAT is cultural.

                  My culture, the difference between “wrong” and “illegal” actually has to be taught.

                  We are quite lawful.

                  I also recognize reality enough to know that is not universal.

                  I think this is the point I’m not getting across: The formality of law is meaningless, unless you believe in it. That belief isn’t sourced in the law, or the threat of external punishment. It’s an internal constraint: “I must not break the law…”. If you don’t have that constraint, then nothing about the law is going to make you obey it, other than a certainty of consequence if you do not.

                  Now you are being fallacious— honestly, in a way that makes me remember you’re an Army Sgt, not a mom (have you got kids? I know the parent levels really vary)

                  Look, you’re looking at the final product of a really hella pain in the neck process. I’m like half way through it.


                  …which is the other half of my objection to libertarians and their philosophy applied to real life.

                  1. You’re misreading what I said, Fox.

                    As a mom, you’re probably the bedrock of civilization, in that you are the one installing those internal constraints in the future members of civilization. Without you doing that…? Civilization withers, and no set of laws on the face of the earth can bring that civilization back to life.

                    Civilization doesn’t live in the dry books of law down at the courthouse; it truly exists where the mother and father raise their kids, patiently teaching them “right from wrong”, and all the rest. You don’t have that going on, what you have are unrestrained barbarians who are not going to pay the slightest attention to any law you might chose to pass.

                    You don’t do your job, there’s not a damn thing I can do with the adult product of that failure. The only thing I can do is inculcate a fear of my fist and the UCMJ, which is only good for as long as I’m directly on-scene to enforce and uphold the standards.

                    I really think you’re reading something I’m not actually saying.

                    1. No, I am disagreeing.

                      As a mom, I am among the techs installing the “thou shalt nots” in culture.

                      I recognize that the units I instal are not universal.

                      But you are standing there, telling me taht only after market parts are to be considered.

                      So I stand here saying NO!

                    2. Wait, what?

                      That’s not at all what I said, in any way, shape, or form.

                      The entire point that I am making is that the “law” is the aftermarket afterthought, bolted on well after the fact. The fundamentals are what the kids get instilled with “mother’s milk”, as the saying goes. Absent those things being properly emplaced, no amount of after-the-fact moralizing is going to be of avail.

                      Seriously, how the hell are you getting what you’re describing out of what I’m writing? Your replies are like a funhouse mirror version of what I’m trying to get across, and re-reading it… It still seems crystalline-clear.

                      The legalisms are immaterial to the reality of self-will and self-motivation. People are going to do what they will, no matter what the law says. And, if what they will is evil, then we’ll see evil result. If what they will is good, and positive, then that is what will be done instead of evil. The law is merely a dry codification of what lies beneath, and it actually isn’t at all effective, because with evil will, the malefactor will find a way to twist the written law to their benefit, while those of good intent will follow and obey the spirit of the law.

                    3. Look, if you were correct, then there would be no need for laws.

                      We’ve tried that. It doesn’t work.

                      It’s never worked.


            2. *chuckling at the story* Thanks for the share.

              Frankly, I think there needs to be a lot more of the Good People who are like that (just not applied to a lawn though). The really good ones really positively influence a place about the social rules. From what you say, all anyone ever got was yelled at, and fear of his reputation was the rest of the enforcing discipline.

              It’s fiction, but there was a side character who was said to be famous for being a Jewish gang hitman; the rumor that made him feared was one of the ways he made sure that his bodies disappeared was the story that he’d grind up the bones and hide them in sacks of flour, which he then got rid of by baking bread and selling at his bakery. By the time you meet him, he’s an old fellow, but there’s an incident where the bad guys freak out when he shows up to save the main protagonist’s kids and drives the bad guys away by sheer reputation. He laughs about the rumor about baking bones into bread loaves (that’s now kosher, now is it?), hints that he helped spread that story to make him less likely to get messed with and never denies outright on being part of a gang in the past. (Robert K Tanenbaum’s legal thriller series of books.)

        2. “At that point, what point banning anything? The average Joe will be able to fab whatever chemicals he likes, in the privacy of his own home.”

          Only if “the average Joe” can identify and replace the firmware chip SOMEWHERE on the system that hard codes “Before commencing manufacture, phone home and announce what you’re making and where the design came from; if encrypted acknowledgement not received, refuse to make and call cops” without destroying the functionality of the printer.

          Will someone be able to work out a bypass? Absolutely, but it won’t be Average Joe. The whole point of security isn’t to prevent anyone from theft; it’s raising the threshold of tools and knowledge to the point that the number of thieves is limited.

          For a case study, read “A Certain Talent” in “Worlds of Weber”.

  27. I strongly disapprove of most of the recreational drugs. However, if you do it responsibly, and not around me in the case of marijuana, which I take offense at on basis of smell, fine. $10 fine for public intoxication, restitution for property damage, hanging for death or bodily harm.

  28. I vaguely remember the Sudafed-behind-counters thing had a lot more to do with what the bad guys would do to get it than with people buying it.

    It’s a stupid kludge, but basically if you make it a low-level controlled substance, you can see when a bunch of it is “randomly” going missing in an area, before the meth cooker blows up his house, and the ones on either side, with everyone in them.

    (Or sets the forest on fire. Or wherever they’re hiding the shop.)

  29. “Finally someone told us it contains sudafed, so it’s behind the counter and you have to sign for it.”

    I ran into this in Phoenix with Advil Sinus. Its a non-prescription drug, but they won’t sell it to you if you don’t have “paperwork”. I had to provide as much proof of residence as I would to buy a gun. I had to come up with a passport, an electric bill and a few other things.

    Thing is, if I drove out of Maricopa County, all the rules would change. It is a county-level intervention. Local politicians looking busy, essentially.

    This is what local politicians do INSTEAD OF working with the cops to fix a problem with meth cookers. They create some obscene snarl of Catch 22 regulations, fuck over the public, and announce that they are Doing Something To Protect Your Children!!! usually with a press conference and one of those big checks, maybe a nice ribbon cutting.

    But why? For f- sakes, why do it that way? Its insane, right?

    If you drove a sniffer truck through some sketchy neighborhoods, sniffing for butane and ether, you could probably bust a bunch of drug labs pretty easy. These are not smart people. Or you could trace the electrical grid and look for illegal hookups, another dead giveaway. Not hard to find them.

    BUT, there’s no -money- in busting a drug lab. It’s expensive, arresting those clowns. Got the police budget to think about, right?

    What does it cost the county to pass an idiotic regulation forcing all cold medicines behind a wall of paperwork? Nothing! The pharmacist (the public really) bears all the costs of compliance.

    That’s why.

    1. These are not smart people.
      Well, no matter how they started out, after doing meth they certainly aren’t smart anymore. If anything kills brain cells faster, it might be becoming a progressive, but that’s about it.

      1. They’re working with ether, which if I remember right used to be used as rocket fuel, and they’re vaporizing it with heat. So your working meth cooker is a fuel/air bomb waiting for a spark. That’s a very high level of stupid even before the amphetamines start to work getting through the clothing and skin to eat neurons.

        People commonly do this stuff where they live. Imagine the 24/7 contact with the dust on every surface, clothing, bedding, floors…

  30. It’s always the 1% that screws it up for the rest of us. And the legal compliance nightmare infects more people (LITERALLY infects) as it takes at least 15 minutes to do the paperwork. And God forbid you need a refill! It’s twenty questions, and you go on a list of potential drug abusers!!! Dammit.

    1. Don’t remember the name of the prescription now, but had to have been a scheduled drug of some sort because the lectures when refilling were epic, and this was all happening well before the war on prescription over prescribing of opioids. Muscle relaxant for my back spasms. Would be given 14 days worth.

      Okay. When first got them. Yes warnings taken to heart. Especially since I know my system overreacts to these type of drugs. And yes, never ever got conditioned to it, in fact efficiency got better on same prescribed dosage (but try to get medical people to believe that! In fact, took less than prescribed.) When spasms triggered it was 5 to 7 days of these 3x a day plus OTC pain meds, to get the spams to stop; I was down for the count. Note, the 5 to 7 days was AFTER I got the medication. Never at the start of the problem. For a while a week or two, then they’d trigger again. One prescription would cover both instances. What I learned, over time, was I could head OFF the full scale incidents, if I used the prescription at the start of the triggered event, I could stop the full blown down-for-the-count back spasms; usually. At this point 1 prescription would last 18 MONTHS. Guess what. Full blown incidents were only triggering when I ran out of the prescriptions. Didn’t matter. It was like pulling hens teeth to get the prescription that round. A prescription that most of got turned in due to it being non use and well out of date.

      Haven’t taken the medication for years now. Yes. Still can have the back spasms. Love Chiropractors … Have some exercises that I do every morning that may help prevent the trigger. And other movements that I can preform to undo the trigger. But, if that fails – Chiropractor NOW. — Hips get out of alignment making one leg slightly longer. Pulls tendons in hips and lower back, which then triggers muscles in back to try and support triggering the back spasms. Had one incident where everything was in alignment, but back still tender from the spasms, felt the alignment go out/back-in. Holy Hell.

        1. Thanks. Nice to know.

          Haven’t had an incident since I quit work. (knocking on wood.) Suspect desk/chair combo was a problem. Got somewhat better when I changed to a bouncy ball chair (didn’t have to balance with the chair part included.) Suspect with the office now having desks that allow you to either sit or stand to work would make it even better. But wouldn’t know. They’ve done that within the last 12 months. I’ve been retired for over 3 years.

      1. On turning in medications because they are out of date: expiration dates are set by proving a drug has a certain percentage of original potency by a certain date. Consider the rationale for proving your product is good for much longer than tested as opposed to selling a new supply at regular intervals.

        1. True. It was YEARS beyond the “use by date.” Figured it was time to get rid of …

    1. Having met our resident minotaur, I admit I did not immediately connect him to this story, though I was precaffeine condition at reading.

      1. Assuming all minotaurs are related seems speciesist. Besides, Orvan doesn’t have aught Irish accent at all, to be sure.

        Besides, the article specified “cow” and it is well known that minotaurs are all bull.

  31. Hi Sarah,

    In my state you also have to go inside and sign for sinus pills. It could be worse. In some states you have to have a prescription. And I too think it’s ridiculous.

    1. And there are multiple, public web forums out there full of chemists (both degreed and self-educated) trading recipes, procedures, and test results for DIY pharmaceuticals. That’s where some of the more-gruesome “synthetic” drugs originated.

      The DEA keeps ratcheting down on “precursor” chemicals, so the DIYers simply work around them or start at a lower level. But the DEA has gone about as far as they can go in that direction; they’re perilously close to the same point the ATF got to when they went after DIY rocket makers who pointed out that their solid fuel rocket motors were made out of common food products and additives and were technically still edible…

      It doesn’t matter if any individual stoner doesn’t have the motivation to make his own drugs; *someone* will fill that market, and even STASI-level enforcement isn’t going to be able to stop it.

  32. As to the drug war issues…
    One thing we have to do is get the first things first. And that means we have to fix the responsibility issues before we can fix the drug issue. And the nihilism.

    Yeah, I know, I’m not asking for much there.

Comments are closed.