> Maybe license people to buy meds and take it away if they abuse it? That's better than the draconian system we have now.

I sympathize with your broader point, but... how is that better? "Sorry, you were buying too much nasal decongestant a decade ago, so no cancer medication for you"?

I understood your parent comment in a specific drug way: you can buy pseudo until your license to buy that specific compound, or maybe a group or related chemicals, is revoked. But you can still get any other compound.

Not that different from current situation: we have all our "license" to buy scheduled compounds revoked, but we still can get a lot of other compounds.

How is that any better than the current system which is just “no cancer medication for you”?

I think they were deliberately pointing out the absurdity by comparing it to other far more dangerous things we just waive off if you have a license.

I read a study here in Australia a little while ago that showed that removal of easily accessible pseudoephedrine had done nothing to either stop the proliferation of clandestine labs, nor curtail the availability of crystal meth. They just switched to different syntheses, and there are still large-scale imports that sometimes get caught, sometimes don't.

People were still trying to claim the program was a success because they had stopped gangs getting pseudo as a precursor.

But so what? it's done literally nothing to stop criminals profiting, nor to stop people getting addicted to meth, with all the associated public health and petty-criminal consequences of that. And now it's harder for ordinary people to get effective decongestant.

It just seems that nobody is willing to admit the whole thing was pointless.

Same in New Zealand, we removed pseudoephedrine as an option unless you had a special dispensation from the Ministry of Health - mainly due to pharmacies being ram-raided for the pseudo.

The end result? The gangs just started importing pseudo, before later just switching to importing methamphetamine directly (something that Australia's deportation policies really helped with as the "501s" as we call them that were deported back to NZ often had existing connections that could facilitate the direct importation of meth).

It's a really interesting supply chain that involves organised crime groups in multiple countries, often starts in India for the precursors, then clandestine labs in Laos/Vietnam/Thailand overseen by Chinese groups in conjunction with local groups, then smuggled via the Pacific Islands, notably Fiji and Samoa where the Chinese groups have established transshipment facilities, before being smuggled into Australia and NZ by local groups who then distribute and supply it.

A new development has been the Central American cartels branching out from cocaine to meth so there's been a bunch of meth coming directly from the Americas.

The car stat is a good example of trying new policies to lower car deaths! They are the greatest risk to my children's lives and I find it terrifying that we let them roll around everywhere so close to people, like we do in parking lots.

>Maybe license people to buy meds and take it away if they abuse it?

I'm a bit confused, because you can buy it already with an ID, correct? You don't even need a purchasing license, just a drivers license or other government ID.

No, they mean you get a license to buy meds and that license gets revoked if you abuse them. Not that you need a _driving_ license to buy meds.

It is even easier to get in Singapore.

Really? As in, in spite of how bonkers the overall import rules in Singapore are?

I just travelled there few weeks ago, and the government websites made it sound like it’s best to just not bring any pills at all (or chewing gum).

- Tool you can to use to check active ingredients and whether its allowed: https://www.hsa.gov.sg/personal-medication/check-requirement...

- Anything that might be controlled/require prescription, have to apply for permit it to bring it: https://www.hsa.gov.sg/personal-medication/submit-applicatio...

- They provide a tool to show illegal health products. Better not bring one of them: https://oscar.hsa.gov.sg/Publication/ahpdm/faces/AHPPublicat...

It's the same in Singapore.

You can only buy from a pharmacist (behind the counter) and you need to provide your national ID number. Your purchase is put in a database that any pharmacist can see.

> Pseudoephedrine being pulled from the shelves is one of the biggest crimes of our time.

What's even worse, modern pseudoephedrine is produced in a form that makes meth synthesis from it extremely tedious and generally impossible in home conditions: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3793278/

99% of pseudoephedrine sold is not this form and this specific product has already been debunked years ago with Mississippi's complete ban (and their refusal to allow it.)

I remember the video of the pharma rep or cop or whoever trying to make meth out of the new pills and the product getting squishy. Months later, a different video was published, where some household solvent was used to easily pull the very-dissolvable pseudoephedrine salts from the paste.

> Pseudoephedrine should be easy and plentiful to obtain

Anything that isn't directly physically addictive (e.g. opiates) or subject to a tragedy of the commons (e.g. antibiotics) should be over the counter.

Addictive is the argument in favor of making it over the counter. Addicts will do whatever it takes to get their fix, so if there isn't a legal path, they buy on the street, creating a funding source for organized crime and spurring gang violence.

Then, because the black market is already in violation of the law, there are no purity standards. The customer who thinks they're getting Adderall or codeine is actually getting fentanyl because fentanyl's much higher potency makes it easier to smuggle, but for the same reason makes it much more prone to addiction and overdose, especially when careless street dealers get their proportions wrong. All of which is avoided if you just let them buy it from the pharmacy.

Notice that there is no thriving black market for antibiotics propping up international drug cartels, because they're not addictive.

Strongly agreed, with one correction: black markets are driven by shortage. The role of addiction is in creating demand, and at the same time making authorities restrict access.

There is no thriving black market for antibiotics, because they are accessible when you need them (and most people need them very infrequently for a short duration). In contrast, I believe there is a black market for insulin in the US, and that's because of how ridiculously expensive it is. Exuberant pricing is a form of restricting access, too.

*Exorbitant?

> Addictive is the argument in favor of making it over the counter

You want to control the general population’s access to physically-addictive substances to control addiction. Managing addicts is not a pharmaceutical matter.

We don't control access to alcohol, paints/volatiles, aerosols, and so many other things people abuse.

Just yesterday on Reddit there was a thread that went viral for "cutter" reviews on Shein razor blades, with cutesy language like "beautiful beans for my followers" (referring to subcutaneous dermal appearance when deeply cut open). Every product can be abused in horrible ways. It's the nature of the stochastic bubble we're in. People will find every nook and cranny of the human experience.

You can't stop this stuff from happening. So at least let the normal use cases that benefit society through. Don't put everyone else in the same straight jacket. We don't deserve to be punished for the bad gradients some people fall into.

Ok, if you want to control it, than mediate access through a public health institution.

You can get it in the UK, fortunately.[0]

0: https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/pseudoephedrine/about-pseudoeph...

It is a bit silly to ban a useful drug like pseudoephedrine while large parts of the US is in an opioid crisis. Kind of like how lawn darts have disappeared from stores but you can still buy all sorts of weapons. That said, a lot of laws are based on established traditions. Alcohol use goes back thousands of years, and the other things you mentioned such as vehicles and weapons are tools going back even longer. They are dangerous tools, to be sure, and often employed unnecessarily in this society, but tools nonetheless. Once upon a time most people depended on their weapons and vehicles to survive, and differences in the quality and quantity of weapons and transportation technology have historically led to the rise and fall of entire civilizations.

> I don't care if people use it to make meth. What they do in their private time doesn't concern me.

You ever seen a meth lab that blew up?

I've seen fireworks, gas stoves, portable electric heaters, peanut oil deep fried turkeys, etc.