HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

OT?: Yet another example of Big Pharma putting profits over the public good?

Support Forums
>
Ulcerative Colitis
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 9/27/2013 1:59 PM (GMT 0)
www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/meth-pseudoephedrine-big-pharma-lobby
Meth users called it the "shake- and-bake" or "one-pot" method, and its key feature was to greatly simplify the way meth is synthesized from pseudoephedrine, a decongestant found in cold and allergy medicines like Claritin D and Sudafed.

Shake and bake did two things. It took a toxic and volatile process that had once been the province of people with Breaking Bad-style knowledge of chemistry and put it in the bedrooms and kitchens of meth users in rural America. It also produced the most potent methamphetamine anywhere.

(...until 1976, pseudoephedrine had been a prescription drug. He asked lawmakers to return it to that status).

Perhaps nowhere has the battle been harder fought than in Kentucky, where Big Pharma's trade group has broken lobbying spending records in 2010 and 2012, beating back cops, doctors, teachers, drug experts, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle.

In the past several years, lawmakers in 25 states have sought to make pseudoephedrine—the one irreplaceable ingredient in a shake-and-bake lab—a prescription drug. In all but two—Oregon and Mississippi—they have failed as the industry, which sells an estimated $605 million worth of pseudoephedrine-based drugs a year, has deployed all-star lobbying teams and campaign-trail tactics such as robocalls and advertising blitzes.

Since the bill became Oregon law in 2006, the number of meth labs found in Oregon has fallen 96 percent. Children are no longer being pulled from homes with meth labs, and police officers have been freed up to pursue leads instead of cleaning up labs and chasing smurfers. In 2008, Oregon experienced the largest drop in violent-crime rates in the country. By 2009, property crime rates fell to their lowest in 43 years. That year, overall crime in Oregon reached a 40-year low. The state's Criminal Justice Commission credited the pseudoephedrine prescription bill...

Post Edited (BabeintheWoods) : 9/27/2013 3:40:20 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 9/28/2013 12:16 AM (GMT 0)
Don't make my ClaritinD a prescription drug noooo.
But if it would stop meth labs I would be willing to pay a few more dollars for it because I don't use that many pills per year.
In Florida it is kept behind the pharmacy counter and in order to buy it you must show ID because you are limited in purchase quantity per month. They keep track of you for Claritin but not for guns lol.
It is a very highly shoplifted item (ClaritinD not guns).
Posted 9/28/2013 12:00 PM (GMT 0)
Don't make my ClaritinD a prescription drug noooo... In Florida it is kept behind the pharmacy counter and in order to buy it you must show ID because you are limited in purchase quantity per month.

Showing ID isn't going to help, there are too many ways to get around it. The only effective way is what Oregon and Mississippi did to snuff out meth addiction, once again make pseudoephedrine a prescription drug, which it was until 1976.

the article said...
But the meth cooks soon came up with a work-around: They organized groups of people to make the rounds of pharmacies, each buying the maximum amount allowed—a practice known as smurfing. How to stop these sales? Bovett remembered that until 1976, pseudoephedrine had been a prescription drug. He asked lawmakers to return it to that status.

For Big Pharma, however, Oregon's measure was a major defeat—and the industry was not about to let it happen again. "They've learned from their mistakes in Oregon, they've learned from their mistakes in Mississippi," says Marshall Fisher, who runs the Bureau of Narcotics in Mississippi. "They know if another state falls, and has the results that we've had, the chances of national legislation are that much closer. Every year they can fight this off is another year of those profits.

Posted 9/28/2013 5:57 PM (GMT 0)
I am not sure about either of your points. You do seem to have two. One is about controllig this substance, and the other is about big pharma. Even if it is prescription, I think corporations still make a lot of money because it will be paid by ins companies. Still, there must be some reason they are so active in lobbying. Overall I think it might be best to keep the two issues a little separate.

I think addressing addiction and poverty might be better goals than trying to make every potential substance controlled. There will always be another substance. Just look at artificial pot isue. As fast as they outlaw one molecule, another is invented.

I do find these meds very useful when I get a bad cold. I get it from behind the counter. I do not want to have to pay $$, and maybe wait a few days, for a doctor visit just to get them. I'm selfish. I want my sinus relief.
Posted 9/28/2013 11:12 PM (GMT 0)
Yeah, I would not be happy if I had to wait/pay for a doc appointment to get the only decongesant that works for me when i get a bad cold.
My state makes you sign for it. Not a perfect solution because I expect it just moves the problem to another state! Or I have heard they pay armies of schmucks to buy it, two packages at a time...
Posted 9/28/2013 11:15 PM (GMT 0)
And, drug companies are investor-owned and in business to make money, that's just the way it is.
Posted 9/28/2013 11:55 PM (GMT 0)
There was an interview on "Fresh Air" last night on this subject. It's online.

In Kentucky (where I live) the pharma folks pumped in about 300K prior to the legislature voting against making the pseudos prescription-only. The bill never got out of committee.

KY has hundreds of counties, and the state legislature can seldom agree on anything.
Posted 9/29/2013 2:24 AM (GMT 0)
Drug companies are investor-owned and in business to make money, that's just the way it is...
Even if it is prescription, I think corporations still make a lot of money because it will be paid by ins companies. Still, there must be some reason they are so active in lobbying...


DUH! Maybe the drug companies can sell more if there are addicts and their smurfs desperately trying to buy more and more to feed their addiction. Mississippi had a 99.5 percent drop in pseudoephedrine sold after the prescription law went into effect in 2010.

Don't make my ClaritinD a prescription drug noooo...
I do not want to have to pay $$, and maybe wait a few days, for a doctor visit just to get them. I'm selfish. I want my sinus relief...
Yeah, I would not be happy if I had to wait/pay for a doc appointment to get the only decongesant that works for me when i get a bad cold...

The article above has this link that shows the cost of meth addiction, and how those costs in wasted lives and treasure dropped drastically in Oregon and Mississippi after pseudoephedrine became a prescription drug in those states. Meth addiction is still growing exponentially in states like Kentucky and Indiana. But I guess you think that is still not worth the inconvenience of barring OTC sales.
www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/big-pharma-pseudoephedrine-meth-statistics

This 2nd link shows graphic before and after pictures of meth addicts. Crystal meth is the most addictive substance on earth, once you take it you are on the road to perdition. If you guys really believe that it is OK for drug companies to make money from this then I really don't know what to say.
www.motherjones.com/media/2013/08/meth-addicts-before-and-after-photos

Post Edited (BabeintheWoods) : 9/29/2013 10:59:52 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 9/30/2013 1:34 PM (GMT 0)

Bella'smom said...
In Kentucky (where I live) the pharma folks pumped in about 300K prior to the legislature voting against making the pseudos prescription-only. The bill never got out of committee.
KY has hundreds of counties, and the state legislature can seldom agree on anything.

I live in KY too and am sorry to see the legislature not agree on this.
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply