I read something in the Tulsa World today that made my head explode (probably because my head was already so congested), "State Rep. Lucky Lamons said Thursday that he will introduce legislation next session to require people seeking pseudoephedrine pills to have a prescription."
I've done a little research on the matter; after searching Google, reading a few study abstracts, reading anecdotal evidence tendered by pharmacists, and discussing the matter with a tenured professor of immunology at OU, I've determined that this is a really bad idea. So I sent the following letter to Lucky Lamons.
Representative Lamons,Due to copyright concerns, I wont post the study I referenced in my letter to Lucky, however, if you are interested in seeing it, please email me and I'll forward it to you.
I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but I fear that your proposed legislation to force law abiding citizens to get a prescription for a safe and effective decongestant is not in the best interests of Oklahomans. I urge you to read this attached study published in 2006. It suggests that phenylephrine, which has been used to replace pseudoephedrine, is not effective as a decongestant. "The only study involving an oral dose of PE reported that 10 mg PE was no more effective than placebo as a nasal decongestant."
I believe your legislation will have the following effects:
1. Law abiding citizens who suffer from nasal allergies and congestion will be unable or unwilling to go through the hassle to get pseudoephedrine but will instead use the over the counter phenylephrine.
2. This will further demonstrate to pharmaceutical companies that pseudoephedrine is not viable for profits. They will cut back on production and may even stop producing it all together in favor of phenylephrine.
3. Meth cooks have already demonstrated the ability to change their methods to adapt to laws passed by well meaning legislators such as yourself (case in point the new, more dangerous cooking method), and they will do so again.
4. The people who will suffer the most will be law abiding citizens.
I urge you to re-consider your legislation. Instead of targeting pseudoephedrine, target the people who are breaking the law. Target the people who produce, sell, buy, and consume Meth.
2 comments:
I was Lucky Lamons’ opponent in the 2008 general election and will be again running for State House District 66 in 2010. Your comments are right on point. This is boneheaded legislation. I would like to add one additional thought. We are having this health care debate in our country right now. One of the problems is the cost of health care. We should be making MORE drugs available over the counter rather than the reverse. People cannot afford to go to their doctor every time they need some cold medicine. This proposed legislation is not going to stop people from making or obtaining methamphetamine and is simply going to continue to increase the costs of health care. Mr. Lamons needs to be replaced in 2010.
I am opposed to legislation to make pseudoepredrine a prescription drug. The drug companies already have the technology to put PSE in a gel cap, which cannot be used to make meth. Why don't we make the drug companies put the medication in a form that isn't desirable to the drug addicts?
Post a Comment