Vodkapundit complains about the War on Drugs going after Nyquil.
To an extent he has a point. There's a reason prohibition was repealed, and all that. On the other hand, it does appear to be working -- I don't have the specifics on hand, but they did run a piece on the news a few days ago about how, in the areas where they've cracked down the most, the prevalence of meth labs has gone down over 70 percent. (That leaves unanswered the question of whether it's worth it, whether it works or not: Red Russia had a low crime rate, in some areas, but most of us would agree it wasn't quite worth it.)
However, he leaves undiscussed the other reason manufacturers were already reducing their use of pseudoephedrine: health liability from normal people. True, they wouldn't have dropped it nearly so fast (or, depending on the number of lawsuits, at all) without governmental pressure, but there has still been a significant number of cases of people -- such as myself -- who don't realize until after they've taken Sudafed that it does very bad things to their heart. (Yes, it's similar to that stuff they've removed from many diet pills, in that case due to liability rather than to governmental pressure.) With more and more brands adding it to their standard mix (why sell plain Robitussin? let's add pseudoephedrine to it!), it's rather a relief to some of us to find it losing its shelf space!
Idaho is in meth country. As inconvenient as it is to get Sudafed, I fall on the side of it being worth it. From what I understand even of alcohol Prohibition, it did work in that less people drank, it just created more problems than it was solving. I'm not sure that's the case with Sudafed.
On the diet pill, if you're talking about ephedra, there was significant pressure to take that off the market. In fact, Bush singled it out to be regulated by the FDA.
If you're not talking about ephedra, did another one go off the market?
Posted by: R. Alex | December 14, 2005 at 11:57 AM
I should add that I do agree with the basic argument that this does not belong in the Patriot Act. Or, really, in the federal government at all. I'm speaking more broadly of pseudoephedrine-based products.
Also, re-reading your post I misread your post as to which was caused by gov't pressure and which by liability. My bad.
Posted by: R. Alex | December 14, 2005 at 12:04 PM