Another Reason to HATE the USA PATRIOT Act.

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Just when you thought your President needed to renew the Patriot Act to protect you from Terrorist, you find another BombShell Like this.

As of Sunday, September 30, 2006, you will no longer be able to purchase common cold medicines without showing your photo identification, and signing a log book indicating how much you purchased.

Sudafed is a hair's breath away from being a controlled substance (or hell, maybe it is a controlled substance).

You will be limited to purchasing a 30 day supply (3.6 grams per day - or something close to that). You've got a family of four children, and they all get a cold at the same time ... too bad.

President Bush is determined to Protect YOU against Sudafed.



To those who decried the Democrats when they fought against the renewal of the Patriot Act last December --- what you so, so shall you reap.
 

mrhnau

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
34
Location
NC
Just when you thought your President needed to renew the Patriot Act to protect you from Terrorist, you find another BombShell Like this.

As of Sunday, September 30, 2006, you will no longer be able to purchase common cold medicines without showing your photo identification, and signing a log book indicating how much you purchased.

Reference please. and not www.conspiracynut.com
 

crushing

Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
5,082
Reaction score
134
To those who decried the Democrats when they fought against the renewal of the Patriot Act last December --- what you so, so shall you reap.

Maybe some of the people decrying the Democrats were doing it not because they faught against the renewal, but because they were instrumental in getting the renewal after the Combat Meth Act was added.

From Sen. Feinstein's own website:

http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-meth-patriot.htm

The finish line is in sight, Senator Feinstein said. With this agreement on the Patriot Act, Congress is but a step away from passing the most significant anti-meth bill in a decade. The heart of this legislation is a strong standard for keeping pseudophedrine products out of the hands of meth cooks. This includes a limit on how much cold medicine with pseudophedrine can be purchased both daily and monthly, moving these products behind the counter, and requiring purchasers to show identification and sign a log book. Were close. Now weve got to finish the job.
 

Kreth

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Messages
6,980
Reaction score
86
Location
Oneonta, NY
I expect a ban on cigarette lighters and spoons any day now... :rolleyes:
 

CoryKS

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
4,403
Reaction score
183
Location
Olathe, KS
Don't blame Bush, blame the rednecks who keep blowing up their houses cooking this crap. Come on out to Independence MO, and I'll show you why "Protecting YOU against Sudafed" isn't nearly as ridiculous as you might think.
 

Blotan Hunka

Master Black Belt
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
20
So What? They put video games and cigarettes behind the counter to prevent theft. My only beef with it is the typical "roll it in" tactic of stuffing other legislation into a bill. Keep the Partiot act about terrorism. Pass a separate bill for this stuff.
 

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
Provisions like this in MN and WI have cut our home-brewed meth supply by 80%. This doesn't have to be viewed as a bad thing...
 

SFC JeffJ

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
9,141
Reaction score
43
I was never a big fan of the patriot act in the first place.

This, if they wanted it so bad, should have been a seperate bill.

Then again, adding amendments to bills is a wonderful way for the legislative branch to get stuff by us on the sly. Heck, they've got stuff past the president in the past this way.

Jeff
 

Ping898

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
3,669
Reaction score
25
Location
Earth
Eh, I have to say this one doesn't bother me as much. I am no fan of the Patriot Act, but a lot of states already have a similar type law in effect, so not like usurping anyone else's plans. Also it is not Sudafed, it is the main ingredient of Sudafed that is being restricted and so a lot of the meds that use the psuedophedine(sp?) are now moving to another main ingredient in it's place that isn't used to make meth so you will still be able to get the drug without ID. Not clue if drug is as effective though.

It doesn't belong in the Patriot Act, but I am ok with it as a law.
 

Touch Of Death

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
11,610
Reaction score
845
Location
Spokane Valley WA
Don't blame Bush, blame the rednecks who keep blowing up their houses cooking this crap. Come on out to Independence MO, and I'll show you why "Protecting YOU against Sudafed" isn't nearly as ridiculous as you might think.
I'll have you know our Methheads in Spokane are not all rednecks! LOL
Sean
 

Kacey

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
16,462
Reaction score
226
Location
Denver, CO
I agree with what many people have said - I have no problem with restricting access to pseudoephedrine and related substances as a means of reducing methamphetamine production, but I do think it should be a separate law, not as part of the Patriot Act.
 

Touch Of Death

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
11,610
Reaction score
845
Location
Spokane Valley WA
I agree with what many people have said - I have no problem with restricting access to pseudoephedrine and related substances as a means of reducing methamphetamine production, but I do think it should be a separate law, not as part of the Patriot Act.
Watch "Drug Store Cowboy". There is a political rant worth thinking about. Sean
 
OP
M

michaeledward

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
82
Wow ... I can't believe this reaction.

Now certainly, I know my political positions often draw an instinctive response from some - if I am for something, I must be wrong, so they are naturally against it. So, we expect some of that.

But this product has been approved by the FDA as what is referred to as an 'over the counter' drug. That means, safe, when used as directed for all persons. You do not need a medical doctors perscription to take this drug (which ever version covered - even though I pointed to Sudafed - the ban is on three different chemicals).

Law abiding citizens are now suffering restricted access to this medication because of the way criminals use the medicine.

Change the word medicine to firearm - and many of those here argue the other way. Law abiding citizens should not suffer restrictions because of the way criminals use the (fill in the noun here). How many guns can you buy at a firearms show? Isn't the argument that we should 'enforce the laws on the books'?

But, take it one step further ... what we are dealing with here is chemistry. Those meth labs are taking chemical compounds and combining them in pretty sophisticated ways to produce a desired result. Restricting the access to a raw material is not going eliminate the problem. Using the same techniques that created Crystal Meth, the chemists will devise new intoxicating compounds. Would we expect to outlaw Chemistry? (it may be a strech, but not a very far one, I think).

Kudos to those of you who are against sneaking legislation through the back door of the conference committee.
 

mrhnau

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
34
Location
NC
What, do you think I make this **** up?
No, thats why I asked for a legitimate source, so I could read about it. Lower the blood pressure dude...

Law abiding citizens are now suffering restricted access to this medication because of the way criminals use the medicine.

Change the word medicine to firearm - and many of those here argue the other way. Law abiding citizens should not suffer restrictions because of the way criminals use the (fill in the noun here). How many guns can you buy at a firearms show? Isn't the argument that we should 'enforce the laws on the books'?

Don't we have restrictions on weapons? Are you going to tell me that everyone should be able to purchase fully automatic weapons now? I don't see reasonable restrictions on firearms as bad. We have to decide on what is considered reasonable. I think thats whats happening here. People will disagree on whats reasonable. Thats whats great about democracy :)

Kudos to those of you who are against sneaking legislation through the back door of the conference committee.

Laws are not laws until voted on in both houses. That can hardly be considered sneaking. We don't get instant updates on every conference committee meeting (at least I don't look for it). If you are seriously concerned about it, contact your representatives.

Only thing that I consider odd is it being considered part of the Patriot Act, as Kacey and others said. Its perhaps misplaced.
 

Ping898

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
3,669
Reaction score
25
Location
Earth
Laws are not laws until voted on in both houses. That can hardly be considered sneaking. We don't get instant updates on every conference committee meeting (at least I don't look for it).

Of course it can be sneaking, what about the senator like 2 years ago that got a line in one of the laws that essentially let him and some of his aides see any person's tax returns they wanted. No one noticed that until after is was passed in both places.
 

mrhnau

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
34
Location
NC
Of course it can be sneaking, what about the senator like 2 years ago that got a line in one of the laws that essentially let him and some of his aides see any person's tax returns they wanted. No one noticed that until after is was passed in both places.

Good point. I guess some of those bills are so big/long, things can be hidden... I just hope its not intentional :p
 

lenatoi

Green Belt
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
174
Reaction score
1
I agree with what many people have said - I have no problem with restricting access to pseudoephedrine and related substances as a means of reducing methamphetamine production, but I do think it should be a separate law, not as part of the Patriot Act.
I have to say that Kacey out it exactly as I see it.
 
Top