A while back, there was a failed effort in the Missouri legislature to require a prescription when buying anything with pseudoephedrine. That's a key ingredient in meth -- and it's also found in many over-the-counter cold remedies like Sudafed. The average consumer hated the idea, and it never went anywhere.
Except in Washington, Mo., where the city council has just passed such a law -- the first in the U.S., the Post-Dispatch reports. There's some debate whether this is actually legal. Both the state and the feds, after all, say Sudafed and similar meds are OK to be sold without prescriptions.


It's not legal, prescriptions are controlled federally, not on the local level. They must have a major meth problem down there.
Posted by: Searching | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 08:18 AM
I think it's a bit messed up, since you can make drugs out of tons of other things that aren't controlled.
Posted by: D-man | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 08:29 AM
This is BS. I am sure the fine folks in Washington, MO are most likely poor to middle class. So now, they have to take time out of their work to go to the dr to get a perscription, pay the doctor co-pay, as well as the perscription charge. Got a bunch of genius running around that is for sure...
Posted by: AJ | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 08:47 AM
AJ how wrong you are my friend. Washington is a pretty affluent suburb of StL(almost a suburb 30 miles west). Back in the late 90's it was #3 in the nation for millionairs per capita not sure where they stand currently. Average home cost is about 30-40k higher than Kansas City. So educate yourself before you question others.
Posted by: Chuck Rizzo | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 09:17 AM
Okay Chuck-my bad, but my point still stands! It is a rediculous "law."
Posted by: AJ | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 09:21 AM
Chuck you are the very LAST person to be telling ANYBODY to educate themselves.
Posted by: Jane | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 09:26 AM
Really? why am I the last, I thought I should be first.
Your point does still stand, it won't effect anything because not all the pharmacy's or places that sell the product are in the city limits, pretty much just trying to make parents feel better.
Posted by: Chuck Rizzo | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 09:44 AM
Chances are the only reason it passed there is because all the scaredy rich people thought it was a "Great" idea to keep those poor meth makers out of their back yards and make it feel like they did something good.
Idiots, they'll just make it in the next town over and bring it in for those stay at home mom's that have to do anything to stay thin and will resort to using Meth to keep a slim figure. So suck on that you rich idiots.
Posted by: You're a Mean Drunk R2D2™ | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 09:53 AM
Exactly Mean Drunk!
Posted by: REALLY!?! | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 09:58 AM
What's wierd is its already made out in the boonies, it isn't manufactured in the town at all. So I don't think it really stops anything.
So Mean Drunk they already make it in the next town over. I think one reason is that for the area Washington is the largest town (I know 15k people isn't that big) but the surrounding area is much smaller and thus a much smaller supply of the needed materials. Again they already make it outside the town, I guess they just want the meth heads to drive further to get their meds. I don't know.
Posted by: Chuck Rizzo | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Again the rights of the legal are infringed to TRY to control the illegal criminal elements.
This is stupid. It will only make people go to their doctors and pay office visit fees. What is next? Prescriptions for aspirin or other over the counter meds??
Go after the criminals and start giving them stiffer sentences. Go after the USERS and make them suffer for THEIR crimes too.
HIT THE CRIMINALS OF THE METH CULTURE HARD WITH PUNISHMENT.
Posted by: ghost | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Chuck... The meth heads won't have to drive that far to get their fix. The dealers are already in town and the stay thin at any cost meth head moms are great customers.
Posted by: You're a Mean Drunk R2D2™ | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 11:23 AM
I should have said the cookers of the meth.
Posted by: Chuck Rizzo | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Just ban pseudoephedrine completely.
The side effects are worse then the flu - Blurred vision; constipation; diarrhea; dizziness; drowsiness; dry mouth, nose, or throat; excitability; headache; increased sweating; loss of appetite; nausea; nervousness or anxiety; trouble sleeping; upset stomach; vomiting; weakness.
Posted by: Sweet Jon E | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 03:43 PM
I think I'm having a pseudoephedrine attack:(
I'd better go to the ER.
Posted by: 146 | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 05:25 PM
Sweet Jon E, Can you describe what it's like to have constipation and diarrhea at the same time. Sounds like a bad day to me.
Posted by: D-man | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 05:30 PM
I took ephedrine for a little pick me up for thirty years and it keep me awake at night while driving,never took meth never been addicted. The government always has to stick there nose into everything. Their is just as much meth on the streets as ever, maybe more,and look at how many bust there has been and it still keeps on coming.
Posted by: LARRY | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 06:20 PM
Sweet John--Are you just reading the back of the box or is this from personal experience? I've relied on pseudophedrine for over 20yrs & despite Sudafed's new non-pseudophedrine version still prefer it. Insist on it. I wish legislators would get out of our medicine cabinets & focus on real problems. All these laws have done is to shift meth production to Mexico, resulting in richer Mexican drug lords, and bigger drug pipeline from the south. Meanwhile honest citizens can't get relief.
Posted by: sly | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 07:31 PM
So the fact you were addicted, er I mean relied on, an over-the-counter RX is your arguement to keep it on the shelf?
If they banned it then 90% of the meth labs would close. Sometimes people need to make sacrifices for the greater good.
By the way. the side effects are from google.
Posted by: Sweet Jon E | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 08:26 PM
what difference does it make? Just go to the next county and stock up!
Posted by: Sally | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Google...Did they open a medical school I didn't know about?
Anyway, I take the good Sudafed because the version without pseudoephedrine DOES NOT WORK. It ticks me off when I would like to clear my nose for bed and I have to drive across town to the 24 hour CVS because I cannot get it at my neighborhood store.
It does seem that the only things that get cracked down on are things that actually work for people.
Posted by: Danny | Monday, July 13, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Oh pooh, blame it on Bush, everybody else does for everything else.
Posted by: Drasil | Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 05:35 AM
"If they banned it then 90% of the meth labs would close."
Yes, in the US anyway. But as someone else said, Mexico is always there to fill in the gaps and make a (un)healthy profit.
Posted by: Sasquach | Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 07:46 AM