schoen
7 days ago
Context for readers from countries where this isn't an issue, or anyone who hasn't followed decongestant news: one of the most effective decongestants is called pseudoephedrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoephedrine
In the past this was easily available, with the most popular brand being Sudafed. My parents always told me that one should take Sudafed when flying after having had a cold, in order to avoid severe ear pain from the pressure changes, but people would also obviously take it when not flying, just in order to reduce the discomfort of the congestion itself.
Pseudoephedrine is very effective. It is also used to synthesize the somewhat related illegal drug methamphetamine ("meth"). Historically, meth manufacturers would hire people to buy large amounts of pseudoephedrine pills at pharmacies and supermarkets, then grind them up and synthesize meth from them.
In order to deter this, authorities in the U.S. restricted the availability of pseudoephedrine, while not making it prescription-only, by limiting the amount that people could buy, and requiring buyers to show ID and be put on a registry (which law enforcement could use in investigations). I think this is the only drug that is treated this way. Some people stopped buying pseudoephedrine entirely, either because they were offended by these rules or because they were afraid that they could wrongly be implicated in meth investigations if they appeared to buy it too often.
The pharmaceutical industry produced an alternative called phenylephrine, the substance that this proceeding relates to. Most manufacturers of pseudoephedrine-based drugs, including Sudafed, formulated alternative decongestants using phenylephrine. There are no legal restrictions on phenylephrine drugs; one can buy them anonymously and in any quantity. Customers have complained for years that these are much less effective than the original formulations.
A couple of years ago this regulatory authority started looking into the question of whether phenylephrine is actually completely useless as a decongestant (rather than just much worse than pseudoephedrine). Their preliminary review of studies suggested that it is probably, in fact, useless. This proceeding is now proposing to ban it on the grounds that it's ineffective and so people should not be encouraged to buy and use it as a medicine for purposes for which it doesn't actually work.
(There doesn't seem to be much corresponding initiative to remove or reduce the restrictions on pseudoephedrine.)
Zak
6 days ago
The restrictions on purchasing pseudeophedrine should be repealed. Their imposition led methamphetamine manufacturers to switch to a more efficient process based on different ingredients. Purity and production volume increased substantially.
A repeal won't turn back the clock on that of course, but it will make life easier for people with congestion.
ibejoeb
6 days ago
It was a real win/win. Tens of millions of people lost access to an effective drug in order to penalize maybe a few thousand that were using it as a precursor to making mamp.
But, hey, we beat street meth, right?
CrazyStat
6 days ago
> Tens of millions of people lost access
This is a bit hyperbolic. You just have to ask for it at the counter and show ID.
ibejoeb
6 days ago
Only certain documents are accepted: photo documents issued by a US state and certain federal documents. There are some exceptions in the initial act text, but in practice, nobody is going to accept your nursery school record.
There are certainly 10s of millions of people who don't have direct access to this drug.
efitz
6 days ago
And if they require a drivers license but their system is based on an electronic reader and that reader is broken, then you are out of luck. No sudafed for you.
ibejoeb
6 days ago
Pretty sure I've even commented here before about this, but I was refused at an LA Walgreens pharmacy when I presented both a NY ID and a US passport. Would only accept CA ID.
phaedrus441
6 days ago
You honestly think there are 10s of millions of people wanting a decongestant in the United States without ID? This is ridiculous and I agree with the other commenter, a bit hyperbolic.
iterance
6 days ago
26 million Americans lack valid government-issued IDs, and of this 26m, minority groups comprise the vast majority.
https://bluenotary.us/how-many-american-citizens-don-t-have-...
phaedrus441
6 days ago
Wow I was surprised by this figure, so I tried to find the source everyone quotes. It appears to be a 2006 telephone survey of 987 randomly-selected voting age citizens that were then weighted for an underrepresentation of race (so perhaps not that accurate). Anecdotally, I work in a safety net hospital and it is really rare for someone to come in without ID, which is why those numbers seemed so surprising to me...
https://www.brennancenter.org/media/6697/download
I could easily have missed a better or more recent study, so if anyone has one please post it!
1propionyl
5 days ago
The answer here is to make getting a government issued ID a straightforward matter and a national priority.
I cannot think of another significant country that hasn't had this figured out for decades.
jujube3
4 days ago
Pretending that government IDs are super duper hard to give out is a time-honored American tradition.
After all, imagine if the government had a database with every person's name in it! You'd have like 300 million rows? Nobody's built a computing machine that could do that. And then how would you get the cards to people? You'd have to send out horses and buggies to every corner of the nation. And where would you find enough coachmen to do that, and roads to drive the coaches on???
No, clearly it's unpossible.
So we have to reserve the use of government IDs for really important things, like checking if you can buy cold medicine, and voting must remain insecure.
tempfile
a day ago
Government IDs are not a solved problem, and you don't seem to have even tried to consider the issues involved. The key distinction between voting and cold medicine is that you have a right to vote, but not to buy cold medicine. So if you lost your ID, or it's expired, it is not an option to just say "that sucks, I guess you can't vote now".
In fact, as a rule, ID is reserved for things that aren't important, because it is a point of failure.
jujube3
a day ago
Yes, only advanced countries like India can give everyone an ID. The US is too poor and backwards to give everyone a plastic card.
tempfile
a day ago
Do you think citizens of India experience no problems as a consequence of this, or is it just too exciting to be sarcastic on the internet?
Oh, wait, it must be the latter, because finding problems with India's government ID scheme takes five seconds: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/mar/21/n...
jujube3
18 hours ago
The point of India requiring identification for benefits is to prevent waste and fraud. And given the number of poor people in India, and the limited amount of money they have to help them, it seems like quite a good thing to do so.
Identifying people is not hard, even for the poorest countries, and it's quite easy to do with modern technology. There is no good-faith reason to oppose it, any more than there is to oppose driver's licenses.
tempfile
4 hours ago
Did you read the article I linked? You keep saying this is an easy thing to do, but don't seem to acknowledge any of the problems it causes. It is not easy to identify people. It is easy to identify people with 99% accuracy. If the remaining 1% are unable to access society, that is an unacceptable risk.
Consider for instance the people who currently exist, don't have government ID, and don't have an accurate record of their birth. Such people exist. Should they just die, or something?
_rm
5 days ago
I think these basic facts should be taught in school. Yes, millions don't have ID.
It seems trite to someone in the middle class, but it genuinely is not a priority to certain demographics, given the challenge of getting it. That challenge may seem trivial to a frequenter of Hacker News, but we're a diverse society.
The only barrier to getting a decongestant should be: having the money to pay for it.
efitz
6 days ago
No, but why the hell should someone else’s misbehavior cost me time and inconvenience?
The cost of these regulations is millions, perhaps billions of dollars in extra effort, bookkeeping and security by tens of thousands of businesses, not to mention lost productivity and frustration on the part of everyone else evolved, and moats of the costs and inconvenience is borne by people outside the government, who are not committing a crime.
It’s bat shit crazy that bureaucrats are allowed to steal this much productivity from the economy.
ibejoeb
6 days ago
I honestly think it's on that order, yes. Anyone who has had a respiratory infection, a sinus headache, or seasonal allergies. Anyone who would take NyQuil. Over the course of 18 years. Why is that so hard to believe? In fact, now that I think about it more, it's probably a lot more.
reaperman
6 days ago
Yes - I often lose my wallet/ID and I don’t think I’m in in the 0.1%ile. Even if 1% are like me, thats 30 million Americans.
tomatocracy
6 days ago
I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually an underestimate, because this saga has had a knock on effect on decongestant formulations sold outside the US as well. I don't know exactly why this has happened but my guess is it may be due to economies of scale in manufacturing or licencing overheads.
It's hard to find a pharmacy which even sells pseudoephedrine based decongestant if you're in the UK, for example.
agurk
5 days ago
Boots (a large UK pharmacy chain) sells it, but it's "behind the counter" so you have to ask for it. They will also only sell you one pack of 12 per visit
It's the same for codeine-mixed products. Recently I got denied a simultaneous purchase of pseudoephedrine and ibuprofen/codeine - I was I was only allowed one.
I'm not sure if it's policy, law or I just looked suspicious.
tomatocracy
5 days ago
Thanks. Looks like the buying limits are a legal requirement: https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/pseudoephedrine-and-ep... ) Seems like it was also classified as Pharmacy only (behind the counter) or prescription instead of just OTC.
rconti
6 days ago
Is that true? I honestly don't know. I thought it went away entirely. I guess that's what hiding it behind the counter does to those who aren't in the know.
CrazyStat
6 days ago
Yes.
cruffle_duffle
6 days ago
> But, hey, we beat street meth, right?
It’s all fentanyl now so in a weird way, maybe?
swores
5 days ago
No. Fentanyl has become a huge thing in illegal opiates (either used instead of drugs like heroin, or mixed in with heroin to make it seem stronger though more dangerous).
But, while there have been some instances of accidental fentanyl poisoning from use of other classes of drug (eg if a careless dealer/distributor is mixing fentanyl into heroin and doesn't clean the surface before moving on to weigh out bags of cocaine, or whatever) absolutely nobody is choosing to use fentanyl as a replacement for stimulants like meth (which is the drug being discussed above) or cocaine. They're complete opposites.
Of course, there are also trends over years/decades as drugs become more or less popular, either as part of societal trends (eg Ketamine in the UK, having spent a decade or two being forgotten about by the majority of recreational drug users, has apparently made a comeback and is very big in the party scene now especially among younger people), or because of the reasons people take drugs (eg the more people going to nightclubs/raves, the more people will use drugs like cocaine and MDMA; while more people getting depressed and not going out will lead to more people using drugs like opiates, eg heroin/fentanyl, to take away their mental pain - and some drugs, like Ketamine, are actually popular for both those examples, it's a popular party drug and it's often used alone by people wanting to bury their feelings).
So it's possible that the state or the world has led to more people choosing opiates than stimulants, and in the US fentanyl is all over the illegal supply of opiates. But I'm not aware of any logic that would say the increase in fentanyl has or would lead to meth users making the switch.
Side note that I think worth mentioning considering the topic: by FAR the most dangerous aspect of using these illegal drugs is the fact that they are illegal, not the fact that they are drugs. The majority of fentanyl users in the US are either trying to buy heroin but being sold fentanyl (or heroin+fentanyl mixes), and the majority of people actively choosing to use fentanyl illegally are doing it not because it's a nicer drug to use than heroin, but because the supply chain logistics lead to it being significantly cheaper (which is also why it's dangerously used by dealers to make their heroin batches seem stronger).
Heroin itself can of course be life ruining, but if taken on its own (not at the same time as other CNS depressants such as alcohol and benzodiazepines) then it's actually extremely unlikely to cause accidental fatal overdoses, and when it does cause overdoses (with or without whatever drugs being involved) it's 90% because the user didn't know how strong it was and expected it to be similar in purity to what they had been using before, and 10% because of lack of harm reduction education about how much to use to be safe, what drugs to avoid mixing it with, etc. (90/10% are just my ballpark guesstimates). Because we spend all the money interesting and locking drug uses up, rather than educating and supporting them in minimising risk while they do use and offering as much support as needed to those ready and wanting to beat their addiction.
If illegal drugs were, instead of being criminalised, treated like tobacco - highly taxed (but not so high that more than a few percent of people choose to buy from illegal sources), made by professional companies (more like other pharmaceuticals in this case than like tobacco m), and therefore possible to buy knowing both that the drugs are pure and knowing their precise doses - then the combination of taxes raised and money saved on the law enforcement side (everything from policing to court costs to prisons) could both fund huge amounts of mental health & addiction treatment and support options, not just for existing drug users but also as a preventative measure to reduce the number of people turning to drugs due to problems in their life or in their mind, AND leave a huge amount more money to be spent in other areas for the good of society. (Sorry for the long sentences, I'm too lazy to properly edit my comment right now).
Stevvo
6 days ago
Wasn't that literally the plot of Breaking Bad? Walt's meth was p2p meth.
jcpham2
6 days ago
Yes. Jesse couldn't score enough product via his smurfs, so they had to find an alternate industrial method for quantity purposes - in the show.
jjice
6 days ago
> ...but it will make life easier for people with congestion
I haven't purchased pseudeophedrine, but my understanding was that you just walked up to the counter and had to sign your name at the pharmacy. Is that not the case? Doesn't seem like a big pain if that's the case.
jrockway
6 days ago
It's a big pain. The prescription line at my pharmacy is never shorter than 15 minutes. Thus the drug is $11/month but costs me $60 in time to wait in that line. Meanwhile, other drugs are just mailed to me, including my prescriptions.
The prescription line is always fun. I remember some dude coughing on everyone, picking up his cell phone, "oh it was positive? great, I'm in line to get the medication" referring to COVID. In my opinion, the easiest place to get sick is waiting in the prescription line. Yet another tax on congestion sufferers.
Having said all that, your doctor can write you a prescription and all the restrictions go away, including the ID check. It has always delayed my fills even further so we don't bother anymore.
The most positive outcome from buying pseudoephedrine in line was being told "hey, your ID expires tomorrow" which was a good catch. I wasn't paying any attention to that. (I don't drive, so it's just a piece of plastic with my name. But necessary for paying taxes online in NYS.)
woodruffw
6 days ago
This is a complete tangent, but FWIW: you can pay taxes in NY with an expired license.
Source: I've been paying taxes in NY with a learner's permit that's been expired for well over a decade.
Edit: I've also used said expired permit to buy pseudoephedrine. In my experience, they get frustrated and put random garbage into the tracking system when the card doesn't verify, demonstrating that it's all theater. It did take a while, though, so your point about this being a waste of time holds.
Alupis
6 days ago
> Thus the drug is $11/month but costs me $60 in time to wait in that line
In what reality? You were not being paid $60 to grocery shop or whatever else you might have done with that 15 minutes. Nor did it actually reduce your bank account by $60 to wait 15 minutes. If you applied this logic to everything in life, reading this very comment probably "cost" you a dozen bucks too. What a fun way to live?
> Meanwhile, other drugs are just mailed to me, including my prescriptions.
How often are your anticipating needing pseudoephedrine? For most people it's a once a year, at most, thing.
evilDagmar
5 days ago
You're kidding, right? For people with allergies and/or chronic sinusitis, it's a thing they're taking for about a quarter of the year off and on. ...and they _will_ practically "cut you off" if you buy enough to be taking it for 45 days straight, no matter how you buy it.
That phenylephrine (which everyone with sinuses knows doesn't do a damn thing) was perpetually being touted as a substitute was just adding insult to injury.
Grandeculio
4 days ago
Why don't they just get meth? It works just as well as psuedo and it has a much longer duration.
jrockway
6 days ago
I take it every day; deviated septum and allergic to everything even after decades of immunotherapy. Maybe I should get surgery. But this is easier.
admksx45v65uqpw
6 days ago
Btw I got septum surgery and turbinate reduction and it was life-changing. Previously used antihistamines and nasal steroids every day. Even when my nose produces mucus, its doesn’t clog now. Procedure cost me $100 through Kaiser (cost them probably $75k if you believe all the various documents they sent me).
me-vs-cat
6 days ago
> cost them probably $75k
No, that's the inflated list price that's only paid by people with an emergency while out of network or similar unfortunates -- not insurance companies.
admksx45v65uqpw
6 days ago
[dead]
Alupis
6 days ago
You can't take pseudoephedrine every day. Nor is pseudoephedrine used for allergies - it is a decongestant, not an antihistamine. Nor does immunotherapy "solve" allergies.
A simple google search before posting would have made your fictitious scenario a little bit more believable.
alpinisme
6 days ago
> Nor is pseudoephedrine used for allergies
Technically true but it is often paired with loratadine in, e.g., Claritin-D. Many allergy sufferers also get congested sinuses.
jrockway
6 days ago
Guess what happens when allergens irritate the inside of your nose? You get congested.
Alupis
6 days ago
Guess what people take for allergies - drugs that actually prevent reactions. Allergic reactions that effect the nose are almost always going to result in discharge, aka. a runny nose. It's the body's natural way of removing the allergen. Pseudoephedrine doesn't help with this at all.
The side affects of prolonged pseudoephedrine use (usually defined as more than 7 days, btw) are far more serious than a stuffy nose.
You cannot even purchase enough pseudoephedrine to use every day over a full month. The government restricts maximum grammage per month - and no doctor is going to prescribe long-term use of pseudoephedrine to "help with allergies".
That is to say I don't believe your story at all. But I get it - googling these things before you posted would have "cost" you approximately $24 or something something something...
Izkata
6 days ago
Sudafed (the working version) was one of the go-tos for seasonal allergies, alongside Claritin. Not everyone reacts to allergens the same way. You'd take Claritin daily for the month or so, then Sudafed for a day or two when it got bad.
evilDagmar
5 days ago
Guess what happens when people take antihistamines... Lovely, lovely side effects. Side effects which are generally equally as annoying as the original problem.
If one can treat the symptoms just as easily as the cause and pseudoephedrine doesn't make them feel like a drugged-out zombie, just guess which drug people are going to take...
...and yes, doctors actually will write prescriptions for pseudoephidrine because they're generally pretty sure their patients aren't using it to make meth. I know three people who've gotten such prescriptions, and I've been tempted to do the same thing myself.
user
6 days ago
Zak
6 days ago
It means you have to go to the pharmacy when it's open. That's a significant hurdle if you're sick, especially if you have something contagious and you're trying not to expose people to it, or if you work weird hours, or if you don't have reliable transportation, or if you're the primary caregiver for young children, etc....
It also means you can't get it delivered, can't stock up, might have trouble sending someone else to get it, etc.... It's a big pain for some people, and particularly for people who already have a harder life than average.
jmcclell
6 days ago
I suffer from seasonal allergies that last anywhere from 2-4 months out of the year. During the height of allergy season, I take Claritin-D – a mixture of loratadine and pseudoephedrine.
Claritin-D 24-hour caplets come in boxes of 10. You need 3 boxes to get a full month's supply. Each caplet has 240mg of pseudoephedrine – 2.4g per box.
In my state, individuals can purchase up to 9g of pseduoephedrine per month, but only up to 3.6g per day.
So, while I can technically purchase a full month's supply of Claritin-D, I can't buy more than one box at a time.
These sorts of rules are minor inconveniences for an individual compared to the rest of life's challenges, but they exist in a special category of stupid that make them all the more frustrating.
But, here's a thought: what if I had children who needed the same medication? Who's going without?
withinrafael
6 days ago
Tangent; you reminded me about the Robitussin liquid (Dextromethorphan) in my pantry. It prescribes 20 mL doses but the bottle contains 118 mL total. Really grinds my gears this is legal.
ultrarunner
6 days ago
GP said:
> Some people stopped buying pseudoephedrine entirely, either because they were offended by these rules or because they were afraid that they could wrongly be implicated in meth investigations if they appeared to buy it too often.
This has actually happened [0], and I seem to remember more instances (at least when the law was first passed). I know I have also gone to buy it in a headache-induced fog and found that I've forgotten my ID, and on at least one occasion the national drug whatever system was down and they refused to sell it. Because it has to be run through the specific national database, it has to be run through one department and I have been unable to purchase because that department has closed for the day.
These are just what comes to mind when I think about purchasing pseudoephedrine over the years; it's just generally become a pain to get. It makes me wonder if it'd be quicker and easier to just buy meth and reintroduce the hydroxyl group to get my cold medicine.
[0] https://reason.com/2009/09/28/hoosier-grandmother-arrested-f...
Lammy
6 days ago
> It makes me wonder if it'd be quicker and easier to just buy meth and reintroduce the hydroxyl group to get my cold medicine.
Relevant: “A Simple and Convenient Synthesis of Pseudoephedrine from Meth” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33444852 https://maggiemcneill.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/synthes...
hilbert42
5 days ago
Just crazy, isn't it? Nothing could be better proof that drug laws are both ill conceived and ineffective than when otherwise lawful people are forced to consider converting easily available but highly illicit meth into a medicine that's much needed by millions because it's essentially unavailable through stupidity.
If aliens were to visit they'd likely bypass contact on grounds that the planet's inhabitants are low-IQ nut cases.
hilbert42
5 days ago
"…and easier to just buy meth and reintroduce the hydroxyl group to get my cold medicine."
Damn stupid isn't it? I'd be funny if it weren't serious.
What's more most of these sympathomimetic amines are both simple organic molecules, and in numbers/types they're a dime-a-dozen so to speak—there are hundreds of them. Any number of which can be altered or 'metamorphosed' into others that have different physiological and psychological effects by almost any competent chemist.
I'm certainly not advocating the use of meth but it's clear to me that the regulations that control the distribution and use of these amines are not working. Essentially, all these brute-force/unsophisticated laws have done is to inconvenience legitimate users and have drug barons streamline the production of more efficient precursors such as phenylacetone (P2P).
We really do need a better way of approaching the problem. For instance, many drug users turn to illicit amines and other street drugs to overcome medical and psychological problems. It would make sense to have these people identified and then be treated by the health system before they turn to the street to 'help' them. Moreover, I'd reckon it'd be much cheaper than the millions now spent on enforcement.
Trouble is moral panic and an almost complete lack of understanding by both lawmakers and law enforcement of the problem and its underlying causes is significantly impeding progress.
phil21
6 days ago
It's also out of stock now a lot more than before. Especially in larger (read: cheaper per dose) boxes. I assume but have not confirmed this is simply done by overworked pharmacy staff not re-ordering as often as they otherwise would to avoid the extra workload induced by having to run your ID through the database/etc. I've talked to pharmacy techs that do this for other drugs that induce extra workload at national chains, so I don't see why this wouldn't hold true here as well.
tptacek
6 days ago
That happened 15 years ago, just a couple years after the policy is created. A more compelling example of a spurious prosecution would be one more recent, say, after 2016. We can probably find some! The last time people looked, we found a pretty interesting story.
cogman10
6 days ago
I did not know that pseudeophendrine could be bought without a prescription until last year I think. I was deterred from buying it not because I fear putting my name down, but because I wrongly assumed I needed a prescription and thus a doctors visit to go purchase it.
There aren't exactly signs that say "Hey, the good stuff is behind the counter and you don't need a prescription to get it".
devilbunny
6 days ago
Depends on the state; at least some have made it prescription-only.
It's much less convenient than going to the nearest 24-hour store and grabbing it off the shelf. And I'm a doctor married to a doctor; I don't have to get an appointment to get a prescription for a non-scheduled drug, but I do have to go during pharmacy hours and wait to pick it up.
fullspectrumdev
6 days ago
The downstream effects in other countries are pretty annoying.
Because of US restrictions on pseudo, bizarrely other countries have followed suit - it’s next to impossible to find a decongestant with pseudo here in Ireland, they will sell you the useless phenylephrine shit instead, and the packaging is almost indistinguishable unless you spend a while looking and arguing with a pharmacist who is convinced phenylephrine works just as good.
abraae
6 days ago
> Because of US restrictions on pseudo, bizarrely other countries have followed suit
Replace pseudo with cannabis and the statement remains true.
standardUser
6 days ago
It's a huge pain if the pharmacy is closed or has a long line. A pointless, purposeless pain. Another sacrifice the the always-ineffective yet never underfunded drug war gods.
diebeforei485
6 days ago
You can't get it delivered using standard delivery apps (you can get phenylephrine, or medications containing it such as DayQuil, delivered using uber eats or doordash). That is an issue when you're sick.
buildsjets
6 days ago
I was refused purchase because I had an out of state driver's license. Despite very visibly and audibly suffering from severe nasal congestion.
wormius
6 days ago
It's still a pain in the ass you can't just go to the gas station and get some, etc... There shouldn't be a need to go to a pharmacy for what should be an over the counter drug that's far more effective than synephrine ever was. The difference between the 2 is night and day, probably because one actually works and the other maybe kinda sorta barely does.
jcpham2
6 days ago
You can can do this or your doctor can write you a prescription. I've never stopped using pseudoephedrine and depending on how congested I am sometimes it's the little red 4 hour pills or sometimes it's the big monster 12 hour version - but your doctor can write a generic prescription for pseudoephedrine and the quantity and amount and you can buy a box that way via cash or insurance too.
BurningFrog
6 days ago
According to my friend who suffers when there is pollen/smoke in the air, it is typically sold out when he needs it, because other people breathe the same contaminated air.
So he has to drive around to ~5 pharmacies to occasionally score a a box.
He does try to stock up during low season, but it's hard to do.
jfk13
6 days ago
Some years ago I was very frustrated, as a UK citizen visiting the States and suffering from congestion, that I was completely unable to buy it because I wasn't carrying suitable ID that the pharmacy would recognize.
jjtheblunt
6 days ago
have to produce a government id also
busterarm
6 days ago
Right, but would reopen the door to your random tweakers setting up shit labs in squats/rental properties and destroying property values.
That stuff's toxic AF even if the labs don't blow up.
standardUser
6 days ago
Restrictions on pseudoephedrine did nothing to curtail the manufacture, sale or use of amphetamines in this country. It didn't even raise the price. If anything, speed of all kinds is easier to get today.
HDThoreaun
6 days ago
The restrictions centralized production though. Now almost all meth is being made in a lab that can import Phenylacetone from china. That's safer than someone next door setting up an explosive cookhouse.
willcipriano
6 days ago
Even safer if they sold it at Walmart.
0x457
6 days ago
meth production didn't stop, in fact it switched to far more efficient ingdidient and made meth much worse than it was before.
It's cheaper and pure than it was ever been since the ban.
mullingitover
6 days ago
I'm just as annoyed with the hurdles to buying real pseudoephedrine as anyone else, but let's not make the production of bathtub meth any easier. It is not worth it.
Zak
6 days ago
Given the prevalence of P2P meth and apparent inability of governments to do anything about it, this does not seem like a rational position to me. If there was any reason to believe that large scale production will ever be substantially curbed, there might be a case for it.
mullingitover
6 days ago
Yes, P2p meth is rampant and cheap. However I look at it like this: Meth addicts will absolutely decide to become chefs if the ingredients are readily available, even if there's a McDonalds down the street. You're approaching this rationally, which is not what meth addicts are going to do.
marcosdumay
6 days ago
If it is readily available down the street, it looks to me that people cooking their own is a superior outcome for society in every single way than they buying it down-street.
Even more if the professional labs close down due to lack of customers.
mullingitover
6 days ago
A buddy of mine worked his way through college cleaning out meth labs in homes and motels after they had (typically) blown themselves up. They are toxic nightmares. He was especially shaken when he'd find the family photos indicating that the labs were operating while children were in the home.
The professional labs would absolutely not close down due to lack of customers, there would just be even more meth available, more contaminated, with the bonus of hazmat sites peppering communities.
Clubber
6 days ago
Why? Do you believe it made any dent in meth manufacturing what so ever? It's just drug war theatre.
verteu
6 days ago
It seemed to decrease the number of exploding meth labs in the country: https://www.statista.com/statistics/942043/laboratory-incide...
Zak
6 days ago
That seems to track pretty well with the rise of P2P meth. It's unlikely many people would return to setting up small labs using pseudoephedrine because large scale operations using P2P have driven the price down to the point that it wouldn't be profitable.
There might be an increase in people making tiny batches for personal use if pseudoephedrine became easier to get, but nothing on the scale of 20 years ago.
Clubber
5 days ago
What is P2P meth? I always think peer to peer.
Zak
5 days ago
P2P is phenyl-2-propanone, an ingredient in some methods of synthesizing methamphetamine. In supply chain terms, it is much harder to restrict than the previously-popular ephedrine and pseudoephedrine because it can be synthesized from many common chemicals.
matttproud
6 days ago
The need to show an ID to purchase real pseudoephedrine (feels like an oxymoron to write that) can be a legitimate PITA. I am American who lives abroad but is frequently back in the U.S. for family reasons. I suffer from sinus problems, so I periodically need to purchase pseudoephedrine-based products. Because I have no state ID, the show-ID-based workflow essentially fails. For whatever reason, the pharmacies won't take a U.S. passport (or foreign ID card), so they end up spending 15 minutes futzing with the data entry software, only to resign to entering garbage into the system.
And as OP points out: Phenylephrine is 100% useless.
slowmovintarget
6 days ago
Phenylephrine is useless. As an extra added bonus, it will still spike your blood pressure, so it isn't just useless, it's dangerous to people with high blood pressure.
Nasal irrigation is the way to go for sinus trouble. It's more work and takes a little getting used to, but no ID needed to buy saline and baking soda packets, and it actually works.
Tagbert
6 days ago
ORAL phenylephrine is useless, Nasal is not.
Rebelgecko
6 days ago
I was 17 for my first few months of college and got horribly sick and congested. The school pharmacy wouldn't sell me the real Sudafed because of my age... not sure if that was part of the nationwide Patriot Act restrictions on Sudafed or a specific state law. I thought about getting someone of age to buy it for me but I was too much of a goody two shoes to go through with it.
I ended up going to the doctor and getting sent home with a bottle of opioid cough syrup. Fortunately didn't end up addicted or anything, but it was very frustrating at the time.
bityard
6 days ago
Stores around me stopped selling it altogether because they got tired of dealing with both the registry itself and the customers who get irate when told they're going on a list for buying cold medicine. It sucks but I can't say I blame them.
deng
6 days ago
So at least here in Germany, we pretty much all use nasal spray with xylometazoline, and it's very effective as it also binds to adrenergic receptors. It does not seem to be available in the US, and at least from a cursory search I cannot find out why...?
EDIT: After looking a bit more, the simple answer seems to be that it's not FDA approved for nasal congestion, and since there's not much money to be made, there's simply no incentive to go through the costly approval process..
robinduckett
6 days ago
They have oxymetazoline but I think the problem with this class of decongestants is that it is ineffective and dependency is basically guaranteed if used for more than a couple of days
deng
6 days ago
Oxymetazoline is different from Xylometazoline, although it was derived from it. Xylometazoline is pretty harmless for adults when not used over extended periods (it is advised to not use it longer than 6 days, but that will cover your typical cold). It is true that if you take it regularly over extended periods, you will have a rebound effect and your nose will get congested when not taking it, so in that way, you develop a "physical dependency", but that's obviously much more harmless than other medication dependencies. Getting off a Xylometazoline dependence means that you'll have to deal with a congested nose for a few weeks...
sph
6 days ago
I don't see from your comment how the risk from congested nose for a few weeks deems it "harmless" for you. Two fully congested nostrils is hell for one night alone, imagine a few weeks of that. A few weeks of terrible sleep, if any. It's torture.
It can also cause permanently enlarged turbinates with chronic use.
deng
6 days ago
I said it's more harmless than other medication dependencies, like getting hooked on pain medication or benzos. Even here in tightly regulated Germany, Xylometazoline can be bought without a prescription. It is very effective and, compared to other drugs, pretty harmless.
Look, there are always extreme cases. Just look up how many people need a liver transplant or even die each year from misusing paracetamol. So should we make it a prescription drug? Maybe, I don't know, it's always a trade-off.
gojomo
6 days ago
Is there any basis to think xylo- is better than the similar oxymetazoline available in the US? Both the efficacy and downsides seem similar from discussion so far.
sph
6 days ago
> I said it's more harmless than other medication dependencies, like getting hooked on pain medication or benzos.
I've never taken any opiod, but two weeks of being unable to breathe properly or sleep sounds as hellish as my idea of quitting heroin.
I mean, I quit smoking, hardest thing I've ever done, and the physical withdrawal effects were insignificant compared to that.
It's funny; looking back, I quit smoking exactly BECAUSE I was suffering from crazy congestion, and after a week of Afrin and poor sleep I thought quitting smoking altogether would help me regain my sanity.
deng
6 days ago
> I've never taken any opiod, but two weeks of being unable to breathe properly or sleep sounds as hellish as my idea of quitting heroin.
Let me assure you that there's (yet?) no Xylometazoline epidemic ravaging though Europe, with tens of thousands of people dying each year, destroying families and communities, in effect causing endless grief for people and huge profits for pharma companies. There's also no black market for Xylometazoline, with people overdosing because there's nasal spray on the street that is contaminated with a much more potent derivative than can kill pretty much instantly. I've also never heard of babies born with congested noses that spend their first weeks of life going through a Xylometazoline withdrawal.
So to summarize, I think my initial statement that a physical dependence on Xylometazoline is less harmful than a dependence on opioids is probably correct.
sph
5 days ago
Not very harmful on an absolute scale != harmless. There is a whole spectrum between harmless and bloody heroin.
deng
5 days ago
OK, this is getting ridiculous, but stop putting words in my mouth. So for the third time: less harmful than a dependence on pain killers. How this could be even a controversial statement is completely beyond me, but HN never stops to surprise me.
qwerty456127
6 days ago
Many medicines pose some risk to some people who would abuse it for too long. Xylometazoline just is crazy effective (instantly eliminates congestion and running nose completely in most cases) and completely harmless in what looks like 99% cases of usage - nearly-everyone here in the EU uses it happily and has no problems. I would really dread a cold without it and never travel without having it with me. Just try to not over-use habitually. The sense of measure is always a key to healthy and happy living.
jorvi
6 days ago
That’s why if you developed a dependence you don’t quit cold turkey.
The strategy I’ve heard is purchasing a normal bottle, and refilling it with boiled cool water when it’s ½ empty. Then refilling it again when it’s ¾ empty.
Xylometazoline is an absolute godsend, and has even more efficacy in a dual-action spray with saline water.
It feels nothing short of magical to do one spray per nostril, and be completely uncontested in less than 10 minutes.
gojomo
6 days ago
In my experience oxymetazoline has similar fast-action - even "10 minutes" seems a bit on the long side.
user
6 days ago
sph
6 days ago
Worse, the symptoms gets worse after you stop using it, see rhinitis medicamentosa.
Many people have used decongestants so much they cannot quit them or will have to suffer weeks of nasal congestion. I risked going through that; later I swore I will never touch one ever again.
Terr_
6 days ago
> Worse, the symptoms gets worse after you stop using it,
Very tangentially, "iatrogenic" is a nice niche vocabulary word: Something unintentionally caused by a medical activity, usually undesirable.
morsch
6 days ago
Kind of funny to see a medication that's super common in Germany, widely recommended by doctors, given to children, etc. to be discussed in those terms.
Moto7451
6 days ago
This isn’t that strange in the context that all medicines, while generally safe in OTC form, can have negative side effects if used for too long or at the wrong dose or in the wrong circumstance.
My wife has one kidney and as such is told to avoid NSAIDs as a class of medicine. She’s realistically fine taking it every so often but her doctors are asking her to avoid using kidney capacity that could hypothetically be needed to filter and excrete something else.
Acetaminophen/Paracetamol is great alternative for her since it’s processed in the liver. However if you’re a frequent drinker, have a liver deficiency, or have to take some other drug straining your liver, it’s contraindicated.
For most of us most of the time you’re completely correct though.
In the case of these nasal spray decongestants I had a case of rebound congestion due to over-reliance on them while surviving some family bringing really bad colds into the house and my son starting daycare. It was really bad. I then managed by switching to an alternating schedule of pseudoephedrine and the nasal spray so I could reduce the physical dependency on the latter and get a good night’s sleep.
My doctor eventually cleared me to take an allergy spray medication (Fluticasone propionate) that is safer for long term use but generally not used for colds because it inhibits immune response and mask the symptoms which can cause new infections and hurt your ability to heal. Yet another case of the mundane medicine that is contraindicated. While seemingly being the wrong thing to be put on while fighting off infections it worked out great.
After four months I had seen enough child germs and no adult has brought their own plague or food poisoning (it was a very bad summer for me) and I finally became healthy again.
deng
6 days ago
> Acetaminophen/Paracetamol is great alternative for her since it’s processed in the liver. However if you’re a frequent drinker, have a liver deficiency, or have to take some other drug straining your liver, it’s contraindicated.
What many people don't know: Overdosing on paracetamol is the leading cause of acute liver failure. It's also contraindicated for people with Gilbert's syndrome, which is actually pretty common (~5% of people in the US) and most people don't even know they have it, as it's harmless and usually only found accidentally through high bilirubin levels in the blood.
pfdietz
6 days ago
What is very common is hepatosteatosis, or fatty liver syndrome. Something like 1/3rd of American adults have it.
marcosdumay
6 days ago
Go read the side-effects and restrictions of commonly used medicine some day, it's unsettling.
Eddy_Viscosity2
6 days ago
I've been through this and sucked hard. Never will I use a decongestant nasal spray again.
If there was a way to somehow sum up all of the suffering caused by these sprays from dependency (which lasts weeks, months, years even) and compare that with the suffering alleviated from a cold (which lasts a fews days), my bet is these cause more harm than good.
karmonhardan
6 days ago
The best thing I ever did for decongestion was to get outside and start wearing a mask during the winter. The air entering my nose is clearer and warmer, which causes less mucus production. The mucus that is produced is more likely to drain, rather than sit around thickening and waiting to be blown out. I wish I'd thought to wear a mask while out when I was younger; could have saved myself much suffering waiting at the bus stop and during the subsequent schoolday.
derekp7
6 days ago
Back when I was a kid, scarfs were more popular and served a similar purpose.
bondarchuk
6 days ago
Did you really develop such heavy dependence after using it a few days at a time? I don't get that at all.
pull_my_finger
6 days ago
It's not a dependence like mental addiction. Your body becomes dependent on it. Your sinuses "rebound" and all but completely block in absence of the spray. I had a cold that blocked my nose up so bad I couldn't sleep because I was afraid of suffocating so I tried one of the sprays and it opens you up like magic, super effective. But about an hour after use if would completely block up again where you literally can't inhale through your nose at all. That's how it is even after you get over the cold/illness. You have to continue to use the spray to keep your airway open until you suffer through breaking the "addiction" by not using it for however long that takes. It really does immediately open your airway, but I won't EVER use it again because it's really scary to be completely blocked like that and have to get a dose in every 30mins-hour just to breath.
bondarchuk
a day ago
Don't use more than 3x a day, and not longer than 7 days. At least those are the recommendations over here.
oldpersonintx
6 days ago
[dead]
wruza
6 days ago
Same. I’d rather start and quit smoking again than this.
dreamcompiler
6 days ago
Oxymetazoline is an extremely effective nasal decongestant. It works almost instantly and it lasts 24 hours.
It also creates dependency. A drug that is ineffective cannot cause dependency.
admash
6 days ago
Of course it can. You take drug A for 5 days to get rid of symptom X. The symptom X does not go away. It is ineffective! You stop taking drug A and immediately experience brutal migraines that go away when you start taking drug A again. Ergo, you have become dependent on drug A for normal functioning, even though it is ineffective at ridding you of symptom X.
relistan
6 days ago
I’ve wondered this also. As an American who lived in Germany and found this while living there, I can attest that it’s quite effective for me. There are other quite useful and safe drugs that are not available in the US.
Aurornis
6 days ago
The US equivalent is oxymetazoline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymetazoline
It's actually slightly more selective for a1 receptors than the German alternative. They both have the same dependence potential and rebound liability.
AdamN
6 days ago
There are nasal sprays in the US - and yes they are more targeted and better in general than pills. But Americans love their pills ... almost as much as Germans love their homeopathic remedies :-)
Dr_Birdbrain
6 days ago
Additional context on why phenylephrine was ever approved to begin with—apparently it is effective if you use it as a spray, but apparently nobody bothered to check what happens when consumed orally, and it turns out your digestive system degrades it quickly and it doesn’t even make it into the bloodstream.
tptacek
6 days ago
This is a perennial topic on HN, which is generally inhospitable to drug prohibition to begin with; it's possible to lay out the schematics of the counterargument:
* While there can't be any defense for the marketing of phenylephrine as a pseudoephedrine replacement, restrictions on pseudoephedrine are not irrational (that doesn't make them right, though I think they are).
* Pseudoephedrine by itself practically is methamphetamine, just in an unproductive chemical configuration. It is extraordinarily simple (though: not safe) to convert pseudoephedrine into meth.
* Pseudoephedrine is widely, practically universally available in the US without a prescription. It's a "behind the counter" drug, and, because of rampant abuse, access requires ID, like alcohol. Further, because the point of restricting pseudoephedrine is effectively a "rate limit" (to prevent people from acquiring enough Sudafed to make meth production practicable), Sudafed purchases are tracked.
* We've hashed out on HN the argument about whether that tracking results in spurious prosecutions. The one case I've seen us come up with, the arrest and prosecution of William Fousse, concerned someone who had a pseudoephedrine addiction (he was using it to come up from habitual alcohol benders).
* Restriction of pseudoephedrine does basically zero to staunch the flow of high-quality methamphetamine, which is produced at industrial scale with more sophisticated chemistry in Mexico and Asia.
* But restriction of pseudoephedrine might reduce the incidence of garage meth labs, which pose their own distinctive dangers to communities.
The argument in favor of continued pseudoephedrine restriction would be that the cost of the policy is relatively low (it inconveniences allergy sufferers, but most of those sufferers only marginally) vs. the public safety benefit (which is also probably low, but also probably nonzero).
ibejoeb
6 days ago
> access requires ID, like alcohol.
Not like alcohol. I know you know, but to spell it out for those that dont: there is a universal registry. Each purchase is tracked and tallied by name and residential address. Best case scenario is you are denied access, but you could also be raided.
It doesn't just require any old ID. Many, if not most, will not accept military ID. No foreign ID is accepted. Essentially, if your ID isn't a recent scannable ID issued by a US state, you don't get it. And I can't go a week without hearing that ID is a kind of ism.
tptacek
6 days ago
Do we have stories about people being raided?
Retric
6 days ago
I’d hope people get raided or at least some police investigation. Much of the process seems pointless otherwise.
ibejoeb
6 days ago
None that I have on hand, no. Not in the US, at least. But do you agree that it's possible? The registry afford that capability. There are raids for far less.
I'm not trying to needle you. It's just nothing like alcohol, tobacco, etc. It's not even really like opioids.
Anyway, I think your conclusion is reasonable, even if we come to different conclusions. Mine is based on common benefit. I think the benefit that comes from the drug far surpasses the detriment.
tedunangst
6 days ago
Literally from today's news: an alcohol raid. So I guess technically correct it's nothing like alcohol.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/pittsburgh/news/panther-pit-padl...
ibejoeb
6 days ago
Here's a guy who narrowly avoided a raid for taking Claritin-D, so I guess your point stands: https://www.register-herald.com/news/nplex-tracking-system-h...
> Police also can look for people who might have purchased pseudoephedrine around the same time as the suspect, as a way to identify friends and conspirators.
ffs. is this what we want?
tptacek
6 days ago
This appears to be a story about a guy who hit the limit in his state, with a reporter talking to an enforcement agent explaining why he looked nothing like an offender, followed by a story about a busted meth lab and their purchasing patterns in the database. It doesn't look like anybody narrowly avoided anything, and it's from 2013.
ibejoeb
6 days ago
I object to the government pulling a medication report containing the name, date of birth, address, and ID number for me and the people in the pharmacy around the same time as me, and then setting a "watch" on me.
from the article:
> he showed up one day early to purchase his two-week supply.
Good thing he didn't show up in the next county one day early. Maybe that would've been enough for Goff to act.
The article also points out that pse remains non-prescription because if it were to become rx-only, the government would be prohibited from monitoring it. Here I was just thinking that prescription exists for the health and safety of the patient...
This whole thing is gross.
What's the significance of 2013?
tptacek
6 days ago
"Medication report" sure does make it sound a lot scarier than an indication of whether you had allergies.
You get that there are already detailed, retained records of your actually-sensitive prescriptions, right?
user
4 days ago
Zak
6 days ago
This issue is symptomatic of an underlying problem for me: we do not regularly re-evaluate laws to see if they are having the intended effect.
American politics might have bigger problems at the moment, but under normal circumstances, I consider this pretty important. I'm not sure what the solution is, but an expiration date on nearly all laws comes to mind as a start to an interesting discussion on the matter.
ryandrake
6 days ago
It would be great if laws worked like software deployments:
1. Roll out law to 2%, look for any obvious unintended effects (like we check for crashes)
2. Roll out law to 50%, study for effectiveness. Is the intended positive effect happening in the experiment population? Any effect on the control population?
3. Finally, roll out law to 100% and keep monitoring.
4. Be ready to roll back to 0% if failures seen at any stage.
5. Be ready to apply a zero day patch after it's at 100% if edge cases are found.
But, we don't do any of this! Lawmakers make a law and yolo it into production on a fixed date, and it's often impossible to roll it back or modify it.
justinpombrio
6 days ago
We do sort of do that, with state laws. Different states try out different laws, and copy laws from other states. Ideally a state will repeal laws that don't work well, and copy laws from other states when they work well. In practice it's all a mess of course.
California is the experimental group.
FireBeyond
6 days ago
> This issue is symptomatic of an underlying problem for me: we do not regularly re-evaluate laws to see if they are having the intended effect.
Even the Constitution. It was intended to be revisited for appropriateness and currency every 20 years.
Instead, a significant number of people, including some on the Supreme Court, believe that the Founding Fathers[1] could speak no wrong words and that the Constitution is the perfect document, to be taken at its word, with no deviation, until the end of time.
[1] Pop Quiz: "How old were the Founding Fathers when they signed the Declaration of Independence and crafted the Constitution?" You'd be forgiven for thinking they were world-weary, wizened old men. In fact, the majority were under forty. Indeed, it was also signed by a sixteen-year-old, a 21-year-old, two 26-year-olds, a 27-year-old, and a 29-year-old.
tptacek
6 days ago
Yes but the life expectancy was only 35 so in relative terms they were all senior.
bloopernova
6 days ago
Average life expectancy.
Once past your childhood, you had a good chance of making it to 60 at least.
letmeinhere
6 days ago
Only thing I'd quibble with is the reason most consumers switched off of pseudoephedrine. The manufacturers knew that the inconvenience of having to go to the counter would reduce sales so they just replaced it in the aisle with an identically branded product with a different active ingredient. Most people made no affirmative choice at all; they're just buying "Sudafed", but now it's a placebo.
hinkley
6 days ago
I’ve had two doctors and two NPs tell me to stop using sudafed. It dries out the mucus membranes and allows infections to start. If you’ve had sinus infections before, they suck and you don’t want them again. Give the Sudafed away.
(It also gives me horrible insomnia if I take it at night so it wasn’t a huge hardship).
Guaifenesin thins the mucus instead, makes it more watery so it drains down the throat with no further complications like sore throat and coughing. And the extra volume helps flush bacteria out of the sinuses.
alexjplant
6 days ago
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I take pseudophedrine whenever I have a serious sinus infection or blocked eustachian tubes because it's the only thing that promotes drainage. I also take guaifenesin for its mucosal thinning effects as a matter of course. I supplement these with nasal irrigation, DXM (if the cough is impacting my sleep), and diphenhydramine in lieu of the pseudo (again for sleep).
These drugs all have different mechanisms of action and specialties and should be used only as needed, i.e. if a symptom abates then you should stop taking whatever it is that treats it. The problem is that people are too used to combination formulations or, even worse, treating all of these drugs interchangeably. A chest cold has a different OTC treatment regimen than a sinus infection.
kube-system
6 days ago
Everyone's body and ailments are different. For some people in some situations, the benefits of pseudoephedrine outweigh the side effects. For others, it doesn't. Drugs should be used on an individualized basis.
Dr_Birdbrain
6 days ago
The insomnia effect is no joke! It’s an amphetamine.
I used to take 24-hour allergy medicine with pseudoephedrine, and it took me years to realize it was the thing that was giving me insomnia during allergy season—for years I thought I just had periodic bouts of intense insomnia.
hinkley
6 days ago
In college I told the clinic I wanted anything but Sudafed (joke on campus was they’d give you Sudafed for a broken arm). Gave me Sudafed anyway.
First 100% sleepless night in college. And the only sleepless night that wasn’t having too much fun or stressing over a final exam. Trash can.
hinkley
6 days ago
I forgot the worst part: Still had a sniffle the entire night. So mad.
SoftTalker
6 days ago
I stopped taking pretty much any OTC meds about 10 years ago. My sinuses seem much healthier. I hardly ever get congestion or runny nose anymore. Not sure there's a correlation here but for me, they don't seem to have any benefit.
bombcar
6 days ago
In general, things like medicine/drugs (even caffeine!) should be used as sparingly as possible, so they're maximally powerful when you do need them.
If you pop OTC meds at the first sign of anything, your body gets used to it and it becomes a baseline; whereas before it would blow all the symptoms away, now you need it just not to get significantly worse.
marcosdumay
6 days ago
> your body gets used to it and it becomes a baseline
That doesn't happen for every drug. But side-effects still exist for them all, so yeah, there are several reasons to limit how much you use them.
user
6 days ago
freealf
6 days ago
An interesting tidbit to add, for working in the industry:
The restricted process around buying pseudoephedrine is imposed by state governments and not the federal government. A number of the states coordinate their policies, so it looks like nation-wide action but really isn't (in a legal sense).
FDA doesn't have the legal authority to put medications "behind the counter" like you would see in Europe or Canada. So untangled this is a weird mess of overlapping jurisdictions.
dragonwriter
6 days ago
> The restricted process around buying pseudoephedrine is imposed by state governments and not the federal government. [...] FDA doesn't have the legal authority to put medications "behind the counter" like you would see in Europe or Canada.
Someone should tell the FDA, because they seem to think that the “locked cabinet or behind the counter” rule, the per person per month quantitative limit, the photo ID requirement, and the requirement for retailers to track personal information of buyers are all federal rules either directly in or imposed by the FDA under the authority of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005.
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-drug-class/legal-requi...
joeevans1000
6 days ago
Good summary. To add to what you've said, Sudafed (as an example brand name) opens your eustachian tubes which are passages from your inner ear to your throat. If you think you might be getting an ear infection, Sudafed increases draining and potentially helps prevent a worse infection. As mentioned, it helps air equalize to the atmosphere via these tubes. If you make a yawning motion now and hear your ears crackle, that's the air moving through your eustachian tubes. You'll notice that crackling decrease when an ear infection may be imminent. I tried the useless alternative and discovered on my own that it was, indeed, useless. And it was quite expensive, with great marketing on the box.
seattle_spring
6 days ago
In my experience phenylephrine is worse than useless. Not only does it do nothing for congestion, but it makes me feel wired in a bad way and unable to sleep for at least 24 hours. I hate phenylephrine.
gniv
7 days ago
I read this and was puzzled, until I realized that you are talking about the pills. The nasal spray is effective, although probably not more effective than a saline solution.
notpushkin
6 days ago
> although probably not more effective than a saline solution
I guess saline is a baseline against which effectiveness should be measured here, especially since nasal sprays are usually saline plus something. (I guess? Not sure about Sudafed specifically.)
bottom999mottob
6 days ago
I'd argue that saline should be the panacea here. I doubt very many people do at-home saline rinses with filtered, sterilized water and a simple mixture of salt and baking soda.
Do people really want to spray PFAS water directly into their mucus lining?
I bought an Arm and Hammer Saline spray out of curiosity. It smelled awful, and the BPS lined can had an awful smell despite the ingredients being: water, salt, baking soda, and no suspicious preservatives.
dreamcompiler
6 days ago
True except it is definitely more effective than saline. Phenylephrine nasal spray is not as effective or long-lasting as oxymetazoline, but it's also not as dependency-inducing.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan
6 days ago
The efficacy of the nasal sprays had already been demonstrated when they introduced the pills. Surprisingly, the efficacy of the pills was never properly demonstrated, and now that it's being investigated, they're pulling it from the shelves.
hilbert42
6 days ago
Why not just use xylometazoline (aka Otrivin) at least as a nasal (spray) decongestant — or isn't it available in the U.S?
Xylometazoline is very effective. Sure that doesn't solve the oral/body-wide absorption of a decongestant but it's a good start.
From my personal experience phenylephrine (as a nasal spray) does work but it's one step off being useless. I've occasionally had to use it as a fallback when I haven't been able to get xylometazoline (where I am xylometazoline is only available in pharmacies whereas phenylephrine is also available in supermarkets and elsewhere).
It's interesting to note that the bans and restrictions on pseudoephedrine have had large negative consequences. Not only have ordinary users missed out on a good decongestant but it seems drug cartels have largely overcome the shortage of pseudoephedrine by substituting the precursor phenylacetone (P2P). Not only that but they've even managed to separate the chiral components of the final drugs which makes them indistinguishable from medical pharmaceuticals.
Incidentally, I prefer not to use pseudoephedrine as a decongestant, whilst I receive no mental stimulation from it, it nevertheless has stimulating properties that make me feel queasy. It's why my first choice is xylometazoline. There's also the related decongestant oxymetazoline, which I've found effective but it's not as good as xylometazoline (for me at least) but it's still vastly superior to the near-useless phenylephrine.
rscho
6 days ago
Well, phenylephrine is ineffective when used incorrectly. You're supposed to grind the pill and snort it. Works much better ;-D
nonameiguess
6 days ago
It's not the only drug treated this way. You can go to any pharmacy and see a ton of things on the shelves that are just cards you have to take to the counter, and then see what's actually behind the counter. Insulin needles, for instance, even though you can also just buy those in bulk on Amazon. I'm not sure what does and does not get tracked in a statewide database, but at minimum, regular Ephedrine, typically sold under the brand name Bronkaid, is tracked this way, because it can also be used to manufacture meth. I don't even think in this case there is an alternative formulation like there is with Sudafed and generic equivalents.
The monthly purchase limits on these tend to be ludicrously high, though. I think they're state by state, but in Texas, you can purchase up to 9 grams a month.
0x457
6 days ago
Lots of what you described is very location-store specific. That's why you can buy a lifetime supply of clean needles on amazon, but buying any in CVS is requires waiting in line longer than it take for amazon to deliver.
potato3732842
6 days ago
But think about all the jobs the government by created running that registry, prompting the drug makers to formulate and manufacture bogus decongestants and then eventually studying that those bogus decongestants were in fact bogus.
(in case it wasn't obvious, this is broken windows fallacy)
a_c_s
6 days ago
The "registry" is signing your name on a sheet of paper on a clipboard - less than 1% more work for the pharmacy employee's overall job, approximately 0 new jobs created.
sigzero
6 days ago
I went to the doctor recently. I usually take what I am taking so they can see it. I was taking Sudafed and had just purchased it. She took it out of my hand and told me basically all that and threw it in the trash.
_rm
5 days ago
Great summary. It's a classic case of government action ending up a net negative for society. Everything would've been great if they'd just minded their own business.
emtel
6 days ago
It is darkly amusing to me that it took the FDA well over a decade to conclude what was immediately obvious to anyone who has ever tried phenylephrine: that it is not worth taking
sharpshadow
6 days ago
This reminds me when EU banned some eye drops with the product name Proculin which have been very effective. The replacement Berberil is useless, literally no effect.
Proculin made your eyes white white constricting the blood vessels for hours. All the stoners had it in their pockets.
Since it constricted blood vessels one could use it also to reduce the local inflammation on pimples, which was a neat off label usage.
amy-petrik-214
6 days ago
yes, well, the other part of the story you would not know it maybe unless you frequent among addicts or psych wards where the practice is done indeed there is a third such nasal decongestion / meth class drug known as BENZEDREX it is a OTC decongestant .. an inhaler.. okay, fine. but what drug addicts, and in my experience for whatever reason, people with hard psych illnesses like to do is pop the inhaler open. inside is a benzedrex-laden ball of cotton which is then chewed upon for the high
devilbunny
6 days ago
FWIW phenylephrine wasn't a new drug; it was and still is used all the time in IV form to increase blood pressure in anesthesia and critical care.
But it's useless as an oral decongestant.
2rsf
6 days ago
pseudoephedrine have serious side effects, they are rare but could be fatal
dreamcompiler
6 days ago
Also true of aspirin, ibuprofen, acetaminophen, dextromethorphan, melatonin, vitamins, supplements, and practically every other over-the-counter drug that is not homeopathic.
immibis
6 days ago
ESPECIALLY acetaminophen aka paracetamol aka Tylenol aka Panadol. This is the single drug with the smallest ratio between the effective does and the lethal dose, and it would not be approved today because of that. Oh, and you'll be fully conscious while you're dying and there's no known antidote.
xienze
6 days ago
My Googling says 7.5g-10g is a lethal (acute) dose for an adult. The extra strength Tylenol pills come in 500mg, and they recommend two of those at a time. Not saying it's wrong that the gap between "effective" and "lethal" is small, but at the same time it's hard to accidentally take 15-20 pills at a time.
genocidicbunny
6 days ago
Even doses as low as 1g taken daily for a week or two will show significant changes in liver chemistry. Consider that many other medicines, especially cold medicines, often include it as well, and it's not hard to see how someone that is suffering from a strong cold could end up taking more like 2-3g per day for extended periods of time. That will definitely cause some damage to the liver, which can be recovered from, but should probably be avoided. At least in the US though, many people have already compromised liver function due to chronic metabolic diseases, and for many, the damage might end up being permanent.
cloverich
6 days ago
I've commonly been recommended 3-4 g per day by Physicians. I take 1 gram as my standard dose.
dreamcompiler
6 days ago
1 gram is the standard dose for a full-sized adult with a healthy liver who is not taking the drug in conjunction with alcohol.
As to frequency I limit myself to 2 g per day but that's just me giving my liver extra time to recover.
NikkiA
6 days ago
Now consider people with memory issues such as dementia where they might have a headache, take 2 pills, then 10 minutes later think 'I have a headache...'
0x457
6 days ago
if we're talking about people with dementia and/or memory issues - almost everything becomes dangerous. Not an argument. Doors aren't dangerous, but now imagine a small child being hit with one.
Aerroon
6 days ago
>and there's no known antidote.
Isn't NAC (N-acetyl-cysteine) used for that?
TeMPOraL
6 days ago
Homeopathic too - water allergy is a thing.
BenjiWiebe
5 days ago
Water allergy is a skin condition triggered by contact with water. I don't think that applies to swallowing water.
If someone's actually allergic to water, they're going to be reacting all the time since they're mostly water and have to drink regularly to stay alive.
delecti
6 days ago
Homeopathic pills are usually literally sugar pills, essentially small crummy candy, so not really any water, despite the purported basis of the "technology".
TeMPOraL
6 days ago
Sure. Sugar allergy is a thing too.
If you give me six lines written in a material safety datasheet for the most chemically inert of materials, I will find something in them that could cause some human, in some situation, to die.
BenjiWiebe
5 days ago
After a little bit of googling, it seems that sugar allergy from ingestion doesn't exist. Intolerance is not allergies.
I did find that there's apparently one case of anaphylaxis caused by injection of fructose, though it wasn't the normal reaction referred to as allergies.
user
6 days ago
EricDeb
6 days ago
I swear phenylephrine works... so I'm just falling for placebo?
j0hnyl
6 days ago
Maybe you're feeling relief from the other ingredients like if there's also an inflammatory or caffeine, etc. bundled with the pill.
clarkdale
6 days ago
Only the second to last paragraph was necessary.
fuzzfactor
6 days ago
It comes full circle if you go back far enough.
Before Sudafed was common in pills, they had the small disposable inhalers where the pseudoephedrine was not in crystal form but was dissolved in vaporous liquids like menthol. Inside the inhaler there is a cotton piece soaked with the pleasant-smelling liquid. The aroma vapors are drawn right up into the sinuses along with the active ingredient.
The inhaler itself was first marketed during World War II by the well-established 19th century Vicks company, already very successful for decades with it's earlier VapoRub aromatic topical OTC formulations. People are probably aware that this is one of the companies that is older than the US FDA. Older than the Fed & income taxes too, for those who are keeping score ;)
Natural products like ephedrine have long been the inspiration for medicinal chemists to synthesize similar compounds for potential screening as new drugs, so a number of new experimental relatives such as pseudoephedrine were produced eventually.
As the name implies, people did not always know what the real difference was between ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, since both molecules have the same molecular weight, naturally because both have the same number of carbons, hydrogens, oxygen, and nitrogen content.
Only a slight difference in chemical structure between the two, which got figured out soon enough.
Some of the less-similar new drug candidates were ordinary amphetamines. They are the ones that really got popular fast, especially in wartime :\
Now when the unique inhalers were born, it was a bit of the new synthetic ingredient along with the traditional aromatic mixture that Vicks was famous for, and the Vicks Inhaler was deemed safe & effective as recommended for OTC use. People loved it. Nobody had ever had anything as effective as that.
IIRC it was 50 milligrams per inhaler soaked into a few hundred milligrams of aromatic essential oil mixture. As expected they were a lot stronger when you first started smelling one.
That's because it was 50 mg of meth-amphetamine in the Vicks inhalers.
Parents would buy them for their kids, because they were so "safe", for self medication naturally, even at times when they would not consider dosing them up with cough syrup.
There was never any FDA-approved prescription for methamphetamine in any other form, only this one OTC product.
I would think the inhalers themselves were patent encumbered until the 1960's (remind you of an Epipen?) and by the 1970's other companies like Sudafed offered their own version, only not containing meth, give me a break.
The meth version of amphetamine became recognized as a dangerous drug in the after-war years when the negative effects became apparent with soldiers who had been given it in pill form habitually as stimulants, often when facing the most serious combat.
No other company ever was able to put meth in their inhalers, but Vicks slipped in under the wire and couldn't even be stopped for decades until some time after the DEA came into being. Everybody else was using pseudoephedrine from the start. By this time crystal meth was just beginning to emerge, which people were trying to avoid when they saw what it was like, at the same time different people started seeking meth more intently. Orders of magnitude more out-of-hand now.
The way Vicks stayed under the radar the whole time with meth in it, was hiding in plain sight.
Right there on the inhaler in fine print where it always was, active ingredient desoxyephedrine 50 mg.
Simply a less-common alternative chemical name for meth, and desoxyephedrine had become a very uncommon rapidly deprecated name quite early. Way before any amphetamines were commercialized, they were instead marketed using the well-known convention based on the Alpha-MethylPHenylEThylAMINE type nomenclature.
Anyway, back in the 1970's when it was first becoming known that shady operators were cooking meth by starting with inhalers, I looked at one of them and sure enough, 50 mg meth per Vicks inhaler. Who knew?
For a while there I figured they must be starting with way over 20 inhalers and probably would not extract nearly a gram of meth but it sounded feasible. I wasn't going to be the one to do it, my first job out of college was working for a company that was a real pharmaceutical manufacturer. So I wasn't going to tell anybody either. There was already talk among law enforcement about cracking down on this kind of thing. Suspicion of inhalers was beginning to barely arise, it was thin but widespread among anybody who had heard anything about this.
Eventually I figured out that the clandestine cookers were synthesizing their meth by using the pseudoephedrine in non-Vicks inhalers as starting material for their reactions ! Well, what do you know? Was I wrong the whole time?
I "guessed" so.
With not-so-blurry 20/20 hindsight, I would estimate that before I got around to figuring this out, a clandestine chemist had come along way before I knew a thing and had started out extracting grams of meth directly from Vicks inhalers. And the meth heads loved it, found out it was coming from inhalers and the word got around among them.
Some other chemist picks up the inexact word-of-mouth and by this time Vicks inhalers are outnumbered, sharing shelf space with numerous alternative brands, all of them containing pseudoephedrine as expected, and cheaper too. If they look at Vicks, it's the odd ball out, that doesn't look like the same kind of "ephedrine" as everything else. So they figured out how to do some home made reactions starting with Sudafed. And this is what was just starting to go through the roof.
This was before the Sudafed pills really took over, once they showed up they flew off the shelf way faster than the inhalers because there were more milligrams.
One day in the '70's I was in Walgreens and there was somebody buying over a dozen Sudafed inhalers so I knew what they were up to.
I went over to the aisle and looked at the then-current Vicks Inhaler, which I hadn't checked in a while, sure enough 50 mg of desoxyephedrine, active ingredient, same as ever.
The poor Sudafed buyer wasn't the least bit aware that real meth was right there on the shelf next to it.
And I wasn't going to say a thing :)
Most doctors and pharmacists didn't even have a clue.
Within a few years Vicks stated putting in pseudoephedrine themselves instead of meth.
Until it got way too far out of hand and the pseudoephedrine became tightly controlled, much more tightly than the meth was, as can be seen.
Edit:
"And now you know the rest of the story" - Paul Harvey
politician
6 days ago
PSA: Kroger and Kroger-owned supermarkets require ID to purchase any "cold medication" including those only containing phenylephrine. It's a stupid policy.
Buy your cold medication at Walgreens. Good luck finding a non-Kroger grocer.
qwerty456127
6 days ago
> Their preliminary review of studies suggested that it is probably, in fact, useless. This proceeding is now proposing to ban it on the grounds that it's ineffective
Is ineffectiveness really a good reason to ban a substance? Why not just ban labeling it as a medicine instead?
drpossum
6 days ago
If you read the article title it is not a ban on the drug.
> Ending Use of Oral Phenylephrine as OTC Monograph Nasal Decongestant Active Ingredient
It is a ban on marketing/listing this as an active ingredient on those products. If you read further into the article this is only for oral use and they're requesting comments for nasal use, which would be unaffected by this.
qwerty456127
6 days ago
Makes sense. Thank you for clarifying.
viciousvoxel
6 days ago
That is actually what is happening, per the article. It's being banned as being labelled an "active ingredient" in OTC decongestant pills.
lynx23
6 days ago
No worries, "Meth" was largely unknown in my area, until you guys exported "Breaking Bad". Roughly a year or two later, it started to be available here as well. Thanks for that, media industry, that was a wonderful move! /s