Seriously, California Legislature?

[NWFlyer 2]

You can't come up with any better things to do with your time?

Yes, let's drastically increase the cost of a box of sudafed by making a prescription required.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2009%2F06%2F02%2Fstate%2Fn175150D33.DTL&type=politics

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[billvon 3,120]

They are already controlled-access in most pharmacies.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

They are already controlled-access in most pharmacies.

Yes, but that's a big difference from having to make a trip to a physician for an Rx, pay for some or all of that visit, and then take that Rx to the pharmacy.

In my current health care situation, I could do that all electronically (email to my doctor, have him send the Rx to the pharmacy), but for a lot of folks, getting a prescription still involves a visit to a doctor.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[billvon 3,120]

>Yes, but that's a big difference from having to make a trip to a physician for an Rx . . .

I agree. I was saying that they already have pseudoephedrine under pretty strict control, so they don't need yet another level of control. Prescription-only drugs should be under a doctor's control because of their potential for medical abuse, not because they are popular ingredients for an illegal process used to make drugs.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You can't come up with any better things to do with your time?

The more I read about this, the more this initiative makes sense to me. And the more I believe half of legislature will fail the test.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[NWFlyer 2]

Oh, sorry. I thought you were saying "no big change since it's already controlled access."

Nevermind.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[billvon 3,120]

>The more I read about this, the more this initiative makes sense to me. And
>the more I believe half of legislature will fail the test.

I like it! Test them for drugs and alcohol and bounce them out if they fail the test more than once - but make it legal for them to smoke pot as long as an MD 'recommends' it. They wouldn't get much done, but they'd eat a lot of chips in the process.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

They wouldn't get much done, but they'd eat a lot of chips in the process.

Thus stimulating the local economy! Brilliant!

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[billvon 3,120]

Even better! Require that any pot smoked is home grown here in California (to stimulate farm production) and make exceptions to the alcohol policy for local beers and wines. We'd be back to normal in no time.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I like it! Test them for drugs and alcohol and bounce them out if they fail the test more than once - but make it legal for them to smoke pot as long as an MD 'recommends' it.

This is the first step. The second should be introducing "legislating during influence" offense with random tests before or after voting for specific bills. It's not legal to drive under influence of pot, even prescribed by MD, so it shouldn't be legal to legislate under influence as well.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[billvon 3,120]

>It's not legal to drive under influence of pot, even prescribed by MD, so it
>shouldn't be legal to legislate under influence as well.

Sounds like you shouldn't support this proposal, then.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

They are already controlled-access in most pharmacies.

Yes, but that's a big difference from having to make a trip to a physician for an Rx, pay for some or all of that visit, and then take that Rx to the pharmacy.

In my current health care situation, I could do that all electronically (email to my doctor, have him send the Rx to the pharmacy), but for a lot of folks, getting a prescription still involves a visit to a doctor.

It is pretty silly to go above and beyond the controls already in place for pseudoephedrine, so I agree the bill is foolish. Regarding the rest of your post, I think services like this are a step in the right direction. There's one right down the street from me, and with my current health coverage I would have no copay for any of it.

Come to think of it, this bill would make it cheaper (read: free) for me to get Claritin-D because it would then be covered by my insurance.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Even better! Require that any pot smoked is home grown here in California (to stimulate farm production) and make exceptions to the alcohol policy for local beers and wines. We'd be back to normal in no time.

Goddamn protectionists! There you go trying to shut down trade again. You don't buy our dope, we don't buy your citrus fruit.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Even better! Require that any pot smoked is home grown here in California (to stimulate farm production) and make exceptions to the alcohol policy for local beers and wines. We'd be back to normal in no time.

Goddamn protectionists! There you go trying to shut down trade again. You don't buy our dope, we don't buy your citrus fruit.

You are correct. Such a policy would violate the guidance of jurisprudence about the dormant Commerce Clause (U.S. Constitution.)

My wife is hotter than your wife.