More meth. . .
I’m going to step up on my soapbox for a minute and rant here a little bit.
I think that the research on meth conducted by Steve Suo and the Oregonian is commendable. To suggest that the government has the ability to make a difference on the methamphetamine market is a hopeful look. I’m impressed that the series does not just condemn the government for failing to deal with the issue, but in fact claims that the government did not realize it had a positive effect.
But my personal thoughts have been rattling around, and there’s a question that remains in my head that I can’t shake. The pharmaceutical companies that produce pseudoephedrine have stated that they are victims in this situation, and that what they are doing is legal.
They’re right, of course. But personally, I have an issue with this. How detached from society are the people making these decisions? I have to wonder, what are the pharmaceutical big-wigs thinking about when they defend the use of a chemical that they know is destroying lives at an alarming rate?
To me, there is a lack of values at play here. Just because it isn’t illegal, that doesn’t mean it’s still right. I have to think that my involvement in the production of such a chemical would leave me feeling a little uncomfortable.
Luckily, there is some good news here. Many over the counter companies are switching to a new decongestant called phenylephrine. It has many of the same affects, but, unlike pseudoephedrine-based decongestants, it can’t be used to make meth. Read more about Sudafed's decision to start using this drug in this Wikipedia article.
It seems to me that if the drug companies make a shift to this chemical, we will find that the meth market slows significantly.
I suspect part of what cuts the cost of meth is that the market for cold medicine is so vast that pharmaceutical companies produce pseudoephedrine at such huge quantities that super labs can buy them at a relatively low cost. If they have to produce it themselves, they will be making it in lower quantities (at least I hope the country uses more cold medicine than meth) increasing their cost.
If meth prices rise, I think we’re going to see a drop off in its current consumer base. Meth users don’t have tons of cash, hence the property crime. And if the price rises fast enough, they’re going to have to market it to a wealthier market to stay afloat.
I’m disappointed in the drug companies though. It took government restrictions for them to seek an alternative. Rather than consider the harm their product causes, they stopped once it became more inconvenient to maintain the status quo.
Maybe I’m an idealist, but I’d rather have businesses that have values that consider the impact of their actions. I suspect that I would be naïve to think there’s many companies out there that think of the harm they could cause before they think of the bottom line.
To learn more about the chemical pseudoephedrine, check out this Wikipedia article.
I think that the research on meth conducted by Steve Suo and the Oregonian is commendable. To suggest that the government has the ability to make a difference on the methamphetamine market is a hopeful look. I’m impressed that the series does not just condemn the government for failing to deal with the issue, but in fact claims that the government did not realize it had a positive effect.
But my personal thoughts have been rattling around, and there’s a question that remains in my head that I can’t shake. The pharmaceutical companies that produce pseudoephedrine have stated that they are victims in this situation, and that what they are doing is legal.
They’re right, of course. But personally, I have an issue with this. How detached from society are the people making these decisions? I have to wonder, what are the pharmaceutical big-wigs thinking about when they defend the use of a chemical that they know is destroying lives at an alarming rate?
To me, there is a lack of values at play here. Just because it isn’t illegal, that doesn’t mean it’s still right. I have to think that my involvement in the production of such a chemical would leave me feeling a little uncomfortable.
Luckily, there is some good news here. Many over the counter companies are switching to a new decongestant called phenylephrine. It has many of the same affects, but, unlike pseudoephedrine-based decongestants, it can’t be used to make meth. Read more about Sudafed's decision to start using this drug in this Wikipedia article.
It seems to me that if the drug companies make a shift to this chemical, we will find that the meth market slows significantly.
I suspect part of what cuts the cost of meth is that the market for cold medicine is so vast that pharmaceutical companies produce pseudoephedrine at such huge quantities that super labs can buy them at a relatively low cost. If they have to produce it themselves, they will be making it in lower quantities (at least I hope the country uses more cold medicine than meth) increasing their cost.
If meth prices rise, I think we’re going to see a drop off in its current consumer base. Meth users don’t have tons of cash, hence the property crime. And if the price rises fast enough, they’re going to have to market it to a wealthier market to stay afloat.
I’m disappointed in the drug companies though. It took government restrictions for them to seek an alternative. Rather than consider the harm their product causes, they stopped once it became more inconvenient to maintain the status quo.
Maybe I’m an idealist, but I’d rather have businesses that have values that consider the impact of their actions. I suspect that I would be naïve to think there’s many companies out there that think of the harm they could cause before they think of the bottom line.
To learn more about the chemical pseudoephedrine, check out this Wikipedia article.
posted by Aaron Burkhalter at
8:06 PM
5 Comments:
wait just one second there, bub. pseudoephedrine itself is not a bad or harmful chemical. it has the miraculous properties of decongesting very quickly, causing sweating, and dilating the bronchioles. the problem is high doses and the fact that some take it for appetite suppression and the intentional loss of body weight through sweat. anyway.. it would be nice if it could be proved that ephedrine (the non-false kind)could not ever be used to make meth, and therefor it was ok to market for those needing decongesting. then i could have the access i want to ephedra (ma huang) that i should be entitled as within the scope of my oriental medicine license.
it's that old argument: guns don't kill people, people kill people- so why you takin' my gun away? because i ain't never killed anyone with it, and if i were to, i sure wouldn't care about your gun laws.
anyway.. you can see what i mean.
i love this blog.
By
Brett, at 9:10 PM
Brett,
Most definately agreed. But I do have a question for you about this, which is merely for my own information, because I assume that you are more of an authority on these issues.
Is this new chemical, phenylephrine, that the Sudafed company has taken on as effective as ephedrine?
I was arguing here that it would have been nice for drug companies to seek some alternatives, or work out some of their own solutions. It's an ethical cunundrum for sure, but were I in the position of dealing with these things the meth epidemic would weight heavily on my head.
The real tragedy I think is that what Suo's research showed was that through some governmental checks and balances, this whole situation could be solved without cutting off ephedrine to those using it for cold medication.
How does this medicine play out in chinese medicine FYI?
And again, I'm figuring you're an authority on this issue, so please correct me on any points at all.
By
Aaron Burkhalter, at 9:57 PM
well, yeah. I know your point is more about why they chose the route they chose, when opportunties were open to them to go another way... and i cna't answer that in a way that's better than speculation.
the phenylephrine is ok.. it's not as effective as PSE but it's not as likely to cause side effects either (for different reasons)... my experience with it is limited, since i try to avoid western drugs, but i have taken it and found it unremarkable. it's been in use a long time, it's just not as effective, and as a drug company, i would sell the more effective drug, as long as it's legal.. frankly, the meth thing has been wya more of an issue in the past ten years only, and prior to that it was really not the epidemic it is today. i dont' see getting PSE off the market as much more than a band-aid. we aren't doign anything about the root problem. why do people feel like they need to take meth? are they poor? do they have no job? are they unhappy in some way? there's probably more we could do than simply restrict access to something that *might* be used to make meth.. . so yeah.. i think it's a case of an unfortunate situation arising and no one really knowing the best wy to deal with it..
By
Brett, at 8:12 PM
The real tragedy is that if The Oregonian is correct, all we need is some stronger checks and balances, which would then allow the drug companies to continue to produce the best medication, and keep the meth epidemic down.
There's a, I think, myth around Oregon that the meth epidemic comes from bathtub meth labs from cold medication purchased at the store, when the real bulk of the material is coming from "superlabs."
The problem is the home labs make the news because someone screws it up and blows a sofa through there window. If it bleeds it leads, but in this case it creates a public image that is false.
I wish the government would step up a little bit more and deal with this.
By
Aaron Burkhalter, at 10:00 PM
troof. troof.
By
Brett, at 8:27 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home