It's in the news that the legislature is now considering to require a prescription to buy any product which contains Pseudoephedrine (PSE). This is misguided legislation if ever there was any, and we need to find a way to stop this! You already have to show ID to buy it now, and your use is tracked in the pharmacy computer, and I know it's not a perfect system, but having been a retail pharmacist, I can tell you it works to a great extent. And you’re fooling yourself if you think that this will prevent meth cookers from getting this ingredient - trust me, they will find it anyway. Haven't we learned from other drugs like POT, that where there's a will, there's always a way!? Look at what a fiasco prohibition was – don’t get me started.

SO... all this is going to accomplish is to put more government in your life, make your life more difficult, and increase the cost to the heath care system! And by health care system, I mean the health care dollars out of YOUR pocket - because now, you’re going to have to pay for a doctor’s visit to get a prescription to get the product. Unless you're one of the lucky ones (mostly rich folks -sorry rich folks) who can just call a doctor and have one phoned in at no charge. And if you don't have health insurance, about $65 is the cheapest doctor visit around, at the walk in clinic – so guess what, the cost of your Sudafed® (or anything containing PSE) just jumped by several thousand percent! And for what? Some misguided idea that this will have any significant effect at stemming the making of Meth!?!

I for one don’t buy it! I believe that there must be some ulterior motive going on here – like some obscure legislator trying to get his/her name in the news, etc… I hope this topic gets a LOT of notice and participation.

I saw the news reports about this last night on the local channels. They made it really clear that requiring a prescription to obtain pseudoephedrine is the only way to keep meth out of the hands of children. I don't want meth getting into the hands of children so I have to be in favor of this legislation for the sake of the children. It's always better to be safe than sorry.

I saw the news reports about this last night on the local channels. They made it really clear that requiring a prescription to obtain pseudoephedrine is the only way to keep meth out of the hands of children. I don't want meth getting into the hands of children so I have to be in favor of this legislation for the sake of the children. It's always better to be safe than sorry.

But this will NOT accomplish that Stew (IMHBEO) - that's one of my main points...

I saw the news reports about this last night on the local channels. They made it really clear that requiring a prescription to obtain pseudoephedrine is the only way to keep meth out of the hands of children. I don't want meth getting into the hands of children so I have to be in favor of this legislation for the sake of the children. It's always better to be safe than sorry.

Okay - let me go a little further...
You mean the burnt eggs in the frying pan "this is your brain on drugs" message isn't enough to keep your kid off drugs!?! Go figure.

Just kidding...

In all seriousness, assuming that you could plug all the local holes for access to PSE, it will just become another Mexican (or Canadian) import - either the PSE itself, or just the finished product.
This legislation is NOT an answer - it only serves to make the lives of the honest citizen more expensive and complicated.

If it accomplishes it even a little, fine. I can live without pseudoephedrine.

I work with lots of people whose lives have been wrecked by meth use or by a close relation's meth use. The consequences are always awful. Every single time. I'm not sure whether pseudoephedrine is necessary to treat anything where there isn't a viable alternative, so I'd be in favor if it being completely illegal.

The fact that meth is widely available and easy to produce has turned a lot of people to it. I've known lots of people who went from prescription drug habits or marijuana habits to much cheaper meth habits. My impression of you MSully is that you either work for the company which produces Sudafed and you are doing PR, or you are a meth cooker who is going to possibly have to get a real job now. Either way, I don't have a lot of sympathy for your position.

I agree...It would just start coming in more from south of da border

Seems like a waste of time and effort

it will just become another Mexican (or Canadian) import - either the PSE itself, or just the finished product.

Oh I get it! We need to stop this legislation to keep our home cooked meth industry jobs right here in Oklahoma and the prices nice and low so that meth becomes stays a cheap and viable alternative to prescription drugs and marijuana. Great idea.

Who's going to be crazy enough to go to the expense of going to a doctor to be prescribed pseudoephedrine when you can simply go buy an over the counter substitue for it called Phenylephrine HCI?

Really, though, if this country was serious about its illegal drug problems, then I would think there would be a lot more visible things going on meant to discourage the use or abuse of illegal drugs.

I used to be a big fan of using PSE as intended, but then I became a defective Weeble.
I canna say with certainty PSE was the culprit, but once I stopped using it, I went beck to being a happy normal Weeble.

From my experience, it's darn hard to even get this stuff now.

You have to go to an employee, show your ID, fill out all your information, etc. Plus, there are strict limits on how much you can buy.

How exactly is anyone getting enough of this stuff to make much crystal meth? I suspect they are not getting their supplies from the drug stores.

If it accomplishes it even a little, fine. I can live without pseudoephedrine.

I work with lots of people whose lives have been wrecked by meth use or by a close relation's meth use. The consequences are always awful. Every single time. I'm not sure whether pseudoephedrine is necessary to treat anything where there isn't a viable alternative, so I'd be in favor if it being completely illegal.

The fact that meth is widely available and easy to produce has turned a lot of people to it. I've known lots of people who went from prescription drug habits or marijuana habits to much cheaper meth habits. My impression of you MSully is that you either work for the company which produces Sudafed and you are doing PR, or you are a meth cooker who is going to possibly have to get a real job now. Either way, I don't have a lot of sympathy for your position.

I'm disappointed in you Midtowner - that you don't even attempt to seriously debate any of the legitimate issues I raise, and jump straight to accusing me of being a shill or worse.

So to sum you up then, as long as YOU "can live without pseudoephedrine", and your "not sure whether pseudoephedrine is necessary to treat anything where there isn't a viable alternative", then it should just be "completely illegal".
Well... what an enlightened point of view.

And I'm glad that YOU can live without PSE (I don't even use it BTW), but it seems obvious that you could care less for those who suffer from chronic congestion issues, and for them PSE is a lifeline.
As for viable alternatives, as one poster mentioned below there is ONE, but for many, it is inferior - so wrong on that account too.

And it's not my position that needs sympathy - it is a real issue that basic critical thinking would recognize as having merit enough to stand on its own, and deserves real and serious debate - which is what I was HOPING to find here...

It's not about making it unavailable to cookers. It's about making it more expensive and time-consuming to buy en masse.

There are other things which can treat chronic congestion, so I'm not impressed by that argument.

You're not looking for debate, you're looking to hear an echo. If we can pass laws putting less meth on the streets, I'm all for it. And if you think that the biggest problem with this is that it would move our meth jobs to other states, well, again, I'm not very impressed by that argument either. Is it your argument that there are no viable alternatives to pseudoephedrine? None whatsoever?

Even if there aren't, under this law, it would still be available with a prescription, so those very few people who truly need it would still have access. The available amount would be tracked, just like with other prescription drugs, and again, it would be a lot harder for your average meth head to get. I'm not seeing the downside. If you're worried about freedom and such, this seems a weird place to start.

There are other things which can treat chronic congestion, so I'm not impressed by that argument.
It's not my argument, its fact. I guess you may of missed that I am a pharmacist, and it is simply true that PSE is, for some, the only option that offers real relief. As for the one alternative, it works for some sure, but is not same for everyone. And for the millions of others who use it for seasonal use, nothing compares IMO.


You're not looking for debate, you're looking to hear an echo.
Your opinion - it's not worth arguing about.


If we can pass laws putting less meth on the streets... .
And it is my contention that it won't help - refer to original post


And if you think that the biggest problem with this is that it would move our meth jobs to other states, well, again, I'm not very impressed by that argument either.
I Never argued that was the biggest problem - I was saying that there are easy alternatives for supply to get here - so even if you outlawed it completely (as you mentioned previously), it ain't going away... POT is completely illegal, but you and I both know it is still everywhere...


Even if there aren't [alternatives], under this law, it would still be available with a prescription, so those very few people who truly need it would still have access..
True, but your not getting it - available at what cost! Again, re-read original post.


I'm not seeing the downside.
I can see that!


If you're worried about freedom and such, this seems a weird place to start. .
And that seems like a weird thing to say - any place we can start to protect our freedom is a good place as far as I'm concerned - although I'm not trying to equate this with a bigger picture erosion of our freedoms kind of thing - but it could go there.

Gee... this is starting to feel like a debate to me!

Aren't most drugs with very dangerous potential off-label uses prescription only?

Aren't most drugs with very dangerous potential off-label uses prescription only?


Potential off-label uses do not usually come into play when making something prescription only - although that is what they're trying to do with PSE. It is the primary effect of the drug when used as prescribed that is the primary consideration. For example, Lortab is Rx only because it is a narcotic, so it's Rx only no matter how it is prescribed. Ibuprofen was once Rx only, but since there were essentially no dangerous effects when taken as prescribed, it went OTC (over the counter). But even Ibuprofen is dangerous if you use if off label - and an overdose would be considered off label. If you think about it, anything you can buy off the shelf has potential dangerous off-label uses. For example, kids getting high off of cough syrup is a dangerous off-label use - and BTW, watch for that to be the next thing to fall under tighter control. Again, I think that behind the counter control would deal with it well enough.

I used to be a big fan of using PSE as intended, but then I became a defective Weeble.
I canna say with certainty PSE was the culprit, but once I stopped using it, I went beck to being a happy normal Weeble.

So... exactly what is a "defective Weeble"? I could guess, but rather hear it from the horses mouth.

Usually the potential off-label use isn't making methamphetamines.

As someone who takes medication based off it daily this time of year I have some experience in it has gotten harder to obtain and most items that contain much of it have been semi-restricted or reformulated so that it is much harder (or useless) to convert it to meth than it was 3 to 4 years ago.

c'mon, meth is a real danger... who wouldn't want to give up a little freedom for a little security? -M

c'mon, meth is a real danger... who wouldn't want to give up a little freedom for a little security? -M

freedom is an after thought when you can not breath

So... exactly what is a "defective Weeble"? I could guess, but rather hear it from the horses mouth.

Defective Weeble is how I described my issue to some friends and then to the docs when I got fed up with it.
As the old tagline for the toy went - Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down.
I was a defective Weeble.
For a while, dang near anytime I popped up to my feet I'd get very light headed and as often as not find myself headed to the floor unless I caught myself on something.
All the plumbing turned out fine and we decided for me to stop using PSE, which was a constant companion due to how much time I spent outdoors with youth groups.
I still wobbled from time to time afterwards, even now sometimes, but this Weeble is no longer defective.

While ending PSE and the change in my defectiveness may have be coincidence, it was as good an explanation as any, so I've just rolled with it over time.

c'mon, meth is a real danger... who wouldn't want to give up a little freedom for a little security? -M

If I thought that it would or could result in a real difference, then I might agree. But as it should be clear, my whole argument is that it will not. It like guarding the water from the kitchen sink, but having no control over the bathtub - whats the point? Especially if guarding the kitchen sink is expensive, and creates hardship - both financially and otherwise for the good guys.

And please, Don't anyone get me wrong - I agree that meth is a terrible drug, and its cost on our society is unacceptable. BUT, supporting a knee jerk reaction that can be easily proven to be ineffective, is not acceptable either. Especially due to the harship that it will place on the citizens right to reasonable access to legal medication for appropriate use.

... For a while, dang near anytime I popped up to my feet I'd get very light headed and as often as not find myself headed to the floor unless I caught myself on something.
All the plumbing turned out fine and we decided for me to stop using PSE, which was a constant companion due to how much time I spent outdoors with youth groups.
I still wobbled from time to time afterwards, even now sometimes, but this Weeble is no longer defective.

While ending PSE and the change in my defectiveness may have be coincidence, it was as good an explanation as any, so I've just rolled with it over time.

Interesting - since PSE restricts the vasculature, you would not equate it with low blood pressure - if that indeed was the cause of your diziness upon standing - otherwise known as orthostatic-hypotension. Perhaps the restirction was too great in your case. Many times the answers cannot be figured out, but your right - without evidence to the contrary, I would go with the connection.

c'mon, meth is a real danger... who wouldn't want to give up a little freedom for a little security? -M

freedom is an after thought when you can not breath


Aint that the truth...

c'mon, meth is a real danger... who wouldn't want to give up a little freedom for a little security?


they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

that's what i get for being facetious. : ) -M

So... last word... does anyone on this forum have any interest in trying to organize an effort to oppose this legislation?
If so, speak up. I have no past experience at that, so suggestions would be welcome.
Thanks for the comments and responses so far... I really hope there is motivation out there to try to address this.

I was watching the blurb on channel five news and a detail that seemed to be between the lines in the story was meth lab cleanup costs fall on the state now and if the law is changed it might fall on the DEA. Did I get that right? Is this primarily about cost shifting?

After looking around, maybe that wasn't the point in the story. It seems in some states, if not Oklahoma, the DEA grants money to clean up meth labs, but they are broke and have issued notices that practice is stopping. So perhaps either Oklahoma hasn't figured that out yet and are trying to cost shift or they have and are trying to not only stop the manufacture of drugs but also are trying to stop the costs of cleaning up drug labs falling on the state. I sure couldn't tell from the way the story was put together.


http://www.wjle.com/news/2011/local-governments-stand-foot-bill-expensive-meth-lab-cleanups

I was watching the blurb on channel five news and a detail that seemed to be between the lines in the story was meth lab cleanup costs fall on the state now and if the law is changed it might fall on the DEA. Did I get that right? Is this primarily about cost shifting?

Wow, that would be an important detail, and might explain the motivation for the proposed legislation.
I will try to verify that - it wouldn't change my mind on the issue however.

Oklahoman had this article today...Looks like liquid and gel tablets won't be affected...Also saw that other states have had a lot of success with this so I guess I will flip to supporting it

http://m.newsok.com/s?a=3546066&f=news&p=2&s=16


Rep. Ben Sherrer, D-Choteau, the author of HB 1235, said cold and allergy medicines in liquid and gel tablet form still would be available over the counter.

All I can see that this law does is move the responsibility for restricting pseudoephedrine from pharmacists to physicians. What does that accomplish?

When it comes to the War on Some Drugs, I am always leery of official definitions of 'success.'

If it accomplishes it even a little, fine. I can live without pseudoephedrine.
Nice for you...not so much for the rest of us who need it.


I work with lots of people whose lives have been wrecked by meth use or by a close relation's meth use. The consequences are always awful. Every single time. I'm not sure whether pseudoephedrine is necessary to treat anything where there isn't a viable alternative, so I'd be in favor if it being completely illegal.
Alcohol "wrecks" more lives than meth can, so we should ban it as well?
Oh, that's right, we already tried that.

I have a cousin who has been through the Oklahoma Correctional system because of meth, I know what it can do but banning it is going to nothing more than move the users to manufactured meth.


I agree...It would just start coming in more from south of da border

Seems like a waste of time and effort
It already does, in much stronger form than the local cookers can make.


Who's going to be crazy enough to go to the expense of going to a doctor to be prescribed pseudoephedrine when you can simply go buy an over the counter substitue for it called Phenylephrine HCI?
That crap doesn't work.


There are other things which can treat chronic congestion, so I'm not impressed by that argument.
See above


Is it your argument that there are no viable alternatives to pseudoephedrine? None whatsoever?
None that i have found that work.


Even if there aren't, under this law, it would still be available with a prescription, so those very few people who truly need it would still have access. The available amount would be tracked, just like with other prescription drugs, and again, it would be a lot harder for your average meth head to get. I'm not seeing the downside. If you're worried about freedom and such, this seems a weird place to start.
I only go to the doctor when I need to, I hated having to go every year just to get a Claritin/Allegra/Zyrtec-D presription renewed, I like being able to buy it OTC much better. The restrictions already in place were supposed to put a severe dent into the meth trade. It also doesn't matter if surrounding states don't have the same laws in place. Evidently the restrictions don't work or you would prefer more of the factory made, higher strength meth to be imported from Mexico. Restricting pseudoephedrine isn't going to stop drug users from using their drugs, the whole "War on Drugs" is nothing more than a failed exercise.


Oklahoman had this article today...Looks like liquid and gel tablets won't be affected...Also saw that other states have had a lot of success with this so I guess I will flip to supporting it

http://m.newsok.com/s?a=3546066&f=news&p=2&s=16


Rep. Ben Sherrer, D-Choteau, the author of HB 1235, said cold and allergy medicines in liquid and gel tablet form still would be available over the counter.
Hopefully Zyrtec-D will be made in a gel version then.

All I can see that this law does is move the responsibility for restricting pseudo ephedrine from pharmacists to physicians. What does that accomplish?

When it comes to the War on Some Drugs, I am always leery of official definitions of 'success.'

as a retired officer I can see the incident of forged script investigations going up again.
Its a never ending cycle. stop the incident one way, the bad guy just figures it out another way.

The showing of DL to a pharmacist to obtain the PSE was a stop gap and did have a beneficial effect for a time.
Then the mokes figured out to send friends, relatives, the dude off the street in to buy for them. So incident of cooking comes back.

Stop thinking like a good guy, it accomplishing nothing and you will hurt yourself


Hum...wonder if our grand parents had these types discussion when they banned Laudnam............I guess for some of you it might be great great grand parents.lol

If it accomplishes it even a little, fine. I can live without pseudoephedrine.

I work with lots of people whose lives have been wrecked by meth use or by a close relation's meth use. The consequences are always awful. Every single time. I'm not sure whether pseudoephedrine is necessary to treat anything where there isn't a viable alternative, so I'd be in favor if it being completely illegal.

The fact that meth is widely available and easy to produce has turned a lot of people to it. I've known lots of people who went from prescription drug habits or marijuana habits to much cheaper meth habits. My impression of you MSully is that you either work for the company which produces Sudafed and you are doing PR, or you are a meth cooker who is going to possibly have to get a real job now. Either way, I don't have a lot of sympathy for your position.

Wow...

What Would Rush Do?

MSully--I think it's admirable that you're opposing government enlargement and more boneheaded laws in Oklahoma, for whatever personal reason that motivates you, it doesn't really matter. But it's such a minor point. Sudafed. Wow. I admire your passion about this, and trying to get "organized," but I think there are just so many bigger and better fights to pick later down the road. I say save your energy man. You're just going to get democracy fatigue...

That crap doesn't work.


Neither does PSE when your body buids a resistance to it.

To those who think Phenylephrine is a good alternative::: multiple studies have found NO DIFFERENCE between Phenylephrine & a placebo on congestion, sinus pressure, or other nasal symptoms. I can add a list of references if anyone would like - I did a meta-analysis on this for my BSN program not too long ago.

The showing of DL to a pharmacist to obtain the PSE was a stop gap and did have a beneficial effect for a time.
Then the mokes figured out to send friends, relatives, the dude off the street in to buy for them. So incident of cooking comes back.

And they won't do this with physicians? 'Doctor-shopping' is already an established phenomenon with prescription meds.

This is an attempt to push a law enforcement function onto physicians. I'm not a doctor, pharmacist, drug rep or decongestant/meth user. I have no dog in this fight at all.

But it doesn't seem like sound policy to demand physicians divine the intent of every person who walks into a clinic with a stuffy nose.

Phenylephrine is useless. I've never tried any product with it and had any success.

This idea wouldn't irk me so much if it didn't involve a doctor's office co-pay just to have cold medicine handy for when I need it. I can't say I support this.

Phenylephrine is useless. I've never tried any product with it and had any success.

This idea wouldn't irk me so much if it didn't involve a doctor's office co-pay just to have cold medicine handy for when I need it. I can't say I support this.

Can still get gel and liquid cold medicine w/o seeing a doc...Before I spotted that I thought this was crap as well

As a life-long sinus and allergy sufferer, PSE is one of the only things that consistently works. I already feel like a criminal when I have to "prove" I need the medication by submiting to ID checks, now I have to pay for a doctor's visit just to get relief? I have children, I dislike drug use but really these people will continue to obtain their PSE whether or not this law goes on the books. I believe this is just another "well intentioned" busy body law that limits rights.

Please. Do you feel like a criminal when you pick up antibiotics?

As far as limiting rights, there is no right to buy pseudoephedrine. No such thing. If the FDA wanted to make it illegal, it could go right ahead and do that, of course, assuming Constitutional due process requirements were met.

Here's an interesting article by an attorney who wouldn't mind seeing meth legalized: http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/victor1.html

Please. Do you feel like a criminal when you pick up antibiotics?

As far as limiting rights, there is no right to buy pseudoephedrine. No such thing. If the FDA wanted to make it illegal, it could go right ahead and do that, of course, assuming Constitutional due process requirements were met.

Maybe the current laws and regulations against pseudoephedrine need better enforced.

Please. Do you feel like a criminal when you pick up antibiotics?

That analogy completely fails, since one would not potentially use antibiotics to make an illicit drug.

That analogy completely fails, since one would not potentially use antibiotics to make an illicit drug.

Sounds like you make a pretty good case for pseudoephedrine to be more regulated than antibiotics.

Sounds like you make a pretty good case for pseudoephedrine to be more regulated than antibiotics.

Interesting interpretation....

Also, I have not been asked to make a case for the regulation of antibiotics (not here anyway) - but in fact there is a very good one..., and probably even more important to public health and safety.

Interesting interpretation....

Also, I have not been asked to make a case for the regulation of antibiotics (not here anyway) - but in fact there is a very good one..., and probably even more important to public health and safety.

Ah yes, the dreaded superbug.

But you'd assume that folks would use antibiotics sparingly and responsibly if left to their own devices, correct? Why treat them like criminals?

We require prescriptions when the misuse of a drug constitutes a danger to the public or a danger to someone's health. Off label use of pseudoephedrine constitutes both a risk to the public and a risk to an individual's health. Why should it be an exception?

Ah yes, the dreaded superbug.

But you'd assume that folks would use antibiotics sparingly and responsibly if left to their own devices, correct?

Nice try, but NOT correct...



We require prescriptions when the misuse of a drug constitutes a danger to the public or a danger to someone's health. Off label use of pseudoephedrine constitutes both a risk to the public and a risk to an individual's health. Why should it be an exception?

I don't know why or how we have strayed so far from my central argument - which is simply, IT WON'T WORK. Again, I am not opposed to preventing PSE from being misdirected for illicit use, but THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER to that problem - THIS WON'T WORK! And if this law passes, then what you have is a lot of extra time and effort and expense for the honest citizen to get their medication, and STILL have the meth problem. Rather than revisit everything that I originally said in support of that claim, I recommend a re-read of the original post, and then we can debate things that I actually said.

If someone could come up with a real alternative to PSE, I'd be all for it. So far you either get worthless phenylephrine or an antihistamine combo that conks you out. Who knew there could be such drama over stopping the flow of snot...

MSully,

You are focused on a belief, which I shall not call incorrect, that the plan intended by the legislation simply will not work.

That it is a solution which doesn't solve the problem, and that it creates unintended problems, is not really on the political radar.

Those advancing the legislation are far more focused on hey, meth is bad so something needs to be done.

Bottom line ... their plan qualifies as doing something, can be sold as doing a lot to some, and thus it must be good.

"Doing Something" is all that matter to politicians, doesn't matter if it is good or bad, they can always say they "did something" about the problem.

MSully,

You are focused on a belief, which I shall not call incorrect, that the plan intended by the legislation simply will not work.
So far so good...


That it is a solution which doesn't solve the problem...
Which is an oxymoronic statement (portrayed as such intentionally for effect, I assume), since by definition a solution DOES solve a problem.


...and that it creates unintended problems, is not really on the political radar.

The most salient part of the problem perhaps.


Those advancing the legislation are far more focused on hey, meth is bad so something needs to be done.

Bottom line ... their plan qualifies as doing something, can be sold as doing a lot to some, and thus it must be good.

And that's the lie that I am trying to "unsell"!

Are We-The-People really this gullible?
Or is it just complacency.

I suspect it is the latter - but which is worse?!

"Doing Something" is all that matter to politicians, doesn't matter if it is good or bad, they can always say they "did something" about the problem.

Are there any legislators on here that might wish to comment?
If there is, and you are NOT in support of this bill, PLEASE speak up - I for one will support action to oppose this silly and misguided (and that description is being kind) legislation.

Go to stopmethnotmeds.com and it will send a letter to your congress and representative for you.

If someone could come up with a real alternative to PSE, I'd be all for it. So far you either get worthless phenylephrine or an antihistamine combo that conks you out. Who knew there could be such drama over stopping the flow of snot...

My Godsend miracle remedy from allergies was cortiosteroid nasal spray. By the way, there are antihistimines, like Claratin that don't cause drowsiness, but you may develop a resistence to their effectiveness.

...

Are We-The-People really this gullible?
Or is it just complacency.

I suspect it is the latter - but which is worse?!

I'd also prefer to suspect the latter. However, most of what I see and hear lends way more support for the former. There's an old faith affirmation of 'God said it, I beleive it, that settles it.' Over the last three decades, that hard line stance has come to be fairly common in the political realm. Perk an ear up as you are out and about, and listen for how often you hear something along these lines: [commentator/politician/famous dude/tte] said it, I agree with that, there's nothing left to discuss/consider.

Amongst the right, the left, and also the amongst the centrist, there's a growing pandemic of concrete encased neurons.

I'd also prefer to suspect the latter. However, most of what I see and hear lends way more support for the former. There's an old faith affirmation of 'God said it, I beleive it, that settles it.' Over the last three decades, that hard line stance has come to be fairly common in the political realm. Perk an ear up as you are out and about, and listen for how often you hear something along these lines: [commentator/politician/famous dude/tte] said it, I agree with that, there's nothing left to discuss/consider.

Amongst the right, the left, and also the amongst the centrist, there's a growing pandemic of concrete encased neurons.

Another way to describe your sentiments, is intellectual laziness.
Unfortunately, people are not going to get genuinely involved until the electricity goes off - literally!!

My Godsend miracle remedy from allergies was cortiosteroid nasal spray. By the way, there are antihistimines, like Claratin that don't cause drowsiness, but you may develop a resistence to their effectiveness.

Yes, there are certainly other ways to skin the cat, but should we be forced to seek alternatives to what works best, just because we can't seem to stop the misguided actions of our legislators?!

What we need is an irresistible force to check their immovable object - or is it the other way 'round?

In any case, that oposing force has always been the will of the people - but unfortunately, that will usually has to be loud and massive to get anywhere, and I doubt that this issue is going to stir that kind of response.

As I said in another post - not 'till the electricity goes off - literally!