methheads and tweakers and laws, oh my.

so yesterday i posted this, and got a couple passioned responses, so i thought i'd continue the discussion.

the Oregon House passed the bill yesterday. it will now be passed to the state senate. see today's article.

now, i am still forming an opinion on this. but i *am* curious what all of you think.

on the one hand, Oregon has a tremendously bad meth problem. you can ride mass transit and hear folks discussing where they got a good score. there was a case months back of a little boy who didn't want to go home from school because his house "smelled funny."

on the other hand, is this the right way to tackle the problem? i am well aware of how many folks out there do not have medical insurance. requiring a scrip means a visit to a physician. we're not canada. no socialized medicine here. so these people must suffer quietly?

they are developing alternative OTC meds which supposedly do the same thing, but these have been issued so quickly, how can we know the long-term effects of these drugs?

the article states, "
Kropf noted that most of the meth in Oregon is imported from Mexican
superlabs and that the real solution is turning would-be users away
from meth with education and treatment."

but also: "

Rep. Bill Garrard, R-Klamath Falls, said requiring a prescription
would not be a hardship for many people who can use an increasing
number of alternatives. Pfizer, which makes Sudafed, already sells a
version that uses another decongestant and is planning
pseudoephedrine-free formulations of some other brands.

In addition, doctors would be allowed to dispense prescriptions for
pseudoephedrine products over the phone, and consumers could get up to
five refills in a six-month period.

"

no doctor i know will prescribe for a patient without seeing them, at least seeing them initially. so is that even a viable reason?

thoughts? rants? anyone?