Thursday, May 24, 2007

Sudafed and Methamphetamine

In Wisconsin, the state statutes state (get it?):

(6) No person other than a physician, dentist, veterinarian, or pharmacist may purchase more than 7.5 grams of pseudoephedrine contained in a pseudoephedrine product within a 30-day period without the authorization of a physician, dentist, or veterinarian.

There is apparently a large Meth industry in Wisconsin, due to all of the state parks and forests throughout the western and northern parts of the state. In doing a little research I have found that one method of making Meth is to somehow cook products that contain ephedrine and come out with Meth. (See here for a link to the US Dept of Justice website on how it's made -- generally.) In its infinite wisdom, the state of Wisconsin now prohibits the purchase of small amounts of pseudoephedrine (see above). Ok, I get it...let's not sell large lots of Meth raw materials in order to restrict the flow of Meth being made in the state.

It turns out that 2 packs of Sudafed 12-hour tablets is about 8 grams. How do I know this? I tried to buy 2, and was restricted to 1. I went into the pharmacy where I know the pharmacist and most of the assistants. I'm not a Meth user, maker, or seller, and would gladly snap the neck of anyone making it or (worse) selling it to our kids.

I'm one of those people that always buys 2 when 1 would do. Hey, I snore, so to keep the Mrs. happy, I'll take a Sudafed now and then, especially now that the flowers are blooming. It's convenient having 2 packs -- one in the medicine cabinet, and one in my travel kit. But no -- can't do it. What a pain. And I'm not gonna go around the law and get the Mrs. to buy some, too. I could go to the doc and get a prescription for it...but it's called an over-the-counter-med for a reason. And why should I pay for a doctor's visit just to get some anti-stuffy meds? Dammit, why do a few morons make it so hard to just live a normal life?

And why does the state impose an inconvenience on me when it should be giving the local cops and sheriffs enough money to catch the bad guys?

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Rosie the Irrelevant

Great post over at The Corner on National Review Online by Victor Davis Hanson. I think this is one of the best lines of the year:

That's why the "View" is so valuable, because it is our window on the moronic affluent American mindset, the perfect result of abject ignorance colliding with unchecked affluence. (Italics mine.)

Amen, brother.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

And another thing...

Lower the drinking age back to 18. If you're old enough to vote and old enough to fight and (perhaps) die for your country, you are old enough to drink beer.


Help a Cop out

This headline from the AP caught my attention:

JANESVILLE, Wis. — A driver who was stopped for speeding and tested over the legal limit for blood-alcohol content, but was not arrested, was killed less than three hours later Monday when his car hit a tree, according to police.

Catch the full story on Fox News here.

I want to encourage you to join me and contribute to the legal defense fund for the poor cop that let this guy go. The driver, besides being a candidate for this year's Darwin Awards, wasn't even wearing his safety belt. I've been a vocal and tireless (and not-very-effective) opponent of mandatory seat-belt laws for adults. I truly believe that we all have the right to be dumb...and need to take a little personal responsibility in our lives, get the damn government out of the business of being a nanny, and pay the consequences for our actions.

Now I don't want to hear from the MADD folks on this. Yes, this guy COULD HAVE killed someone else. But he didn't -- he has taken the ULTIMATE responsibility for being one with nature (and that tree) now.

I don't give a damn about this guy's personal life, nor about what his problems were, nor why he was pounding some beers before he got in the car. Unless we're going to pass laws requiring sobriety tests at the exits to all bars and homes (not likely), we'll get this now and then. Our laws (and the punishments) are designed as deterrents to bad behavior. As long as we don't hurt someone else in the process, we need to think carefully where we're going to draw the line on legislating against bad behavior.

I know, I know, I AGREE that we should have DWI laws (where did the term 'DUI' come from, anyway?), and I think they should be enforced. But this cop stopped the guy, made him take the breath test, had a friend come pick him up, and sent them on their way. It sure as hell is not the cop's fault that the guy ended up behind the wheel later. Sure, he could have sobered up in the drunk tank. BUT...he'd just hit the bottle again the next day and wrap himself around that tree (or maybe around your bumper).

You know that this cop will lose his job over this...and all because he treated this guy as we'd like him to treat us if we were in this scenario. Reminds me of my Dad when I first "tasted" beer. He wouldn't give me aspirin the next day...said that I needed to understand what the price of beer was (besides the $1.99 per six-pack). Smart man, yes, he was.

Send money to this cop.

Personal responsibility...that's what it's all about.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Thank God he's an EX-President

This week, former President Jimmy Carter was asked about Tony Blair's legacy. Said the Pea-brained Nut from Georgia:

"I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world."

Now, it's one thing to criticize Blair (he should not), but it's quite another for the Peanut Man to take a shot at President Bush. An unwritten policy of gentlemanliness has always been followed by former Presidents: You don't criticize the President who's in office. As a Southerner, I'm embarrassed that Carter would show the lack of manners and class to violate this courtesy. Recall that neither Nixon nor Ford ever said anything bad about Carter while he was in office. They just didn't comment. A little professional courtesy would be nice, and, dammit, just plain good manners are lacking in this hick. I'm sure his mama, Miz Lillian, would slap him silly.


Friday, May 18, 2007

Immigration Reform (NOT) and Amnesty

Here's a great post from National Review Online. This should remind you why Ted Kennedy is a moron and can't be trusted behind the wheel of a car, let alone writing laws.

Ted Kennedy on Immigration [Mark Krikorian]

1965: "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

1986: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."

2007: "Now it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system."

H/T NRO 5/18/2007