Because of the advice that Condi Rice gave President Bush on Iraq, I don't think she is fit to be Secretary of State. She;s bright, charming and thoughtful in many ways, but she has a world view in which the United States has no need to live in community but only to dominate the lives of others. I continue to believe that the administration seriously and intentionally misstated the case for war with Iraq.

I don't know about the merits of cold medicines laws, but if they are ineffective, then it would have to be said that Oklahoma's DA's and law enforcement officials who claim that meth lab busts are down subtantially in Oklahoma just because of those laws are either seriously misinformed or seriously fibbing. In Oklahoma, it was Republicans who pushed for these laws.

Bayh says the Oklahhoma law has "driven down meth lab seizures by more than 80 percent." What does that mean? There are several different substances that can be used as a precursor to methamphetamine, and in the past when access to one has been restricted, manufacturers have moved to another. The same would happen here.

Perhaps most importantly, just because a law achieves its intended purpose, it is not necessarily beneficial. We could require a universal curfew after 10pm and I suspect you would decrease crime. The law might achieve its purpose, but that doesn't make it beneficial.

Evan's foolishness brings to mind the opinion of serious people that the current Indiana financial disaster can be easily traced to him and his. He is a person of appearance, not substance. He is a user, not a builder. He is a lightweight, popular, nice, scheming, his father's son.

I don't see what your problem is, Josh. It's like with free speech. Sure, we have the right to criticize the government, but only communists actually want to exercise it. Are you a communist, Josh?

(Sorry, but I had a feeling that nobody had ever called you a communist before and I thought you might find it amusing. I actually agree wholeheartedly with your view of this bill.)

Josh - I'm trying to figure out how to evaluate this legislation, and I have to ask - are you suggesting that whatever data or study Mr. Bayh was basing his statement on is in fact flawed in some way? (could very well be - could there be any other reason for meth lab seizures to dramatically decline? Reduced enforcement? Reduced demand?)

If manufacturers would simply move to another product, then why would the seizures decline?

I'd offer up, just off the top of my head (potentially wrong) that maybe this method is by far the cheapest method of production, and by controlling the supply of those products you dramatically increase the cost, thereby driving down the number of people running the labs. But then again, I've never run a meth lab, so I honestly don't know.

For one, I am skeptcal. He's only citing seizures, which is heavily dependent on enforcement methods, and no one has addresses how those might've changed.

But my main quarrel is not with that statistic - meth use may very well be down. I'm more concerned about the negative externalities. As my curfew example tries to illustrate, even if the law does decrease meth use by a few hundred seizures, it doesn't make it beneficial.

It's also entirely possible that meth production shifted from OK to neighboring states when this law was passed. The cost of the drug would then increase incrementally, but use would decrease little if at all. (And surely drug use is what we're actually trying to decrease, right?)

I'm sympathetic with the argument that these laws are intrusive into the lives of law-abiding citizens -- but is it any more intrusive than what we face if we want to fly on an airline. Further, I read recently that just because I flew in the week before 9/11 that my name, address and credit card number were likely turned over to the government. So, I may be even more concerned about how the Bush administration has acted than about cold pills.

Meth labs are ravaging our rural communities. I'm not sure if restricting sales is the answer, and I do see a scary civil liberties implication, but I do understand the desperation to find a solution.

Further, I find the recent Supreme Court ruling that police may have dogs sniff the outside of one's car without a warrant very intrusive.

Eric, if Meth production shifted to neighboring states, that would also suggest that the law had a significant impact in that it would have increased the cost of producing the stuff. And therefore, if you expanded the law, you'd make the labs move farther and farther away to get raw materials, thereby pushing up the price on the street.

I think I agree with Joel in principle - if we're willing to have our library and plane records seized by the government and allow the FBI to monitor our lives to prevent terrorism, then it's not that hard to go up to a desk and sign your name in order to buy flu medicine.

However, that is all, in my head, predicated on the example presented of Oklahoma and the possibility that the correlation there implies causation. In other words, if Bayh is right and that law did significant damage to the meth labs, then it should be expanded. If there is some other reason for the drop-off, then making the law nationwide will have almost no effect and will just waste everyone's time.

I think I agree with Joel in principle - if we're willing to have our library and plane records seized by the government and allow the FBI to monitor our lives to prevent terrorism, then it's not that hard to go up to a desk and sign your name in order to buy flu medicine.

I'm not willing to do any of those things, so I think I'm consistent in my opposition to this bill.

"Your ordinary, law-abiding citizen isn't going to object"

In order words, oppose me and you're a crook!

The more I think about it and the more I read, I'm getting pretty uncomfortable about the law. I think we should just stick with penalties for operating meth labs.

I see in the Tulsa World where Walgreen's has already been charged with violating the law. Walgreen's says its sales were legal. Besides the privacy concerns, I fear the possibility of set-ups and witch hunts.

Sales restrictions of over-the-counter aren't completely new, however. In Texas years ago, to get certain over-the-counter medicines containing codeine, you had to sign a log at the pharmacy that was open to law inspection.

As an actual Oklahoma resident, I can assure you that the big pseudoephedrine sales these days are coming from just beyond our borders, as meth lab operators spill over the state lines to get the goods they can't buy in Soonerland. Lab busts are well and truly down, but I'm inclined to think that what we're seeing is a consolidation, with bigger labs (who have the time to drive over to Kansas or Arkansas) serving probably the same number of druggies.