d0om on 22/6/2009 at 15:48
Sudafed is pseudoephedrine though, as the link in the post above shows. It is the registered trade name of pseudoephedrine with the FDA in the states.
That means that the drug and the name Sudafed are synonyms for each other. (Although only one manufacturer is allowed to call it Sudafed.) Anything called sudafed should contain pseudoephedrine, or its not sudafed.
In the states the new version is called Sudafed PE, rather than Sudafed. Its is only in the UK that they have gotten away with calling two different drugs identical trade names. They shouldn't be allowed to call a different molecule Sudafed. For some reason UK law seems lax on the subject.
demagogue on 22/6/2009 at 16:49
Except that in effect Sudafed isn't pseudoephedrine in the UK anymore.
Given that the regulators made the decision to restrict pseudoephedrine to request-only, there was almost certainly a long period of discussions involving the regulators and the Sudafed people about what was coming and about what sort of accomodations might be possible. So I wonder if it was more than just finding an obscure loophole. The regulators, or really I guess it's the legislators who passed the change in law but wanted to temper its economic impacts (and the regulators just follow what the law says), might have been in on it from the beginning.
So I just wonder if you'll find much sympathy from the regulators. Companies of this size usually wouldn't do something like this -- on a topic that they know more about the regulation than anybody (drug labels) -- unless they were 1000% sure in advance the regulators would be on their side. And I suspect the regulators were sure to have been asked in advance if the accomodation would be kosher when the restrictions were still being discussed, and gave at least a yellow-light indication they wouldn't pursue it, if not everybody being the same room watching the legislators effectively sanction both decisions (to restrict and to accomodate) as all part of a package. Not that that makes it any less swarmy.
And that still doesn't help your stuffy nose any, I know.
I myself like a bowl of miso soup.
fett on 22/6/2009 at 17:23
After reading this whole thread I think it's perfectly clear to everyone that d0om is a meth head looking for sympathy. You'll get none here you hippie. :mad:
d0om on 22/6/2009 at 21:48
Quote Posted by fett
After reading this whole thread I think it's perfectly clear to everyone that d0om is a meth head looking for sympathy. You'll get none here you hippie. :mad:
You can convert my pseudoephedrine into meth OVER MY DEAD BODY ><
Damn meth dealers ruining perfectly good drugs.
RE: Demagogue just because it happened doesn't mean a few strongly-worded letters of complaint to the right people can't change it!
SubJeff on 22/6/2009 at 23:07
I blame the US tbh. Seriously. Every time we get an American patient they bring their medication list in and its all trade names that you then have to look up. I mean if everyone else calls it paracetamol then wtf is your f'ing problem? And why does everyone call it 2 different names (Tylenol and acte-whatever)? And just wft is epinepherine? Does it come from the epinepheral gland? Get with the program, and learn to spell (sulfur my ass - you sound like a frekking crackhead bad boyz gansta twit).
I never buy trade name stuff because its always more expensive and you can get component stuff if you know what you are looking for (ALWAYS READ THE LABEL). I think you can still get pseudoephedrine over the counter in the UK if you ask for it, and I wouldn't be surprised if its substituted use in Sudafed is actually due to its side effects and potentially dangerous interactions with other drugs and certain medical conditions - stuff that is less pronounced with phenylephrine.
Muzman on 23/6/2009 at 00:34
In fairness, they did illustrate that different parts of your face turn blue with this new active ingredient. It's not their fault if people don't read the signs.
Scots Taffer on 23/6/2009 at 00:52
All this chemistry talk and yet I still don't know how to make meth from sudafed.
MsLedd on 23/6/2009 at 01:48
Well, in the US... The Sudafed that is now sold on the shelves (containing Phenylephrine, not Pseudoephedrine) is called "Sudafed PE"
Inline Image:
http://a1468.g.akamai.net/f/1468/580/1d/pics.Drugstore.com/prodimg/139134/300.jpgThe old kind (the one that works, with Pseudoephedrine) that you have to get from suspicious pharmacy clerks who give you dirty looks and make you register with the DEA for one box, still has the original name.
Inline Image:
http://a1468.g.akamai.net/f/1468/580/1d/pics.Drugstore.com/prodimg/11511/300.jpgHowever, they both say "MAXIMUM STRENGTH" and "Nasal Decongestant"
The thing that made me go "WTF?" (knowing the average consumer intelligence to be about equal to that of an artichoke) is that the NEW (Sudafed PE) pill looks exactly like the old ones (like a cinnamon red hot candy), but the dosage is now ONE tablet, not TWO (as it was with the old one). Yes, the dosage instructions said this (in very small print).... but even relatively smart people who have been taking Sudafed for years are going to see those little red pills and take two, just as they always have. But, it was only VERY recently that they added the "1 pill dose" picture
I bought a curling iron that had a warning label on it that said "DO NOT INSERT INTO ANY ORIFICE". Now, you know they added that warning after some dumbfuck sued them for 3rd degree burns in their asshole. You'd think that a little blurb on the package (perhaps next to the "Does not contain Pseudoephedrine" line) that says NOTE: NEW DOSAGE INSTRUCTIONS would have been a no-brainer from the get-go... but nooooo. I'm betting Johnson & Johnson got sued a bunch of times for people overdosing before they added that subtle change.
june gloom on 23/6/2009 at 01:55
Quote Posted by MsLedd
I bought a curling iron that had a warning label on it that said "DO NOT INSERT INTO ANY ORIFICE".
what
hahahaha
what
hahahaha
what
Scots Taffer on 23/6/2009 at 02:21
That'd make your toes curl, that's for sure.
