Sudafed in Cozumel with prescription?

[uncfnp]

Yet people are arguing that it's fine for them to flout this law because they need it, because it's legal back home, and because the ban is silly. They go so far as to advise people to ignore the ban and they give practical suggestions about how to get away with it.



I'm not equating relative medical risks, but I am equating legality. Mexico, as a sovereign nation, has decided that it's in the best interest of their nation to ban it. It's just as illegal to bring pseudoephedrine into Mexico as to bring heroin into the US or cannabis into Saudi Arabia. Mexico has tossed tourists in jail for pseudoephedrine in the past and they'll do it in future.

Oxycontin, methamphetamine, and cocaine are perfectly legal (if highly-controlled) in the US, so I needed an example of something that is totally banned in the US but legal somewhere else. Heroin fits, but I'd love other examples.

Pseudoephedrine is fairly low-risk, but people die from it every day so I'd hardly call it "harmless".



True, but it's not really pertinent. The world is packed full of silly laws; some would say the majority of laws are silly. Many of them seem obviously reasonable to people there and carry harsh punishments yet bewilder people from elsewhere. It turns out they'll still mete out the harsh punishments no matter how carefully one explains to the judge how dumb their stupid law is.



Many seem to believe that their personal circumstances or preferences somehow nullify laws they find inconvenient and that they're entitled to flout laws they don't like. Others just acknowledge that a law is dumb, shrug, and get on with life without violating that law.

In years of working with incarcerated patients my ears came to bleed less from their protestations of innocence and more from their explanations of why the law under which they were convicted was dumb or why they should have been entitled to a special exception.

I hear people advising others on this board how to smuggle substances that carry imprisonment penalties and think of all those patients over the years.

Some might argue that there is a higher level of morality than simply what is legal or illegal by man’s law, especially a law that is so inconsistent between groups.

And no people do not die daily from pseudoephedrine. Methamphetamine yes. Sudafed no.

 

[rmssetc]

Some might argue that there is a higher level of morality than simply what is legal or illegal by man’s law

Sure, some may argue that. I may even join in with you advocating that...if the law concerns something I consider a fundamental moral issue (for example, laws that permit child marriage for 10 year olds, or laws that do not classify spousal rape as a crime).

Regardless of my personal choice whether to smuggle or use sudafed, or the disproportionate punishment for possession of a small amount of the substance I don't think prohibiting possession of a decongestant falls into that category of a law that is morally unjust....and don't forget, we're discussing how many angels will fit on the head of a pin here in the context of recreational, optional, not-life-saving, discretionary, SCUBA diving.

 

[uncfnp]

Sure, some may argue that. I may even join in with you advocating that...if the law concerns something I consider a fundamental moral issue (for example, laws that permit child marriage for 10 year olds, or laws that do not classify spousal rape as a crime).

Regardless of my personal choice whether to smuggle or use sudafed, or the disproportionate punishment for possession of a small amount of the substance I don't think prohibiting possession of a decongestant falls into that category of a law that is morally unjust....and don't forget, we're discussing how many angels will fit on the head of a pin here in the context of recreational, optional, not-life-saving, discretionary, SCUBA diving.

I wasn’t suggesting a morally unjust law but rather the moral concept of deciding to follow a law simply because it is a law or making the decision based on personal ethics. In this case, a law that may cause harm, even if just barotrauma.

Some on this thread seem to feel that any action against authority/law is morally wrong (and given some pretty extreme examples). I am simply disagreeing with such a broad statement.

 

[mediumone]

just barotrauma.

For the naive amongst us:
I've endured more pain than the barotrauma episodes, (lower back, (called an ambulance on myself)), but sweet baby Jesus, damn, cripes, sh*t, IT HURTS.

When packing the luggage, I am not conflicted.

 

[Joneill]

Why not equate those? The law equates them, and this discussion is (or was, at some point), about the legality.

Regardless of what a physician or chemist thinks about whether something is "harmless" or the quantities needed to produce, say, methamphetamine, the judge is the one with the final say here.

It was commentary about the stupidity of the law as well as people’s motivation to bring those items in as well as the actual health risk that small quantities of Sudafed represent - apples and oranges to hard drugs - but I did indicate that the laws are the laws and you better be prepared to deal with consequences of ignoring them.

 

[mstevens]

I think comparisons to actually dangerous drugs are also silly, just grasping for any way to prove one position.

OK, I'm super-open to another easy-to-grasp example of something that's absolutely banned in the US but legally-marketed in another country.

I'll happily switch to using that as an example when talking about how giving each other advice on how to smuggle that thing is a bad idea.

I'm not comparing pseudoephedrine to heroin. I'm comparing smuggling a banned substance into the US to smuggling a different banned substance into Mexico. It's about the smuggling, not about what's being smuggled.

 

[mstevens]

Some might argue that there is a higher level of morality than simply what is legal or illegal by man’s law, especially a law that is so inconsistent between groups.

Good grief. Liberalism has certainly taken over a lot of peoples' thinking. Or, I guess, what you're actually espousing is anarchy.

Sure, there are many instances of a higher moral duty trumping a law (e.g., speeding to a hospital) but this is usually thought of as life-or-death cases or deeply important moral and philosophical issues (adhering to a state religion, not being gay, having more than one candidate in an election) rather than interference with peoples' hobbies. Traditional morality focused quite a lot on adhering to the dictates of society ("render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", etc.). I don't think that a law banning pseudoephedrine is really the same moral issue as laws banning women from driving. I do think that people deciding that any law they find inconvenient is trumped by their high personal morals is very suspect.

What inconsistency between groups? Are you referring to US vs Mexico (and Indonesia, among others)? Mexico doesn't ban just mestizos, women, Jews, bald people, or foreigners from having pseudoephedrine. The law applies equally to everyone within the borders. Unless you include as a "group" "people outside the jurisdiction", it applies completely consistently among groups.

Are you REALLY saying that we in the US don't get to make and enforce rules that conflict with what tourists are used to at home? Or that, for example, Australia should have to let Americans tote their pistols around the Outback (you'll certainly find plenty of Americans who'll insist Australia would be safer for it, arguably representing a "higher level of morality")? If laws are immorally inconsistent simply because they're different in different countries, the solotion to that is a single world government with global laws. As great an idea as that may be, there are many who would burn down the world before submitting to that.

Or, to get back to medication examples: every single kid born with phocomelia to a mother who took thalidomide in the US is a victim of someone's decision to circumvent the US ban on that drug, which was widely scorned as ridiculous in countries that had approved it. I think that decision has been vindicated over time, but are you saying that there's a "higher level of morality" (presumably based on how much morning sickness sucks) that justified circumvention of our ban?

And no people do not die daily from pseudoephedrine.

Sure they do! Pseudoephedrine is sufficiently arrhythmogenic to cause death occasionally, but it's also a pressor and not everyone needs their blood pressure raised. In a world population of nearly 8 billion that includes children who get their hands on it, people with weird allergies and metabolisms, and people who use it for all sorts of things including to get high, I'm certain it causes at least 365 deaths per year. That's still safer than chest X-rays, having a cat in the house, or even eating.

 

[ggunn]

I always had a problem understanding the attitude of many folks who seem to think they are exempt from some law or other because they say they are special or because they think the law is unjust or silly.

People do it all the time. When you drive on the highway, how many drivers are driving at or below the posted speed limit? Before it was legal anywhere in the US, millions of people in this country consumed cannabis.

 

[Marie13]

If you REALLY don’t approve of MX’s ban on pseudoephedrine, vote with your dollars and dive elsewhere. I didn’t want to take the risk of getting caught with it when I was there in August, so Flonase and the sinus rinse bottle got me through it. I won’t be going back.

 

[uncfnp]

Good grief. Liberalism has certainly taken over a lot of peoples' thinking. Or, I guess, what you're actually espousing is anarchy.

Sure, there are many instances of a higher moral duty trumping a law (e.g., speeding to a hospital) but this is usually thought of as life-or-death cases or deeply important moral and philosophical issues (adhering to a state religion, not being gay, having more than one candidate in an election) rather than interference with peoples' hobbies. Traditional morality focused quite a lot on adhering to the dictates of society ("render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", etc.). I don't think that a law banning pseudoephedrine is really the same moral issue as laws banning women from driving. I do think that people deciding that any law they find inconvenient is trumped by their high personal morals is very suspect.

What inconsistency between groups? Are you referring to US vs Mexico (and Indonesia, among others)? Mexico doesn't ban just mestizos, women, Jews, bald people, or foreigners from having pseudoephedrine. The law applies equally to everyone within the borders. Unless you include as a "group" "people outside the jurisdiction", it applies completely consistently among groups.

Are you REALLY saying that we in the US don't get to make and enforce rules that conflict with what tourists are used to at home? Or that, for example, Australia should have to let Americans tote their pistols around the Outback (you'll certainly find plenty of Americans who'll insist Australia would be safer for it, arguably representing a "higher level of morality")? If laws are immorally inconsistent simply because they're different in different countries, the solotion to that is a single world government with global laws. As great an idea as that may be, there are many who would burn down the world before submitting to that.

Or, to get back to medication examples: every single kid born with phocomelia to a mother who took thalidomide in the US is a victim of someone's decision to circumvent the US ban on that drug, which was widely scorned as ridiculous in countries that had approved it. I think that decision has been vindicated over time, but are you saying that there's a "higher level of morality" (presumably based on how much morning sickness sucks) that justified circumvention of our ban?



Sure they do! Pseudoephedrine is sufficiently arrhythmogenic to cause death occasionally, but it's also a pressor and not everyone needs their blood pressure raised. In a world population of nearly 8 billion that includes children who get their hands on it, people with weird allergies and metabolisms, and people who use it for all sorts of things including to get high, I'm certain it causes at least 365 deaths per year. That's still safer than chest X-rays, having a cat in the house, or even eating.

Liberal! Boy did you miss the mark on this one. No not liberalism but rather touching on the theory of moral development and reasoning, an intellectual not political discussion.

And deaths on pseudoephedrine? Statistics needed not just supposition. On second thought never mind since it has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.