Can't a girl just buy some Claritin?

Last time I went into CVS to buy allergy medication, I was carded and asked to fill out my information and sign form in a three-ring binder. Apparently, to buy pseudophedrine these days, you have to submit to everything short of a retinal scan.

So, I went in today fully expecting to be fingerprinted, body searched and photographed, but they asked for nothing. I asked the clerk why two weeks ago, I held up the always-long check-out line to manually fill out a bunch of information that was already in their computer since they track my every move via my CVS card, information that no doubt nary a soul would look at again. He said something about how CVS was overly-aggressive and now they have scaled back since they just have to phase in the procedures.

I understand all of this is to deter methanphetamine makers from, well, making meth. But do you really think anything CVS or other pharmacies do to limit pseudophedrine purchases is going to stop users from using and makers from mixing up the toxic chemicals in their apartment labs?

As one clerk at said CVS pointed out, they'll just find new ingredients to make it, like NyQuil. Meth already has some pretty f-ed up ingredients like battery acid and lye, and my guess is if the wanted to bad enough, they could find a way to make it without Sudafed. They probably already have.

Also, how will me manually writing down my information help, besides making a headache to buy allergy meds (thanks, especially to the 3.6 grams daily limit, meaning those of us who want to buy a month's worth of Claritin can't) and making more work for the already under-appreciated pharmacy clerks.

I'm just saying there has to be a better way, whether it be to track who is buying what, or to go after a different source that's supplying these ingredients. Or better yet, don't wait that long. Perhaps we should be addressing the problem before kids try to clear the shelves of Sudafed.

It seems like yet another drug issue that the U.S. is missing the boat on. The other that really irks me is how view marijuana use. Despite studies across the world that prove otherwise, the American government last month once again declared that pot has no medical use in treatment. This statement even goes against what our own scientists have declared (and the government has done, up until 10 or 15 years ago) and how it has been used for hundreds of years.

One obstacle to the acceptance for medical use was it was - and is - also used recreationally, and with that comes this image of the hippie pot smoker loser and this hog wash about it being a gateway drug and if you use it your life will go to shit. Use is different from abuse with anything, and it's a shame that this is overriding research into (and legality for) medical benefits. It's a misguided effort, especially considering the rates of alcohol abuse and even cigarettes, both of which are legal and arguably way more harmful. Perhaps that's a soap box for another day.