Declaring smoking bans, as Toxic risk factors

One of the topics the anti-smoker cartel will always avoid like the plague [pun intended] is the topic of medicinal smoke. They tell us that the principles of dilution and evacuation by environmental controls don’t work. Yet if we look at the safeguards in place in a safe room? When a contaminant is released, the most efficient means of evacuating that toxin from the room is to inject particulate fog and evacuate it with air continuously until the toxin is no longer in the room but now trapped in the particulate that left before it had a chance to settle on other solid objects that remain in the room.

In a smoke free environment the toxicity of airborne contagions become much more deadly, because there is a reduced level of particulate to collect them. In the reductions of indoor ultra fine particulate the same is true. Your dosages of a much more dangerous form of particulate than is found in cigarette smoke are tremendously increased.

Cigarette smoke if you can follow the consistent portion of legitimate unbiased research over the years, is evacuated by bodily functions over time. This is why they tell you if you quit, over time your health risk will eventually align with those of a non smoker. Ultra fine particulate such as coal and diesel particulate remains within the body and accumulates, because the lungs are powerless to evacuate it.

Black lung is entirely evident during autopsy whereas cigarette smoke is virtually undetectable, with no connection to the pictures in your mind that Public health has been painting for years [smokers lung?], a surgeon can’t tell if a person smoked for decades or if they never smoked by visual inspection. They have no problem at all telling that someone worked in a coal mine or in a diesel engine repair shop. Just like asbestos it becomes an irritant which leads to breathing ailments and the eventual total destruction of your lungs with no viable treatment, beyond making you more comfortable as the process of destruction continues.

Utilizing tobacco smoke particulate to reduce the risks of both viral infections and ultra fine particulate exposures, is a taboo subject because the Public Health entourage doesn’t feel comfortable. They in fact become quite violent in their reactions, to what they consider damaged thinking.

Irrespective of their emotions and comfort levels, the logic and science is squarely on the side of increased health risks by a tremendous degree, in a smoke free environment. If tobacco smoke is thought to cause the deaths of 3000 in a 300 million population as a lifetime risk perspective [requiring a lifetime of exposures at very high levels in order to see even one] and the same population produces by a shorter process of exposure and immediate effect 35,000 deaths per year by common flu alone. Think of all the other things in your life that could cause mortality by inhalation exposures. The odds that someone in a crowded bar or stadium might cough or sneeze and infect a greater number of those present, than would be possible in the same venue with cigarette smoke present, requires a pretty twisted evaluation process, devised in corruption and emotional trash to argue against.

So do the Public Health “experts” in their current rendition, offer increased protections or increased risk, when the predominance of what they study and profess, is based in purely emotional analysis, as opposed to science and legitimate unbiased observational skills?

We already know the answer to that one. What is missing is a way to divide the soothsayers emotion tested rhetoric, from the professionals with something real to say, so we can judge fairly among the many “the sky is falling” promotions, understanding which one should be taken seriously, or as the growing norms are demonstrating today; in reaction to all alarm bells; we simply shrug and open another beer.

The world has not gone mad around us, the opportunists are simply growing more efficient in the production of propaganda.

Clearly the self regulation of mainstream media groups, considering the sources of their funding in the financially conflicted behemoth ad agencies, is simply not working out. Currently we are trapped within an environment where politics guides scientific oversight. While emotionally enhanced promotions, are destroying the very sustenance of personal and parental autonomy.

Vote them all out; allowing the medical mafia and big pharma / big Oil prosecutions to begin.
 

Why is this idea important?

One of the topics the anti-smoker cartel will always avoid like the plague [pun intended] is the topic of medicinal smoke. They tell us that the principles of dilution and evacuation by environmental controls don’t work. Yet if we look at the safeguards in place in a safe room? When a contaminant is released, the most efficient means of evacuating that toxin from the room is to inject particulate fog and evacuate it with air continuously until the toxin is no longer in the room but now trapped in the particulate that left before it had a chance to settle on other solid objects that remain in the room.

In a smoke free environment the toxicity of airborne contagions become much more deadly, because there is a reduced level of particulate to collect them. In the reductions of indoor ultra fine particulate the same is true. Your dosages of a much more dangerous form of particulate than is found in cigarette smoke are tremendously increased.

Cigarette smoke if you can follow the consistent portion of legitimate unbiased research over the years, is evacuated by bodily functions over time. This is why they tell you if you quit, over time your health risk will eventually align with those of a non smoker. Ultra fine particulate such as coal and diesel particulate remains within the body and accumulates, because the lungs are powerless to evacuate it.

Black lung is entirely evident during autopsy whereas cigarette smoke is virtually undetectable, with no connection to the pictures in your mind that Public health has been painting for years [smokers lung?], a surgeon can’t tell if a person smoked for decades or if they never smoked by visual inspection. They have no problem at all telling that someone worked in a coal mine or in a diesel engine repair shop. Just like asbestos it becomes an irritant which leads to breathing ailments and the eventual total destruction of your lungs with no viable treatment, beyond making you more comfortable as the process of destruction continues.

Utilizing tobacco smoke particulate to reduce the risks of both viral infections and ultra fine particulate exposures, is a taboo subject because the Public Health entourage doesn’t feel comfortable. They in fact become quite violent in their reactions, to what they consider damaged thinking.

Irrespective of their emotions and comfort levels, the logic and science is squarely on the side of increased health risks by a tremendous degree, in a smoke free environment. If tobacco smoke is thought to cause the deaths of 3000 in a 300 million population as a lifetime risk perspective [requiring a lifetime of exposures at very high levels in order to see even one] and the same population produces by a shorter process of exposure and immediate effect 35,000 deaths per year by common flu alone. Think of all the other things in your life that could cause mortality by inhalation exposures. The odds that someone in a crowded bar or stadium might cough or sneeze and infect a greater number of those present, than would be possible in the same venue with cigarette smoke present, requires a pretty twisted evaluation process, devised in corruption and emotional trash to argue against.

So do the Public Health “experts” in their current rendition, offer increased protections or increased risk, when the predominance of what they study and profess, is based in purely emotional analysis, as opposed to science and legitimate unbiased observational skills?

We already know the answer to that one. What is missing is a way to divide the soothsayers emotion tested rhetoric, from the professionals with something real to say, so we can judge fairly among the many “the sky is falling” promotions, understanding which one should be taken seriously, or as the growing norms are demonstrating today; in reaction to all alarm bells; we simply shrug and open another beer.

The world has not gone mad around us, the opportunists are simply growing more efficient in the production of propaganda.

Clearly the self regulation of mainstream media groups, considering the sources of their funding in the financially conflicted behemoth ad agencies, is simply not working out. Currently we are trapped within an environment where politics guides scientific oversight. While emotionally enhanced promotions, are destroying the very sustenance of personal and parental autonomy.

Vote them all out; allowing the medical mafia and big pharma / big Oil prosecutions to begin.
 

Limiting free prescriptions where the item can be bought cheaply over the counter

Pensioners and other non-means tested benefit recipients are entitled to free prescriptions irrespective of their wealth. Unless they are on means tested benefits, they should not receive free prescriptions for low-cost medicines available over the counter.

Why is this idea important?

Pensioners and other non-means tested benefit recipients are entitled to free prescriptions irrespective of their wealth. Unless they are on means tested benefits, they should not receive free prescriptions for low-cost medicines available over the counter.

Ban patents on medical equipment, treatments and drugs.

The financial cost of the NHS is growing at such a rate that, increasingly, the government will struggle to fund it. Looking for new ways to raise capitol will not solve the underlying issues . We must uphold our traditional values about the NHS and the rights of all citizens to free healthcare; I propose we achieve this by banning patent rights on pharmaceuticals.

By removing medical patents pharmaceutical companies would provide "for strong price competition between pharmaceutical suppliers and result in considerable savings to the NHS", they would be unable to make profit from manipulating the status of their products, or to deny their products to the poor. 

A great deal of medical research comes from tax-payer funded universities and charities; pharmaceutical companies then fund the trials, gain the patent and then hold a monopoly on the treatment that people rely on to survive.

If financial rewards are to be given they should go to the doctors, nurses and other professionals who research, diagnose and administer treatment, not to usurious shareholders.

Available treatments, often costing pennies to manufacture, are sold at such prices that PCT's are unable to afford them, often leading to regional variabilities and postcode lotteries.

Why is this idea important?

The financial cost of the NHS is growing at such a rate that, increasingly, the government will struggle to fund it. Looking for new ways to raise capitol will not solve the underlying issues . We must uphold our traditional values about the NHS and the rights of all citizens to free healthcare; I propose we achieve this by banning patent rights on pharmaceuticals.

By removing medical patents pharmaceutical companies would provide "for strong price competition between pharmaceutical suppliers and result in considerable savings to the NHS", they would be unable to make profit from manipulating the status of their products, or to deny their products to the poor. 

A great deal of medical research comes from tax-payer funded universities and charities; pharmaceutical companies then fund the trials, gain the patent and then hold a monopoly on the treatment that people rely on to survive.

If financial rewards are to be given they should go to the doctors, nurses and other professionals who research, diagnose and administer treatment, not to usurious shareholders.

Available treatments, often costing pennies to manufacture, are sold at such prices that PCT's are unable to afford them, often leading to regional variabilities and postcode lotteries.

Replace the General Medical Council with a body that protects patients rather than the status quo

The General Medical Council should be scrapped and replaced with a totally new body with a significantly different remit. That remit should of course put patient protection at its heart, but it should also recognise and protect the rights of patients to choose alternative approaches to the current mainstream 'best practice'. Protecting patients from harm does not just involve removing the Shipmans of this world, it must also involve recognising the importance of diversity of opinion in the medical profession. Without that diversity, flaws in current 'best practice' go unchallenged and patients are harmed as a result.

Why is this idea important?

The General Medical Council should be scrapped and replaced with a totally new body with a significantly different remit. That remit should of course put patient protection at its heart, but it should also recognise and protect the rights of patients to choose alternative approaches to the current mainstream 'best practice'. Protecting patients from harm does not just involve removing the Shipmans of this world, it must also involve recognising the importance of diversity of opinion in the medical profession. Without that diversity, flaws in current 'best practice' go unchallenged and patients are harmed as a result.

Curb the powers of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to restrict feedom of choice in medicine

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) should be providing guidance and suggestions for treatment protocols, not dictating precisely what doctors are and are not allowed to do. The position of NICE needs to be clarified so that doctors who believe that it is appropriate in specific cases to deviate from the NICE guidance feel able to do so without fear of repercussions. Patients should be free to make an informed choice for the treatment approach they want where supported by their doctor, even if this is not currently considered 'best practice' by NICE. The current regime is stifling innovation and harming patients.

Why is this idea important?

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) should be providing guidance and suggestions for treatment protocols, not dictating precisely what doctors are and are not allowed to do. The position of NICE needs to be clarified so that doctors who believe that it is appropriate in specific cases to deviate from the NICE guidance feel able to do so without fear of repercussions. Patients should be free to make an informed choice for the treatment approach they want where supported by their doctor, even if this is not currently considered 'best practice' by NICE. The current regime is stifling innovation and harming patients.

Self-Taxing Of Cannabis, An Idea For Legitimacy

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

Why is this idea important?

You only have to browse this website to know cannabis users are very eloquent, informed, and well read.  The stigmatisation of this substance is archaic, and frankly, embarrassing to our international relations.  We are one of the last great garrison on the war on cannabis.

The UK cannabis user is desperately seeking legitimacy and to not be stigmatised by the ignorance and propaganda that has engulfed this subject for 90 years out of its 4000 year documented history.

I myself was anti cannabis until 2005, this was due to the fact I had no reason to seek further education on it, I was a closed book.  Now, after years of research, I truly am left awestruck at the level of misinformation that I had been subjected to via the media.  I have never broken a law, I have a high regard for morals, and the subject of cannabis inflames my humanity and morality into overdrive, the fact that it saves lives, including my own, is a travesty to those who suffer.

It is our democratic necessity to question and debate law, because a law exists it doesn't make it just.  History is littered with examples.  Clearly, the cannabis users of the UK have a great social standing and wish to be recognised as hard working and intelligible people; with this in mind, I propose thus:

Our country is in fiscal disaster, our troops are in danger and are dying through lack of money and equipment, the cannabis community are urging, crying out to be taxed on our substance of preference -in any society- this is a juxtaposed stance to say the least. 

If our voice is to be ignored once more as it has time and time again, in the anteroom, I would like to see an autonomous system where we self tax our usage.  It is simply not decent that cannabis has been ignored as a source of revenue when people are in mortal danger due to lack of funds, whether it be the NHS and hospitals or troops, it is once more morally repugnant that this is allowed.

The idea: If you are to use cannabis in any way, then you allow a brief period of reflection for those who are suffering and in need.  I would like to see a charity set up where we can all anonymously pay into without fear of reprisal.  This charity would act as our own taxation and contribution to the country.  If we all did our part and added a small amount with each usage like we would any other substance such as alcohol,  then we can stand up and be counted. 

Charities I would like to see benefit are the ones in need to alleviate suffering, such as Help the Heroes, British Legion, M.S association, and on a personal note, the M.E association, but of course, this would be up to the community as a whole as this is how democracy works, there are many people in need in current times.

We could raise much revenue in self taxing, and when we all seek to do this through legalisation, then I propose we all do our bit now and help the country where it is needed, we cannot let people suffer when we are readily prepared to pay our way.

Sounds idealist doesn't it?  But it doesn't have to be, it can be the simplest and most profitable protest of all time.  Identities can still be anonymous all the while law and stigma demands it so, so there is truly nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is estimated cannabis taxation could raise millions, possibly billions.  If we actually did our bit, we could do a lot of good through amicable defiance.

Disband the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council

The legislation creating the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council should be repealed, and all medical regulation should be put on an entirely evidence-based basis.

Why is this idea important?

The legislation creating the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council should be repealed, and all medical regulation should be put on an entirely evidence-based basis.

Allow doctors to prescribe cannabis.

Recently I had a whiplash injury to my neck which caused me horrendous pain.

I was prescribed a cocktail of anti-inflammatories and pain killers by my GP.

Had I had the first idea where to get some cannabis from in order to help with the extreme discomfort, I would.  Never being a 'druggie', I really didn't have a clue.

Doctors are allowed to prescribe diamorphine for patients which is basically, heroin. They can prescribe opium too.

Why the discrepancy?

I'm not in any way advocating drug use. I merely feel that cannabis does have a place in treating certain medical conditions.

Why is this idea important?

Recently I had a whiplash injury to my neck which caused me horrendous pain.

I was prescribed a cocktail of anti-inflammatories and pain killers by my GP.

Had I had the first idea where to get some cannabis from in order to help with the extreme discomfort, I would.  Never being a 'druggie', I really didn't have a clue.

Doctors are allowed to prescribe diamorphine for patients which is basically, heroin. They can prescribe opium too.

Why the discrepancy?

I'm not in any way advocating drug use. I merely feel that cannabis does have a place in treating certain medical conditions.

Repeal the right of NICE to determine research on ME

The UK medical profession has a low international reputation, due to those with influence over policy choices, being the wrong professionals.

They are also not subjected to any public accountabity for terrible medical mistakes such as BSE, flu jabs and their barbaric approach to M.E,  all the result of using some form of "science" for policial and commercial ends.  There is no pressure or need for them to be responsible at all.

My suggestion: end monopoly of NICE as a body immune from democractic accountability and allow Parliament a veto, to determine where research funding supplied by the public is spent. The public should be able to determine which research into ME is funded. It is their money.

Make medical professionals accountable (called before Paliamentary committees) and only take advice from the best and those free from politics. Make them declare their outside interests and affiliations.

Why is this idea important?

The UK medical profession has a low international reputation, due to those with influence over policy choices, being the wrong professionals.

They are also not subjected to any public accountabity for terrible medical mistakes such as BSE, flu jabs and their barbaric approach to M.E,  all the result of using some form of "science" for policial and commercial ends.  There is no pressure or need for them to be responsible at all.

My suggestion: end monopoly of NICE as a body immune from democractic accountability and allow Parliament a veto, to determine where research funding supplied by the public is spent. The public should be able to determine which research into ME is funded. It is their money.

Make medical professionals accountable (called before Paliamentary committees) and only take advice from the best and those free from politics. Make them declare their outside interests and affiliations.

Lift all restrictions on over the counter pain tablets.

Present restrictions are two packets only, this amounts to 32 tablets, 4 days for anyone in acute pain. Back pain can come on suddendly, last for a short or long period of time, for chronic suffererers a GP visit is not always helpful as often one or two weeks of  pain tablets resolves the problem. The unavailability of purchasing pain tablets in larger quantities forces those with short term back problems, to visit a GP for a perscription. This cannot be cost effective.

Why is this idea important?

Present restrictions are two packets only, this amounts to 32 tablets, 4 days for anyone in acute pain. Back pain can come on suddendly, last for a short or long period of time, for chronic suffererers a GP visit is not always helpful as often one or two weeks of  pain tablets resolves the problem. The unavailability of purchasing pain tablets in larger quantities forces those with short term back problems, to visit a GP for a perscription. This cannot be cost effective.

Prevent psychiatrists forcing harmful drugs on people.

The drugs that psychiatrists routinely force on people are deeply harmful drugs. I have taken at least a dozen of them. I have a terrible permanent disabling movement disorder, the inability to sit still. My mind is permanently damaged, the thoughts coming too fast or too slow. My fine coordination has been damaged, making writing awkward. Also some of my bodily functions have been damaged. The drugs dull the mind, prevent thought. They inhibit movement and we express ourselves with movement. They have a profound negative effect on a person. I have suffered unbearable pain, inner restlessness and the muscles feeling as if they are trying to move. I have been unable to walk properly because of abnormal muscle tone, in my case these effects weren't permanent. These drugs, called antipsychotics, can cause diabetes and osteoperosis and are toxic to the heart. Their effects are illness and mental illness. The forced use of them needs to stop.

Why is this idea important?

The drugs that psychiatrists routinely force on people are deeply harmful drugs. I have taken at least a dozen of them. I have a terrible permanent disabling movement disorder, the inability to sit still. My mind is permanently damaged, the thoughts coming too fast or too slow. My fine coordination has been damaged, making writing awkward. Also some of my bodily functions have been damaged. The drugs dull the mind, prevent thought. They inhibit movement and we express ourselves with movement. They have a profound negative effect on a person. I have suffered unbearable pain, inner restlessness and the muscles feeling as if they are trying to move. I have been unable to walk properly because of abnormal muscle tone, in my case these effects weren't permanent. These drugs, called antipsychotics, can cause diabetes and osteoperosis and are toxic to the heart. Their effects are illness and mental illness. The forced use of them needs to stop.

Allowing M.S suffers…

My beautiful wife who suffers from multiple sclerosis is a criminal. Under the law she can not use cannabis for pain relief. The normal drugs currently available do not touch the pain. Why is it not allow for registered patients who have had a long medical history of suffering M.S to be allowed an allowance of  cannabis? Can't something be done? I hope a balanced mature approach to this unfair situation be given a serious review! 

Why is this idea important?

My beautiful wife who suffers from multiple sclerosis is a criminal. Under the law she can not use cannabis for pain relief. The normal drugs currently available do not touch the pain. Why is it not allow for registered patients who have had a long medical history of suffering M.S to be allowed an allowance of  cannabis? Can't something be done? I hope a balanced mature approach to this unfair situation be given a serious review! 

Serious about crime? Then de-criminalise drugs!

Serious about Crime

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Why is this idea important?

Serious about Crime

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Make ephedrine more accessible

Ephedrine is a caffeine-like stimulant with antidepressant properties that has potential health risks when taken in excessive doses, but on its own is relatively harmless and used to be present in many cough medicines.  A facet of our nanny state is that no one is considered responsible enough to regulate the intake of such substances.

At present, ephedrine is not a controlled substance but is prescription only as colds and flu medicine, to be sold in quantities no more than 180mg.  To my knowledge, only one product meets this strict requirement.  In effect, ephedrine has been made unavailable.

Whereas caffeine tablets are available for purchase in pharmacies as a "pep me up" medicine without prescription, ephedrine is not.  The reported health risks stem from combining ephedrine and caffeine for the combined effect of an overdose, which can result in heart palpitations and deliria.

Herbal sources long used for increased alertness and as an antidepressant, that ephedrine has been made virtually inaccessible is unfortunate.  Caffeine can be bought over the counter in 50mg tablets, and the same should be true for ephedrine, with suitable warnings about overdosing.  The health concerns are only relevant for excessive doses as typically taken by bodybuilders for extreme but health-deleterious boosts of energy.

I want this supplement to be made available without prescription in small doses, perhaps as 50mg tables, for increased alertness (for studying, etc).  It is time for the nanny state to take a step back.  We can be trusted with tablets containing a responsible dose of this substance.

Thank you.

Why is this idea important?

Ephedrine is a caffeine-like stimulant with antidepressant properties that has potential health risks when taken in excessive doses, but on its own is relatively harmless and used to be present in many cough medicines.  A facet of our nanny state is that no one is considered responsible enough to regulate the intake of such substances.

At present, ephedrine is not a controlled substance but is prescription only as colds and flu medicine, to be sold in quantities no more than 180mg.  To my knowledge, only one product meets this strict requirement.  In effect, ephedrine has been made unavailable.

Whereas caffeine tablets are available for purchase in pharmacies as a "pep me up" medicine without prescription, ephedrine is not.  The reported health risks stem from combining ephedrine and caffeine for the combined effect of an overdose, which can result in heart palpitations and deliria.

Herbal sources long used for increased alertness and as an antidepressant, that ephedrine has been made virtually inaccessible is unfortunate.  Caffeine can be bought over the counter in 50mg tablets, and the same should be true for ephedrine, with suitable warnings about overdosing.  The health concerns are only relevant for excessive doses as typically taken by bodybuilders for extreme but health-deleterious boosts of energy.

I want this supplement to be made available without prescription in small doses, perhaps as 50mg tables, for increased alertness (for studying, etc).  It is time for the nanny state to take a step back.  We can be trusted with tablets containing a responsible dose of this substance.

Thank you.