Sudafed in Cozumel with prescription?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

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.
Yes, Gordon, people choose to break laws all the time. I guess what you are saying is that when people choose to break what they decide is a bad law, it is OK to break that law if lots of other people are breaking it, too. Is that what you are saying?

I am not so sure how well that argument will work in a Mexican court, but of course, anyone can choose to run the risk of jail, a fine, or both. It is up to them.

I was just commenting on my previous post that I don't understand how people who don't like a law think it is just fine to ignore it or to try to get away with breaking it when the penalty for getting caught can be so stiff. Getting arrested at a Mexican airport for smuggling in a banned drug has a much more severe penalty than getting a speeding ticket in the US.

Seems the risk/reward ratio is not sufficiently enticing for me, personally.
 
Brand has no meaning. Look at the active ingredients of the over counter drug and prescription one.
Just remember every country has its own prohibit list on drug. And ignorance is not an acceptable excuse.
Tourists will be travelling with "dangerous" drug unknowingly everyday and occasionally picked up by the authority.

 
Brand has no meaning. Look at the active ingredients of the over counter drug and prescription one.
Just remember every country has its own prohibit list on drug. And ignorance is not an acceptable excuse.
Tourists will be travelling with "dangerous" drug unknowingly everyday and occasionally picked up by the authority.

She was caught with 290 Tramadol tabs? That’s hilarious. That’s a controlled narcotic pretty much everywhere. I agree with your premise but that’s a lousy example of “ignorance”.

And yes, Tramadol is dangerous. No quotes needed.
 
Codeine is sold OTC in forms in the US, isn't it. The body converts that into morphine. The key is low dosage.
She was caught with 290 Tramadol tabs? That’s hilarious. That’s a controlled narcotic pretty much everywhere.
It's not OTC in the UK, is it? I think she was trying to play the pretty girl card.

I'll be in Lubbock again Thursday and will try Walgreens again to see if they restocked on their brand label of Actifed. They have the red pseudoephedrine pills, but I prefer the white pill that includes a mild antihistamine.
 
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.
Think you can find 365 deaths here? Let alone in a year.
 
It's not OTC in the UK, is it? I think she was trying to play the pretty girl card.
Not sure what your first statement has to do with the second? Tramadol is definitely not OTC in the UK. That should have put her on notice right away and makes you wonder how she got 290 tabs in the first place? Maybe the NHS has a liberal policy WRT narcotics.

You’re assuming the second part. Probably right but who knows?

I doubt that you’ll be cuffed for smuggling Sudafed in Mexico but you might be put on a ‘no return’ list by Mexican authorities after you pay your fine. It will be hard to prove ignorance after you announced your intentions here! 😉
 
Brand has no meaning. Look at the active ingredients of the over counter drug and prescription one.
Just remember every country has its own prohibit list on drug. And ignorance is not an acceptable excuse.
Tourists will be travelling with "dangerous" drug unknowingly everyday and occasionally picked up by the authority.


She was bringing in a large amount for the use of a national. It wasn't for her own use.

I may have taken prescription Tramadol into Egypt too. Can't recall if I was still being prescribed it at the time of my travel. If so, I'm glad that I wasn't caught. I wouldn't have had as many pills as she carried.

But in my defence, I was totally ignorant of the law.
 
Yes, Gordon, people choose to break laws all the time. I guess what you are saying is that when people choose to break what they decide is a bad law, it is OK to break that law if lots of other people are breaking it, too. Is that what you are saying?
No, I said what I said, which was that people break laws with which they do not agree all the time. It was a statement of fact; whether or not I think it is "OK" is irrelevant.

50 or 60 years ago in some locales the legal penalties for being caught with even trace amounts of cannabis, i.e., "gleanings", were more extreme than anything I have heard of happening in Mexico connected with small amounts of pseudoephedrine possession, but that did not stop millions of people from smoking pot.
 
No, I said what I said, which was that people break laws with which they do not agree all the time. It was a statement of fact; whether or not I think it is "OK" is irrelevant.

50 or 60 years ago in some locales the legal penalties for being caught with even trace amounts of cannabis, i.e., "gleanings", were more extreme than anything I have heard of happening in Mexico connected with small amounts of pseudoephedrine possession, but that did not stop millions of people from smoking pot.

You are right, Gordon. I completely misunderstood your reason for posting "people do it all the time." I see now that you were not using that statement to say it was OK (regardless of whether you think it really is or not, as you say) you were just making a statement of fact. Thanks for the clarification. My mistake.
 

Back
Top Bottom