?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile My Website Previous Previous Next Next
Rite-Aid deals... - Mark's Journal
mhaithaca
mhaithaca
Rite-Aid deals...
There were lots of other offerings in the flyer, but here's the ones that I took advantage of this morning...

Various Planters nuts (including dry roasted, honey roasted, and cocktail peanuts) are BOGO (buy one, get one free).

Store brand Loratadine (generic Alavert or Claritin) 30-60 count is BOGO. I bought two 120-count bottles the last time they were on sale, since those were included then -- but they're not this time.

Store brand Cetirizine HCL (generic Zyrtec) 30-60 count is BOGO. I know some of you use this, and I bought a pair of 30-count blister-packs to try it now that it's OTC.

In other news, it really pisses me off that I'm not allowed to buy two packages of store-brand Sudafed. There's a limit of 9 grams per person. Once the regulators have decided they need the store to record my driver license number and get my name and address in order to sell me the item, also limiting the purchase to one package is ludicrous.
19 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
mgcmarco From: mgcmarco Date: July 30th, 2008 08:07 pm (UTC) (Link)
Is store brand Sudafed limited to one AND it's BOGO??? That is ludicrous...
mhaithaca From: mhaithaca Date: July 30th, 2008 08:18 pm (UTC) (Link)

No, those are almost never on sale any more.
mazzie From: mazzie Date: July 30th, 2008 08:34 pm (UTC) (Link)
I was thinking about the Sudafed wars this morning as I was getting ready for work and vomiting in my sink because of post nasal drip. Sudafed for bed is really the best thing for it, but the rigmarole I have to go through to get it, in addition to feeling like my privacy is invaded every time I do, and worrying that I am getting it too often kinda makes the puking seem easier.
aregulardyke From: aregulardyke Date: July 31st, 2008 08:47 am (UTC) (Link)

Night-time Relief

I know this sounds old fashioned, but have you considered Vicks Vapo Rub ? It's inexpensive, non-invasive ( since you don't eat it ) and even tho it's vapo-ish smelling, it does the job ... Rub it on your chest and wear an old t-shirt to bed, since the rub *will* stain the shirt.


chesther From: chesther Date: July 30th, 2008 08:43 pm (UTC) (Link)
I find myself deeply frustrated and somewhat offended at the bullspit around Sudafed.

Maybe if I had any faith that it was at all effective at reducing meth use, I could buy into it. Maybe. But it's definitely one of the sorts of things that pushes my political leanings much more libertarian.

Clearly, the people who came up with that policy don't suffer from regular nasal congestion.
From: ddmd Date: July 30th, 2008 09:50 pm (UTC) (Link)

I can see this from both sides of the fence

As a health care provider, I'm always troubled by the potential for both legal and illegal use of the medications I recommend or prescribe for my patients (and I often recommend Sudafed for my patients, since it's useful in some of the cases I treat).

On the 'regulate it' side, I see patients abuse over-the-counter medications, and so I'm all for having someone exercise a little control over the medications available in the pharmacy. Whether that should be the pharmacy or someone else, I'm not sure. I suppose the way I'd prefer to do it is move back toward fewer OTC medications and put the pharmacy back in the hands of the providers who see the patients. This might drive people to actually visit their doctors more and receive the care that I think is more and more being shifted toward self-care, pharmaceutical company driven ad campaigns, and agencies that regulate health care so heavily that they've in some ways replaced trained providers.

On the other hand, there aren't enough of us (health care providers) to care for everyone out there, and so self-care and prevention are highly useful tools to use, and ultimately patients are responsible for a measure of their own health. But I'm still of the mind (after 13 years of practicing) that we've lost control of our patients, and we're left with patients, many of whom are self-diagnosing, self-medicating, and abusing medications and remedies based on either incomplete or incorrect knowledge (it's on the Internet... it must be true... right?).

On the 'we should not be regulating medications' I have two thoughts:

1. You can't. The more you try to regulate things, the more people want it, and people are going to get it no matter what you try to do (I think more in terms of illegal substances like marijuana, but we regulate enough legal items like tobacco and alcohol that people get a hold of despite the regulation that it just doesn't work).

2. I'm all for individual rights, and I don't think the government should regulate our health care. I think providers and parients should have control over their own health (and their own lives).

I suppose the problem is that people (not all, but some) have proven time and time again that they can't be responsible enough to NOT have some kind of regulating agency watching them. So we need law enforcement to keep the peace, regulation to make sure what's being put out to the public is SAFE, and so forth.


So what do I think of Sudafed (and other medications) being regulated? Well, since (based on what I've read in reputable journals) points to the ease of converting these medications to illegal street drugs, I think having to show an ID and limit the amount of drug you buy and maybe have to make a return trip to the pharmacy every once in a while isn't a big deal. No more so than having to go to a doctor for the prescrition medication and show up at the pharmacy with an ID to get that medication.

So I wouldn't take it personally. It's (perhaps) just the best we can do right now with the tools we have. I suspect it would be the same under a Republican, Democratic, or even Libertarian government.

*wink*
ruhe From: ruhe Date: July 30th, 2008 10:15 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: I can see this from both sides of the fence

I think I'm with you on both sides...annoyed as I get when it takes them ages to get me my Claritin-D (and having to go back every 15 days), it makes some sense. Better that than having to document ever purchase of charcoal or something! Plus, there are WAY worse invasions of people's privacy than documenting an in-store Sudafed purchase (e.g. every time I use my credit card it gets tracked impressively and aggregated with lots of other info). Incidentally, at least in MN and MD one used to be able to get a prescription for pseudoepherine and get it filled (as a prescription) for more than the amount allowed--or could a year or two ago when I last needed it.

(As a side note: it does concern me a bit that I can get some high quality painkillers and muscle relaxants prescribed and go to the pharmacy and NOT get ID checked (although I realize that the doctor and insurance company know who I am).
mhaithaca From: mhaithaca Date: July 30th, 2008 10:22 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: I can see this from both sides of the fence

I can't imagine the last time I was asked for ID for my actual prescription medications. (It's not that they know who I am; they always ask for my name.)

Fine, if it's a suspicious substance, come after me if I buy a suspicious amount.
From: ddmd Date: July 30th, 2008 10:28 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: I can see this from both sides of the fence

See, now that's a foul on the pharmacy.

In think an ID should be presented for a prescription and the pharmacy should hold to that standard and be consistent about it.
mama0807 From: mama0807 Date: July 30th, 2008 10:50 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: I can see this from both sides of the fence

I can't imagine the last time I was asked for ID for my actual prescription medications.

I've never been asked to show ID when I pick up my daughter's prescription. I suppose they just assume that I'm her mother.
mrliburyin From: mrliburyin Date: July 31st, 2008 03:38 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: I can see this from both sides of the fence

And I've picked my my maternal grandmosther's prescriptions (different last name and everything). I did have to sign for them, although I don't think they checked to make sure I signed my actual name.
gibbie69 From: gibbie69 Date: July 31st, 2008 12:24 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: I can see this from both sides of the fence

The problem that I have with the Sudafed restriction is that not only are they logging my name address and driver's license number they are sending that information to the county prosecutor's office. They are monitoring all the logs and taking action if you go over your limit. Our limit is actually stricter than NY's. We're limited to 3 grams per person per week. Once, I saw my name from the previous week on the log and realized I was buying at six days not seven and worried that I was going to get a knock on my door. Thus far no problem. But given that there are three people in my house who deal with seasonal allergies, 3 grams goes real quick.

You know, I'm not a criminal. I'm not a meth user, I'm not a meth dealer, I'm not a meth cooker. I'm a middle aged housewife with a stuffy nose trying to buy a perfectly legal substance for my family. Stop hassling me and try to concentrate on the real criminals.
chesther From: chesther Date: August 1st, 2008 03:53 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: I can see this from both sides of the fence

I think that captures my objection. Not that a pharmaceutical product is regulated, but that a *single* drug is regulated in a way that treats all purchasers as potential/likely criminals. I feel like they've used the righteousness of the drug war as an excuse to not make the effort to figure out how to do this in a way that doesn't unduly burden innocent sniffly people.
From: ddmd Date: July 30th, 2008 09:33 pm (UTC) (Link)

BOGO

methinks Mark has been watching Rachel Ray.

EVOO, anyone?
al2o3cr From: al2o3cr Date: July 30th, 2008 10:40 pm (UTC) (Link)
I love Zyrtec, I swear by it and have taken it nearly every day since 2001.
Its expensive now that's its OTC though, I'd have been so excited to find it BOGO.
gibbie69 From: gibbie69 Date: July 31st, 2008 12:27 am (UTC) (Link)
How large of a package were you trying to buy? The store shouldn't be restricting you beyond the legal limit. We're restricted to 3 grams and I can usually buy two boxes. I did have to specifically ask though for a while as they were trying only to give me one. But now that they know me they pull two automatically.

We specifically have to get ours from the pharmacy now. Not just behind the counter.
triola From: triola Date: July 31st, 2008 12:28 am (UTC) (Link)
Where were you when I was bitching about the generic Sudafed? Yes, you sign your life away and it's very annoying. The drug companies should have heeded the warnings years ago and taken responsibility then. What troubles me personally most is that I, as a perfectly valid user, have to jump through hoops while the people who abuse it will find another way to get what they need. I also don't like it that I have to find time to come into the store to have this drug sold to me. I mean, I already filled out the paperwork. Why should I have to come in again and basically prove who I am? Plus I can't even get a month's supply if I want to be congestant free all day.
allyson13 From: allyson13 Date: July 31st, 2008 04:33 am (UTC) (Link)
In other news, it really pisses me off that I'm not allowed to buy two packages of store-brand Sudafed. There's a limit of 9 grams per person. Once the regulators have decided they need the store to record my driver license number and get my name and address in order to sell me the item, also limiting the purchase to one package is ludicrous.

You're lucky. For me to get genuine Sudafed, I have to have a doctor's script!
adelais From: adelais Date: July 31st, 2008 03:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
Could be worse. My husband can't take Sudafed at all anymore, and it was the only thing that worked well for him.
19 comments or Leave a comment