I disagree that there's no reason to buy 3 packs of paracetamol or ibuprofen. There are plenty of good reasons, it's just easier and safer on the whole to not expect checkout staff to make a judgement on whether an individual has a valid reason.
Go to a Pharmacy then not a supermarket as they're not qualified or licensed to sell you any more.
I would, and I'm not against the system as it stands. The only thing that you've said that I disagree with is that there's no reason why anyone might validly want to buy more than 32 paracetamol. We pretty much said the same thing about checkout staff expectations.
Is this an actual 'law'? or something else?I just go round twice if I need two packets, so it's not very effective if it is a 'law'.
Yes as stated it's an actual law.
What and wear a comedy nose and glasses?
True.The only active ingredient in them is Paracetamol the rest is crap to make it taste 'nice' and to make you feel cosy. Plus they can charge you 25x the price for Paracetamol.
I've now switched to hot Ribena for my 'cosy' drink, I'm allowed to buy as much of that as I like 😉
The only thing that you've said that I disagree with is that there's no reason why anyone might validly want to buy more than 32 paracetamol. We pretty much said the same thing about checkout staff expectations.
There isn't for routine pain relief of keeping it in the house just in case. If you need more than that then your taking a lot Paracetamol and ideally should speak to a GP or the Pharmacist for advice.
There is usually software in the tills if they scan the barcodes - it will flag if more than 2 items with greater than (2x16x500mg) paracetamol.
I just go round twice if I need two packets, so it's not very effective if it is a 'law'.
How would you know that's it's not very effective, you would at least need to know the rate of attempted suicide before the law was introduced and what it was after the law was introduced, do you know ?
Yes as stated it's an actual law.
So what does the law say?
How can it be implemented?
[quote=Drac ]The only thing that you've said that I disagree with is that there's no reason why anyone might validly want to buy more than 32 paracetamol. We pretty much said the same thing about checkout staff expectations.
There isn't for routine pain relief of keeping it in the house just in case. If you need more than that then your taking a lot Paracetamol and ideally should speak to a GP or the Pharmacist for advice.
But I wasn't buying for my exclusive use, 16 for me and 32 for my son. We have 4 adults in the house. 32 doesn't last long. If we went as a family and bought our "own" we'd still have more available than I can legally buy at once
Even then, we had to go down every two days, which when she couldn't drive for 6 weeks proved a bit of a pain with a newborn.
You went to the supermarket every two days, for six weeks, rather than going to boots and getting what you actually needed in a relevant amount, from a pharmacist ?
That's just bad planning.
richmars - Member
Is this an actual 'law'? or something else?I just go round twice if I need two packets, so it's not very effective if it is a 'law'.
Yes its an actual law.
The Medicines (Sale or Supply) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1997
But you might argue it IS a good law because apparently the overdose stats back it up as working (to some extent) but you are not so inconvenienced by it that it is really a problem. Its been the case for >20 yrs so not sure why there are people struggling with it...
RE: getting Paracetemol or Ibruprofen on prescription - you do realise you can buy lots and lots of 16p packets for less than the cost of a prescription - and you'll save the NHS a few bob in the process too...
you do realise you can buy lots and lots of 16p packets
only 2
But I wasn't buying for my exclusive use, 16 for me and 32 for my son. We have 4 adults in the house. 32 doesn't last long. If we went as a family and bought our "own" we'd still have more available than I can legally buy at once
They had your word for that, they can't go off that. Go to Pharmacy next time.
32 doesn't last you long? Bloody hell.
The only thing that you've said that I disagree with is that there's no reason why anyone might validly want to buy more than 32 paracetamol. We pretty much said the same thing about checkout staff expectations.
There isn't for routine pain relief of keeping it in the house just in case. If you need more than that then your taking a lot Paracetamol and ideally should speak to a GP or the Pharmacist for advice.
The only reason "minor convenience benefit" wouldn't be a valid reason is if having a larger quantity in the house presents a real risk. Now currently I live with others, and have visitors and kids so can't 100% guarantee control over access to anything in the house, but I used to live alone, and I would argue strongly that even a few quid or 5 minute saving would be more significant than the risk of me or anyone else overdosing even if I had a million paracetamol or anything else in the house. Again though, I do agree that as a blanket rule it's better to be safe than sorry, and statistically that pans out as fewer people dying.
You do realise that the NHS don't buy their Paracetamol and Ibuprofen from Boots at £3.99 a pop don't you?
. Again though, I do agree that as a blanket rule it's better to be safe than sorry, and statistically that pans out as fewer people dying.
Which is precisely why it's there.
what happened to to asprin?
used to be everywhere and always seemed better at taking the edge off the aftermath of a lacrosse match.
Only disprin left, which i don't like.
On a similar note how come they can sell you booze if you're with a young child but not if you're with somebody who "appears to be under 25"?
And how many baskets of shopping have been abandoned at the till in a strop over that?
I'm not sure, but I think that there is no LAW stating that max 2x16 may be supplied by a shop - that bit, at least initially, was "agreed good practice" (I'm sure there was a period where poundland or somebody similar was selling 3x16 for a quid without breaking anythingother than an agreement)
The 100 max is in law, unless you present a prescription to a pharmacy
(the law also would allow you to go straight back in but good practice might be felt to apply)
what happened to to asprin?
Still there but it's always been shite as a pain relief.
I just go round twice if I need two packets, so it's not very effective if it is a 'law'.
The purpose of the practice is to try and prevent, at a population level, too many people taking too much paracetamol [i]by accident[/i]. Its something you shouldn't take a lot of or take often unless your GP is advising you to do so. People who buy paracetamol in supermarkets are generally buying it without that medical requirement or advice. So a flagging systems that helps discourage people 'stocking up' because they ill-advisedly take regular or high dosages is effective in preventing people [i]accidentally[/i] taking too much. And at a population level its taking a little too much a little too often that causes the harm, not deliberate overdoses.
Going round twice isn't an [i]accident[/i].
Again though, I do agree that as a blanket rule it's better to be safe than sorry, and statistically that pans out as fewer people dying.
Which is precisely why it's there.
Yes. You get that I get that, right? 🙂
So if I go round twice, who's breaking the law?
Me or the shop?
Yes. You get that I get that, right?
Yup. I was pointing it out for those that require more than 32 in the house but can't bothered to walk to the next shop for another box or visit a Pharmacist.
So if I go round twice, who's breaking the law?
Me or the shop?
Ermmm! Do you really need to ask?
So if I go round twice, who's breaking the law?
Me or the shop?
I might be a different person by then - if I don't know that - how do they?
meanwhile nobody is concerned about the guy with 6 bottles of whisky.
meanwhile nobody is concerned about the guy with 6 bottles of whisky.
Maybe he was buying them for his family.
strictly speaking, neither (I think)So if I go round twice, who's breaking the law?
Me or the shop?
On a similar note how come they can sell you booze if you're with a young child but not if you're with somebody who "appears to be under 25"?
That just staff not understanding company policy, or the law.
I've not heard of any supermarket policy that states you can't buy alcohol if you are with someone that appears to be under 25.
People tend not to commit suicide by downing bottle after bottle of whisky, they take high risk over the counter meds as they're cheap, easy to get hold off and easy to take. As it's often a spontaneous thing they tend not even bother walking to next shop for another box.
+1
meanwhile nobody is concerned about the guy with 6 bottles of whisky.
He'' obviously managed to scrape together £30 - and he's having one night off a week, don't trample his dreams!
Also he probably won't be as easilly inclined towards impulse purchases as your average ibruprofen lover.
Ermmm! Do you really need to ask?
Clearly, yes.
I don't have a problem with it reducing suicide, but a 'bad law' is one that is hard to police. I think this is a bad law.
On a similar note how come they can sell you booze if you're with a young child but not if you're with somebody who "appears to be under 25"?
If they believe the person may be buying it for someone under age then they can refuse to sell the alcohol. You don't have a legal right to buy it but they can refuse to sell.
Clearly, yes.
I don't have a problem with it reducing suicide, but a 'bad law' is one that is hard to police. I think this is a bad law.
The links I gave up there show otherwise. Like I said way back spontaneous suicidal people don't wander around shop to shop buying Paracetamol.
a 'bad law' is one that is hard to police
Plenty of laws are hard to "police", it doesn't make them [i]bad[/i] laws.
The links I gave up there show otherwise. Like I said way back spontaneous suicidal people don't wander around shop to shop buying Paracetamol.
The links show the law is reducing suicide. I don't have a problem with that. But how many people have been prosecuted for breaking the law?
The state shouldn't use Tesco to do the policing.
The state shouldn't use Tesco to do the policing.
They don't. Tesco play by the law they don't do the policing
The state shouldn't use Tesco to do the policing.
So fags and booze to 10 year olds then ?
So fags and booze to 10 year olds then ?
Maybe some lighter fluid too or automatic weapons. It'll fine as it's not up to them to police, just there job not to get caught.
They don't. Tesco play by the law they don't do the policing
But by having self service check-outs, they're party to me breaking the law when I pay for two packs as separate transactions.
So fags and booze to 10 year olds then ?
A bit different, it's total ban. not you can buy 10 fags, but not 20.
The state shouldn't use Tesco to do the policing.
They don't. You just don't understand the Law.
The Law makes it illegal to [b]Sell[/b] certain quantities.
They aren't policing you, to make sure you don't break the law.
They are doing it so they don't break the law themselves.
Like when they don't sell booze in a way that would break the licensing laws.
But by having self service check-outs, they're party to me breaking the law when I pay for two packs as separate transactions.
That depends they may recognise you when you come back through and it beeps as you're buying restricted goods.
So if I go round twice, who's breaking the law?
Me or the shop?
probably no one
On a similar note how come they can sell you booze if you're with a young child but not if you're with somebody who "appears to be under 25"?
Have you seen the penalties for shops and individuals for selling to underage drinkers? They're pretty immense and the individual employee can find themselves carrying the can personally as much as the employer. If somewhere is overzealous in their application of the law then its not a surprise, getting it wrong is really going to sting but it all has to be done on the basis of judgement so you get phrases like 'appears to be'. One of the defences a shop has if they ever are caught selling to someone underage is that they showed due diligence and that includes logging your refusals to sell. So giving yourself a rule set, such as refusing to sell to any one who [i]appears to be[/i] seven years older than you can legal sell to, means you log plenty of refusals. The law doesn't require that they restrict sales on the basis of appearance but the shop has to develop its own strategy to ensure selling to someone underage, irrespective of their appearance, is as unlikely as possible.
It might be in your locale theres incidence of adult buying booze for minors. The practice is that you don't sell if you have [i]any[/i] doubt as to whether someone underage is buying booze, and that can include the suspicion that they may be doing so through a proxy.
They are doing it so they don't break the law themselves.
That's my point. They're not doing a very good job if it's so easy to get around, and that includes the people who wrote the law.
