a ‘bad law’ is one that is hard to police

Plenty of laws are hard to “police”, it doesn’t make them bad 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 Sell 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 appears to be 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 any 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.

But by having self service check-outs, they’re party to me breaking the law when I pay for two packs as separate transactions.

Grow up and stop being pedantic.

Is it that hard to understand that a till saying “sorry, you can’t buy 100 paracetamol tabs” is enough to make a suicidal person stop and think. Not every suicidal person but a significant number.

So nobody really cares if you knowingly bend the rules by using 2 transactions. You are not the target of the rule.

Now if there was some stats to show that an increase in OTC painkiller overdoses correlates to the widespread use of self checkouts then you may have a point.

Hi everyone, Ultra rapid cycling Bipolar disorder suffer here. No, it’s got nothing to do with bikes. Manic phases are crazy and my depressed phases are just bloody awful. I’m on decent drugs that kind of keep me “normal”.
2 years ago was different. I was a wreck, going from manic to depressed sometimes within a couple of hours.
I had a particularly low phase and decided I couldn’t cope any more. I went to the pharmacy cupboard to look for paracetamols. There was 16 there. I was so low I couldn’t get out of the house so took all my Depakote (prescribed) and I passed out.
I was found thank god and didn’t suffer any major damage.
Had the pills all been Paracetamol I would be dead.
No arguing or complaining. That law is there for a reason.
I tried to jump in front of a train a couple of months later but was stopped by a guardian angel. Some guy saw me acting strange in Stepansplatz Ubahn station and realised I was about to jump.

Mind I went through the route of going shop to shop years ago when I was in a bad place in my life(I was Drinking a lot, taking industrial amounts of speed, weed and ecky and in with a dodgy crowd.). So the restrictions weren’t successful in stopping my attempt. ( 16/17 years ago I’m talking,just after the restrictions came in.)

They should maybe advertise the charcoal spewing you need to go through after swallowing a bottle or 4 and advertising the fact that paracetamol takes days to kill you and it’s a particularly painful death(something I didn’t know at the time).

It’s pretty impossible to stop someone going down a row of shops and getting the required amount within a few minutes. Mind you in saying that, is it the lesser of evils maybe? As if someone knew the extent of how paracetamol kills you they’d maybe opt for a more direct route?… Dunno its a strange one.

Grow up and stop being pedantic.

Sigh! I’m not I’m pointing out the fail safes they have set up.

So nobody really cares if you knowingly bend the rules by using 2 transactions. You are not the target of the rule.

Although that would have been a better answer.

So fags and booze to 10 year olds then ?

A bit different, it’s total ban.

No it’s not a total ban. If you are 17 years old you can’t buy alcohol, but your 18 year old friend with you can. Tesco are “policing” the law, in the context which you use the term.

Cheers iolo and Seosamnh77 for sharing your personal experiences very brave of you. Interesting tales.

Is it that hard to understand that a till saying “sorry, you can’t buy 100 paracetamol tabs” is enough to make a suicidal person stop and think. Not every suicidal person but a significant number.

So nobody really cares if you knowingly bend the rules by using 2 transactions. You are not the target of the rule.

And, if you can read, you’d see that I’m ok with that.
I just don’t think it’s a good way to go about it. Maybe it’s the only way that would work. Fine. But I think, that’s my opinion, it’s a poor law. Yes, it maybe pedantic, but so what.

Drac, why do you think I think you are being pedantic?

(I don’t and you’re not)

Drac, why do you think I think you are being pedantic?

I misread your post. 😳

I’m the pedant.

And, if you can read, you’d see that I’m ok with that.
I just don’t think it’s a good way to go about it. Maybe it’s the only way that would work. Fine. But I think, that’s my opinion, it’s a poor law. Yes, it maybe pedantic, but so what.

Maybe it’s a great law. It’s very easy to implement to a level that is effective and doesn’t need policing to be effective.

do people really not see the difference?

I see the difference. My point was it wasn’t a pharmacist that served me and she made no comment about the danger. Just asked me if I’d had them before.

Drac – Moderator
Cheers iolo and Seosamnh77 for sharing your personal experiences very brave of you. Interesting tales.

dunno how it helps the discussion mind. But its something I don’t mind talking about online(very few people outside my family know it happened). In my case it was a drunken attempt and looking back it was definitely a cry for help rather than a serious attempt(despite actually going through with it, the location of where I did it tells me it was crying out for help as I was easily found(help I got very quickly from my family and was able to move on with my life)).

Something that happened in a different lifetime is how I view it now really.

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.

We used to have a policy of not selling to anyone who looked like a group of under/over 18’s.

Parent + kids was fine, a group of 6th formers would be refused even if the person paying was over 18.

It’s not the law but trading standards target their secret shoppers so it was a good idea not to be the shop with the reputation for selling it, just in case.

Puts a perspective on it Seosamh77.

I see the difference. My point was it wasn’t a pharmacist that served me and she made no comment about the danger. Just asked me if I’d had them before.

Yeah they tend to be trained and experienced so know what to look for and again it reduces the spontaneous attempts.

think yourself lucky you can pick up one single pack and pay the the till (either staffed till or self-serve).

in much of Europe, if you want anything more pharmaceutical than toothpaste, you’ll have to be served by a pharmacist. Paracetamol, cold+flu remedy, that Bonjela stuff,…

If you must but multiple packs – and post C-section meds is a good example, either go to a pharmacist (where you can but 100 paracetamol), or if you don’t like their prices, go to Tesco and use the self-service checkout and pay with cash. Multiple times. At 24p/pack, it’s the best value medicine available.

We used to have a policy of not selling to anyone who looked like a group of under/over 18’s.
Parent + kids was fine, a group of 6th formers would be refused even if the person paying was over 18.

That was exactly my point.

No supermarkets have a policy that you can’t buy alcohol if you have someone with you that appears to be under 25.

They have policies in place to stop people buying alcohol for minors, but no blanket policies on anyone with a minor not being able to buy alcohol (as was suggested earlier)

The limit on paracetamol seems perfectly sensible. The same limit on Ibuprofen is daft. Before my hip got really bad and I switched to the long term tramadol party I was, on the advice of doc, necking 4000mg of ibuprofen a day. That’s more than one 200mg 16 pack a day.

The limit on paracetamol seems perfectly sensible. The same limit on Ibuprofen is daft. Before my hip got really bad and I switched to the long term tramadol party I was, on the advice of doc, necking 4000mg of ibuprofen a day. That’s more than one 200mg 16 pack a day.

If you need this much then go to a pharmacist, they are not just glorified shop assistants.

It’s an effort to stop self medication turning dangerous. It’s a great idea and it’s saved lives. Excessive ibuprofen use is dangerous too, as usual STW is the Me ME ME! around laws/regulation designed to protect people which actually work.

I got quite narked when I was on long-term painkillers, I had a prescription for cocodamol and I was getting a box of 500 at a time… But most of the time, I was underdosing by using 1 paracetemol and one cocodamol. So I’d go into the chemist, pick up my 500 cocodamol, and only be able to buy a couple of boxes of paracetemol. Bearing in mind here that cocodamol is just a combination of paracetemol and codeine.

If you need this much then go to a pharmacist, they are not just glorified shop assistants.
It’s an effort to stop self medication turning dangerous. It’s a great idea and it’s saved lives. Excessive ibuprofen use is dangerous too, as usual STW is the Me ME ME! around laws/regulation designed to protect people which actually work.

Whoa! Easy tiger! A bit full one there. Hardly “ME! ME! ME!” offering an opinion.

For better or worse, I’d prefer to pay Tesco prices, especially as I chose to pay rather than get it free on prescription. Since 1993, there hasn’t been a single case of death by Ibuprofen poisoning. Not one. Given that fact (you can check the figures on the ons.gov site) it’s hardly a master class in selfishness expecting to be able to buy more than two packs of Ibuprofen. Given paracetamols toxicity, it makes sense to restrict as prohibitively. Let’s have a logic based approach rather than a scattergun “drugs are bad m’kay” approach. It helps no one.

Are you broadly in favour of restricting salt sales btw? That causes more deaths in a year than ibuprofen has in 20.

Mikewsmith….

The latest studies suggest the pack size/number of boxes limit *hasn’t* worked either. From the NIH.gov site, the latest study says….

INTRODUCTION:
Paracetamol poisoning is a major health problem worldwide. Limitation of pack size is an approach increasingly advocated to reduce rates of suicide and serious self-harm from this agent. The United Kingdom adopted such a policy in 1998, restricting non-pharmacy sales to 8 g and pharmacy to pack sizes of 16 g.
METHODS:
A literature review was conducted and commentary written on the impact of the change in the United Kingdom on a variety of indices of paracetamol overdose.
RESULTS:
Potential markers of effect identified included paracetamol sales, poisons information data, laboratory results, liver unit referrals, and hospital activity and mortality data. Initial reports suggested effects associated with the legislation, but longer term suicide trend analysis has not confirmed these early findings, which were confounded by population trends in self-harm.
CONCLUSION:
Paracetamol pack size limitation as applied in the United Kingdom has not reduced paracetamol-related death. Reasons postulated for this failure include patient avoidance of the legislation’s intentions, patient confusion, and ineffectiveness of the regulations as conceived and implemented.

The implication of overuse or overdose of Ibuprofen is some longer lasting damage. So it’s not death but it’s not good.
32 Tablets will last 5 days at the max dose on the packet. If you are taking it for longer then you should see a doctor (the advice I have always had). There is nothing wrong with selling medication under supervision, it’s actually a good idea. You can still buy the cheap brands in smaller quantities, I reckon you can still get the cheap ones in a supermarket pharmacy too but in that case you will speak to a pharmacist who will warm you on the implications and potential effects.

The latest studies suggest the pack size/number of boxes limit *hasn’t* worked either. From the NIH.gov site, the latest study says….

I don’t understand (because I’m ignorant of the facts/argument) how that is reconciled with the previous research which showed that the number of paracetamol deaths decreased and the number of people requesting kidney transplants decreased after the changes.

Are they saying that the rate did fall but it was unrelated to the pack size legislation?

Before my hip got really bad and I switched to the long term tramadol party I was, on the advice of doc, necking 4000mg of ibuprofen a day. That’s more than one 200mg 16 pack a day.

Can anyone see why that might be Ok? If not should we also sell tramadol over the counter?

The latest studies suggest the pack size/number of boxes limit *hasn’t* worked either. From the NIH.gov site, the latest study says….

Really?

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/02February/Pages/Smaller-paracetamol-packs-have-cut-deaths.aspx

No supermarkets have a policy that you can’t buy alcohol if you have someone with you that appears to be under 25.

They have policies in place to stop people buying alcohol for minors, but no blanket policies on anyone with a minor not being able to buy alcohol (as was suggested earlier)

I think the broad agreement is that you can’t trust checkout workers to make judgement calls, or even apply their own overcautious policies in a sensible fashion (even if they are easily circumvented) The current till warnings kind of make sense, as they might be effective sometimes.

When I’ve seen pill suicide on films etc. I always assumed it was something much stronger/immediate with a greater sedative effect (although you don’t stop to think what it might be and how they got it)

shouldn’t the packet include a large print health warning “Overdosing on paracetemol might not kill you straight away but will horribly and painfully mess you up” That seems like it would be more effective…

shouldn’t the packet include a large print health warning “Overdosing on paracetemol might not kill you straight away but will horribly and painfully mess you up” That seems like it would be more effective…

They tend not to read the packets. People take ODs on various drugs spontaneously. They take ones that aren’t going to do them any immediate whilst other they had in the house next time would have been far more effective. By advertising the fact Paracetamol or other drugs might not have a quick effect you’re almost advising them what to take.

From the NIH.gov site, the latest study says….

Are you sure it comes from the UK gov NIH ? Google suggests that you have quoted from a web page from the US National Library of Medicine.

And when you say “the latest study says” it would appear to date from 2009.

Limiting paracetamol pack size: has it worked in the UK?

Drac’s link to an article dated 2013 sounds a little more like “the latest study”. And the research was funded by National Institute for Health Research – a UK gov body.

The claims made in Drac’s NHS link suggest a huge reduction in overdoses – 43% reduction in the number of paracetamol-related deaths and also a 61% reduction in the number of people needing a liver transplant. Although they do recognise that “the nature of this study means that it is difficult to conclude that it was the new law that was directly responsible for this decline”.

I think that most people would agree that the sheer size of the reduction in deaths and liver transplants makes the continuation of the policy highly sensible.

Except of course for the people who need to whinge about something and who can’t quite cope with the huge inconvenience it causes them 🙂

Ernie…

As is – I have *zero* issues with the restriction of paracetamol (just as I said in the first post). So not something I was ‘whinging’ about. 😉

On the second point? My bad – amateur error on my part! I looked at the index and it was the last one I saw. You’re right however, that *doesn’t* make it the latest study.

My original point with regard to ibuprofen still seems fair right enough… 😉