Those of us who experience frequent nasal congestion, whether it be from seasonal allergies or the occasional flu/cold, can attest to the importance of decongestants. In addition to being miserable, the symptoms of allergic rhinitis alone are estimated to cost the country over 4 million work-days per year plus countless lost hours due to reduced productivity. Decongestants like pseudoephedrine can be a powerful, even necessary, form of relief for particularly bad cases of congestion. Yet, in the state of Oregon, these medicines can be out of reach for many low-income residents.

Since 2006, Oregon has been one of two states that require patients to obtain a prescription before purchasing pseudoephedrine and pseudoephedrine derivatives. Non-prescription products now usually contain phenylephrine, a substance which fails to demonstrate the same decongestant properties as pseudoephedrine in clinical trials. Accessing effective decongestants now requires sufferers to pay extra for doctor’s appointments, which can be unaffordable for many.

The reason behind the 2006 ban was ostensibly to reduce in-state production of methamphetamine, a process which traditionally uses pseudoephedrine as a precursor. While proponents can point to a decline in the number of meth labs discovered in the state of Oregon, the decline actually began well before our anti-pseudoephedrine law was passed. In fact, there is little evidence of a causal relationship between the 2006 crackdown and any subsequent reduction in methamphetamine production.

Moreover, there is no evidence that the ban reduced usage of pseudoephedrine in the state, and despite a proliferation of laws restricting pseudoephedrine sales on the national level, national methamphetamine usage has been unaffected, according to the National Institute for Drug Abuse. Part of this phenomenon can be explained by the rise of “super labs” operated out of Mexico by large drug cartels. In Mississippi, which implemented a prescription-only law in 2010, authorities have observed a massive influx of highly-potent “Mexican meth” produced and imported by affiliates of the Sinaloa cartel. When domestic labs disappear, foreign producers step in to fill market demand.

Ultimately, restrictions on the sale of pseudoephedrine, especially the strict prescription-only requirements in Oregon and Mississippi, are not an effective method of reducing the use or production of meth. In fact, existing research on the subject shows that increases in the price of drugs have minimal impact on users’ demand. Thus, policies like the pseudoephedrine crackdown, which aim to reduce the supply of drugs and thus increase the price, are ultimately doomed to fail. Their most significant impact is the criminalization of broad swathes of everyday activities: in this case, allergy relief. Thankfully, a new piece of proposed state legislation, HB 2303, recognizes this reality and includes provisions that would overturn Oregon’s 2006 prescription requirement. It’s about time.