Is St. Christopher the saint of that?

I think he's the saint of safe travel. Anyway, that's why people have St. Christopher medallions on their car dashes.

I swear I am not going to make it out of here tomorrow and I'll get sick to boot.

Okay, whole new patron saint invocation!

Catholicism is hard.

Good luck, Sue.

Who's the saint of lost things? My mother and grandmother just did a little invocation to him this morning, and I already forget.

Who's the saint of lost things?

St. Anthony?

Umm... maybe the meth-heads aren't to blame?

Protectionism and My Stuffy Nose

...

Let's follow the money a bit. It seems that most all pseudoephedrine is manufactured in China and India, and very cheaply, much more cheaply than it can be made in the United States or Europe. What that means is that these companies don't have lobbyists in Washington who can make an effective case for their product.

Contrast this was phenylephrine, the world's largest manufacturer of which is located in Germany. The company is called Boehringer-Ingelheim, according to MSNBC. It developed the drug in 1949 for use in eyedrops. In the last two years, virtually every manufacturer of cold medicine has changed its formula to include the Boehringer drug. Some continue to make the old formula available but only with special access.

Is it possible that the move against wonderful pseudoephedrine and in favor of useless phenylephrine was really a form of protectionism in disguise? That it was really about rewarding a well-connected company at the expense of companies without connections?

If that sounds cynical, take a look at this. It seems that our friends at Boehringer Ingelheim are rather interested in American politics, with 73% of its donations going to Republican candidates for federal office. You can see here that Boehringer even has a PAC located in Ridgefield, Connecticut. Someone with more time than I have ought to check to see how the people it supported for Congress voted on the act that resulted in a massive shift toward their product, and has nearly kept its competitive product off the market.

Oh and look here. It turns out that this company spent $1.85 million on lobbying in 2005, and this was a huge upsurge over all previous years.

The following year it spent $922,000, and it decline in 2007.

...

Now, before you call me a crazed conspiracy theorist, consider this amazing coincidence. The main company that stands to benefit from a law—passed in the name of the patriotic war on drugs—that effectively marginalizes in main competition and gives a boost to its inferior product spent millions in lobbying and campaign donations in the very year that the law was passed. There is no record of any substantial spending before the push for the law began, and spending has been declining since the law passed.

So let me go out on a limb here and say what any reasonable person would strongly suspect. The reason you can't get Mucinex and Sudafed that work without jumping through hoops isn't really about stopping basement meth users. It is really about the racket going on in Washington in which the law is used to benefit influential producers in cahoots with the political class at the expense of less influential producers and the American people, who should have the freedom to choose.

St. Anthony?

Google says yes. Good one!

St Anthony St Anthony please come 'round, something's been lost that cannot be found?

I always get St. Anthony and St. Christoper mixed up, actually. The only one I remember is St. Jude for lost causes.

St Anthony St Anthony please come 'round, something's been lost that cannot be found?

Yep! And there it was! He always comes through, apparently.

I am the patron saint of Limerick.

Or somesuch.