Should DayQuil Be Legal? • Hacker News Board

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#301

Post by n8henrie » Tue, Jul 07, 2026, 11:21 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #96

The article kinda glossed over it, but one fact under-appreciated by the general public is just how dangerous acetaminophen overdoses can be . Scientists often talk about the "therapeutic index" or "safety ratio" of a drug. It's the LD50 (dose at which 50% of recipients die) divided by the effective dose. Common hard drugs like heroin or methamphetamine have a safety ratio of about 6-10 [1]. "Soft" drugs like marijua…

> 7g of acetaminophen can kill you, and 12g is likely to [3]

I agree that people should be cautious, but I think you are significantly misunderstanding [3].

"Toxicity" != death -- toxicity is merely "some evidence of a toxic effect" -- possibly as simple as a transiently abnormal blood test with no symptoms or sequelae, ever.

Single (accidental) doses of up to 200 mg / kg are routinely recommended to be managed at home [0], i.e. "you don't really need to go to the emergency department for this." For me, a fairly average 79kg male, this would be about 16g.

Please consult with your local poison control if you have concerns or questions!

[0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16496488/

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#302

Post by xtiansimon » Tue, Jul 07, 2026, 11:34 PM UTC

fl4regun wrote: post #290

xtiansimon wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Say I'm a normal person… How am I supposed to know that phenylephrine doesn't work?” After using it and you experience zero relief, unfortunately. Sniffle. It’s infuriating when you’re ill. I wonder how anyone learns of the good stuff if they didn’t grow up prior to Sudafed being moved behind the counter. When I’m sick and standing in that isle I long for the day when there were just two on the market: Sudafed dur…

I've bought allergy medication at the drug store before and they don't work for me. Is this the same thing as phenylephrine, which literally doesn't do anything? or is it different because my particular allergies did not respond to this medication? I don't think these two are the same thing, and it makes far more sense that if there is a medication added to a drug, being sold in a drug store, for treating a particula…

Sorry you're having allergy problems. I only experience mild symptoms, so can't provide any more information than you've prolly found for yourself.

> "...suppose to try the dozen different gobbledegook ingredients on the shelf before figuring which one isn't bullshit..."

When you say "on the shelf" i presume you're specifically referring to OTC medication and not prescription medication, right? A common sense question deserves a common sense answer. Yes. Companies will happily take your money and sell you snake oil (nominally, so long as the consequences are near zero). Caveat emptor. Phenylephrine as the non-regulated version of pseudoephedrine is the perfect example.

IMHO the only way to buy OTC medication (or food for that matter) is to read the labels and understand the ingredients. (I hate palm oil and sugar. yuck)

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#303

Post by MrDrMcCoy » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 12:27 AM UTC

projektfu wrote: post #121

Aurornis wrote: post #35

This article uses the trick where you pick studies that support your argument and ignore all of the studies that disagree with it. There are other studies where Dextromethorphan improves both objective and subjective measures of coughing: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37232330/ They also picked a study that shows honey outperforming Dextromethorphan but ignored all the studies that show honey performing similarly o…

And, all of this, to avoid selling a little bit of the narcotic codeine. Which was technically permitted to be sold "behind the counter" without prescription, but was made Schedule II as part of cough syrup in the US not long ago. (It used to be Schedule III or IV when combined with homoatropine or promethazine).

I miss codeine cough syrup. It's the only thing that's ever been effective for me, despite my being fully immune to the "fun" aspects of opiates. They do remove pain, coughing, etc, but do not add any sensations or impair normal ones in my case. I've tried most of the gamut in one medical setting or another.

There should be a class of drug where the pharmacist gets to decide, based on some registry, whether you get to have something.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#304

Post by mannanj » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 2:17 AM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #132

mannanj wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As the person holding the money, it's my job to look at what is effective and what the act ingredients are in any given product. I wish the industry, our health organizations, and most people in general acted as though this were true. The environment we live in in general is increasingly hostile to people who ask those questions, do their own research, and take responsibility for their health in this way. I have fi…

"hostile" how?

Let me first get our agreement on the word hostility: > a state of unfriendliness, antagonism, or ill will

Do you agree on this definition?

Assuming so, I hear you asking how can asking particular questions get you this? I'll assume you have good will and are willing to engage with friendliness.

Simply asking specific questions about health, about diseases, about diet, about social media addiction, about controversial topics like politics, etc release hostility from a handful of people. These people engage with ill will and not friendliness. And it is assumed by them that the asker (me usually) meant unwell - this hostility represents my intentions and assumptions as ill will assumptions. Oddly enough this usually is strongest from people with strong identity attachment to a particular belief or set of beliefs that when questioned releases so much dissonance their nervous system gets hijacked and without the emotional intellgience or mindfulness skills to pause before they engage what comes out is a slop of hostility and aggression most commonly being Ad Hominem or Straw Man attacks as I've mentioned. All when all I did was asked questions.

When someone demonstrates this without actually inquiring into ones assumptions or why they asked, thats a clear demonstration of hostility.

Do you need more examples?

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#305

Post by fl4regun » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 4:31 AM UTC

xtiansimon wrote: post #302

fl4regun wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've bought allergy medication at the drug store before and they don't work for me. Is this the same thing as phenylephrine, which literally doesn't do anything? or is it different because my particular allergies did not respond to this medication? I don't think these two are the same thing, and it makes far more sense that if there is a medication added to a drug, being sold in a drug store, for treating a particula…

Sorry you're having allergy problems. I only experience mild symptoms, so can't provide any more information than you've prolly found for yourself. > "...suppose to try the dozen different gobbledegook ingredients on the shelf before figuring which one isn't bullshit..." When you say "on the shelf" i presume you're specifically referring to OTC medication and not prescription medication, right? A common sense questio…

I don't think caveat emptor means that companies should be able to sell products they know do not work.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#306

Post by krispyfi » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 8:27 AM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #79

jollyllama wrote: post #73

They wouldn't be selling the placebos if the real stuff were accessible. That's the real answer. The article mentions this but just accepts the inaccessiblity of the real thing as a given. You used to be able to get Nyquil with real sudafed in it. That was the gold standard. It's not even available behind the counter anymore, presumably because they can make more money from morons buying the placebos. As an aside: >…

> you'd overdose on the acetaminophen first which is a much, much worse way to go, apparently

User takes a large dose and dies -> "they should have used as directed"

User takes a large dose and gets high -> "why does big pharma condone drug abuse???"

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#307

Post by projektfu » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 10:05 AM UTC

MrDrMcCoy wrote: post #303

projektfu wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, all of this, to avoid selling a little bit of the narcotic codeine. Which was technically permitted to be sold "behind the counter" without prescription, but was made Schedule II as part of cough syrup in the US not long ago. (It used to be Schedule III or IV when combined with homoatropine or promethazine).

I miss codeine cough syrup. It's the only thing that's ever been effective for me, despite my being fully immune to the "fun" aspects of opiates. They do remove pain, coughing, etc, but do not add any sensations or impair normal ones in my case. I've tried most of the gamut in one medical setting or another. There should be a class of drug where the pharmacist gets to decide, based on some registry, whether you get t…

It's still available, I just don't know if it's still available without prescription. It's also gotten more expensive and not as many pharmacies stock it. Really, I find our drug policies so frustrating.

They should take all the ineffective phenylephrine products off the market and educate the consumer about asking for pseudoephedrine versions. But I think the ship has sailed and meth is being made with industrial chemicals now, so the restriction isn't as useful as it was.

I think it's not a bad idea to have a registry to prevent over-dispensing of opiate cough syrup. It's really an important drug. There are a lot of conditions that cause chronic, lifelong, unproductive coughing. Doctors end up prescribing things that are either more habit-forming or more dangerous.

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#308

Post by AlexeyBelov » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 1:05 PM UTC

mannanj wrote: post #304

triceratops wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"hostile" how?

Let me first get our agreement on the word hostility: > a state of unfriendliness, antagonism, or ill will Do you agree on this definition? Assuming so, I hear you asking how can asking particular questions get you this? I'll assume you have good will and are willing to engage with friendliness. Simply asking specific questions about health, about diseases, about diet, about social media addiction, about controversia…

Are you anti-vax?

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#309

Post by triceratops » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 1:42 PM UTC

mannanj wrote: post #304

triceratops wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"hostile" how?

Let me first get our agreement on the word hostility: > a state of unfriendliness, antagonism, or ill will Do you agree on this definition? Assuming so, I hear you asking how can asking particular questions get you this? I'll assume you have good will and are willing to engage with friendliness. Simply asking specific questions about health, about diseases, about diet, about social media addiction, about controversia…

> Do you need more examples?

Hopefully I don't come off as hostile but there were no examples in your post.

What were your questions? Did you also show an open mind and willingness to engage?

Re: Should DayQuil Be Legal?

#310

Post by wowczarek » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 3:50 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #133

wowczarek wrote: post #112

I get that the discussion here focuses on doubtful decongestants, but just the mention of acetaminophen makes me think of pharmaceuticals and people's relationship with them in the US. It's a strange world to me, especially how deeply ingrained the brand names are in people's minds - years of evidently successful marketing. What, to me, should be illegal, is building expensive branding around a group of very basic an…

Same situation in the US. I can buy NyQuil/DayQuil, or I can buy the pharmacy-branded version for a lower price. Here it's usually not such a dramatic difference; probably the pharmacy brand is a a 30-40% discount off the big-name brand. > How is THAT legal Why shouldn't it be? Companies are free to set prices to whatever the market will bear. In this case it's based on customer ignorance, which makes it feel icky, b…

>> How is THAT legal

> Why shouldn't it be? Companies are free to set prices to whatever the market will bear.

Those are the rules of a free market, I'm not contesting this in general, but we're practically talking deceit here. IMO the pricing for a "crucial subset" of WHO's essential medicine list (as if "essential" wasn't atomic enough...) should be capped, plain packaging enforced and no advertising campaigns permitted. Medical professionals being bound by law to inform of the availability of generics in certain jurisdictions is simply not enough. I'm not saying this is realistic or achievable, but it would benefit the society. That same list also includes common antidepressants and antipsychotics for example, even if it's under palliative care management, and those are biiig money makers.

As to the rest, fully agreed. With own brand groceries quality does often follow pricing, but doubting the quality of pharma generics is doubting the whole regulatory system - not unwise - but if we do, that should equally, and especially, apply to the big names for whom more money is at stake, with the good side that this brings (rigorous testing) and the bad side (shady practices).