[2026 update] Availability by country, dated, with primary sources

On the subject in the title: Availability by country, dated, with primary sources Working notes rather than a conclusion.

Documenting an access outcome, dated, because everything in this category expires.

As of March 2026, in my region, the position is as described below. I have linked the primary source rather than a summary of it, because the summaries are consistently a year behind.

If anyone can confirm or contradict this for their own region, please date your answer. An undated claim in this category is worse than no claim.

I read the opening post twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Import rules for personal use: what you can import for personal use depends on your country's rules, not on where it is sold. Checking your country's rules before ordering is prudent.

This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not.

Summarising the Availability thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.

What I can speak to on Availability is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know.

Customs practice varies between entry points within the same country, which is why two people in the same jurisdiction report different experiences honestly.

Adding a reference point for Availability. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.

Post #6 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Both are useful and they are different contributions. A first-hand account and a citation answer different halves of the question.

I would hold that lightly until someone with a larger sample weighs in.

Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.

This follows post #6 rather than contradicting it.

Reporting rather than recommending, on Availability. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.

Checked the Availability claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.

Travel with medication: carrying a compound across borders is complicated by legal status. Documenting that it is prescribed and carrying proof reduces (but does not eliminate) risk.

Post #11 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

The version of Availability that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.

I read post #11 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

A first-hand dated account for a region with thin coverage is worth more here than any summary, and the regions with thin coverage are most of them.

The answer changed when I changed how I was measuring, which was informative.

Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.