So IMHO this restriction is an attempt at limiting the stock people have at home. Although I would argue this is none of the shop's business and, as far as I can gather, this is not a legal restriction.
Correct. But this isn't a bad thing - it means people are less likely to have a large supply of dangerous pills at hand if they get a sudden urge to kill themselves or attempt a cry for help during a depressive episode.
> Although I would argue this is none of the shop's business
In practical terms it appears that this actually does reduce suicides and poisonings; it's a significant reduction in suffering in the world.
The cost is a very small and temporary limitation on personal convenience. It's surely worth it. See also seatbelt laws.
> and, as far as I can gather, this is not a legal restriction.
It is in some countries, but the legal obligation is on the vendor, not the individual. If you are confident that you do need a larger cache of tablets then you can do that yourself with only minimal extra inconvenience.
I think it's an elegant solution. Suicides are reduced, but the state doesn't overrule individual decision making on what their needs are.
Those 'voluntary' limitations, and there are others, are a bit of a pet peeve of mine because they strike me as hypocrisy/posturing/paternalism.
Limiting to two... I don't know, it has occasionally annoyed me (when I think I want to 'stock up') but I suppose there's just no reason you actually need more than that at once (other than self-harm or with a prescription) so meh why not if it has a small chance at stopping a few suicide attempts.