Posted on 01/10/2005 6:48:57 PM PST by Dog Gone
AUSTIN - A state senator who wants to eliminate from the market drugs that contain mainly pseudoephedrine has introduced a series of four bills for returning lawmakers.
Under the legislation by Sen. Craig Estes, no one would be able to buy drugs like Sudafed in Texas. But he said consumers could still buy other congestion remedies containing the decongestant, as long as it is mixed into capsules and cough syrups.
"We hope the general public will realize that a little inconvenience will go a long way," Estes, R-Wichita Falls, told the Scripps Howard Austin bureau in Monday's editions of the Abilene Reporter-News.
In Oklahoma, passage of state legislation last spring that banned store sales of popular medications like Sudafed and Claritin-D that contain pseudoephedrine, the main ingredient in methamphetamine, was credited with reducing the number of methamphetamine labs during the first six months of 2004.
Police and prosecutors have been "inundated by meth abusers and cookers" who have crossed into Texas after Oklahoma outlawed over-the-counter sales of pseudoephedrine, the main ingredient in methamphetamine production, Estes said.
Restricting sales of common cold remedies that contain the illegal drug's key ingredient could aid in the fight against drugs, said Capt. Doug Kunkle of the Texas Department of Public Safety in Austin.
"It will really reduce the amount of meth they will cook here," Kunkle said. "Anything that can bring us relief ... will be helpful."
DPS officials and other law officers, in a 12-month period that ended in May 2004, busted 934 labs. That number represents a 167 percent increase over a 12-month period ending in December 2002.
"This is drug that is terribly addictive and leads to death and destruction of family and property," Estes said. "It's an overwhelming problem."
The 79th Legislature opens Tuesday
You wrote:
Other drugs have potential side effects and only someone with medical training will know if it is safe for a person to take or mix with other medications.
Let's hear it for Epocrates!!
I don't like signing for the sudafed, but it's not like it's banned here in Oklahoma. It's just not out on the floor where a would-be cook could just shoplift a case of them. I buy two packages at a time, so I don't have to go back as often.
Bottom line, meth labs busts are down 75% in Oklahoma, and 60% in Oklahoma County (OKC). Either the cops aren't doing as good a job this year, or the number of labs has gone down.
Yes, but it doesn't.
SO9
I say we ban anything that we have caught State Senators abusing.
Ya. Sudafed and Actifed are my favs when I get stuffy. It clears me up so fast it ain't funny. I wasn't aware that it was an ingredient of Meth, but I'm not suprised at all. My scalp tingles after taking an actifed.
I'm heartened to see that there are very few jackboots supporting this move on this thread (so far at least). There are a few that manage to support anything that the police state does though. I often wonder why they consider themselves 'conservative'.
Please explain where the Constitution says that a state government cannot regulate narcotics.
What you described is frigenting indeed. Sounds like a bad combination of power hungr politicians and sheeple mized together to brew up really bad law. If you look at it closely, I think you'll find that the reason Indianapolis has so few busts is because the city is pretty much a criminal enterprise itself. From what I understand, it's one of the most corrupt places in the country.</P>
The state governments can... but this is the result of the federal WoD, not some wild coincidence. Banning alcohol led to moonshine, banning cocaine led to crack, banning speed led to meth. Now they are going to ban Sudafed? Like someone isn't going to just mail-order a crate of the stuff anyway? Then what... search the mail to make sure none gets through?
Hell, no! It's one of the very few anti-congestion things I can take and still be conscious enough to fly!
I have to actually PAY for my medical insurance and PAY huge medicare taxes so others can NOT PAY and yet, I still have some deductable for doctors visits and medicines....
so I try to limit how often I go to the doctor and try to avoid prescriptions...
yet now, it seems like they want me to be pestering the doctor more and they want me running into the emergency room for simple colds and sinus headaches....
why can't I treat my simple symptoms myself with some very inexpensive over the counters like plain old Sudafed, or its generic cousins....
BTW....it is always better to take only the medicines you need whenever you are sick....putting Sudafed in with other medicines seems to me to be bad policy....
I did not say that. I was speaking of the larger context in which this story plays out.
I can see some states legalizing it, but that's beside the point. This Quixotic crusade to stop people from doing drugs backfires horribly because it is that very crusade itself which makes the drugs so attractive to a large portion of the users.
In the absence of such a policy, a certain number of people would still do it, but the number would be far fewer than today.
You ask why a meth lab wouldn't mail order Sudafed or other precursors even without a ban, and the probable reason why they don't is because it's more convenient to pick it up at a pharmacy or corner store. Ban the sale of Sudafed in town, and they'll get it elsewhere. Ban it from the entire state, and they'll smuggle it in at great profit.
The only way to fight the drug dealers is to take the money out of drugs. Most drugs that people get high on are dirt cheap to make, it's only prohibition that makes it a profitable business. While this state senator may fashion himself a rescuer, the fact is that he is the best of friends to the fiends in the labs. And so are all the holier-than-thou prohibitionists.
I would not support an outright ban and think it would create greater harm than good. It appears to be like using a bazooka to cure a blister.
If they want to make it a controlled substance again where a prescription is needed, I could grudginly live with that but an outright ban or having to buy them one pill at a time is downright ridiculous.
There's a lot of stronger stuff out there than people can get a 30-day supply with a prescription just about whenever they need it. I can't fathom the need to make psuedophedrine more controlled than that.
And if you want to gauge the success of such a law, you shouldn't base it on drug labs closed, you should base it on how many fewer cases of meth addiction you are treating. Let's see *those* numbers before declaring any such law a success.
Sudafed is worthless.
Pretty soon practically everything will be illegal. I could make a fortune just by selling aspirin alone!
I keep asking the question, do we have more meth here , or just better drug enforcement?
I know most of the task force, and these guys are sharp and hard working.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.