Lawmaker wants to ban drugs like Sudafed

associated press ^ | January 10, 2005

[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

[Military family member]

By buying more than one package, you are sending a red flag to everyone looking for meth labs.

Other items that can get you in trouble include:

Propane

Starting Fluid

Tubing, especially surgical tubing

Ammonia

Cough syrups

Drain cleaner

If the police respond to a home and find any one of these items in plain view, then the cops can and will conduct a sweep of the house. If they find more than one item, there is a good likelihood that an arrest will be made.

[Military family member]

The point is they are not outlawing it, they are putting it behind the counter and making it a controlled substance, on an item by item basis.

In many places with this law, if you buy just one box of sudafed, you have to provide a picture ID and then your name and address are sent to the prosecutor's office.

I hate to sound all conspiracy theory here, but that frightens me. The FDA says I can take this drug without a precription from my doctor and now a three-person group in my county—the County commissioners, who act as the executive branch of the county government—simply said that this is the law.

[jjw]

There is no ban here.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Unfortunately, a quick examination of the Dutch experiment with drug legalization proves you wrong. The same thing can be said of the Berkeley area's policies. Of course, you might think that large areas of public land being taken over by junkies is a good thing. Having lived in Cal for four years, I must disagree.

[Lazamataz]

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.

Estes, you are no rocket scientist.

LEAVE MY DECONGESTANTS ALONE, YOU FREAK!

[Lazamataz]

I think it's a good idea. Crystal Meth destroys lives. I'd be willing to buy my sudafed one packet at a time.

Nice compromise.

Authoritarian Bureaucratic Drone Craig Estes won't have it. This bill bans Sudefed entirely. Estes can blow it out his nose.

[TKDietz]

"All this will do is make the meth lab chemists do is find another source for chems needed."

The "chemists" with the giant labs producing the majority of the meth available o the street don't go around to stores buying or stealing a couple of boxes of pills here and there. They have other sources for large quantities. What they've done in Oklahoma by restricting psuedoephedrine sales such that people can only buy it from pharmacies from behind the drug counter after they sign for it is put a serious dent in all of the little kitchen meth labs. These guys doing this for the most part are certainly not what you would think of as "chemists." They're a bunch of toothless drug addicts. I'm a public defender in an area where meth is big and I represent these guys all the time. It's obvious that this stuff is not hard to make at all because the people caught cooking it aren't generally the rocket scientist types by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm all for restricting psuedoephedrine such that it is only sold from behind pharmacy counters to people who will sign for it. At a minimum, it would cut way down on the number of people going to prison for a long time for cooking dope or possessing paraphernalia with intent to manufacture. Far fewer would be able to get enough psuedoephedrine to cook up their own batches. It would probably cut down on addiction too because for all of these thousands of little meth labs in my state and yours there are almost always several little helpers out gathering supplies who get all of the free dope they can use in return for their help. Without the little labs everywhere, a lot of these people would never be able to afford enough dope to become addicted. Overall, this would save my state and probably yours a lot of money now spent prosecuting and locking up so many people, and if it does help reduce the number of addicts it will relieve us from some of the crime and other problems meth addicts cause.

And the inconvenience to legitimate consumers would be minimal. Most of us already have to go to the drug store anyway sometimes to buy medicine for ourselves or someone in our families, and most of us don't end up needing psuedoephedrine that often. It wouldn't be that much of a problem to have to pick up your psuedoephedrine at the drug store.

[deziner]

OH good grief! I'm allergic to everything and take sudafed quite a bit when the antihistimines like benadryl and zyrtec don't cut it - without it I get an acute sinus infection that requires literally months of antibiotics. (I get the sinus infection anyways sometimes, but at least sudafed gives some relief) This guy must not know what it is like to suffer from terrible allergies. Especially here in Texas - allergy capital of the world.

[TKDietz]

"B@stard statists. Sudafed is one of the few things that actually helps with my sinuses. And banning it won't slow the druggies down. I'll be working against that politician's campaign....And I'm from Texas."

Are they really trying to ban it outright, or are they just talking about banning off the shelf sales from regular stores? If they are talking about having laws similar to Oklahoma's you'd still be able to get it at your pharmacy.

[Darnright]

>So I wouldn't miss Sudafed one bit. And if it put the meth and crank dealers out of business, all the better.<

Sudafed works well for a lot of people. Medication is like that, what works for one won't work for another.

Banning Sudafed will make many law-abiding people, who depend on the drug, miserable. It will not "put the meth and crank dealers out of business".

Let's ban marijuana, and put the pot smokers and dealers out of business.

[Mad Mammoth]

Let's ban marijuana, and put the pot smokers and dealers out of business.

Spray all the marijuana crops with paraquat, and you will.

[TKDietz]

"If we ban water, then no drugs could be made. Still on board? How far are you willing to go?"

Are they talking about banning it, or only allowing it to be sold from behind the counter in pharmacies and requiring people to sign for it like they do in Oklahoma? If they are just talking about having laws similar to Oklahoma's, it's not that big of a deal. Psuedoehedrine is the base product that all of this meth is coming from. The whole cooking process revolves around converting the psuedo into meth. There are lots of different recipes where they use different chemicals and processes to reach that end, but without easy access to large quantities of psuedo we wouldn't have all of these little kitchen meth labs everywhere. I wish my state had these laws. We have little meth labs like these operating everywhere all the time. I'm in a small town and there are probably dozens out there cooking dope as I type this. Otherwise we wouldn't see several people being arraigned every week on dope cooking charges, and I wouldn't be representing so many of them as a public defender.

[TKDietz]

"Limiting purchases to one or two packages per person at any given time is a reasonable compromise which doesn't inconvenience law abiding people."

That doesn't work though. In my state people are limited to three packs at a time, but they just hit every store in town. A lot of the time, they just steal it off the shelves. There are almost always several little helpers involved that go around gathering supplies in exchange for free or super cheap dope. Making it to where only pharmacies can sell it and only from behind the counter to people who sign for it would cut way down on the theft of psuedo and would reduce the availability of the precursor enough to make it too difficult for most to get enough to make meth cooking worth the trouble.

[webstersII]

"Please explain where the Constitution says that a state government cannot regulate narcotics."

That's an easy one. The Tenth Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution made provisions for just this type of action by the States -- not by the Federal Gov't per se, but definitely for the states.

[webstersII]

"Please explain where the Constitution says that a state government cannot regulate narcotics."

Sorry, I need another cup of coffee this a.m.

I thought it said "can", not "cannot".

[JeffAtlanta]

The problem with that is you'll have people taking antibiotics for things like a Cold and the Flu neither of which it will help.

You can't buy oral antibiotics over the counter though so that's a moot point.

[bmwcyle]

Please don't take it away.

[twinzmommy]

Oh my.

They took away PPA. . now they want to take away pseudoephidrine?

I think they all must NOT have seasonal allergies. Or asthma.

[Know your rights]

Actually, he said RAIDS were down. And since law enforcement has been moving harder against meth, any drop in labs may be due to that. I still doubt that burdening cold sufferers is going to make a big dent in meth labs.

[mysterio]

Am I correct in assuming that you would support the strict regulation of any substance that is a large component in the making of an illegal, intoxicating drug? Regardless of the value of the substance? How far are you willing to go? How much are you willing to give up? You do realize that meth is simply a response to other intoxicants being cracked down on, right? Bathroom chemists will find something else to cook into fake speed or fake cocaine. You must understand that this does nothing to reduce the demand for intoxicating substances, legal or illegal.