Controlling Cold Medication Is Not the Answer

Controlling Cold Medication Is Not the Answer, Group Says By Susan Jones CNSNews.com Morning Editor March 07, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - The Law Enforcement Alliance of America, a conservative police-based organization, says Congress should give police more resources to go after methamphetamine producers and distributors -- without penalizing people who buy over-the-counter cold medication.

The LEAA said it opposes proposals to reclassify common cold and allergy medications as controlled substances just because they contain pseudoephedrine, which is used to make methamphetamine.

Legislation now pending in the House and Senate -- the Combat Meth Act of 2005 -- would increase funding for law enforcement to prosecute meth labs, which are a thriving cottage industry, especially in rural areas.

More funding is fine, said LEAA spokesman Ted Deeds, because it will lead to more effective enforcement of existing laws.

But, he added, "Criminalizing the purchase of common over-the-counter medicine is an unnecessary and harmful step that is unlikely to affect the volume of methamphetamine on the street."

Personally, I'm all for putting pseudoephedrine behind pharmacy counters like they do in Oklahoma. It is true that most of the meth on the market comes from big labs in western states and in Mexico, but it would be worth the small burden on consumers to get rid of a substantial portion of these little small batch kitchen meth labs. Oklahoma has seen something like an 80% decline in the number of meth labs busted. That number would probably even be higher if states bordering Oklahoma had similar legislation so that cooks living near the border couldn't just drive across the state line and pick up their pseudoephedrine supply.

These little labs cause big problems. There are the environmental problems caused by all the toxic chemicals. Kids are often in these homes and landlords are often out a good bit of money cleaning up what the state doesn't clean up. Aside from those problems there are all of the law enforcement, criminal justice system, and prison costs associated with these cases. We are spending a fortune in my state busting these people and putting them in prison for years and years before they are eligible for parole. And I think the labs are also a big problem in that they create addicts. I've handled an awful lot of meth lab cases as a public defender and what we generally see in these cases is that there is one guy that knows how to cook, and several others who help him gather supplies, do the grunt work like scraping red phosphorous off of matchbooks and that sort of thing. They do this in exchange for free or dirt cheap meth. Instead of doing an occasional line or buying an occasional $25 bag of meth, they're able to do large quantities of the stuff for extended periods of time. If they weren't addicted before that, they will most likely be after going on a long meth binge or two.

I'm not seeing people making any real money on these little kitchen meth labs. Some might, at least for a batch or two, but most of these people tend to not have a pot to pee in. Most of the dope being cooked up in these little labs is beings smoked, snorted, or shot up by the people cooking it and all the others helping them with the process. And there are an awful lot of little meth labs out there operating. I practice law in a tiny little county and we get several new meth lab cases every month if not every week. It's incredible.

Put the pseudo behind the counters at pharmacies and most of the little small batch labs would disappear practically overnight. The big labs out west and down in Mexico will still get large quantities of pseudo from their illicit sources. But most of these little guys buying or stealing pills all over town and cooking up a few grams at a time won't be able to do it anymore. And the rest of us will have to pick up our pseudoephedrine tablets at the pharmacy when we pick up our other medicine which isn't that big of a deal, especially since liquid preparations and gel caps will still be available at the corner store at least under legislation similar to Oklahoma's.

How big of an inconvenience would it really be for you to have to pick it up at the pharmacy? And if you use gel caps or liquid preparations containing pseudoephedrine you could pick it up anywhere. Is that really such a great inconvenience?

I don't know. I probably buy pseudoephedrine every few years. I had the flu a while back and took some and I know it had expired a few years ago. I just don't take the stuff very often and neither does my wife. My youngest daughter still uses liquid cold medicine, so we could pick that up anywhere. We're always going to the pharmacy for something or going to WalMart where they have a pharmacy. I don't think it would bother us in the least. But I guess if you have asthma or something and take the stuff all the time it might be a minor inconvenience, although you'd still be able to get enough easily. I just don't see the big problem.

"If you do a crime then lock em up and toss the key I don't care."

If you knew what they are spending arresting these guys, litigating their cases and imprisoning them, you might care a little. My state passed anti-meth laws several years ago making it such that people busted cooking dope or possessing "paraphernalia" with intent to manufacture do long prison stints before they are eligible for parole. It doesn't really do anything for the meth problem or make any real dent in the number of meth labs but we sure are wasting a lot of time and money on these cases prior to final disposition and then we spending an awful lot of money supporting all these people, keeping a roof over their heads, keeping them fed, paying their medical and dental bills, guarding them, paying for their appeals (a good 90% aree indigent and represented by public defenders) and so on while we keep them locked up for several years after they've been convicted. A huge cut like they've seen in Oklahoma in the number of little small batch meth labs would save our state millions of dollars every year. That money is coming out of my taxes and I'm sure something similar is happening wherever you live. It is in many ways in our best interests to see the number of small batch meth labs cut way down, and the least expensive, easiest way to do that is to put the pseudoehedrine behind the counters in pharmacies.

I'm surprised there are as many people against this as there are. I've even got clients sitting in the jail on dope cooking charges who are telling me they wish legislation like this would hurry up and pass in our state because it's too easy for them and people they care about to keep cooking dope. They only wish it had of passed sooner so maybe they wouldn't be sitting where they are sitting facing some serious repercussions. It is just too easy to cook the stuff and there are people all over the place doing it. We aren't going to be able to arrest and incarcerate our way out of this problem, but we can darn sure go broke trying.

"The Law Enforcement Alliance of America, a conservative police-based organization, says Congress should give police more resources to go after methamphetamine producers and distributors -- without penalizing people who buy over-the-counter cold medication."

Translation: Don't cut way down on the number of small batch meth labs the easy way. Throw piles and piles of money our way and let us fight this one for you. Sure you might have to spend gozillions of dollars locking up all the people we arrest, but we'll win the war on meth labs just like we're winning the rest of the war on drugs, one doper at a time. It'll be an ongoing problem that won't ever end, but as long as you keep increasing our budgets we'll have just as much success with the war on meth labs as we've been having in the greater war on drugs.

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.