Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Lasher

(28,447 posts)
Tue Jan 21, 2014, 11:05 AM Jan 2014

Legislation touted as means to combat meth labs

CHARLESTON, WV -- Supporters of a bill that would require a prescription for allergy medicine containing pseudoephedrine want consumers to know the law would not cause inconvenience.

Instead, law enforcement officials say the law would lead to a dramatic decrease in meth labs across the state.

"We can't keep up with the meth lab crisis," said Detective Clark Green with the Kanawha County Metro Drug Unit. "If all it takes to help us with this problem is to put pseudoephedrine behind the counter, we need to do it."

Supporters of making pseudoephedrine available by prescription only met with members of the Daily Mail editorial board. The newspaper's editorial page has been reluctant to support that change.

https://news.google.com/news/section?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&geo=detect_metro_area&siidp=ef76f319c2d99cbb2e7c91be0840c11f17f8

Would not cause inconvenience? That doesn't pass the laugh test. Behind the counter? Medicine containing pseudoephedrine is already behind the counter. You have to ask the pharmacist for it and produce a photo ID. They limit how much you can buy and they keep track of your purchases.

NOVEMBER POLL: Clear Majority of West Virginians Oppose Prescription-Only Requirements For Common Cold and Allergy Medications

Well at least we have big pharma pushing back against doctors who are trying to drum up more business at our expense.
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Legislation touted as means to combat meth labs (Original Post) Lasher Jan 2014 OP
You think this is MadAnne Jan 2014 #1
You're damned right it is. Lasher Jan 2014 #2
Excellent program on NPR tonight. MadAnne Jan 2014 #3
That aspect was discussed in the article I linked. Lasher Feb 2014 #4
2012 MadAnne Feb 2014 #5
I see the WVHA saved the Daily Mail article. Lasher Feb 2014 #6
Now MadAnne Feb 2014 #7
No, of course not. Lasher Feb 2014 #8
I think MadAnne Feb 2014 #9
Me and Big Pharma or you and the American Medical Association. Lasher Feb 2014 #10
Not hardly MadAnne Feb 2014 #11
My charge is just as fair and accurate as yours. Lasher Feb 2014 #12
What? MadAnne Feb 2014 #13
Bill being discussed MadAnne Mar 2014 #14
I missed it, how did it go? Lasher Mar 2014 #15

MadAnne

(244 posts)
3. Excellent program on NPR tonight.
Fri Jan 31, 2014, 10:46 PM
Jan 2014

There is an exception for these drugs that can't be used to make meth. Consumers,would still have access without a prescription, just in a different form? Have you read either of the bills? Big Pharma and right wing radio will probably once again defeat these bills though.

Lasher

(28,447 posts)
4. That aspect was discussed in the article I linked.
Sat Feb 1, 2014, 02:09 AM
Feb 2014

But the Daily Mail has since removed it so that the link leads nowhere. Here's a Gazette article that's just as good or better:

Pseudoephedrine bill comes back to lawmakers

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- State lawmakers will once again debate a bill designed to curb methamphetamine production in West Virginia.

The legislation -- called the Larry Border Act after the late delegate from Wood County -- would require a prescription for cold and allergy medicines containing pseudoephedrine. The drug is a key meth-making ingredient.

Sen. Dan Foster, D-Kanawha, introduced the bill Thursday.

"What we're trying to do is eliminate the meth labs," Foster said during a press conference. "There's the toxic issue. (Meth labs) affect our children. They're like bombs."

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201201190141

MadAnne

(244 posts)
11. Not hardly
Wed Feb 5, 2014, 10:51 AM
Feb 2014

You will still be able to get the product just in a different form. What's the problem?

Lasher

(28,447 posts)
12. My charge is just as fair and accurate as yours.
Wed Feb 5, 2014, 11:42 AM
Feb 2014

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I think it's a good idea to have access only to the products that are more difficult to convert to meth. If they are just as effective, there is no good reason to have the legacy medicine around at all, by prescription or otherwise. If they are not as effective, then that needs to be part of the debate.

As I said from the outset, we don't need to "...put pseudoephedrine behind the counter" as Detective Clark Green claimed, because it is already behind the counter where it is controlled today by pharmacists as I described. Supporters of the bill in question "...want consumers to know the law would not cause inconvenience." Do you honestly believe that going to a doctor to get a prescription for an OTC remedy is not an inconvenience? This defies logic.

If we need to do more, then let's tighten controls already in place or totally ban versions of these remedies that are not designed to thwart meth production. Regardless, there is no good reason to get doctors involved.

MadAnne

(244 posts)
13. What?
Wed Feb 5, 2014, 03:19 PM
Feb 2014

If I can't take what? I don't even understand what you are talking about? If you don't have to go to the doctor to get a prescription what do you care? They would never pass a bill doing away with
pseudoephedrine.

BTW, still feeling sorry for Gary Southern?

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»West Virginia»Legislation touted as mea...