Legislation touted as means to combat meth labs

[Lasher]

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.

[MadAnne]

1. You think this is

About doctors drumming up business?

[Lasher]

2. You're damned right it is.

[MadAnne]

3. Excellent program on NPR tonight.

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]

4. That aspect was discussed in the article I linked.

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]

5. 2012

That article seemed in support of the bill and it linked to a 2012 article.

[Lasher]

6. I see the WVHA saved the Daily Mail article.

Here is a link to it:

http://www.wvha.org/Media/News-Center/NewsScan/2014/1-21-Legislation-touted-as-means-to-combat-meth-la.aspx

[MadAnne]

7. Now

You are in favor of the law?

[Lasher]

8. No, of course not.

That was the article I initially linked.

[MadAnne]

9. I think

You and big Pharma will be happy with the outcome.

[Lasher]

10. Me and Big Pharma or you and the American Medical Association.

[MadAnne]

11. Not hardly

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

[Lasher]

12. My charge is just as fair and accurate as yours.

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]

13. What?

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?

[MadAnne]

14. Bill being discussed

On the House floor now. Tune in!

[Lasher]

15. I missed it, how did it go?