Man Arrested for Allergies

Those stupid over-the-counter meth laws claim an early innocent victim:

(I was) made to feel like a criminal – Made to feel low, dirty. Just totally degraded,” recalled Tim Naveau, who says he’ll never forget the hours he spent in Rock Island County Jail – he says all because of his allergies.

“They searched me, made me take my shirt off, my shoes off,” he recounted.

Tim takes one 24-hour Claritin-D tablet just about every day. That puts him just under the legal limit of 75-hundred milligrams of pseudo ephedrine a month. The limit is part of a new law that Quad Cities authorities are beginning to strictly enforce.

The law limits the amount of pseudo ephedrine you can buy. Pseudo ephedrine is an ingredient in medicines like Sudafed and Claritin-D, and it’s also a key ingredient in methamphetamines.

“It’s the only allergy medicine that works for me – for my allergies,” Tim explained.

The only problem is, Tim has a teenaged son who also suffers from allergies. And minors are not allowed to buy pseudo ephedrine.

“I bought some for my boy because he was going away to church camp and he needed it,” he said.

That decision put Tim over the legal limit. Two months later, there was a warrant for his arrest.

Via Jonathan Wilde at Catallarchy , who also notes that local officials make no apologies:

Rene Sandoval, Director of the Quad Cities Metropolitan Enforcement Agency – the agency that enforces the law – says it’s meant to catch meth makers, and does.

“We’ve seen a huge decline in methamphetamine labs,” Sandoval said.

But even if you’re not making meth, if you go over that limit – of one maximum strength pill per day – you will be arrested.

“Does it take drastic measures? Absolutely. Have we seen a positive result? Absolutely,” Sandoval stressed.

Get it? If you broke the law, you broke the law. And you're going to jail. Criminal intent stopped mattering in the drug war years ago.

Comments

The Wine Commonsewer | December 24, 2006, 9:23am | #

Maybe those guys have seen a decline in Meth labs (insert healthy dose of skepticism here) but in the great Southwest, where the lion's share of meth is made, there has been zero decline in labs and/or availability of meth since Target started locking up the Sudafed.

Guy Montag | December 24, 2006, 9:23am | #

Stupid law enacted by stupid officials and enforced by stupider officials.

Can’t wait to see how the Socialist corner tries to convince us that more government would prevent this.

Christ on a Cracker | December 24, 2006, 9:32am | #

The Illinois law limits to 7.5g per month. How much meth does that translate into?

--or--

How much is pseudofed is required to make a batch?

(Just curious).

methodman | December 24, 2006, 9:45am | #

One thing I haven't seen addressed: meth labs, they say, are environmental catastrophes and health hazards the likes of which we can hardly imagine. Boogity boo!

So, to what degree is this true?

methodman | December 24, 2006, 9:52am | #

Ok, answering my own question in part, here's what I found:

"Meth labs in Minnesota have mostly been small, 'mom and pop' labs making one ounce of meth at a time. Though the process and chemicals are dangerous, small labs do not create the same potential for harm to soil and drinking water that is seen with the 'Super Labs' of the South and Southwestern United States."

So Congress decided to be sure to stop the relatively safe mom-'n-pop labs, inevitably shifting production to "super labs" with their potentially significant hazards either here or in Mexico (or wherever), in order to have zero effect on use.

David | December 24, 2006, 9:55am | #

I had these questions in another forum.

Why is the threshold so low that one person can exceed the "allowed amount" by buying enough for himself and his son? I have no idea how much psuedoephedrine is needed for a batch of meth but it must be significantly more than a month's supply for two people. If it isn't couldn't the meth-heads just cook up smaller batches?

Why, when someone's story checks out (that they have allergies, and aren't dealing meth) are they charged with a crime anyway? I could sort of understand if exceeding the threshold merely triggered an investigation for a meth lab, but once no lab is found, what's the point of having charges?

Christ on a Cracker | December 24, 2006, 10:00am | #

One again, typical American "Walmart Race to the Bottom!". The big souless, supercenters are running the small mom-and-pop meth cookeriesout of business. Sure it cheaper, but it is really worth it? I, for one, am Outraged! Some should Do Something About It (TM)!

Orwell | December 24, 2006, 10:03am | #

Safety = Boot + Face

Al Fin | December 24, 2006, 10:11am | #

This is meth hysteria. This is what happens to law enforcement when it ignores real threats to life and limb, and pursues federal grant money and other bribes.

It reminds me of Nifong in North Carolina harassing the Duke lacrosse players for no reason. The law is an ass when it pursues its own purposes aside from protecting people's lives and property.

thoreau | December 24, 2006, 10:20am | #

OK, this is batshit insane. As an allergy sufferer, I am all stuffed up with feelings of solidarity for this guy.

Is there a defense fund that we can contribute to? Is there a lobbying effort or lawsuit in the works to try to overturn this law? I would gladly contribute whatever I can lawfully contribute (disclaimer put in unless the authorities are reading this, but I have "friends" in the Midwest who might be interested in donating, and I am on generous terms with these "friends").

Seriously. It has to start somewhere, let's start with this. If there's a fund to contribute to, I'm in.

Barthid Diebölleb | December 24, 2006, 10:24am | #

...ad I didud thpeak ub, becuth I wathud a decodgethtand...

mediageek | December 24, 2006, 10:49am | #

Safety = (Boot + Face)/Forever

uncle sam | December 24, 2006, 10:56am | #

It seems a lot of people are addicted to power.
power addiction = government

Brian | December 24, 2006, 12:07pm | #

Mexican meth labs are driving our mom and pop meth labs out of business. So there probably has been a decline in local meth labs which will be claimed as a victory for this policy.

They can't stop the mexkin stuff from coming over the border so they'll arrest people with allergies instead.

Guy Montag | December 24, 2006, 12:18pm | #

This tactic is like making "excessive" water consumption illegal to prevent marajuana cultivation, then busting people who left the tap on too long.

If the objective is to stop illegal meth production (note: I do not advocat it be illegal, nor do I advocate it's use) then use all of this information as clues to find the makers of meth, not for keeping the arrest rate up.

The quoted official stated that the meth labs were declining. Do they now they have to arrest medicine users to show that they are 'doing something'?

Makes as much sense as a gal in DC I knew a few years ago who was extatic that the house next door had a car in the back yard for more than some number of days. I said that it's their yard, what is the difference if there is a car back there? She said they were selling crack (or something) from the house and she was trying to get them out of her neighborhod. The car was in violation of some DC ordinance.

Trying to assist to solve the puzzle, I asked her why they are not arrested for selling illegal drugs? She ran through some long list of DC speak and I lost interest. A short time later the other guests arrived at the party. Many of the guests were cops of various levels.

I guess I am just not bright enough to live too far into the city.

tpotdomescandal | December 24, 2006, 12:37pm | #

The story is poorly written. Just how much did he buy? Why did he go to "several different pharmacies to buy Claritin-D"? Allergies or no, whether the man bought 3 boxes or 30 should be part of the story. Unfortunately, there appears to be little more information available elsewhere on the net.

zero | December 24, 2006, 1:16pm | #

tpotdomescandal:
Perhaps because you can't buy more that 3.6 grams at a store in a day. You also can't buy more than 9 grams per month in a store or 7.5 grams mail order.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoephedrine
So if he needed more than 3.6 grams worth of it he had to go to multiple stores to get it. However in doing so he violated the letter of the law.

Jennifer | December 24, 2006, 2:01pm | #

Good. As bad as I feel for this poor guy and his son, I've long said that the only way we'll have a chance of seeing this insane war on drugs end is if enough non-drug users end up suffering for it. So hooray for a law which punishes allergy users for having the gall to try and make their noses stop running. And while we're at it, let's arrest anybody under age 21 who buys either yeast or fruit juice--they might use those products to make alcohol, don'cha know.

Dan T. | December 24, 2006, 2:40pm | #

While this incident is regrettable, the good that results from these laws greatly outweighs the bad. A few hours of incovenience for this man is nothing compared to if this same man's son was addicted to or dead from meth.

The Real Bill | December 24, 2006, 2:56pm | #

It's likely that this guy votes Democrat or Republican; therefore, he got exactly what he asked for. If you vote for evil, don't complain when evil bite you in the ass.

Robert | December 24, 2006, 3:39pm | #

The solution in this particular case will be for him to get a doctor's prescription for himself & his son, and I'm sure that's what they'll do from now on.

Robert

Jennifer | December 24, 2006, 3:43pm | #

The solution in this particular case will be for him to get a doctor's prescription for himself & his son

Which effectively raises the price of the medication by over 1,000 percent, not counting time lost from work to get to the doctor's office.

Les | December 24, 2006, 3:52pm | #

While this incident is regrettable, the good that results from these laws greatly outweighs the bad. A few hours of incovenience for this man is nothing compared to if this same man's son was addicted to or dead from meth.

It's not signed "Juanita," so I have to ask:

You're joking, right? Right?

Cracker's Boy | December 24, 2006, 4:20pm | #

"The solution in this particular case will be for him to get a doctor's prescription for himself & his son

Which effectively raises the price of the medication by over 1,000 percent, not counting time lost from work to get to the doctor's office."

Wait a sec'. Isn't that sort of like what happened with the "pain doctors"? Eventually, the feds starting going after the doctors for writing prescriptions to help relieve a cronic sufferer's pain. Next thing, the feds will be going after the "allergy doctors" for writing prescriptions that contain too much psuedoephedrine.

Cracker's Boy

Bee | December 24, 2006, 5:36pm | #

Perhaps because you can't buy more that 3.6 grams at a store in a day. You also can't buy more than 9 grams per month in a store or 7.5 grams mail order.

Yes. The stores somehow *keep track* of how much Claritin you are buying. If you buy your monthly fix of Claritin on Monday, and go back in two Mondays later to purchase another box, the person behind the counter will not sell it to you, because they know you should still have pills left from your last purchase.

My sister left her box in a hotel room while on a business trip. She was not able to purchase a new box when she came back home.

And yes, I agree with ol Cracker boy - doctors would definitely be targeted for dispensing what the Feds consider "excessive" amounts of eeeevil allergy medicine.

We are going to have a few more bad years of this nonsense. Then, baby boomers will start needing meds. Do you think this self-indulgent bunch is going to put up with inconvenience if they're in PAIN? Not on your life. Their mass decrepitude will be the end of this one specific madness. Damn them for instituting it in the first place. Fucking fascists.

Lamar | December 24, 2006, 10:10pm | #

“We’ve seen a huge decline in methamphetamine labs,”

Notice there's no claim that they've seen less methamphetamine.

MikeT | December 24, 2006, 10:27pm | #

A few hours of incovenience for this man is nothing compared to if this same man's son was addicted to or dead from meth.

Being that it's Christmas Eve, I'm a Christian and a minarchist, I am in the mood to let my religion spill over my politics tonight with abandon... *ahem* *clears throat* Jesus did not die for my sins, to liberate me from them and give me freedom in Him so that I could be shackled like a slave to worldly, unrepentant sinners that I have never met, who are dead set on offing themselves with hard drugs. It is not just an inconvenience, it's shackling me and millions of others so that a handful of idiots will have a harder time acting on their hedonistic, destructive impulses. Screw that. God does not expect us to be "inconvenienced" like this, and I'll be damned if I will allow myself to enslaved by mortal, legalistic jackasses to keep some guy off of meth.

Warren | December 25, 2006, 12:02am | #

Shouldn't we be seeing a black market in Claritin-D right about now. I wonder what I can get for my 7.5grams/month of psued on the school yard? Think of it as a government subsidy.

Brad | December 25, 2006, 2:08am | #

I got it! How about we make a new drug out of Metamucil, Fiber or Pepto-bismol? That will teach these Assholes!

jimmyboy | December 25, 2006, 2:43am | #

We are going to have a few more bad years of this nonsense. Then, baby boomers will start needing meds. Do you think this self-indulgent bunch is going to put up with inconvenience if they're in PAIN? Not on your life. Their mass decrepitude will be the end of this one specific madness. Damn them for instituting it in the first place. Fucking fascists.

Yeah--it's the decrepit boomers with their garbage mouths and their inclination to point the finger at others. And the fat people too. Don't forget the fat people. And the ugly people. I really can't stand being in the same room with unattractive people--they are always so pushy--it's like they know they are unattractive and try to overcompensate--and, like they just keep looking at you--like they want to be friends or something--duh.

I personally am fat and a boomer and I am pretty damned ugly too. And it spills over into the inner decrepitude of my soul.

To paraphrase Cyril in "Princess Ida":

"Nature never errs.

To those who know the workings of (our) minds,
(our) faces and figures, sir(/madam), suggest a book
appropriately bound."

[our = ugly fat boomers, just in case that point goes over your collective heads]

I have entered that period of physical decrepitude of which words were spoken here, and the ugly side effects of the medications, the derisive autocracy of the medical profession, as well as the instinctive fear of what is to come is probably not enough punishment for the the collective guilt I bear for being born in 1947 (liberterians being well known for the importance they ascribe to collective guilt).

What we need in addition to all this (speaking for all of us UFB's), is a sub clan of snarky Furies to torture us with the vital information of how unwelcome we are on this earth, and how much everyone else will enjoy it when we leave it--it is important to do this regularly--it's like a CPU refreshing dram, except that it's different.

Do any of you know what it is to be a "mensch" or does this lie outside of the consistent principled stance of libertarianism? I guess if there is no market for it, it's worthless--am I right?

Maybe someone will sell tickets to watch the health care aides beat us up in our beds in the nursing home; this may in some small way make up for all the suffering we caused for all you "youngsters"--it's like Field of Dreams, except that it's different, if ya know what I mean...Whatever. I'm just laughing out loud at the thought of some old sixties dude whining while some big dude punches him--it's like Trey and Matt (they are so awesome!!!!) when they made the old guy do the happy dance on the DVD to get his heart medicine--yeah and like when Michael Douglas gave the old guy with the funny hat the heart attack on the golf course....wow...good times!

Ol' Fezziwig | December 25, 2006, 3:01am | #

yeah and like when Michael Douglas gave the old guy with the funny hat the heart attack on the golf course....wow...good times!


You gotta admit, though. That was pretty fuckin' funny, in a way.

jimmyboy | December 25, 2006, 3:20am | #

Yeah--it is funny--it's actually hilarious--the problem with humor is that it almost is impossible to be funny unless someone gets hurt--it's along the same lines as life being worthless without risk.

But when humor becomes politics--when dumbass jokes become part of your political ideology--then the butt of the joke gets pissed.

I have spent a lifetime listening to people of all political ideologies tell me why I am flawed, and why I should feel guilty for being the way I am, and that the only way to exorcise that guilt is to vote for them. Screw that, I say. Tell me how your program is gonna benefit me and maybe I'll sign up--it doesn't have to put money in my pocket--it can benefit me by making me feel I'm helping the world.

But for heaven's sake, don't tell me that I am the root of all eveil because I was born between 1946 and 1960. That's shallow. illogical, and impractical. But it is one of the central themes of the "party of ideas" and it flows into the articles and postings on this site all too often and it steams me.

Allen | December 25, 2006, 2:52pm | #

Someone should make a web app that let's people in the same locals hook up to buy over the counter meds like Claritin for others. I use it in the spring. Otherwise I could buy it for others to help them stay off the facists radar. A pain in the rear but this is nutts.

Cole | December 25, 2006, 4:05pm | #

It's likely that this guy votes Democrat or Republican; therefore, he got exactly what he asked for. If you vote for evil, don't complain when evil bite you in the ass.

Are you saying that it's okay to treat people like shit when they vote for the wrong people? Because I would have thought it's just not okay to treat people like shit. Or maybe you think getting treated like shit is not a basis for complaint?

Marieann | December 25, 2006, 4:25pm | #

What happens when three people in my family all have allergies and I'm the only person shopping? Last time I bought generic cold pills they took my drivers license and personal info. Should I be expecting the cops to show up? Do I have to send my husband to buy his own cold pills? Can I not give them to my teenage son because I'll buy too many? Geez, what's the world coming to?

Robert | December 25, 2006, 6:10pm | #

Eventually, the feds starting going after the doctors for writing prescriptions to help relieve a cronic sufferer's pain. Next thing, the feds will be going after the "allergy doctors" for writing prescriptions that contain too much psuedoephedrine.

No, they won't. The reason is that, while dosages for narcotics for pain are highly variable, the dosages for decongestants are fixed and well known. If you did escalate the dose of decongestant the way you might with narcotics, you'd soon kill the allergy patient.

jf | December 25, 2006, 8:28pm | #

Why can't these laws allow for a doctor to put an allergy sufferer (or other person who needs to take pseudoephedrine) on some sort of "approved list", to avoid these ridiculous types of prosecution. Granted, the law itself is horrible, but when it provides no shelter for legitimate users it becomes reprehensible.

Guy Montag | December 25, 2006, 10:03pm | #

Marieann,

Yes and get rid of your water heater least the cops think that you run a meth lab like the story for Randy Weaver.

Robert R. | December 25, 2006, 10:06pm | #

Why can't these laws allow for a doctor to put an allergy sufferer (or other person who needs to take pseudoephedrine) on some sort of "approved list", to avoid these ridiculous types of prosecution. Granted, the law itself is horrible, but when it provides no shelter for legitimate users it becomes reprehensible.

Every time an allergy sufferer tries to purchase medicine, the pharmacist can call the FBI/DEA database operators to run the required background check.

Since that type of system doesn't inconvenience nor violate the rights of law-abiding gun owners (or so we're told), nobody should have a problem with this.

Except those nutjob types who are opposed to background checks for sales of legal products.

jf | December 26, 2006, 12:03am | #

Robert R.,

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. I'm just saying that if a state is going to pass laws of this nature, a low-hassle system to allow legitimate purchasers to buy these medications should be included. Perhaps a "sub-prescription" given by the doctor, which would verify the need without having to purchase actual prescription medication.

I'm just saying that these laws, despite their apparent popularity in states that pass them, are being passed by lazy lawmakers who don't give a damn about the consequences. That doesn't mean I condone the law in the first place.

Bobster | December 26, 2006, 6:16am | #

I don't think the government will allow the idea for a list of approved buyers. They would argue that the approved buyers could be making meth. Just because you have allergies doesn't mean you cannot be some sort of super criminal.

bones | December 26, 2006, 9:38am | #

I've made this arguement before. A family of four that uses Claritin D 24 hour goes thru 120 pills a month. This exposes a family to 3 trips for all four to the pharmacy and proof of identity and address, phone, signatures a month. If your kids don't have IDs, well no meds for them and if your kid is failing in school because of chronic sinus headaches and profuse nasal discharge with the feeling they can't breathe all day in school, too bad. Oh, and by the way, if you buy them Claritin D and go over the daily, weekly, and monthly limits (all 3 exist, so you can be under the monthly limit but violate the daily or weekly limits) you get a federal record and go on the no fly list, terrorism watch lists because the law is a part of the PATRIOT ACT.

Cracker's Boy | December 26, 2006, 11:05am | #

"Eventually, the feds starting going after the doctors for writing prescriptions to help relieve a cronic sufferer's pain. Next thing, the feds will be going after the "allergy doctors" for writing prescriptions that contain too much psuedoephedrine.

No, they won't. The reason is that, while dosages for narcotics for pain are highly variable, the dosages for decongestants are fixed and well known. If you did escalate the dose of decongestant the way you might with narcotics, you'd soon kill the allergy patient."

Robert - I am not a doctor, and I don't play one on TV, and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but... accourding to the National Institute of Health's MedLinePlus website, the dosage for pseudoEph can vary by as much as 50% (60 mg every 4 to 6 hours.).

That sounds like there is SOME variation in the dosages. If the NIH suggests that some people may need 50% more than others (which, while ignoring the 'not to exceed..' warning, calls for 108 grams per month), it still seems possible that a physician (an allergy doctor) MIGHT prescribe too much pseudoEph and get himself/herself in trouble...

You're the doctor. I'm not... if you aren't worried about it, I won't.

Cracker's Boy

Cracker's Boy | December 26, 2006, 11:12am | #

Uh... I missed a period. Should read "10.8 grams a month", not 108.

Cracker's Boy

David | December 26, 2006, 11:27am | #

Those "do not exceed X pills per day warnings are not really that strict anyway. For example, the directions on 220mg Aleve read:
"Adults and Children 12 years and older
• take 1 caplet every 8 to 12 hours while symptoms last
• for the first dose you may take 2 caplets within the first hour
• do not exceed 2 caplets in any 8- to 12-hour period
• do not exceed 3 caplets in a 24-hour period"
yet my doctor prescribed 500mg pills to be taken twice a day, and told me I could take two if I needed to. All that's well over the "do not exceed" for the exact same medicine.

TrickyVic | December 26, 2006, 12:47pm | #

"""While this incident is regrettable, the good that results from these laws greatly outweighs the bad. A few hours of incovenience for this man is nothing compared to if this same man's son was addicted to or dead from meth.

It's not signed "Juanita," so I have to ask:

You're joking, right? Right?""""

I'm with you Les. It's gotta be a joke because it's too damn ignorant to be true. A few hours of inconvience, yeah right. The arrest record will follow him for life. If he's convicted, he will be associated with meth users for the rest of his life.

I wonder if the will try to push him into a treatment program?

Robert | December 26, 2006, 5:29pm | #

What's the difference between an approved buyer's list and patients having prescriptions?

Meanwhile, let me amplify further re narcotics. Decongestant rx is very standardized; the differences in dose mentioned above are minute compared to the differences in treating pain. They have to be, because the human body can tolerate narcotics to a degree it can't tolerate with decongestants.

In all the pain doctor cases, nobody disputes that the doctors involved gave or prescribed large amounts of narcotics. The only matter in dispute was whether it was required or safe for those patients to be getting that much, when other patients could be treated for pain with much less (or for shorter periods of time, or with weaker drugs). Those questions would not arise with oral decongestants, because everyone realizes that one can be a year-round and perennial allergy patient, and that the dose would never exceed X amount anyway.

It was not long ago that many of today's allergy and decongestant products were prescription drugs. I remember when Afrin became OTC, for instance. The problem now is that phenylpropanolamine drugs (decongestants and anorexiants) were discontinued just a few years ago when the longstanding suspicion that they were more prone than pseudoephedrine to lead to cardiac anomalies was finally confirmed with better data; and pseudoephedrine had previously been seen by some as having similar advantages of cardiac safety as well as efficacy over phenylephrine (Neo-Synephrine). Will we see a similar embarrassment to the PPA affair regarding PE now that some makers have switched their OTC products to it?

Meanwhile, it's hard to understand how the federal and most state laws have targeted pseudoephedrine, when it's just as easy to make meth from ephedrine, which is excluded from the coverage of those laws! Check it out -- asthma drugs (such as Bronkaid & Primatene tabs) in most places are still on the open shelves AFAIK. They'll work as nasal decongestants too, just with more side effects.

The Real Bill | December 26, 2006, 6:35pm | #

Are you saying that it's okay to treat people like shit when they vote for the wrong people?

Yes.

Because I would have thought it's just not okay to treat people like shit.

Depending on the person, yes it is. For example, Kim Jong Il truly deserves to be treated like shit.

Or maybe you think getting treated like shit is not a basis for complaint?

If you support a politician or party that passes laws that result in you being treated like shit, you are only getting what you voted for. You asked for it, you got it. (Sorry Toyota.)

Robert R. | December 27, 2006, 8:23am | #

Robert | December 26, 2006, 5:29pm
What's the difference between an approved buyer's list and patients having prescriptions?

An "approved buyers list" would be controlled by the government, not the doctors. The DEA and various D.A.s have already demonstrated that doctors are untrustworthy drug-runners.

Just as all gun buyers are currently treated as potential murderers, the "approved buyers list" would allow anyone who needs decongestants to be treated like criminals, too.

Try to purchase a firearm on a day when NICS isn't working, and see what I mean. Or try it in Colorado, where the "insta-check" wait time is frequently 45 minutes just to get an operator.

Now imagine having to wait 30 - 60 minutes while your pharmacist runs a background check before you get your cold medication.

Wouldn't such a "reasonable and common sense" set of controls be better than allowing doctors to potentially abuse the prescription system?

Lamar | December 27, 2006, 10:34am | #

"The solution in this particular case will be for him to get a doctor's prescription for himself & his son, and I'm sure that's what they'll do from now on."

This is actually the expensive and complicated solution. It would mean the end of OTC medicine.

Ron Vibbentrop | December 27, 2006, 10:49am | #

What's the difference between an approved buyer's list and patients having prescriptions?

The $150 office visit every month.

jenl1625 | December 27, 2006, 12:19pm | #

Why can't these laws allow for a doctor to put an allergy sufferer (or other person who needs to take pseudoephedrine) on some sort of "approved list", to avoid these ridiculous types of prosecution. Granted, the law itself is horrible, but when it provides no shelter for legitimate users it becomes reprehensible.
Why should I have to spend my time and copay to go to a doctor's office and convince the doctor that I need allergy medicine every day of every month? Especially since I don't actually test out as having allergies - but it took months and about 7 doctor visits to figure out what combination of meds would control my chronic, very bad coughing. To this day, if I miss either my allergy meds or my antacids for more than 2 days in a row, I start coughing again. And my doctor's office closed, so if I have to get another prescription to buy my meds, I'll have to try to convince a new doctor of all of the above.

With legal limits on how much I can buy, doctors are going to be wary of getting in trouble for giving prescriptions to patients without being able to objectively prove that the person needed the meds and isn't just turning around and using them for making meth or selling them to a meth lab.

Marieann | December 27, 2006, 1:22pm | #

Ultimately, the only real solution is to decriminalize drugs. Impliment laws already on the books for driving under the influence, etc. and get the government out of the mix. Admit it, if Prohibition of the early 1900's was still on the books we'd be dealing with the same criminal element that ran booze then. Look at all the criminality that was eliminated when they repealed Prohibition. We need to undeclare the "War on Drugs" and put our police and other law enforcement on to more important issues. Think of all the money the government would save of we didn't pay for all that; everything from police, DEA, federal court cases, over-stuffed prisons, murder for drugs, gang wars, meth labs gone awry and homes blowing up, AIDS shared with dirty needles, deaths due to bad drugs, etc. The list is endless. We need to treat it all like booze and cigarettes. I'm not saying we should or would all be doing it. I don't smoke cigarettes, but they are legal. I don't drink to excess although it, too, is legal. If I did chose to smoke or drink, at least I'd feel good knowing that it's a known commodity. I wouldn't put my life at risk to buy or use it. Wouldn't the government drool over all the taxes they'd collect from the sin tax they'd surely attach to drugs? They make a fortune on cigs and beer. Think of all the income tax that would be paid by the sellers. Obviously, sellers of today's drugs aren't claiming all that lucrative self-employment on their 1040s. LOL!! We have so much bigger problems to deal with. We need to end this latest Prohibition and grow up.

Ethan | December 27, 2006, 2:02pm | #

“We’ve seen a huge decline in methamphetamine labs,” Sandoval said.

I'd like to see what evidence Mr Sandoval has for this claim. I suspect that his evidence is probably evidence for the claim "we have seen an increase in things that aren't meth labs," which is something else, isn't it? Even if it's true, does a reduction in labs necessarily mean a reduction in meth? It would seem that "nope" would be a good answer.

It's always scary when the cops start to consider their mandate to enforce a particular law to trump their general duty to protect and serve the public.

Jake | December 28, 2006, 5:24am | #

I've never heard anything so stupid in all my life! Its totally pathetic! All i can say is thank goodness i live in the UK, i thought we had some stupid laws but that tops the lot!

IAGD | December 28, 2006, 8:25am | #

Amazing how druggie idiots can mess it up for the rest of us... I have severe allergies and I can imagine how miserable that guy is when he doesn't take something for it. I also don't agree with the "go to the doctor, get a prescription" comment -- not everyone can afford a doctor or has health insurance. Sad...

Robert | December 28, 2006, 9:46am | #

Looks like I'm the FAQ answerer in this thread.

"The solution in this particular case will be for him to get a doctor's prescription for himself & his son, and I'm sure that's what they'll do from now on."

This is actually the expensive and complicated solution. It would mean the end of OTC medicine.

No, it's actually the equivalent of schedule 5 of the federal and similar state controlled substance acts. It's not as if pseudoephedrine were the first drug subjected to this kind of control; it's just that instead of placing it there, the legislatures decided to write practically identical provisions separately for pseudoephedrine.

Drugs in schedule 5 can be dispensed only by a pharmacy, and only for medical purposes. An adult can buy them without a prescription (provided no other state law forbids this) for medical purposes by signing a register and getting no more than so much a month. However, one can also buy them and bypass such limits if one has a practitioner's prescription. Drugs containing certain amounts of codeine (such as cough syrups) come to mind as schedule 5 drugs, although many states have laws eliminating the non-prescription option for them.

What's the difference between an approved buyer's list and patients having prescriptions?

The $150 office visit every month.

Wouldn't the approved buyer's list also require a doctor's OK, for as long a period as a prescription (which could be for much longer than a month)? If not, what procedure do you envision for getting onto such a list?

With legal limits on how much I can buy, doctors are going to be wary of getting in trouble for giving prescriptions to patients without being able to objectively prove that the person needed the meds and isn't just turning around and using them for making meth or selling them to a meth lab.

For reasons already stated, they're not. I've never heard of a doctor getting into any trouble for overprescribing schedule 5 drugs. Besides, many more patients take decongestants than take high dose narcotics, so nobody sticks out; you'd wind up prosecuting every doc in the country, which of course won't happen.

I also don't agree with the "go to the doctor, get a prescription" comment -- not everyone can afford a doctor or has health insurance.

It's cheaper than a lawyer, which is what the guy in this story needs.

Noone really | December 28, 2006, 6:53pm | #

I have a question... what country is this in... claritin is available over the counter. how would anyone know how much you purchased.

So Much For Freedom | December 28, 2006, 11:03pm | #

I made a comment about how most of the meth sold in the US today actually comes from Mexico and is brought in by illegals but on a board about "Freedom" I'm not allowed to say that, eh?

Or how the Muslim Arabs they caught doing large scale production of meth in the US were using not over the counter crap but 55 gal drums of chemicals brought in from Canada.