When you say "when a law is bad...it goes against the preamble..." it really doesn't mean anything. When one brings a court case, they must articulate WHY it's bad according to the Constitution and the way it's been interpreted (if that's what the issue is). Just saying "it is to the detriment of the general welfare" is meaningless. There's no standard for that.

BTW: people only have the right to "petition" the government for redress of grievances when they have standing to do so and when there is an active case and controversy. Tax payer status or citizenship status by itself is usually not sufficient enough to have standing (with many exceptions).

On the other hand, most people seem to forget that when there is a "bad law" their best bet is to petition the people who passed that law to change it or just vote them out of office. That is a check on bad legislature.

In essense there is, it is called the Constitution and when a law is bad and is therefore to the detriment of the general welfare of the people, it goes against the preamble of the Constitution. Addtionally, the people have the right to pettition thh government for a redress of grievances: this would include when the government has made "bad law".

Since the majority of caregivers in the USA are still women, wouldn't that mean, the law is disigned to discriminate against women?

"That's not to say there aren't valid reasons for outlawing methamphetamines. They ARE dangerous drugs, both to use and to manufacture. But criminalizing non-criminals in the name of dealing with it, is just not acceptable in a free society. Other measures than this, are needed. Period. "

Well said. The laws also vary from state to state, though the reason is a federal law regarding the substance.

Eventually they will arrest the wrong grandmother and the stuff will hit the fan. Too bad Mother Theresa is no longer alive. She used to take care of many people all the time. I could see them arresting her for buying too much, when she was out helping people with severe allergies or sinus condition. Her good will would land her behind bars. Free society my foot. I went to Romania and they had a staircase there with no banister. I ran up and down it sing the song Freedom from Shenandoah. I felt so free, not having a banister as is required by law and/or by insurance companies. I should not feel freer in Romania than I do in the United States. That is just sad.

NatalieErin
5:25 PM on Tue Sep 29 2009
@lifestar: Meh, the minute you develop a substitute cold remedy, meth makers will switch to a different OTC product (medicine or not). Then you'll have to show your ID to buy, I don't know, fertilizer or something.

Restricting the purchase of specific products that may be used to make or consume drugs is probably not a long-term solution. The various restrictions on pipes and other pot-smoking paraphernalia have been in place for a long time, but I would bet money that they haven't had any effect on marijuana use.

I had to show ID to purchase spray glue for a craft project I was doing for a project with my class.

From what I have heard, it is not the sudaferine which is the volitile substance in the productio of "meth". I do not know if that is true or not. I would have to research it. I am afraid if I do, then they will arrest me for researching it though.

Maybe she outran them and gave them the slip.

Quite seriously though, the truth is that it is not the fault of the police. They don't make the law, they just enforce it. The morons who cause granny to be locked up, make a much higher salary than the police who are actually putting their lives on their line each day.

My friend and I have a running joke. I call her every day. If I call and d can I borrow your ax? She knows my sinuses are infected and I am in so much pain, that chopping off my head would figurative be less painful. She knows that is a figurative comment about the level of pain. I call at 4pm and say something like morning, forget 1-10, can I borrow your ax? and she say, that it because it is supposed to rain or that is because their is a storm coming in. Like many in our region, she and her family suffer from sinus troubles.

The law should simply prohibit the use of legal product to convert to illegal products. I believe there are some gun laws of that nature. Had the law been about production, Distribution, purchases and pocession of the illegal end product. Little old ladies would not be getting arrested for treating their allergies and tending to their families health care needs. Another woman in Indiana was arrested recently when her seasonal allergies, put her over her allottment. The law is bound to result in a disproportianate number of women, especially older women, being arrested, because women are still the predominent care givers in our society, and even more so among the older generations.

It was the federal government which wrote the bad federal law, which resulted in the bad state law being written and unjustly enforced.

How about when the law is interfering with a doctor's prescribed treatment of a chronic medical problem. If a person cannot obtain ( even with a prescription for it) the doses that a doctor is recommended, doesn't that mean the government the government could be endanging a person's life, by interfeering with their healthcare. I do believe the 14th does guarantee a right to life does it not.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Oh and as per this particular article ( and it is not the only case of which I have heard), women are still the majority of care givers in this nation and it is women who are more likely to have to go and buy cold medicines for their families and thus more likely than men to be arrested for such an action. So are they not also violating the civil rights laws by targeting women?

I beg to differ. If the are so obcessed with their drug laws that they are locking up grannies for caring for the family's medical nees, with common cold medicine, how can we trust that same government to handle health care reform. Their eyes are clouded by their drug war. A war which makes Vietnam look like a s super victory, I might add. They started illegallizing drugs, when they decided to repeal prohibition in the thirties, because they lost the battle against booze. So how well is the prohibition of drugs thing working for more than 70 years? Is this strategy working? What is it costing us in both freedom, safety and free choice of health care treatments, money and the lives which have been lost and/or damaged while trying to fight it? Who is getting rich because it is illegal, who would not get as rich if it was legalized? What happened to the gangsters profits from booze after they repealed prohibition? Lastly, when legal and regulated for safty such as being free of additives such as antifreeze? Fire saftey and Osha safty regulations for production. When illegal it is far more apt to blow up and far more likely to be in a residencial building, than in a n industrial area with units set up to handle industrial disasters. Instead our fire fighters go into a building to rescue a missing kid from a house on fire and the thing blows up due to an illegal meth lab.

I am realistic. There are many who will continue to break the law, anyway, because it is easier and cheaper, just as there are still bootleggers even today. However, there are fewer bootleggers today than during prohibition.

As long as they are fighting the drug war, they have a conflict of interest to handling healthcare.

Oh Canada! Some of use down here love your guys.

I have tried netti post and sinus steamers and nothing stops it from dripping into my lungs. If it drips it eventually winds up in my lungs or at least having a bad effect on my lower respitory system. I have trouble with both clogs and drips. I do not seem to have difficulty smelling things.

I empathize, I once took an MRI that show all the cavities of my sinuses were 100% infected. It is a frightening feeling, to say nothing of miserable.

I have encountered several pharmasists who are "Fed" up with this law. In my case my GP and my ENT ( who are not affiliated in anyway) have had me on a daily dose of either Claritin D24 or ZyrtecD24 for many years, and until my BP went up, the both also had me on an aditional dose of Sudafed. I not only have a very bad sinus condition and multple allergies ( I have to cover my face to buy landry detergent, especially if passing the Tide products, Women with perfume can renderme bed ridden for weeks at a time etc),I also have Asthma and Chronic Bronchitis. The post nasal drip collects in my lungs worsening the condition. For the past severval years my doctor has limited my additional Sudafed pill, to emergency use, such as severe head aches and days that I cannot even open my eyes, flying in airplanes, under going dental procedures. My sinuses are so low and so bad, they often hinder my dental procedures. So even though the products have gone from prescription to OTC, my doctor writes me prescriptions for the amounts I am supposed to be taking. Guess what, the pharmacist, despite the prescription and the history of treatment for more than 12 years in their records, cannot fill the prescription. I cannot get it filled when I need it. I cannot replace any if it is detroyed by a flood, even with proof from FEMA and/or the Insurance comps and the police. If I want to travel for long periods of time I cannot get enough to take with me, even if I have documents stating I will be traveling to a 3rd world nation or remote jungle area etc. A long wilderness camping trip would be difficult as well. Even traveling state to state is a problem as state laws vary. If I were to travel to Oregon or Indiana, I would probably get arrested.

I do not feel free to travel within the USA or out side of it. In order to do so, I have to skip doses and suffer the symptoms, while still at home near my doctors, many paramedic friends and the fire house across in close proximity. I would rather risk a serious problem, with their care near by, than in the middle of the North Atlantic, the Straight of Magellan, the South Pacific, a jungle, the wildreness, a remote location or a place were the medicines if obtainable at all is not available.

I think it is insane that the drug war is coming between me and my doctor's abilities to provide treatment. I have allergies to many medicines as well and am on multiple medications for various medical problems so our options are limited. From my point of view, they are not only limiting my freedom to travel as I like, granted I have no money to travel, but other people often take me with them, friends and family etc. Since when is the government supposed to endanger a citizen's health and welfare and possibly even their life, so they can chase the bad guys?

This is why I do not trust our government to handle health care. They are so obcessed with their drug war, that they honestly do not care about the actual medical situation. Additionally, they are willing to put innocent grannies behind bars, to go get their bad guys.

They do not think rationally or balanced about the situation.

This is the second article I have read about women being locke up for buying coldmedicine. Since women are still the predominent care givers, they are more at risk of being arrested in the "Meth Round up" than men.

So it even discrimnates based upon gender.

The government and the red cross tell us to keep a ready kit for emergencies such as hurricanes, tornados, Earthquakes , blizards, floods, fires, acts of terrorism or any other emergeny of such a nature, but if you try to stock your cold medicine in it ( and remember this has been a prescribed treatment that has been helping me breath better for years so I would need it for an emergency, you can be arrested.

So much for following this little item: "The Constitution of the United States of America
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[www.law.cornell.edu]

In NYS there is.

I contacted the ACLU today. The women on the phone told me it was not an ACLU concern and that I should call my doctor. I pointed out the my doctor wants me to take the medicine and the government is getting in the way in their persuit of meth dealers and that I feel the government is violating my 14th amendment right to life, by endangering my health care treatments as prescribed by two separate and unrelated doctors. Not duplicating each other, but rather both agreeing. Alway get a second opinion on important medical care.

I don't think she expected me to quote the 14th to her. So she told me to send a letter to them. I shall.

I would like others to help me correct this travesty so no one else's grandmother gets arrested for caring for others, or themselves. If you have had a problem affecting your medical care or your freedoms in travelling for instance please contact me at Amandaline123@AOL.com I will also bring this to the attention of a Constitutional advicate that I know of, who happens to be both a licesned practicing physician and an licensed attorney.

Here is my problem with wha you say. I have been using the same phamacy for many years. Even the pharmicists there know that my doctor has had me on a daily dose of either Zyrtec D24 or Claritin D24 for many years and before they were available in 24 on two 12 hours as per my prescription and medical records. They even know that until more recently there was an additional does of sudafed daily (The little red pills). Now, that they are OTC, but in limited supply, despite my doctor giving me a current prescription for them and the pharmacist knowing what I am supposed to be taking, I can't always get what I need. I certainly can not get extra when traveling to outside the USA. I can not put any in my to go bag ( evacuation kits ready for terrorism or disaster. In fact my apartment frequently floods and has occasional pipe burrsts. This past July a neighbors pipe burst and flood me out of my home. The Police and fire advised me to evacuate for at least the night. The bigger problem is that some of my claritin D24 got damaged in the merky contaminated waters, which came through the ceiling post wood, pipes, wall board, ceiling and floor tiles etc. Even with a doctors prescription, a police and insurance report of the flood and a pharmacist who knows my medical history, had I not still been eligible, I could not have gotten what I needed. I probably would have had to go to the emergency room and even then I don't know what would have happens. It is a waste of money and needed valuble space to go to a ER for some cold pill, to say nothing of the exposure th Flu virus.

Not only my GP, but a private and independant and world renoun ENT who treats famous professional opera singers and other performers etc. also had me on the Claritin D24 daily and the sudafed.

Do you really think the government, who has never listened to my heart, lungs, checked blood pressure, charted my weight and temprature, examine my sinuses and or any other part of my body at all. Granted SSD had, but let's face it, nobody checked with them either. They are too focused on a drug war to care about the actual health of the citizens or even the freedom of innocent citizens. In fact I have to plan vacations very carefully, risking my health here at home where my doctor and paramedic friends are all nearby, and skipping enough doses to travel with what I need for the trip plus several weeks, should we become detained overseas for any reason. I am sorry meth dealers are breaking the law, and if the government actually catches them at it and convicts, I am all for much stiffer fines and much longerr jail sentences.

Do it and it should be a mandatory 35 years.

All they would have to due is take on a box of psuedafed to the cost of the drug deal and all the junkies would be giving them plenty.

Me to , the post nasal drip from my allegies and chronic sinus infections constantly drips into my lungs or onto them or whatever, and makes my Asthma that much worse and makes it that much more difficult to breath.

Apparently smoking is legal, but breathing if we have a respitory condition such as Asthma or COPD is not. The Lung association should go after them and so should both you and I.

Not if the were D versions, that still counts toward your Psuedo-ephedrine limit.

If they come for you call the ACLU, 60 minutes and as much press as you can and of course get an attorney for your defense.

That is true in my state too, even when I have a doctors prescription for it, saying that it is medically needed due to several chronic conditions. If I die, because I am denied acces to medically prescripted medications, can someone here please make certain my family sues the government and the press puts the screws to the government?

I am taking it that you do not have a very severe chronic sinus condition. I live in the Hudson Valley and they call it Sinus alley and many, many of the people with who I have spoken say that the non-pseudoephedrine decongestants are not as effective and when you have to live with it every day, that is a huge diffence. I use the non-pseudo decongestant before I take a sudaphed, but my doctor has me on a daily clariton 24 D and that is Psuedo He and my ENT have had me on it for years. earlier I posted 12+, well I did the actual math and it actually been almost 15 years. The ENT is a world renound ENT in NYC and the GP is in a local practice in New Paltz New York where I used to work and go to school. Are you telling me the World renound Specialist and the country doctor are both wrong, don't know what they are doing and the the government who has not listen to my heart, my lungs, taken my BP and examine me many, many times some how knows better than both of them?

Wow, I think you are my hero!!!Although, that Nyquil liquid was so filled with alcohol so I have not gone near that nor Vicks Formula 44 ( I think it waas 44 proof) in at least about 30 years. I like to be sober when I drive or operate heavey machinery or even dance for that matter.

Oh but both sick people are supposed to go to the pharmacy infect everyone else, risk get sicker themselves or even catching the flu due to their weaked condition and each stand in line and buy and pay for their limit seprately. The FDA and DEA can help make sure the folks in the CDC will keep their jobs, because disease and epidemics will spread better this way.

= Sarcasm

What would you do if it were a chronic and daily problem for you and sometimes all eight sinus cavities were so fully infected that you could not get out of bed or had to stay close to the ground so as not to fall or youtemprature dropped to 95.6 F due to the severity of some of the sinus infections? Would you just suffer through that every day of your life?

God yes. As a person with a Chronic sinus problem, also affects the severiy of a respitory problem, I could not agree more. When my doctor is writing me a prescription and they are telling me, I can't by what is being prescribe for four more days, but I will by in a third world county if four more days and won't be returning for twenty days, there is a problem. If it were prescription only this would be eliminated, provided it is the federal law with is changed. The Federal law should make it prescription only. Then people who are ill and in need of the medications as per their doctors recomended treatment could get what they need for better health and it would be the same in Oregon, NYS, Indiana, Florida and every where else, so traveling from state to state would not be problematic.

An what happens when the doctor is telling the patient, with a chronic condition, they need to be taking that medication, but the patient cannot get it, because of a limit based upon persons without chronic condition and taking the medication as directed by their doctor even with a prescription for it, would be illegal. How about people traveling out of the county to places they cannot safely obtain needed medications for their chronic problem? What if your family is going camping for three or four weeks, or on a thirty day cruise where obtaining medication might be difficult ( I suppose you could by it from the infirmary for $25 per tablet, but that seems rather exhobadent if there is a daily need due to a chronic condition. Should disabled people and people with chronic conditions have to pay $335 extra dollars for $15 days worth of cold tablets, because the date when they left they only were able to buy 15 tablets due to meth dealing prevention loimitations? Hey,if law enforcement actually catches someone making meth; I don't care if they blow their brains out, but when people are merely treating colds, allergies and chronic sinus conditions, they should not be treated like criminals.

Prescription only would be fine with me. Then when my doctor prescribed it as he has for years, both back when it was by prescription and also when it was put over the counter, I would be able to obtain the medication, which has been prescribed by my doctor for the use and reasons as needed, such as when I travel. The laws as they are mean that I as a New Yorker would have dificulty visiting Oregon for any length of time because in Oregon I would need I prescription for medication my doctor tells me to take every day, which is OTC here. It is a good thing I am reading up on the laws, so I can know which states I can visit and which ones I had better have a prescription to take with me if I am staying longer than 30 day and which ones I need a copy of the script to proove that I am legally supposed to have the medicine. Since I have to take a Claritin D 24 daily for a chronic condition and would need to take a sudafed to be able to fly to Oregon and back I guess travel to Oregon will be a royal PIA. So much for freedom of interstate travel.

@pecan 3.14159265_Pi on the run:

This insane arrest could result in the loss of her employment.

I have the same problems packing for a vacation. We are supposed to be able to travel freely both within our nation and outside of it and because of these laws, people with chronic problems cannot. To say nothing of putting some extra doses into an emergency evacuation kit as recomenned by both the Red Cross and our own government itself. This issue is the main reason, I do not trust the government to handle the healthcare crisis in the USA, they are too focused on the drug war to really care about the health of their citizens.

@QuantumRiff:

It was easier to buy them with a prescription when the were not OTC, than it is even with a prescription now that they are OTC.

New York State has a similarlu problamatic law. Despite the fact that my doctor has had me taking either ClaritinD 24 or ZyrtecD24 for the past 12 years+ and until recently even had me taking an additional sudafed due to a really problematic sinus and lower respitory problem, both of which are permanent. He changed the added Sudefed due to my bloodpressure, but still has me taking it when I fly and/or if my sinuses as severly infected beyond my usual problems. Now that they are over the counter, but limited, even with my doctor's current prescriptions and the pharmacy knowing my past medical record from when it was prescriptive, I still have difficulty buying the medicines, which according to my GP and a private ENT that I have seen in the past, have both said I need. The substitute medication does not work as well, if it did I would be on it in a minute as it is less problematic for my Blood pressure and heart. We would be thrilled if that stuff was working, but it does not. It is especially difficult if I am preparing to go out of the nation for any length of time beyond a few days and it is also problematic when my apartment floods and sometimes medications fall into the contaminated waters, despite my best efforts to prevent it. Additionally, keeping anything extra in a To GO Bag, or a ready Bag is not possible ( the tell you to keep extra meds in it, but you can't. So with a nuclear plant, an international airport, NYC, West Point, and two military bases surrounding me, a proper To GO or Ready bag is not possible, nor is it possible to keep a few extras in my first aid kit for an emergency.

They are so worried about drug dealers they are going to kill someone in the arragant persuit of a drug war they have been fighting for more than thirty five years and haven't won. The strategy is failing and now their crazy strategy in threatening the lives and liberties of citizens, who are merely trying to stay healthy or keep there loved ones health

The crazy laws do not take in account the difference between an occassional head cold, a seasonal allergy or a chronic condition. They don't take into account that caretakers often purchase for others in addition to themselves. They don't take into account that if you are sick, you may need to send a friend or loved one to the pharmacy for you, which helps prevent the spread of disease ( and this during a flu epidemic. They don't take into account that evacuation suggestions for terrorism and/or natural disaster tell you to keep extra doses of medications in you ready kit for each member of your household and/or family. They don't take in to account that you may not have money on the day the you are eligible to buy your medication, but you might have money for it on an earlier date, due to living on a fixed income and having to pay bills and buy food and other medicines. They don't take into account keeping same spares of you medications in your first aid kit. They don't take into accout that you may be going on a long camping trip or a trip out of the nation to a place like Vanuatu. How can we have the freedom to come and go if we must be tied down to an availible pharmacy due to a medical condition because a bunch of criminals want the medicine to make an illegal substance out of it. If I die due to not being able to obtain my medications as prescribe and when need, I want it noted publicly that I want my family or friends if I have no living family members to sue the govenrment on my behalf. It is bad enough that they are denying my the freedom to travel as I please. To endanger my health, seems like it would conflict with the 14 amendment. I have a right to life if I so do choose, and who are the to endanger it because of something I alledgedly might ( but would never ever actually) do.

Newsflash: unless there's something unconstitutional about it, your legislature can pass laws which make such a thing illegal. It would probably be Constitutional for them to do it, too. This shouldn't be news to you. See also: rational basis review (as opposed to strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny review).

>>>If a law is not just, then it should not be a law and should be stricken whether it's on clear constitutional grounds or not.

The mechanism for that is elections. The Constitution tells us what is legally just. If it passes constitutional scrutiny, it is up to elected officials to change the law (if they feel they need to).

Yes. It's unfair to her, but that's the way the law was written. Laws are inherently unfair to someone or another.

>>>For purchasing a legal product for a legally intended use?

Well, the law says it's illegal to buy a certain amount. It doesn't really differentiate about uses. But, the answer is yes.

>>>Just because a product can be used illicitly doesn't mean that it will be.

True. By the same token, just because an 18 year old buys alcohol, it doesn't mean that he's going to drink it.

>>>Arresting everyone that exceeds Y limit without further substantiating proof is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Well, as the law is written, the only proof one needs is that the product was purchased. But if you'd like to sue, what is the legal basis for the suit? I'm genuinely curious.

>>>Whatever happened to the police investigating why someone exceeded an arbitrary allocation, likely unknowningly, and at least generally see what's going on before they clog up the legal system for frivilous reasons?

As written, the law doesn't ask "why". It's not frivolous if there is probable cause. The legislature doesn't seem to think this is frivolous: they wrote the law.

>>>This is not how this country was intended to operate.

That's a matter of opinion. We elect officials to pass laws. If they pass laws we don't like, we elect new officials and get the laws changed. Or you apply pressure to the current legislature.

>>>Paying the court costs to be able to have the case "removed" from your record for a frivilous arrest sounds like extortion.

Look up the word "extortion". It has nothing to do with this. On the other hand, offers for pleas have been upheld as legal. This happens thousands of times a day.

>>>If they don't feel the need to genuinely prosecute someone for this infraction, and if they're willing to let them go and remove the incident from their record, then it sure sounds like to me that they never did something wrong in the first place.

An offer is made in lieu of prosecution (again, completely legal...and practical). Prosecutors are are supposed to withdraw a case if they can't make out a prima facia case, but that's clearly not what happened here. If the woman wanted to take her chances at trial, she would have the right to do that. Otherwise, it seems to me that the prosecutors gave her a pretty good deal when they offered to have this thing go away.

Second of all, yes it is very easy to break. In the AMC series "Breaking Bad" they got around this sort of law by paying homeless people and junkies to buy legal amounts of the substances and then giving it to them.

"Ice Ice baby too cold.....too cold....."

Thankfully, now that they've placed the medicines containing it behind the pharmacy counter I can concentrate on the stuff on the shelves and largely not have to worry about accidently buying something that I can't take.

Phenylephrine, however, works wonderfully for me. And it doesn't make me sick. That one still puzzles me as I know several people who get no beneficial effects from it.

This law, however, is bull. A mother with two sick kids could easily run over the limit without knowing it like this grandmother did. If they are going to enforce it so severely they need a better way for the person to keep track of how much they've purchased and how much till they are over the limit.

@treimel:

Oh, and read my commments again--I never actually suggested Staples was a winning argument for this defendant--I argued she was a winning appelant, and I stand by that.

@RPHP:
I never suggested that Staples was about "overturning mens rea" --whatever that means. Staples was about precisely what I said it was--imputing the constitutional requirment for a level of intent where the legislature has not done so, albeit limited to serious case.
In Thomas's words' "Indeed, we have noted that the common law rule requiring mens rea has been "followed in regard to statutory crimes even where the statutory definition did not in terms include it""

So, yes, Staples is about mens rea being required in some instances whether the law requires it or not.

Interestingly, I have since looked up the statute (see thread several above) and there is, indeed, a mens rea requirement.
Some more from Staples:
"There can be no doubt that this established concept has influenced our interpretation of criminal statutes. Indeed, we have noted that the common law rule requiring mens rea has been "followed in regard to statutory crimes even where the statutory definition did not in terms include it." Balint, supra, at 251-252. Relying on the strength of the traditional rule, we have stated that offenses that require no mens rea generally are disfavored, Liparota, supra, at 426, and have suggested that some indication of congressional intent, express or implied, is required to dispense with mens rea as an element of a crime. Cf. United States Gypsum, supra, at 438; Morissette, supra, at 263.

* * * * *
We concur in the Fifth Circuit's conclusion on this point: "It is unthinkable to us that Congress intended to subject such law abiding, well intentioned citizens to a possible ten year term of imprisonment if . . . what they genuinely and reasonably believed was a conventional semiautomatic [weapon] turns out to have worn down into or been secretly modified to be a fully automatic weapon." Anderson, supra, at 1254. As we noted in Morissette, the "purpose and obvious effect of doing awaywith the requirement of a guilty intent is to ease the prosecution's path to conviction." 342 U. S., at 263. [n.11] We are reluctant to impute that purpose to Congress where, as here, it would mean easing the path to convicting persons whose conduct would not even alert them to the probability of strict regulation in the form of a statute such as § 5861(d).

If a slap on the wrist is how we impose punishment then punishment will never mean a thing.

It's about limiting consumers from purchasing in bulk to drive up prices and profits. It does nothing to slow down folks willing to break the law to get or manufacture illegal drugs and forces everyone else to buy in smaller quantities to keep those prices shored up.

What's the difference in cost between buying a six pack and a case of beer? Do you think limiting people to purchasing only six packs would keep people from getting drunk? No.

It would drive up the number of visits people make to the liquor store. It would drive up the profit ounce for ounce on beer.

Bring back real Xenadrine while you're at it!

Note - I did not read the statute here and it is even possible that a mens rea is explicitly required. I am just noting that if it is not required I do not see a reason why there would be a good chance that an appellate court would then require it.

It's a well-developed concept (I didn't make this up). Many laws have been declared unconstitutional because they are too vague to convey what is against the law or who might violate it. Like I said, that's why laws must be written in black and white.

Here are some articles to get you started:
[law.jrank.org]
[supreme.justia.com]
[home.hiwaay.net]

But, again, she knowingly bought the drugs, so, strict liability or not, she's on the hook.

I don't see a mens rea requirement there (did I miss it?). On the other hand, I was always told that if none is explicit in the law, one should read it as being "knowingly". In other words, "A person may not *knowingly* purchase drugs...." It's a pretty low standard. If that's the mens rea requirement, she's not going to be able to argue that she didn't knowingly purchase the drugs.

@billy: @billy: unconstitutional? how do you figure? vagueness in law has nothing to do with the Constitution. people should really start actually reading the Constitution before they try to represent it.

Which is fine, if that's what you actually want to work towards. Otherwise, it's a pretty weak argument.

@treimel:

Wait, I take that back--if this is the law they're proceeding under, there appears to be a a mens rea requirement:

IC 35-48-4-14.7(i)[www.in.gov]

@hi: not sure if that fits or not? any constitution experts out there?

@SgtBeavis: There is but nobody reads it or follows it anymore... the constitution.. the law of the land.

I'm sure we could find something in there... maybe: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

She's definately being punished in an unual way for buying 2 cold medicines in one week.

Another BS law that turns everyday law abiding citizens into criminals.

@fantomesq:
It's a strict liability offense.

It sucks because pseudoephedrine is the only allergy/decongestant that works well for me, everything else gives me bad reactions. And guess what, Missouri is STILL the number 1 meth-making state. Just let me have my cold medicine okay guys.

@MostlyHarmless: "It feels so nice to be able to get Sudafed whenevvvvvvvver I want" "I love how my country is all reasonable".

@edrebber:
Intent doesn't enter into it; this is a strict liability law. If you knew what that meant, you wouldn't be talking about her" clear intent" to do anything, because it's completely irrelevant.
I've never suggested that she didn't break the law as written--that's why I talked about an appeal challenging the law itself. Don't presume that every lawyer would advise her to take this deal--I wouldn't necessarily, provided she was willing to take her chances with the appeal--and she would be an excellent appellant in that she is a sympathetic figure. The fact is, she's so sympathetic a figure that even should her challenge to the law be unsucessful, she has an excellent chance of commutation or pardon. Moreover, I would make as big a stink about this as possible, and see if the prosecution blinks. Pleading guilty? That's a last resort, even with a decent deal like this one.

-your neighborhood pharmacist

Weird things:

1) This woman would not only have had to have read the sign stating the law, been conscious of the number of days it had been since she'd last bought medicine, but would also have had to multiply the concentration of pseudoephedrine by the number of pills in each box so she would know how many mg of this ingredient she was purchasing. Who DOES that?

2) If they keep track of these records, why is it legal for the pharmacist to sell a person an illegal amount of drug? Shouldn't the pharmacist have refused to sell her the second, illegal dose? Since they are the gatekeepers, since they have computerized the data, since they are in charge of keeping records --- why are they allowed to continue selling once the legal limit has been reached?

I wonder if granny can sue the pharmacy for selling her an illegal dose of pseudoephedrine.

she should have taken this to the news media. they are harrassing this "innocent" woman when actual drug dealers are most likely paying people to go into stores and buy this for them. there is always a way around anything. these kind of stupid laws only succeed in doing one thing; to inconvience the law abiding citizen!

@zburnham:
Right back at you. "Nice troll. Go shill for the status quo somewhere else, k?"

Shibblegritz has a valid point, if you stopped for even an instant to use that brain of yours, you might see that, or am I giving you too much credit?

Damn trolls.

In the good ole days I used to buy 100 count bottles of Actifed for $4 at Winn Dixie. Walk in, on the shelf, right out in the open to buy.

Later I had to buy in the Pharmacy. But could do so with just a simple request

Then Meth hell broke loose.

Thanks a lot.

Friday Night is Meth night at the 24hour Pharmacy chain stores.

Talking to the Pharm Tech the other night and he said is store (chain) is now sharing the customer data across state lines because of the number of out of state Meth customers on Friday and Saturday nights.

x2, pseudoephedrine is a biznatch anyways and used by amateur cooks. It's easier just to pick up a bunch of ephedrine diet pills in Mexico, makes no sense to me why they would antagonize you just because you have a cold.

@bohemian:

Wow, what a braindead law. Says something about the people in power in the US.

You know, I'm not really surprised that the US is going down the toilet, and it's because of idiotic stuff like this.

Since I am usually the person who buys things for everyone in our family I could easily go over whatever this mystery limit is. Allergy season or when everyone is coming down with the same cold could possibly land someone in jail? nice.

We won guys, we totally won.

Right? I mean isn't that the point of this draconic bullshit?

Here's the fun thing, anyone who IS doing something illegal KNOWS the law and pays people to buy their drugs for them. It's not tough to find 10 homeless guys to go buy a box of Sudafed every week if you know some redneck moron that's trying to make their own meth lab in a hotel bathtub. (happened to a friend of mine when he worked at a hotel in rural Missouri). 10 people, 10 stores, rotate the people and the stores every week you can get away with it forever by just following the law. Funny how that works isn't it?

High volume meth? Hey, they don't buy their supplies at Wal-Mart. Duh. Your laws help nobody.

Wouldn't we have a net savings in a HUGE amount if we just put money into treatment of people with drug problems and instead put the cops and lawyers we waste on drug related crimes into doing things that actually improve communities? Why doesn't this make sense to anyone?

So many problems we have today are because of the war on drugs. Make it all legal, offer treatment for people who get into things in a bad way. I think it's simple but we live in a world full of idiots that elect idiots.

@bravo369: The judge wouldn't allow the defendant to make the arguments to a jury because they are irrelevant. The law prohibits exceeding the maximum quantity within a certain time period. This woman had clear intent to break the law.

@mattb47: The non-pseudoephedrine decongestants work for me.

@LeChiffre: That would add a charge of disorderly conduct to the charges and the prosecutor probably wouldn't offer you the deferral program. You'd have to pay a lawyer $1000 to try and beg the prosecutor for a plea bargain or hold you hand while your convicted.

@Julia789: Ridiculous. PE works for me. The issue with PE is that it's not recommended for children under 12.

@pinkbunnyslippers: The law doesn't qualify the offense with the purpose of producing meth. If you exceed the maximum quantity for the specified time period, then you have broken the law.

@treimel: She had intent to break the law. She may have been ignorant of the law, but that's no excuse. She willfully and purposely exceeded the maximum quantity that was allowed for the specified time period.

This would be a slam dunk conviction for the prosecutor. The court costs are going to be alot less than what she would have to pay a lawyer to defend her in court. A lawyer would avise her to take this deal. She's lucky the prosecutor offered her this deal directly without a lawyer.

Granted, it takes a bit of figuring out and getting used to, but it's well worth it.

He said the meth manufacturers just started getting their supplies in Mexico, and as a result, meth was cheaper & cleaner since the law was passed.

I love my nanny state.

And i curse my 'u' key for not working properly in my reply up there^

When I buy pseudoephedrine in TX it shows me on my receipt what portion of the weekly limit I've bought.

I think this buy x amount of times in x amount of days and requiring ID/DL is a bunch of BS. Think about it, with 14 people you could by 2 boxes per day and totally bypass their stupid ID/DL check. Another law meant to 'make us safer' and in actality punishes those who need, and the criminals will just conspire to get around it.

If the law said "with intent to manufacture methamphetamine," no one could be arrested until it was proven that the drug actually was used to make meth, the prosecutor said.

Which, you know, is the supposed reason for the law. But that would require work on the prosecutor's part, so let's not do it that way.

Normally I would say "I love my state", but crap like this isn't confined to Indiana, I fear.

"I feel for her, but if she could go to one of the area hospitals and see a baby born to a meth-addicted mother …"

That's an easy comment to fark, isn't it? If I went to an area hospital and saw a baby born to a meth-addicted mother, considering how long this stupid law has been on the books, I'd say "Huh, I guess that law isn't really helping enough, is it?"

Of course then they'd probably try to pass another law saying that you can be arrested for standing in the aisle of the pharmacy section wondering where the hell the Sudafed went. (Which, by the way, is what I did the first time I was looking for it after the law went into effect.)

Yet still I'm expected to remove my shoes at the airport and buy specially sized shampoo, lest I blow up the airplane. I can't buy sudafed that works, and if I manage to find a pharmacy that sell the usefull kind, I have to buy some ridiculously small amount that sends me back out to the pharmacy while I'm still sick to restock.

Of course I get all the reasons why these laws made sense, but it still pisses me off that 0.01% of the population has managed to make life difficult for the rest of us.

Now that's just crazy talk.

Have any of these stupid laws actually resulted in catching anyone actually involved with meth (consumption, production, etc.)? Otherwise, this just seems like yet another stupid law that only punishes innocent people, wastes everyone's time and money while the real criminals simply break the law to obtain the stuff anyways. (gee, a criminal breaking the law? who'd of thunk it?!?)

From what I've read recently, it sounds as though this current law is totally useless anyways, due to that new recipe for meth that can use just a single box of legally obtained Sudafed, an empty 2 liter bottle, and some other legally (for now) obtainable ingredients.

Sure, some people could doctor-shop and pick up large supplies, but it would a be saner solution than laws that unfairly tar chronic allergy-sufferers and would-be meth cooks with the same brush.

It creates a perverse incentive to arrest the easy to prosecute cases and not the real problem cases. Grandma isn't going to make meth but she'll be wraped up in the statistics. Same way the HS kid will get busted for weed but they don't give resources to go that high up the food chain.

@lifestar: Meh, the minute you develop a substitute cold remedy, meth makers will switch to a different OTC product (medicine or not). Then you'll have to show your ID to buy, I don't know, fertilizer or something.

Restricting the purchase of specific products that may be used to make or consume drugs is probably not a long-term solution. The various restrictions on pipes and other pot-smoking paraphernalia have been in place for a long time, but I would bet money that they haven't had any effect on marijuana use.

I like the first part though:

Drinking: Legal over 21.
Driving: Legal with a license.

Drunk driving 21 year old: Illegal.

I often like to talk about how good my food smells. And tastes. Heh.

@shibblegritz: The funny thing is that Meth is one drug that could damn near be legislated (if that is a word) out of existence.

In a country without universal health care, these laws put my life at risk at risk so that a junkie can't get their fix. Know what? A junkie will ALWAYS get their fix, and if it kills them, SO WHAT? That's one less dead junkie.

(And if we had universal health care, junkies could be treated instead of criminalized.)

/And in the "land of the free" cigarettes are legal, but pot is not? Are you people fucking crazy or just stupid?

@katstermonster: I had to buy some for the kids once and the pharmacist was pissed about the law. He even complained that it was worse for canadians for some reason.

All I'm saying is that your suggestion is not feasible, as it would ultimately lead to calls for repeal of all strict liability crimes based on vague constitutional grounds. And while I am all for that result, it's not going to happen. Look at how the common law has developed. Unconstitutionality and legal precedent do not exist in a vacuum.

Absolute liability means that once the violation is demonstrated to occur, there is no defense. Those are still allowed if the possibility of jail isn't on the table.

Strict liability still says that the PF case is made out, the burden shifts to the accused to make out a defense (if it can).

[books.google.com]

And the law is don't buy x more than y times in z time period - just because it's a preventative measure to stopping another crime doesn't mean it's not a crime on its own. Consuming alcohol (a completely legal item) can be done too much to drive (a completely legal activity). This is to help prevent other crimes (assault, vehicular manslaughter, traffic violations, etc.). Are drunk driving laws unconstitutional?

And yes, a warning would not only prevent misunderstandings, it would save the county or city government money. Unlike with the case of the cars held hostage by the Chicago PD, there is at least a law to support action against this clueless customer, but it is abusive and antiproductive to force her to pay court costs on a pointless arrest.

Arrrrgh, governments. They are all horridly broken!

@Karita: Can you leap tall buildings as well as you leap in arguments?

@Whtthfgg: Loratadine doesn't do a darn thing to help me, sadly. I truly wish it did.

I wish pseudoephedrine products were prescription only, then I could get 90 days' supply through a mail order pharmacy. The current law is not consumer friendly--I can't stock up if the medicine is on sale.

OK, songs aside, I do have some problems with this law. Especially since I live in a place that has some of the worst allergies in the nation, and is also very meth-happy. I understand the law enforcement argument, but I also don't want to feel like a criminal if I need Mucinex. I used to buy Claritin D but switched partly because of that (and I wasn't sure there was a huge difference).

The law isn't 'don't buy this to make meth' it's 'don't buy blahblahblah grams of medicine containing pseudoephedrine within this time period.'

And despite their parents and teachers telling them all the time that those things are bad, fecking teenagers will still try it "just once".

And just like sex and cigarettes, you almost never stop at one. Especially if you have friends who are into it.

And its not as if the law is designed to put grannies in jail.

Also I never said anything about ignoring the law any time, so shove that one up.

Yeah, they should be able to let first time offenders off with a warning as long as they have enough reason to believe that the person is not a meth dealer. And I believe there are such provisions for most laws like this. I completely agree with you on that last point.

For the records, my gut feeling is that the law in question is a bit heavy handed, but then I do not know the exact circumstances, about how it came about and how much difference it has made on meth production. Moreover, I am not in favor of a full blown anarchy just because one state government passed a retarded law.

Just like someone was arguing in favor of health insurance companies the other day: If you dont like it, you can always get another job, or move to another state. If you hate government so much, move to Somalia.

The law has a purpose (a spirit if you will): to prevent meth from being manufactured. If the prosecution can show that she had any intention or involvement with a meth manufacturing ring, by all means, she should be smacked down with the full force of justice. But if it's an honest, unintentional mistake (one that wouldn't have come up if the sick relatives she was buying it for had purchased their own), then the law should not touch her, regardless of whether or not she technically broke the law.

Generally, though, for tickets, all that due process requires is that there shouldn't be any errors on the face of the ticket. If the ticket is "correct," then the "prima facie" case is made out (this is probably not the rule in all jurisdictions, but it certainly is in mine). The thinking is that if called to testify, the officer would merely testify to what he wrote on the ticket.

If the state makes a PF case, the burden shifts, then, to the defendant to perfect a defense by preponderance of the evidence.

How did you "prove" that it was questionable regarding the officer's timepiece? Raising the possibility of doubt doesn't necessarily mean that the defense is perfected. That's why the judge told you that you'd need to prove that you were not there.

Strict liability, though, is merely the concept that says that one is guilty of the crime regardless of intent. It doesn't really have to do with burdens. It just means that the prosecution only has to show that the deed was done. It wouldn't have to demonstrate intent.

You *were* innocent until proven guilty. It's just that there isn't much to demonstrate in a parking ticket and it doesn't seem like you overcame the state's case (at least, not to the judge).

The second lesson to be learned is to avoid buying pseudo-ephedrine in combination OTC medications. If she had bought a single package of pseudo-ephedrine along with Zyrtec the first time, and then a bottle of plain Mucinex the second time, she'd have skirted the long arm of the law.

Yes.

Think of it like a folding baby crib. Thousands of babies sleep in them and one or two gets killed when it folds up on him. Does that warrant scrapping the crib?

This law puts grannies in jail, that is what it does. There is no such thing as "well, maybe the law should be ignored sometimes." If you don't think the granny should go to jail then the law needs to be scrapped, or at the least, re-written to provide for warnings to first-time offenders.

@dorastandpipe: Loratadine (Generic Claratin) is your friend. Works better than the Sudafeds of the world and doesnt include Pseudoephedrine (also doesnt make you sleepy) $12.99 for 300 pills at costco

@shepd:

Well, I guarantee my analysis for the US, and for criminal cases only--i.e., misdemeanors on up--it could be the case (I don't know) that summary offenses like parking tickets have reversed burdens, or,alternately, burden-shifting. It really is the case, though, that the only burdens of proof that fall on criminal defendant's shoulders in the US are those they take on themselves, i.e., affirmative defenses like entrapment, etc.

Yes, I'm female. And yes, I'm totally serious about this. But I can't see any court declaring strict liability unconstitutional, as the outcry from people about a slippery slope to repealing statutory rape laws would soon follow.

Anyway, all citizens would be innocent if it weren't for the laws that made certain things criminal. Unfortunately, your argument is lacking some important elements. I know what you're getting at, but it's just not that easy. And in this situation, the woman really wasn't an innocent citizen - she broke the law as it was written, and she's paying the price, no matter how unfair that may seem to most.

@Karita:

That's true in the majority of states, but not all--if I recall, it's about 35 states.

@Shappie: I"m gonna take a wild stab in the dark and say some agency was coming in and reviewing the logs and found where someone exceeded their limit. The pharmacy should be held responsible for selling it to her more than she should for buying it.

How about we do the opposite? Every time a story is posted on here about an insurance companies, we point out that a bunch'a morons around the country want to keep those jerks in the drivers seat of our medical care.

@ceilingFANBOY: CVS is "supposedly" working on it. They already have all the stores linked together and theirs rumor out there that they are going to give the program away to other retailers so that everyone can be connected. That way someone doesn't come in and buy their alotment from one place, then walks next door to the next place, and so on.

Just because those words aren't explicitly in the Constitution doesn't mean that those concepts aren't there and it doesn't mean that a violation of such wouldn't be unconstitutional (see also Marbury v. Madison).

Interesting. This must be a difference again between Canada and the 'states, as a judge himself explained the difference to me after I proved it was questionable whether the officer's timepiece was accurate when I received a "parked at 2:42 am" offense in an area that did not permit street parking after 2:30 am.

He explained that he felt it was more likely that, despite him agreeing that I had proven the officer's time source was indeed questionable, that I in fact parked there at that time and further went on to explain that with an absolute liability offense I would need to prove that, in fact, I was not there before he could dismiss the case. I was obviously unable to prove I wasn't parked there (no receipts from elsewhere, no video cameras pointed at the car, etc) so I lost.

I then spent the time looking up the various liability types as I was naive enough to believe that we are guaranteed innocence until proven guilty. I verified what he said, and discovered that the difference between the absolute liability case and the strict liability case was that a strict liability case didn't assume the guilt up front, but was judged more like small claims--whoever presents the most believable case wins.

In fact, in places that have absolute liability offenses, the burden of proof rests SOLELY on the defendant. Since Canada shares its basis in law with the UK, I will cite a UK case which proves the strict liability offense of Drink Driving, in fact, places the burden of proof on the defendant.

Clearly this shifting of the burden of proof is at the heart of guilt. If it is the prosecution that has to prove it, the defendant walks into the courtroom innocent until proven guilty. If it is the defendant that must prove it, the defendant walks into the courtroom a convicted man proving his innocence.

That's not to say there aren't valid reasons for outlawing methamphetamines. They ARE dangerous drugs, both to use and to manufacture. But criminalizing non-criminals in the name of dealing with it, is just not acceptable in a free society. Other measures than this, are needed. Period.

In the same vein, maybe Sheriff Jon Marvel should go see her sick husband and daughter who needed said medication. Oh wait...

Least, that's how it was when I worked at Walmart

@mattb47: Medicines are just one of many tools we use on a daily basis - legally , ethically and properly I might add . You could ban or track darn near ANYTHING if it's associated with the tools of CRIME if you wanted . And that's the problem . Where do you stop or should you even start .

If you have possesion of 20 boxes of Sudafed and other instruments of crime involved in the making of meth THEN you simply put that Sudafed in context and charge the possessor with a crime . But that's the problem with these blanket bans - the use is NOT put in context .

@Saboth: I'm on the fence on that. While there are some drugs that I have little issue with legalizing -Marijuana comes to mind, it doesn't seem to harm things as much as the government claims it does-, but I worry about other, more harmful drugs and what would happen to people if they were legalized.

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: But, there is no such thing. Isn't that why gramma got arrested? With gramma in jail, nobody can make meth.

@LeChiffre: What case would she have? She clearly broke the law (it's a crap law, but there is absolutely no question that she broke it). And you suggest she should also should have resisted arrest and threatened the cops?

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home:

I work in a hospital, so I've seen a few Meth Heads in the time I've been there. I've also met folks who are clean after being Meth users, but their health is still messed up because they had other conditions, like Diabetes, that they didn't take care of because they were too busy getting high.

But I totally agree with your statement. Considering she was buying the meds for her family, not for a Meth lab, the "Meth addicted mother" thing has nothing to do with her.

@lifestar: I'm no chemist, but I'd love to see something similar. I wonder if there might be a way to research a compound or similar that would remain inert/harmless as long as it is stored and used properly (ie, cold medicine actually used as cold medicine). But, if a Meth maker tried to use it to make Meth, combining it with one of the other ingredients would activate the compound and ruin the batch. Of course, much care would need to be taken to make sure its reactant isn't one that can be easily imitated by the body, and it might be a temporary fix until some alternative comes along for the makers, but it's a thought.

@squinko: No less so than the right to privacy

@Saboth: unfortunately, more and more often common sense is being taken out of the law books. in a perfectly reasonable world, you'd use people called "judges" to determine whether a crime was committed, or whether actions were against the written law, or the spirit of the law. unfortunately our world has deemed such people incapable such decisions and put these black/white laws into place.

According to your cite: "[Although i]t is not codified in the text of the Constitution.....The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution...."

@bravo369:
I agree, any prosecutor with a lick of common sense wopuld exercise proper prosecutorial discretion and nolle pros this.

@JGKojak: i have a hard time believing any jury would find her guilty. there is such a thing as jury nullification. I know if i was on that jury and this was presented to me without any corroborating evidence that she's a meth dealer, no way I would vote guilty for making a purchase.

and the deal offerd to her is stupid. Just drop the charges and let her walk. it makes no sense for her to pay out of pocket.

The non-pseudoephedrine decongestants don't actually work. The makers of Sudafed PE pulled a fast one.

[en.wikipedia.org]
[www.reason.com]

Meth labs just buy their drugs in Mexico now.

And tens (hundreds?) of millions of law-abiding Americans are now potential criminals for just trying to manage the colds, allergies, etc. of themselves and their families. Even if you're following the law, you are treated as a potential criminal. Instead of just picking up your Sudafed-D off the shelf, same people did for decades, you have to register yourself. "Papers please!" (and yes, insert the bad German accent)

The whole thing should be repealed as a epic failure.

@Grabraham: EXACTLY !!!

It's not about tracking you or your LEGAL activities. It's about going after the dealers and users-the CRIMINALS committing far worse acts than buying too much Sudafed .

It's not about cost for the pharmacies to track you . For all those nanny staters out there a situation like this could be YOU one day and for you to say ' I don't anything wrong so I don't care ' is crock . Wait til they slap the cuffs on you and take your mug shot and you cannot answer no to ' have you ever been arrested ' on a job application .

ILLEGAL CRIME committed by the junkies and dealers is a law enforcement problem as in INVESTIGATE them with interviews , accepted legal data analysis but NOT with contrived data mined information .

Both of you should: [www.usconstitution.net]

A good attorney could sue the sh!t out of this county. If I were approached by a cop because of this, I'd tell him to go f-off and die. This is bS. Just because it is a high-meth county does NOT give the county a right to indiscriminately arrest people.

@macdude22: Yes! That is what my pharmacist told me: PE does nothing. He said the active ingredient was only tested for use on skin allergies in creams and not congestion in pills. He said you have to ask for the orignial formula behind the counter if you want your congestion to go away.

@HRHKingFridayXX: Or they just don't give a shit about the other chemicals that are floating around in the mix as long as the finished product gets people high. Seriously, the extra chemicals in cold medicine aren't going to be the most harmful additive in meth.

@GitEmSteveDave_JustAddHotWater: I get frequent sinus infections in fall and winter, and NOTHING works like original sudafed. I worry I'll get in trouble for purchasing it too much. They scan my license all the time for it at Target. This week my husband had a nasty cold at the same time I have sinus headache, we had to ration our precious sudafed.

The pharmacist thinks it's stupid, in NY suburbs where meth making isn't exactly commonplace. He also told me don't bother with the "replacement" sudafed with new ingredients now on the shelves - they do nothing. He said the active ingredient in them was only tested for skin allergies and not congestion.

He said you have to ask for the orignial formula (kept behind the counter that has to be signed for under penalty of law) if you want your congestion to go away.

@pecan 3.14159265: Does it mention whether or not the other people with whom she was arrested were actually guilty of the act of purchasing with intent for production of Meth?

It'd be interesting to see the breakdown here to determine the efficiency of this law.

@Red-headed bookworm: in PA you have to swipe your driver's license or state ID.

Yes, the cops should have showed some perspective. Yes, you should not be called a pedophile for taking a pic of your baby. No, the grandma should not have been arrested. But does that warrant scraping the law? No. Is it really a valid reason for saying "down with the government"? No.

@shepd:
I'm well aware of the hierarchy of scienter, specific intent, intent, strict liability, etc. And no, you are *absolutely* mistaken as to how they work--even with a strict liability law, the state must prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt--it's simply that a lack of criminal intent is no defense and conversely proving the formation of criminal intent is not required as it forms no part of the definition of the offense. Your statement "The prosecution doesn't need to prove your guilt, they just need to be able to convince the judge it was more likely it happened than it did not" tells me that you are not well acquainted with criminal law in the US. We do not, and can not use a preponderence of the evidence standard in a criminal case in this country. CAN NOT happen.

In fact, strict liability laws have successfully been challenged on the basis that they *should* have included a requisite intent--see Staples v. United States 511 US 600 (1994), which happened to be the one I had in mind, but I think there are some other bases.

@meechybee: THat's pretty much how it is here in Indiana. The pharmacy has a binder that they keep track of what you buy, they write down your info including driver's license number, and you have to sign it. Major overkill and if you have a family, you can easily go over the limit. Perhaps the limit should be raised...I don't think they are going to be making much meth wiht two packages of cold medicine.

Remember when NyQuil actually worked? I miss the good old days.

Let's make it possible for stupid people who do drugs to have access to as much as they want so they can self eliminate, and free the rest of us for being responsible for their choices.

BTW: if you don't think it's unconstitutional STOP SAYING "IT'S IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION."

Just because something is a law doesn't make it a just law. If a law is not just, then it should not be a law and should be stricken whether it's on clear constitutional grounds or not.

and while she's seeing a baby born addicted to meth, how bout we addict her to meth too, so she can see how it would ruin her life, and then kill a family member so she feels that pain too....both those, doing drugs and killing people are illegal too makes sense to me...

Didn't know Indiana went that far on the fail express sence I moved away...

@Hoss: Such a stupid law, I feel paranoid when I'm sick and have to buy medicine that contains this. You have to sign a sheet and put in your driver's license. Do other states make you do this?

I'm all for legalized drugs. Nope, I don't smoke or drink, but prohibition has NEVER worked, and we are simply throwing good tax dollars into the wind.

@Jabberkaty:

On the subject of criminal intent--actually, some criminal statutes (and caselaw) specifically exclude an intent requirement--they're called "strict liabilty" and the classic examples tend to be health and safety regs like overweight trucking and the like. I have a lot of problems with this law, but a lack of intent on the part of the grandma is not a winning argument.

True, but the government is black or white. In this instance...you buy 2 bottles of cough syrup, you are a criminal. You take a picture of your kid, you are a pedophile. I understand that the laws are on the books to protect against certain things, but when .00001% of the population is committing said crimes, does it make *any* sense whatsoever to have laws on the books that punish 100% of the populace?

@katstermonster: He should buy it in his travels, though he may get arrested too!

Drug laws routinely pass Constitutional muster based on rational basis review/scrutiny. If the law passes that review and otherwise doesn't violate any other law, there's not too much you can do to legally challenge it.

@shepd: Wait, what? The defendant has to prove "beyond any reasonable doubt" that they didn't do it while the prosecutor need only prove that it was more likely than not?

In criminal trials, absence of mens rea or not, it is still the state with the burden, not the defendant, and that burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. The preponderance of evidence standard belongs in the civil courts.

The absence of a mens rea requirement just makes these types of crimes easier to prosecute.

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: Exactly. "Madam, I'm sorry you got caught up in this dipshit law; but, since we can't find another way to effectively combat meth-making, we'll just arrest everybody instead. That way, when we're all in jail, the whole outside will be safe again."

It's also really smart of the County Prosecutor to stick to her guns on this one. Doesn't even remotely seem like the kind of decision that can blow up in her face.

Jeebus, I hope it's an elected position...

@Jabberkaty: in my state, we have laws about these meds, not as strict though. When you purchase said meds, you have to acknowledge the law (Walgreens does it on the debit card machine). So, she probably was shown something and had to sign something.

*ahem ahem jury nullification ahem*

@DashTheHand: I thought all states had some kind of law about these meds. Of course, not as strict as this one. But a law anyway.

I'm not. You said, "It has to do with the state, in direction violation to the Constitution, of assuming people are guilty of a crime (ie making meth)..."

That's why I quoted your statement about "making meth". I'm not assuming anything. I'm just quoting what you said.

>>>my point is that the law is a thinly veiled assault on the Constitution's presumption of innocence because it assumes that an individual who buys "too much" of something is a criminal,

Then you need to look up what the Constitution's presumption of innocence is all about. It's about what happens after you've been accused of a crime. It has to do with what the prosecution must do to prove that you're guilty of a crime. Merely buying too much of something in this case *is* criminal (at least, in Indiana). That may be a poorly-written law, but it doesn't make it an unconstitutional one...especially based on your argument.

>>>And yes, I'm aware that legal items can become contraband

Then your argument that the substance is "legal" holds no water.

Look, you might not like the law, but calling it unconstitutional for the reasons you've stated just shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

Well, she did break the law...that said...it is a law that needs to be redone completely. You can't put a limit on something that is legal. Either make it prescription only, or scrap the law. "Oh wow...you bought a lot of knives today sir...you and the missus plan on eating 100 steaks tonight? You have the right to remain silent...anything you say...."

Gilf?

My point is about the accumulation of government power.

@Saboth:

@JohnDeere:

I agree with you. I think it is a stupid law, but it is a law none the less and she broke the law.

The presumption of innocence is not in the Constitution.

How can you buy "too much" of something that is legal? That law needs to be scrapped.

I'm not exactly thrilled at government controlled healthcare, and I DO have big issues with them telling you how you can raise your children, and if you can take pictures of your own children (and of course this inane cough syrup law)...but *that* being said...you really trust fat cat insurance CEO's with your health, and the health of your family? These are people that hire people JUST to go around and find spelling errors on your application just so they can deny your 500,000 life saving surgery and force you to either go bankrupt or die.

My point is "the accumulation of government power is dangerous and rarely solves the problem it was intended to solve. Here's another example. And still, so many people still put their unbridled faith in government, ie health care. Amazing."

Government is government is government is government. Republican, Democratic, socialist, communist, junta, oligarchy, kingdom, whatever. It inherently wants more and more power. Oh, sure, it couches that quest for power in the guise of "helping out," and in many cases that desire is even genuine. But the end result is in a dimming of liberty that results in people being jailed for buying legal products and having to sue the government over their terrified children being seized because they took a couple of cute pictures of them in the bath, of armed federal agents forcibly seizing a terrified young boy and sending him back to Cuba, or listening in on your phone conversations on the off chance you might be talking to a terrorist. On and on and on.

When I roll a stop, I know what I'm doing. To me it sounds like this lady had no idea of the law and wasn't creating a hazard to herself or others by buying an otherwise legal medication.

You can't have a law that says you can buy a limited amount of something in a given time period. I don't know of any other substance with similar requirements. Buying a legal product is legal, period. You can't put disclaimers like "you can't buy this product more than once in a 21 day period" or some such nonsense. Either make it require a prescription, or scrap your hick state/county law.

@Shadowman615: You'd be surprised at the ingenuity of meth makers. Buying multiple packages of plain pseudophedrine is obvious and banned in some places, so I'm sure they've figured out a way to extract it from combo meds like Mucinex.

I have a hard time swallowing someone being charged with a crime when if she had waited a day or two it would have been legal. That seems really wrong to me.

Target scanned the back of my license when I went in last week. Although I'm not sure how effective that is because I go there for non-grocery items only (medicine and cleaning supplies, mostly).

@wgrune: she didnt do anything wrong. its over the counter. if its dangerous it should be prescription only.

@SadSam: The deal was pretty good, though, wasn't it? All she has to pay is court costs, which she would have had to pay anyway because she had to appear before the court. The misdemeanor would be expunged from her record after 30 days.

I know that law is about buying "excessive" quantities of a product, not transforming that product into an illegal substance.

I also know that the law is intended to stop people from making meth, not to stop people from buying cold medicine. The intent of the law is designed to thwart meth production, not frustrate people with colds. It is aimed at a downstream criminal act, otherwise there would be no need for it.

Yes, the woman appears to be guilty of violating the law. But my point is that the law is a thinly veiled assault on the Constitution's presumption of innocence because it assumes that an individual who buys "too much" of something is a criminal, ie it's illegal to buy too much cold medicine BECAUSE experience shows large quantities of cold medicine are turned into meth; this woman bought too much cold medicine; therefore she must be purchasing the drugs to make meth. It's not a direct link, but it's obvious if you stop to think about it for a few seconds instead of reflexively supporting the idea that limiting people's rights to freely engage in commerce is the best way to stop illegal drugs.

And yes, I'm aware that legal items can become contraband ... in the commission of or preparation for commission of a crime. But buying some cold medicine to take home to your sick family is not a criminal act.

"Just as with any law, the public has the responsibility to know what is legal and what is not, and ignorance of the law is no excuse, the prosecutor said."

Statements like that get more laughable every day, as the codex of current laws becomes ever thicker. We've seen repeated examples of where the lawmakers don't read the laws they're passing, and enforcers don't know the laws they're enforcing. But god help the man on the street who can't quote chapter and verse on demand.

I think the cold medicine law is stupid as well, but I can defend the thinking behind it: Meth manufacturers usually have mules that will go in to numerous stores to buy up cold medicine so they can make massive amounts. Considering that setting up a meth lab is cheap and easy, it affords these guys the advantage of being able to move around a LOT. The mess they leave behind is VERY dangerous for those enforcing and cleaning up, not to mention very expensive.

While I think the police severely overreacted instead of doing their due dilligence, I can see why the legislators chose to enforce at the retail level in hopes of slowing production and mitigating enforcement/clean up costs..

Aaaaaand here we are, when innocent grandmas start getting busted for felony schedule drugs, because nobody told them that .3 grams was over the limit for legal possession.

The prosecutors gave shown their dedication to continuing the huge waste of limited resources that they have under their control, just to nail the case down against the "granny gangs".

"Sometimes mistakes happen," [Vigo County Sheriff Jon] Marvel said. "It's unfortunate. But for the good of everyone, the law was put into effect.

"I feel for her, but if she could go to one of the area hospitals and see a baby born to a meth-addicted mother …"

If she could see a meth-addicted baby, she'd reconsider the purchase of a legal medicine bought for legitimate reasons? I could see buying two bottles of cough syrup for the ease of having one at home and one at work.

I understand this woman violated the law as it is written, and that ignorance isn't an excuse. That said, putting a system in place to prevent violation of the law would be a whole lot better than arresting people that unwittingly broke the law months after the fact. People producing meth are going to quickly find ways around this law. It's largely the people purchasing medicine for its intended purpose that are going to be impacted. It's a damn shame.

Politicians and the courts have steadily chipped away at that firewall such that they can find a way around virtually any prohibition, thus we find ourselves with a law that jails individuals for buying a legal product, the presumption of innocence of the crime for which the law was intended to thwart ... drug-making ... be damned.

Yes, perhaps my parting shot was slightly off topic in the sense that the original post did not deal with health care, but the bulk of my sarcastically started argument ... "All hail the state," is as spot on as it can get.

If the pharmacy knew about the restrictions, why didn't they just stop her from purchasing the second time? "Ma'am, we can see you already bought this once this week, you'll have to wait until next week to get more."

@wgrune:

She did break the law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. But the prosecutor ought to give her a better deal than the one listed above. I'm assuming this woman has no priors and there is no reason to believe that she is involved in production of meth so she ought not to be punished.

Also, meth is still being produced just with a different recipe so these laws do nothing to prevent the production of meth.

You can't challenge a strict liability in any reasonable way law if you've broken it and there's no technicalities to squeeze through on. I suspect this would be a strict liability offense.

The only way out of strict/absolute liability if for you, the accused, to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you didn't do it.

Yes, that really is how those levels of liability work. The prosecution doesn't need to prove your guilt, they just need to be able to convince the judge it was more likely it happened than it did not.

She's basically out of gas on this one. The only option for her other than taking the deal is to be convicted and become a poster-grandma for the anti-meth-watch cause. Which, oddly enough, might actually work.

Well, there is one other out, and that's the challenge the law on constitutional grounds. However, I don't think you'll find anything in the constitution guaranteeing you to free access to cold medication, so no luck there.

Since it wasn't the Federal government making the arrest you could say this is like looking at someones cousin's past job performance, which wouldn't be a fair comparison. But I will say the government is government.

And you must be aware that legal items can become contraband in certain situations. If that weren't true, there wouldn't be any arrests for meth production. (see the definition of "derivative contraband".)

It's just a shame that you've chosen to make some assumptions and comparisons about the state, healthcare, the Constitution, etc. They don't really make any sense.

@Grabraham: I seems that you might live in Indiana? If so, why do you suppose they made an arrest for a Class C misdemeanor? Would she have received a summons to court and failed to appear?

It does feel like a warning letter for first offense would solve a lot of misunderstandings

Something to think about when opponents of new laws being proposed bring up ways the laws could me misapplied and lawmakers say that would never happen, prosecutors use discretion. Well, no they don't.

[www.harveysilverglate.com]

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: My mom runs into this issue all the time. I have 3 brothers, all of whom have pretty bad allergies, as does my mom. She can't get the good Sudafed very often because she hits the limit, and my dad travels a lot, so she can't always ask him. So irritating.

@DashTheHand:

I am not sure she would have a legal leg to stand on. She did do something wrong, she broke the 7-day law.

I am not trying to defend the law, just playing devils advocate.

Seriously, who the hell would manufacture meth from an uber-expensive Mucinex-D package? It probably requires some special procedures to extract the guaifenesin and whatever else it includes, and is also probably the most expensive possible way to buy pseudoephedrine.

Common sense, people.

No thank you... if you want to track it that way, revoke it's OTC status and dispense by prescription.

The ends don't justify the means. Meth, as horrible as it is, shouldn't justify taking a woman's freedom that did nothing wrong at all.

It would appear that a law allowing innocent citizens to be lumped in with criminals would be declared unconstitutional somewhere down the road.

Daily Pseudoephedrine purchase limit 3.60 gram, pursuant to federal law.
Pseudoephedrine total purchased this transaction 2.88 grams.

The problem is that it's apparently not a daily limit, but a weekly one. If I go to a different Georgia store later this week, they won't sell me another pack.

"I feel for her, but if she could go to one of the area hospitals and see a baby born to a meth-addicted mother..."

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Seriously...SHE WASN'T MAKING METH!

@dwasifar:
yes, but then you could challenge the law itself on appeal--that's what I would do.

Not would be a great time to show all the compelling statistics on how we're much safer now due to our inability to buy two boxes of Sudafed in one week.

Just like a racial profiling story in Arkansas means that no black people can qualify for social security...

...Oh wait, that's a stupid conclusion to draw, huh?

Even the pharmacists think its crap, and that the replacement, Ephedra free versions that the companies sell in Oregon don't work nearly as good.

According to the code, the law applies to any "person". You don't have to be a meth dealer to break that law...so it doesn't make any sense that the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she is a meth dealer.

Look, the point of the article is NOT that she didn't do anything wrong (she clearly broke the law as it is written). The whole point of the article is that the law is written very broadly and it probably sweeps up a lot of people who are really not meth dealers.

Legitimate consumers of decongestants shouldn't have to be so burdened for the actions of the meth lab MF'ers. The criminal justice folks should be spending their time finding better ways to eliminate the production and sale of meth.

@shibblegritz: Wow. Way to post something not remotely relevant to the article.

Saddens me much b/c every time I get a cold I always reach for Aleve Cold and Sinus, and that drug contains the chemical. I can only buy it at the counter, sign my name, and have my ID be scanned into their databases.

Why did it take them 6 months to arrest the "Meth-maker?" If she was doing the deed, wouldn't have it all been gone on the stree anyways by now?

I guess I'm just asking why it took the police so long to get her?

My point is that the giving the government power gets you in these kinds of messes, and I'll make the point in any venue or circumstance I can, thank you very much!

Why in the world should she have to enter diversion as SHE DID NOTHING WRONG- she should plead not guilty and make them PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that yes, she is a meth dealer.

It also seems like if the system knows how much pseudoephedrine someone purchased in X days, it could be configured to prevent those who are innocently ignorant of the limit from exceeding it, in order to prevent incidents such as this.

To dust off an old chestnut: Doesn't law enforcement have better stuff to be doing than prosecuting grannies...like catching meth producers?

The article is pretty lengthy and gives very good background information as to what constitutes the kind of drug that would be used to make meth, as well as a little background into the law itself.

It's really ironic, too, that the grandmother is employed at a women's correctional facility.

I know that my company actaully uses photo ID's electronically to prohibit the sale of PSE outside of the alloted timeframe. We don't call the cops because it's usually an accident that they are buying more than they need, most instances it's being used by more than one person in the house.

Arresting this woman is MASSIVE overkill. There was no need for that. NONE. An interview with this woman would have sufficed, as well as making her return the Mucinex. ANother example of a country trying to get money out of its citizens through shady means.

And y'all still want to put these people in charge of your health and you REALLY believe they'll do a better job of it.

Amazing.

I could see this happening fairly often. Usually when you're in a family household and one person gets sick, everybody gets sick. It usually goes in stages as it gets passed around.

My mom got in trouble at a pharmacy once because the doctor told her to get me the regular children's version of tylenol for the day time and then use the prescribed tylenol 3 at night. The pharmacist said that I couldn't take both. My mom had to explain to her that she was just trying to follow the doctors orders after I had just had major surgery.

I think she just ended up buying the regular tylenol at a different store.