var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Grabraham
September 29, 2009 4:50 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

The law in question is an Indiana state law ( a dumb one IMHO) so I think having the manufacturers relabel for this state may be reaching,if it were a federal law maybe.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Hoss
September 29, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brunette Bookworm
September 29, 2009 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Lucky225
September 30, 2009 12:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Red-headed bookworm:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
September 30, 2009 1:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Lucky225: The pharmacist who made me sign for my first box of Alleve Cold & Sinus after the law went into effect told me this new law pretty much only serves to antagonize law-abiding allergy sufferers.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Lucky225
September 30, 2009 4:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kateblack:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
September 30, 2009 3:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kateblack: They seem to be finding fewer meth labs in South Dakota but the number of tweakers is as bad as ever.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dayv
September 30, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: That's because these laws are pushing meth production out of the hands of meth lab entrepeneurs and fully into the hands of organized crime. They haven't done a thing to diminish demand, so the supply chain reconfigured.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Lucky225
September 30, 2009 12:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Lucky225:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dorastandpipe
September 29, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Red-headed bookworm: I live in MN and I have to give my ID and sign as well. It is fun being treated like a criminal when you suffer year round allergies and need Sudafed even in winter!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CheritaChen
September 29, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dorastandpipe: Here in Florida, I hand over my ID for swiping. I'd probably take two Sudafed every night at bedtime if I weren't afraid of running afoul of these annoying regulations. I can't remember what the limit/time ratio is here, but I do think it's posted in my local pharmacy.

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!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Whtthfgg
September 29, 2009 7:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MameDennis
September 29, 2009 8:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katia802
September 29, 2009 6:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
September 29, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Grabraham: I was referring to pharmacists actually explaining how the law works, not to relabeling.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
September 30, 2009 3:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: I live in SD and have no clue what the \"limit\" is in our state. None of the warning signs posted tell you how much is too much and pharmacists have never mentioned it either.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Grabraham
September 29, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: Reading comprehension FTW! I skipped the words \"pharmacies made that\" in the explicitly clear sentence

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
DashTheHand
September 29, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Arrested and fined for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Sounds like its time to sue the state and get out of methtown.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
September 29, 2009 5:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jabberkaty
September 29, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DashTheHand: @SadSam: I think this law is over-reaching and needs to be changed. I agree that people need to obey the law, but for crying out loud, this is what police discretion is for and I can't believe she got arrested.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wgrune
September 29, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
huadpe
September 29, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wgrune: She broke the law, yes. She did nothing wrong. The law here is morally wrong.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
September 29, 2009 5:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wgrune:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wgrune
September 29, 2009 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
skylndrftr
September 30, 2009 12:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wgrune: I find that to be a weak argument until I can start handing out tickets to all the cops around here who speed everywhere while talking on a cell phone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ferris152
September 29, 2009 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wgrune: Breaking the law and doing something wrong are two different things. Yes, she broke the law. Did she do anything wrong? I would say she didn't.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
smonkey
September 29, 2009 9:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ferris152: but at the end of the day the DA runs for election on \"i charged this many people with crimes under my watch\"

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
September 30, 2009 3:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@smonkey: Then those \"easy case\" people will be hounded by some stupid thing on their history the rest of their lives. The crazy amount of background check info done on people for renting or getting a job makes things like this one a true problem.
Even if they remove the case the arrest will still be there.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mythandros
September 30, 2009 4:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JohnDeere
September 29, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SadSam
September 29, 2009 5:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lmarconi
September 29, 2009 10:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SadSam: Ignorance of the law in no excuse if one is reasonably informed by the government or by the party enforcing the law of the law's existence. If this woman missed reading the paper the day this law was enacted, it's entirely likely she had no knowledge of the illegality. If they're going to have a law on the books like this, pharmacies should be required to warn you when you purchase the first product that you cannot purchase any more for 7 days and the government should launch some sort of campaign to better publicize the law.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
September 30, 2009 12:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lmarconi:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
September 29, 2009 7:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SadSam: She probably would have gotten that deal regardless of talking to him as a first time offender for a misdemeanor.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
September 30, 2009 4:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I agree. Under the (bad) circumstances, this is probably the best option. She does have the choice to contest the charge but lack of intent may not be a defense - the law may only require possession - but considering the costs of contesting the charge, this would be the best course of action, especially considering the expungement offer. Take it as an expensive lesson and publish the hell out of it afterwards to save others the hassle of this overly broad law.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
September 29, 2009 8:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: They give that sort of deal to people who intentionally commit misdemeanors (maybe a longer time of being good, and *maybe* a class)..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brazell
September 29, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kevin411:
Well at least they dont sell it to you, rather than selling it to you and then arresting you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
captadam
September 29, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SadSam: She had absolutely no intention of committing the act that this law is attempting to stop. There IS such a thing as prosecutorial discretion--just as police do have the ability to look the other way if somebody doesn't exactly stop before making a turn on a red when nobody else is coming.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Megalomania
September 29, 2009 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@captadam: Shouldn't the actual crime be selling the cold medicine, not buying it?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lakecountrydave
September 29, 2009 8:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: +1
Of coarse we would not want to infringe uoon the right of corporations to make the largest possible profit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jabberkaty
September 29, 2009 5:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@captadam: And whatever happened to criminal intent? I confess, I'm not a lawyer or even from the state in question so I realize I could be wrong here, but I thought someone had to be a little aware they were doing something wrong for these things to stick. I know this doesn't apply to things like gross negligence (I couldn't stop because I was too drunk to remember the law) or what have you...

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
September 30, 2009 4:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jabberkaty: Depends on what the requirements of the law are. As a general rule, yes, intent is necessary at some level. Other crimes, mere possession of the controlled substance are enough.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
September 29, 2009 8:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jabberkaty:She had intent to buy two, which is a violation of the law, so she has an intent to violate the law if she intends to buy two. She may have ignorance of said law, but even so.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ailema
September 29, 2009 7:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jabberkaty: She had the intent to buy that much product within a two day time period. That is all they need to prove for intent, not that she wanted to make meth or that she wanted to commit a crime.

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.'

Reply
\"user-pic\"
huadpe
September 29, 2009 9:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ailema: And because it lacks any intent quotient, the law is unequivocally a bad law.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Karita
September 29, 2009 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jabberkaty: Most laws require intent, but not all. (Intent itself can get complicated but it's almost always there.) The most commonly discussed criminal act that does not have the element of intent is statutory rape.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
September 29, 2009 7:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Karita:


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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Karita
September 29, 2009 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@treimel: Wasn't aware that it wasn't like that in ever state. I've studied the criminal codes in NY and CT, as well as the MPC, and I guess I just assumed it was like that everywhere. Nothing enraged me more in law school than those laws.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
September 29, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
September 30, 2009 4:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@treimel: Don't you mean lack of intent MAY not be a winning argument? I don't think we know whether this is a strict liability offense or not without reading the law in question.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
September 30, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 30, 2009 6:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@treimel: She's charged under section (d): (d) A person may not purchase drugs containing more than three (3) grams of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or both in one (1) week.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 30, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy: Oh, Section (I) shows the mens rea requirement: A person who knowingly or intentionally violates this section commits a Class C misdemeanor.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
September 29, 2009 5:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
September 29, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
September 29, 2009 5:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
September 29, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
September 29, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: So true. It's frustrating, especially when my dad won't be home for a week at a time and my brothers are all nasally and miserable. Before any of my brothers turned 18, my mom had to have me go purchase it a few times. I get the point of the law, but it's a ridiculous hindrance in cases like it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
September 29, 2009 8:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 17, 2009 5:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cecilpl
September 30, 2009 2:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: Nope, there's no such law in Canada. I can go to the drugstore and clean them out of Sudafed if I want.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 17, 2009 5:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 29, 2009 7:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster: My sister would absolutely revel in such cases. And keep on making statements like: \"this tea smells soo goood\" \"it feels so nice to be able to take deeeeep breaths\" and \"i love how my sinuses are all clear\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
September 29, 2009 8:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: My mom's sinuses are bad enough that she gave went to an ENT, who took an x-ray of her sinuses and figured out that they were 99% full of...whatever fills up your sinuses. So she had surgery to remove it. He had to chip it out with some sort of chisel, he said it was the worst case he'd ever seen.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 17, 2009 5:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 29, 2009 8:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster:
I get wicked cases of those sometimes in winter, especially when I have not had enough sleep. Sometimes it makes me want to drill a hole right through the forehead just to drain it all out.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 17, 2009 6:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Snaptastic
September 30, 2009 1:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Y'all might want to look into a neti pot. My sinuses suck (not literally...since they were always clogged) and the neti pot every evening has done wonders for me. I can breathe--and even got my sense of smell back for the most part.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 17, 2009 5:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BytheSea
September 30, 2009 3:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Snaptastic: I couldn't find a neti pot I liked and they're stupidly expensive, so I got a two dollar big syringe at CVS, the kind you use to give babies liquid medicine. It comes with a nostril-shaped rubber cone tip, and you can control how fast or slow the water goes into your sinuses. I think it must work better than a neti pot b/c it's more directed and controlled than just dribbing in there.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
shibblegritz
September 29, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

All hail the state, which in its infinite wisdom jails you for buying legal products and takes your children away because you took a cute picture of them in the bath.

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.

Reply
12 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 17, 2009 6:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jenjen
September 30, 2009 5:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shibblegritz: I would rather have them in charge rather than the industry that denies a woman coverage for going to the ER because she's bleeding from her breasts. Not an emergency, you should have just called and made an appointment. Seriously? These are the people you want in charge?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
September 29, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shibblegritz:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shibblegritz
September 29, 2009 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Saboth, that's taking us way off post, so I don't want to go there, but no, I don't trust them, and there are some things we can do, some of which the government has proposed, that I support.

My point is about the accumulation of government power.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Evil Otto - sleep deprived ftl
September 29, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shibblegritz: Nice troll. Go shill for the status quo somewhere else, k?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mythandros
September 30, 2009 5:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
captadam
September 29, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shibblegritz: You used to leap hurdles on your high school track and field team, right? You had to have been a star!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shibblegritz
September 29, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@captadam: My point isn't \"Indiana has a stupid law=government-run health care will blow.\"

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 29, 2009 5:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
September 29, 2009 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shibblegritz: Oh man, this has nothing to do with healthcare reform! Come on people. I am so sick of commenters on here saying crap like, \"Well this story just proves that [choose one: government or private industry] will do so much better with insurance [add sarcasm tag if needed]\" when the article has nothing to do with that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shadowkahn
September 29, 2009 7:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: It's the only thing their one-track minds can come up with to say. They're so fixated on making sure that they and their families will die or go bankrupt when they get sick that they can't think about anything else.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shibblegritz
September 29, 2009 4:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: The article has to do with the overreaching power of the state. It has to do with the state, in direction violation to the Constitution, of assuming people are guilty of a crime (ie making meth) because they purchase \"too much\" of a particular ... legal ... item.

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!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
September 29, 2009 8:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shibblegritz: The state, as in her state, not the federal government - which is somewhat different.

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 29, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shibblegritz: It's not a \"direct violation to the Constitution\". The crime is buying too much of a certain substance. She is clearly guilty of that. The crime is not making meth (as you suppose). Is it a poorly-written law, for sure, but it doesn't assume that people are guilty of anything other than the stated charge. Moreover, it's not even an assumption that people are guilty: they get to have a trial if they want.(see Coffin v. Unite States). In short: you've confused some terms and what they actually mean.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 17, 2009 6:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
September 29, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
September 29, 2009 8:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Do they not cut you off at a bar when you've bought too much alcohol/are clearly intoxicated? (My understanding was this due to law, and not just ass covering)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 29, 2009 8:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: Nice analogy, except for one flaw. Theres just too many variables in the drinking in the bar scene. You could have a DD, take public transport, take a cab, or just take a nap on the curb. Everyone's alcohol capacity also varies, and it is not always clear cut when one has had \"one too many\" or \"just one short of one too many\".

I like the first part though:

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

Drunk driving 21 year old: Illegal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 29, 2009 5:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: That's up for the Indiana legislature to decide, not me.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 29, 2009 5:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Yeah, if you really think that, i can safely say that you have no understanding of the subtleties of any real world situation. Some things are black, some things are white, and most of the things in between have varying shades of gray. You wanting them to be \"either all or nothing\" does not make it so.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
September 29, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless:

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
craptastico
September 29, 2009 6:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 29, 2009 6:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@craptastico: If laws aren't \"black and white\" then they are void for vagueness. THAT would definitely be unconstitutional.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
craptastico
September 30, 2009 6:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 30, 2009 6:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@craptastico: Yes: laws that are vague are determined to be \"void for vagueness.\" It offends our notion of due process which is a thread that runs through our constitution.

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]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 29, 2009 6:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: No, a lot more people are committing said crimes, but 0.00001% as you say are the false positives. Which sucks.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henneko
September 29, 2009 7:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: \"No, the grandma should not have been arrested. But does that warrant scraping 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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 29, 2009 7:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@henneko: Yes, because killing babies because of a fundamentally flawed design, and arresting a granny - and giving her a chance to erase the records as long as she is not arrested for a month - are the exact same things.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shibblegritz
September 29, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy: Billy, please don't make assumptions about what I suppose.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 17, 2009 6:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 29, 2009 5:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shibblegritz: >>>Billy, please don't make assumptions about what I suppose.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shibblegritz
September 29, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy: The law isn't technically unconstitutional, billy. My point is that it is technically constitutional because we've watered down the thing so much that it only means what the politicians in power want it to mean.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 29, 2009 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shibblegritz: Then you need to read up on what your Constitution actually says. *I'm* not the one making it up as I go along and listing catch phrases in completely inappropriate ways.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
September 29, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy: \"Then you need to read up on what your Constitution actually says.\"

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 29, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: Jurisprudence on the subject indicates that the presumption of innocence is not explicitly in the Constitution, but that the concept flows from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments.

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....\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
September 29, 2009 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy: Explicitly stated and stating the general ideal are two completely different things, especially when it comes to law. Yes it is part of US common law, but no, it is not specifically listed in the Constitution and shouldn't be represented as such.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 29, 2009 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: I didn't say that it was explicitly stated. I said that the concept flows from other parts of the constitution, much like the list of concepts you provide on your citation (ie: right to privacy, travel, etc).

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).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
September 29, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shibblegritz: \"But my point is that the law is a thinly veiled assault on the Constitution's presumption of innocence...\"

The presumption of innocence is not in the Constitution.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Notsewfast
September 29, 2009 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shibblegritz: Yeah, the justice system in Indiana is a great analogue for how the Federal Government will run a public option insurance plan.

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
September 29, 2009 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Notsewfast: Why is there a comment about health care on EVERY consumerist story now?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
September 29, 2009 5:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Notsewfast: Just four posts in and someone has made it about racism. Noice.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 29, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Actually, he has not. He was just pointing out the holes in the original argument. Which if you ask me, is more like swiss cheese.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
September 29, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Sure he is. He's drawing a subtle corollary between anyone opposing Obama's policy and automatic assumptions of racism. I'm not saying the OP is right or even makes sense, but the \"you oppose Obama means you are a racist\" dynamic is really irritating.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 29, 2009 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: No, YOU are making that assumption. There was nothing in his original comment that indicated that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shibblegritz
September 29, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Notsewfast: My point was generically about the accumulation of power by government, Notsewfast, a syndrome we have seen since the dawn of time and for which we have a Constitution that was meant to strictly limit how much power the government could accumulate.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AustinTXProgrammer
September 29, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Notsewfast: If you are interviewing a candidate for a job, wouldn't you look at past performance on other jobs, even if they were different? Doing that with our government makes sense!

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 17, 2009 6:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dayv
September 30, 2009 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AustinTXProgrammer: By that logic, because Indiana's government screwed up with this policy, we should scrap the entire concept of government.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
captadam
September 29, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AustinTXProgrammer: And I will say that a law made by state legislators in Indiana has absolutely no bearing with a potential federal executive-level agency staffed with professional, trained healthcare administrators. Using your logic, it would actually make MORE sense for me to look at an unpaved county road in rural Kansas and conclude that the state of Pennsylvania has no business operating a turnpike.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
September 29, 2009 6:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: No less so than the right to privacy

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ceilingFANBOY
September 29, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There should be a network that all pharmacies are required to be logged into that can instantly check the eligibility of a customer to purchase cough medicine to avoid accidentally exceeding the limit. It really isn't something that would cost the pharmacies that much money to do, especially considering most of them are tied into a network for checking what drugs their customers are taking that could potentially cause an adverse interaction.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
segfault
September 29, 2009 7:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ceilingFANBOY:
Rite Aid is linked in with some sort of automated system. I know I've been denied purchases of Claritin-D because it would exceed the legal limit. I take this medication every day, and I hate having to go to the drugstore every two weeks to restock.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bumpducks
September 30, 2009 12:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@segfault: Get your doctor to write a prescription for a 90 day supply of claritin D. Yes, it does not require a prescription. Some insurances will cover it, but not many. If not, you can pay cash for the 90-day supply, and it bypasses the Combat Methamphetamine act. (Did I say thank you, President Bush for that wonderful law?)

-your neighborhood pharmacist

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jayphat
September 29, 2009 7:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
u1itn0w2day
September 29, 2009 6:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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 .

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
September 29, 2009 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ceilingFANBOY: when cvs accidentally gave me the wrong type of sinus med (i wanted one in a green box, they gave me the blue box) and i didn't notice it til AFTER the sale had gone through, the system wouldn't let me buy the correct box without jumping through a million hoops. so i think there must be some sort of system in place...but perhaps it varies from merchant to merchant

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Grabraham
September 29, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ceilingFANBOY:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheFlamingoKing
September 29, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ceilingFANBOY: Maybe we could spend our resources busting people actually using or creating meth, rather than trying to prevent ordinary people from buying cold medicine out of fear they may use it to create meth?

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheSpatulaOfLove
September 29, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheFlamingoKing:

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..

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jayphat
September 29, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 14, 2009 3:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
September 29, 2009 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 2:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265_Pi on the run:


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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pinkbunnyslippers
September 29, 2009 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
edrebber
September 30, 2009 2:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
GitEmSteveDave_JustAddHotWater
September 29, 2009 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow.....Just wow. I tried to wrap my head around this, but it just doesn't make sense. You can't put a law like this in effect without having some infrastructure behind it. There's a reason that \"controlled\" drugs have rules that are backed up by registration systems. 4 months down the road is NOT a good amount of \"due process\" time. Just wow. This is one case where the state screwed up royally, and this will result in a lot of time and money being spent to correct it.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
September 29, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rpm773
September 29, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What an odd law. It seems like there would be many relatively easy ways to thwart it.

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?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Dragonis
October 1, 2009 2:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rpm773:
First of all, this sort of law is to make it harder for casual meth labs. Smaller stuff that is harder to trace and whatnot, allowing law enforcement agencies to force their resources on the large-scale producers. I think.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
amuro98
September 29, 2009 10:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rpm773: : Doesn't law enforcement have better stuff to be doing than prosecuting grannies...like catching meth producers?

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
brokeasajoke
September 29, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

that's Sad, just sad

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JGKojak
September 29, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
bravo369
September 29, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
edrebber
September 30, 2009 2:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
September 29, 2009 6:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
September 29, 2009 5:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGKojak:

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....\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Decubitus
September 29, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGKojak: FTFA, the law doesn't require the prosecutor to prove intent. They made it broad on purpose, so they could arrest anyone over the limit, assuming the buyer was going to make meth.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 29, 2009 5:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGKojak: Well, according to the article, she *did* violate Indiana Code 35-48-4-14.7 (subsection \"d\" to be exact).

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dwasifar
September 29, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGKojak: She's not being charged with making meth. She's being charged with violating the legal purchase limit, which she did do. I agree it's a massively stupid law, but it would be equally stupid for her to take it to court and demand to be proven guilty. It would take the prosecutor about 20 seconds to do exactly that, and then she'd go to jail.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
September 29, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shepd
September 29, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@treimel:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
September 29, 2009 6:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
edrebber
September 30, 2009 1:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
September 30, 2009 1:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
September 30, 2009 6:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@treimel: Without knowing much about the statute in this case it seems your appeal and we have a good chance of winning attitude is off course. The case which you note, Staples v. United States 511 US 600, was not about overturning mens rea per se, it was rather based on what mens rea the statute provided. It is not based on some sort of constitution principle that in some cases mens rea is required whether the law says so or not. It is based on how to read the particular statute in that particular case. I am not sure that you present any reason to believe that the offense in question here has any language which would point to a mens rea being necessary.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
October 1, 2009 12:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
October 1, 2009 12:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shepd
September 29, 2009 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@treimel:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
September 30, 2009 1:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: So you did park there and you did break the law, but you were trying to get out of the ticket by questioning the officer's watch?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 29, 2009 7:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shepd: AFAIK, the burden of proof on parking tickets is preponderance of the evidence (more likely true than not). As a rule of thumb, as long as there is no possibility of jail time, the burden to prove a crime is preponderance of the evidence.

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).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 29, 2009 8:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy: I should say, I read up on some Canadian law. There *is* a difference between absolute liability and strict liability, but I don't think either one does away with the state's initial burden of proof.

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]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
September 29, 2009 7:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
windycity
September 29, 2009 5:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Shappie
September 29, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 17, 2009 6:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jayphat
September 29, 2009 7:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
lifestar
September 29, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So sad that it has come down to this. There is no win situation in this until the drug companies find a suitable replacement for the chemical that yields the same benefits for cold-suffers, but doesn't offer the highs and energy that it offers to the abusers.

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.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
P=mv
October 1, 2009 12:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lifestar: I have successfully and comfortably survived every single cold I have ever had without resorting to pseudoephedrine. The stuff actually makes me worse.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NatalieErin
September 29, 2009 9:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 17, 2009 7:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SabyneWired
September 29, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 17, 2009 6:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
September 29, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The 'law' sounds pretty defensive in that article. They seem to realize that grandma isn't part of a meth ring but want their court costs etc. so they refuse to drop it.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
nagumi
September 29, 2009 7:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: Yeah. I'd demand a jury trial. They'd drop it immediately.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
macdude22
September 29, 2009 5:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If they are able to track how much she had bought, why don't they just not sell the individual the overage amount. Rather than arresting us folk that have a legitimate need for decent cold medicine (that PE stuff is garbage, ever wonder why they never marketed it before? Because it doesn't work).

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
September 29, 2009 6:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
September 30, 2009 12:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Julia789: i hate PE...and to think i bought it bc i was too lazy to get the real stuff. then i got the real stuff and remembered how awesome it was

Reply
\"user-pic\"
edrebber
September 30, 2009 2:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
September 29, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@macdude22: That's true about PE (Phenylephrine). In fact several recent studies have found that PE-based drugs have absolutely no effects vs. a placebo as a decongestant. As someone who had chronic sinus infections (prior to surgery) I can attest that, at least in my case, the \"sudafed PE\" did not help at all -- I always had to go for the real-deal OTC stuff.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
QuantumRiff
September 29, 2009 5:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

At least you can buy the drugs in Indiana. In Oregon, you had to have a prescription to buy anything with psudoephedrine in it. (I'm sure I spelled that wrong).. A prescription, to buy Sudafed. Yeah, I'm going to pay $100+ dollars, or at least my insurance company is, to get a $8 drug?

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 2:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
September 30, 2009 2:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@QuantumRiff: Same here in Missouri (largest meth-producing state in the nation. We're #1!) You can't get ANY pseudoephedrine here without jumping through massive hoops, and even the more generic, non pseudoephedrine cold medicines require you to show your ID and basically sign your life away. Sudafed is marked with a big \"DOES NOT CONTAIN PSEUDOEPHEDRINE\" warning.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Scoobatz
September 29, 2009 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 29, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"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!

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
katsuyakaiba
September 29, 2009 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
September 29, 2009 6:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SabyneWired
September 29, 2009 6:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
full.tang.halo
September 29, 2009 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home:

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...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tomorrowmorrowland
September 29, 2009 5:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hooray4Zoidberg
September 29, 2009 5:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: Ridiculous, this whole thing seem like a bit of an old fashioned witch hunt.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Kevin411
September 29, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I use Mucinex D Max Strength and like to pack all my pills into a 2-week dose kit every other week. I can't buy enough to fill the kit, so I have to send my partner to buy some for me. (This was also an issue when packing for a 2-week vacation to where this is not available.) This is in Georgia, where all stores require an ID to buy it. On this week's CVS receipt, it includes the following statement. Note that it references Federal law:

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 2:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TCama
September 29, 2009 5:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kevin411: No, they'll sell it to you, then you'll be arrested later.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
stacy75
September 29, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Legalize Drugs. Problem Solved.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Brazell
September 29, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@stacy75: That... doesn't solve this problem at all. This isn't an illegal drug.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
September 29, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MichaelBrazell: If meth were legal, then she wouldn't have been arrested for buying cough medicine.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
September 30, 2009 2:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: I'm all for legalizing pot (and also taxing the crap out of it) and other fairly harmless drugs that are on par with nicotine and alcohol, but meth is a TERRIFYING drug that can destroy you in ways pot never would. I've seen the effects of both pot and meth first hand, and meth is terrible terrible stuff. The worst I've seen pot do is make people giggle at Dane Cook. The worst I've seen meth do is absolutely destroy lives.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xeos
September 30, 2009 9:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What people do in the privacy of their home is their own business and right as long as the are not infringing upon the rights of others.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SabyneWired
September 29, 2009 6:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
September 29, 2009 7:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SabyneWired: Most likely you'd see Big Drugs putting a positive spin on them, doing an advertising blitz, and making it look like doing drugs made you look cooler.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 29, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 3:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Karita
September 29, 2009 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: Perfect idea. Let's do that with statutory rape laws, too. After all, a lot of those men had no idea what they were getting into, and their lives are ruined forever, being lumped together with violent rapists and all.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 29, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Karita
September 29, 2009 8:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: About as well as you can.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Aesteval
September 29, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So she has no connection to meth fabrication but is arrested anyway? For purchasing a legal product for a legally intended use? Just because a product can be used illicitly doesn't mean that it will be. Arresting everyone that exceeds Y limit without further substantiating proof is a lawsuit waiting to happen. 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? This is not how this country was intended to operate. Paying the court costs to be able to have the case \"removed\" from your record for a frivilous arrest sounds like extortion. 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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
billy
October 6, 2009 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Aesteval: >>>So she has no connection to meth fabrication but is arrested anyway?

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
September 29, 2009 5:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well that's wonderful. Nobody was prevented from obtaining meth, and a woman was arrested for buying cold medicine twice in a week. Way to go, Drug enforcement! Keep up the good work.

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.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
HRHKingFridayXX
September 29, 2009 5:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
secret_curse
September 29, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
September 29, 2009 8:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@secret_curse: I think more worrisome would be the extra chemicals might hinder the ability to obtain the proper reaction. In other words, they might not get the right final product at all with extra chemicals in the mix.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
h3llc4t, breaker of office dress codes
September 29, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowman615: I guess it could be a selling point for your products. \"That's right, our bathtub meth is made with only the finest brand-name components!\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ShruggingGalt
September 29, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowman615: Bingo. You'd use the cheapest package.....

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
frank64
September 29, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I heard the author of \"Three Felonies a Day\" on a radio show. It speaks to the problem of the how the laws are misused for many different reasons. It used to be standard that in order to be charged you had to have have knowledge and intent, now you don't- a huge break from common law.

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]

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Hooray4Zoidberg
September 29, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Burn the witch, burn her!!!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
strathmeyer
September 29, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds like I can have a lot of fun by getting someone to grab me some cold medicine on my next road trip?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
gafpromise
September 29, 2009 5:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
esc27
September 29, 2009 5:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So no one arrested the \"drug dealer\" (aka pharmacist) for his/her participation in the crime?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
billy
September 29, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@esc27: I was wondering about that, too. But the law (35-48-4-14.7) doesn't make it a crime for the retailer...at least not based on these facts.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
hoi-polloi
September 29, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This part of the linked article floored me:

\"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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
uptown
September 29, 2009 5:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'd sue the pharmacy for distribution.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Gravitational Eddy
September 29, 2009 5:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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\".

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TCama
September 29, 2009 5:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So how should the state change the law? Loosen the limits? Make an exception for grandmothers? Make the substance prescription-only?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
h3llc4t, breaker of office dress codes
September 29, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: Refuse to sell the medication if the item the customer is interested in puts that customer above the legal limit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 4:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
BeerFox
September 29, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

From the article:

\"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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
meechybee
September 29, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In NYC, they photocopy your drivers license at the time of purchase, read you a disclaimer, and have you sign a form. At this point, I can't imagine why these drugs aren't put back on the prescription-only list.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 4:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
September 29, 2009 7:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@meechybee: i've never had mine photocopied, but i've had it scanned/swiped while in NYC....entered into a registry as well

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brunette Bookworm
September 29, 2009 6:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
HRHKingFridayXX
September 29, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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).

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
hardcle
September 29, 2009 5:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is exactly why I just suffer through my colds now. I refuse to be made to feel like a criminal just because I'm sick.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 4:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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?

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
madog
September 29, 2009 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Gilf?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
nsv
September 29, 2009 5:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Two people in the same family are sick? Inconceivable!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 4:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Cameraman
September 29, 2009 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

*ahem ahem jury nullification ahem*

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Aesteval
September 29, 2009 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hey, I've got an idea. You know you can used canned whipped cream for illicit purposes right? Why don't we make it illegal to purchase more than one can of whipped cream per week. Then we can arrest anyone and everyone that has a sizable family gathering for Thanksgiving and just want some sweet, sweet cream with their pumpkin pie. I mean hey, it doesn't matter what someone actually intends to do with something so long as we make an asinine law saying that they can't purchase that much in a limited time frame right?

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
billy
October 6, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Aesteval: >>>Why don't we make it illegal to purchase more than one can of whipped cream per week.

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).

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
droberts01748
September 29, 2009 6:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This type of story infuriates me. I am incredibly angry that the government is so concerned about protecting stupid people from themselves that good useful medicines are now gone or difficult to obtain.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 4:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Red_Eye
September 29, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is just like a parking meeter. The law is there to punish the innocent and make them pay. If they cant keep a database of who bought what they can have the database tell you HELL NO you cant buy anymore this week!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
LeChiffre
September 29, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
edrebber
September 30, 2009 2:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
September 29, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Karita
September 29, 2009 7:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville_makes his own comments at home: Agreed. I'm a pretty radical left-winger, and a lawyer, and I can't see any real case. She broke the law. A better move would be to start a \"granny uprising\" demanding that the law be repealed or made more reasonable.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
mattb47
September 29, 2009 6:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The new pseudoephedrine laws are utter complete bovine excrement.

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
edrebber
September 30, 2009 2:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 4:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
u1itn0w2day
September 29, 2009 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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 .

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Mr.Duke
September 29, 2009 6:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Cold-eze is the only stuff I use when I feel a cold coming on. The rest of the junk available is too much liked bad drugs.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
The_IT_Crone
September 29, 2009 6:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh jeez. Allergy meds were just on sale at my local grocery a few weeks back and I bought like 10 boxes. It didn't occur to me to be grateful to not get put in jail. I just saved like $20 a box for something I need anyway.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
katsuyakaiba
September 29, 2009 6:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Only ONE box of cold medication per week? That's really insanely strict.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Yurei
September 29, 2009 6:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Um... whut? In my state (NH) the stores won't even sell you that second box of whatever within a certain time period. You have to walk to the pharmacy and ask them behind the counter for what you want, then they take your I.D. down and put the info into a database that is supposedly linked to other states' as well and it keeps track of how often you're buying the stuff, and if it's too soon they won't sell it to you. Absolutely ridiculous.

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

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 4:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 13, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Amandaline: Call your lawmakers and fix the problem before you die.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
September 29, 2009 6:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As long as meth-making supplies have legitimate uses ... in this case, treating allergies and colds ... then outlawing purchases (which is, essentially, is what is being done, if buying more than a meager amount is forbidden by law) is absurd. And there is no rationale — political, legalistic, moralistic, or otherwise — that can make it any less absurd.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 18, 2009 1:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Ihaveasmartpuppy
September 29, 2009 7:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They arrested her 6 months later? Yikes! Last month in one week (actually 2 days) I bought some cold meds for my son to take to college and then another pack for the household because as soon as school starts so do the colds. Both were fairly large packs. I thought I was safe. Maybe I should stop answering the door?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 4:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
cmdrsass
September 29, 2009 7:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I love how the authorities use the hackneyed phrase that \"ignorance of the law is no excuse\". There are literally thousands of laws at the federal, state, and local level that apply to any given American citizen. It is impossible even for lawyers to understand them all, or even be familiar with all of their various possible applications. No reasonable person would expect that buying cold medicine twice in a week would be illegal.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
frank64
September 29, 2009 7:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cmdrsass: They don't even make you speak English to vote. How are you supposed to keep up with all these laws in a different language?

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
CyGuy
September 29, 2009 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Two things, the law seems designed to discriminate against care providers in families. She was not buying these medicines for herself, but for others in her care because she was caring for sick loved ones. If there was ever a case for lack of mens rea this is it, where her intent was the exact opposite of causing harm.

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 18, 2009 1:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 4:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
lalaland13
September 29, 2009 7:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That picture looks like something out of a crime musical. Methmaker methmaker make me some meth....

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).

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
axiomatic
September 29, 2009 8:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah I would counter sue the pharmacy. They knew she was about to go over the limit and sold it to her anyway. I think it is the pharmacy who is negligent.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
nygenxer
September 29, 2009 8:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm an asthmatic, and this fucking angers me without end.

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?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 4:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
September 29, 2009 8:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
thermite
September 29, 2009 8:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's just bad policy to create laws that criminalize law-abiding citizens, while simultaneously not stifling bad behavior. This law its probably ineffective against meth cookers (I'm not familiar with meth-making, but what drug dealer can't get friends to each buy one box of this stuff?) and obviously has negative effects on the people of the county. Lawmakers are trying to think three steps ahead of drug manufactures, but do it in such a thumb-fingered way that they are entirely ineffective.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 4:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
reznicek111
September 29, 2009 10:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Setting up Rube Goldberg-like frameworks to track how much pseudoephedrine someone buys in drugstores or across the state or the country would be a waste of money and effort. The simplest way to deal with the issue would be revert pseudoephedrine back to prescription-only status.

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.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mmmsoap
September 29, 2009 11:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My favorite thing? Continually being treated like a criminal, despite the fact that I have never been arrested nor had any contact with law enforcement other than one speeding ticket.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
zlionsfan
September 29, 2009 11:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mmmsoap: I'm with you. That's the main reason I don't fly any more unless I absolutely have to. I'm not a criminal, I'm not carrying explosives, and I don't particularly trust the TSA to believe either statement.

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.)

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Clerkerist
September 30, 2009 12:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Anyone else thinking that hubby and daughter are making meth, and running poor mom around town to do their dirty work?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CrashMurphy
September 30, 2009 12:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The pharmacy at the local drug store does that. When I bought Mucinex MD or something a while back, I was explicitly told that this was known to be used as an ingredient in meth manufacturing. I was required to show my drivers license so they could make a copy and print/date/sign some kind of form before I could have my pills. Yes this is overkill, and to an extent invasion of privacy. But I'm not a meth maker or user, so what do I care.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MasterDave
September 30, 2009 2:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yay! We stopped the production and manufacture of Meth!

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
jwissick
September 30, 2009 3:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Have not read all the replies, but the WSJ had a good piece about how we all, on average, commit 3 felonies per DAY. [www.cato-at-liberty.org]

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
September 30, 2009 4:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Our state is like this as well, but at the walgreens down the street, they scan your license/state ID when you make the purchase and dont allow you to buy over the limit.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
September 30, 2009 5:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
September 30, 2009 5:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
jaydee1958
September 30, 2009 6:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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!

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
September 30, 2009 10:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What I find myself wondering, is there any package of medicine that would exceed 3.0 grams in a single package? If such a package is sold in Indiana, wouldn't that constitute entrapment?

Reply
1 replies
","","
\"user-pic\"
emmaforce
September 30, 2009 12:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I live in a license swipe state.

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.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
September 30, 2009 2:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That's dumb. Two boxes is nothing.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
SgtBeavis
September 30, 2009 2:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There should be a law against making stupid laws.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 18, 2009 1:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 13, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Amandaline: Although the preamble frames the rest of the Constitution and sets it up, AFAIK, an argument about constitutionality must be framed as being contrary to one or more of the amendments to the Constitution. Along with that, court interpretation weighs heavily on what the Constitution actually means.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hi
September 30, 2009 4:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hi
September 30, 2009 4:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
October 1, 2009 2:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hi: It doesn't. Her proposed punishment was court costs and staying out of trouble (which she is supposed to do anyway).

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
hi
September 30, 2009 4:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mdoublej
September 30, 2009 8:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Bring back real Xenadrine while you're at it!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
fxsoap
September 30, 2009 9:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

BOOM. arrested, justice served. laws are laws.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Japheaux
September 30, 2009 9:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Back in the old days someone would just tell you to get a shot of Ol' Grandad or Wild Turkey for an oncoming cold. Maybe it's time to go back to brown-baggin' a fever.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Xeos
September 30, 2009 9:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's another example of our overly imposing nanny-state government treating law-abiding citizens as guilty until proven innocent.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
csaw242
October 1, 2009 6:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That's what a powerful lobby will do for your industry. If you think this law is really about meth, you're wrong.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MarcosMaximus
October 1, 2009 10:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is the Nanny State taken to it's logical conclusion.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Eticus
October 1, 2009 12:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They should throw her in jail and make an example out of her.
They should also look into her husband and daughter for being possible accomplices and throw them in jail too.

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

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Wang_Chung_Tonight
October 1, 2009 2:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

that's what happens when you get too sick...

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

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Remicks
October 1, 2009 7:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I used to work in a Pharmacy. Whenever we did any kind of transaction involving drugs covered under the meth act, the customer had to sign a booklet that outlines the practical effects of the law regarding how much customers are able to purchase, time frame, etc. It is unfortunate that this woman was arrested, and also, I believe, frivolous...but the information was there, right in front of her, and very clearly posted around the pharmacy, if the pharmacy complied with the provisions of the meth act.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 13, 2009 2:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Amandaline
October 14, 2009 3:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","");