Buy:grundle
08-14-05, 06:38 AM
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007105
Oregon's Wrong Prescription
The war on drugs shouldn't turn into a war on cold medicine.
Sunday, August 14, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
With Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski poised to sign into law a bill that will require prescriptions for many common cold and allergy medicines, it's a good time to take measure of the nationwide battle against methamphetamine abuse.
The Oregon legislation is aimed at limiting access to pseudoephedrine, a decongestant found in many over-the-counter cold and allergy treatments that's also the key ingredient in the illegal manufacture of methamphetamines, or "meth." Fed up with addicts and dealers buying or stealing products like Sudafed and Theraflu to extract the chemical, the state legislature decided to put its foot down.
Oregon's exasperation is understandable. It's hard to pick up a local paper these days without reading about meth-related homicides, burglaries, assaults and other crimes. A stronger and cheaper stimulant than cocaine, meth is also fueling a social services crisis, as strung out parents neglect or abandon their children. The number of foster children in Oregon rose 11.5% between 2003 and 2004, and officials say half of their caseload is linked to the meth problem.
Oregon is far from the only state hit hard by what historically has been a rural and West Coast phenomenon. According to government data, more than 12 million Americans have tried meth, and 1.5 million are regular users. Newsweek reports in a recent cover story that "cops nationwide rank methamphetamine the No. 1 drug they battle today."
Governor Kulongoski, a Democrat, is expected to sign the measure, which would give Oregon by far the strictest law in the country aimed at curbing meth use. At the same time, however, requiring a doctor's prescription for popular decongestants will be a significant inconvenience--and expense--for law-abiding Oregonians. The key question: Is it worth it?
The Oregon measure, says Steve Pasierb of Partnership for a Drug-Free America, "is getting into the area of how much of a return do you get, and what are you doing to the public. You're taking a mom with a sick kid at home and you're forcing her to go to the doctor--spend money to go to the doctor with her copay."
Moreover, it's not clear that less onerous approaches aren't just as effective. In April of last year, Oklahoma became the first of more than a dozen states to require that medicines containing pseudoephedrine be kept behind pharmacy counters. The result has been a 90% drop in seizures of meth-production labs. Congress is considering legislation that would apply the Oklahoma law nationwide. State narcotics officials report similar results in Iowa, which earlier this year passed a law that allows only licensed pharmacists to sell pseudoephedrine products and limits customers to one package per day.
Oregon relocated its cold medicines behind the counter last October, and Governor Kulongoski credits the move with drastically reducing the number of meth labs in the state. Ten months later, he's ready to further burden Oregonians without any evidence that prescription requirements will help close more meth labs.
In any case, the focus on lab seizures may have gone about as far as it can go. Local labs are disappearing but usage isn't. That's because more than half of all meth used in the U.S. is produced in Mexico and smuggled across the border. One advantage of shutting down small neighborhood operations is that it frees up law enforcement resources to pursue the gangs and mobsters responsible for most of the trafficking.
We don't deny that Oregon's prescription approach to the supply problem could have some short-term benefit. But it will also exacerbate the drug problems of neighboring Washington State and California, not to mention open the U.S. market to more imported meth. Oregon might also find itself butting heads with the federal Food and Drug Administration, which regulates over-the-counter drugs. Before he signs this bill, Governor Kulongoski might want to weigh the cost and inconvenience to Oregonians against the slim chance that it will fix the state's meth problem.
Oregon's Wrong Prescription
The war on drugs shouldn't turn into a war on cold medicine.
Sunday, August 14, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
With Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski poised to sign into law a bill that will require prescriptions for many common cold and allergy medicines, it's a good time to take measure of the nationwide battle against methamphetamine abuse.
The Oregon legislation is aimed at limiting access to pseudoephedrine, a decongestant found in many over-the-counter cold and allergy treatments that's also the key ingredient in the illegal manufacture of methamphetamines, or "meth." Fed up with addicts and dealers buying or stealing products like Sudafed and Theraflu to extract the chemical, the state legislature decided to put its foot down.
Oregon's exasperation is understandable. It's hard to pick up a local paper these days without reading about meth-related homicides, burglaries, assaults and other crimes. A stronger and cheaper stimulant than cocaine, meth is also fueling a social services crisis, as strung out parents neglect or abandon their children. The number of foster children in Oregon rose 11.5% between 2003 and 2004, and officials say half of their caseload is linked to the meth problem.
Oregon is far from the only state hit hard by what historically has been a rural and West Coast phenomenon. According to government data, more than 12 million Americans have tried meth, and 1.5 million are regular users. Newsweek reports in a recent cover story that "cops nationwide rank methamphetamine the No. 1 drug they battle today."
Governor Kulongoski, a Democrat, is expected to sign the measure, which would give Oregon by far the strictest law in the country aimed at curbing meth use. At the same time, however, requiring a doctor's prescription for popular decongestants will be a significant inconvenience--and expense--for law-abiding Oregonians. The key question: Is it worth it?
The Oregon measure, says Steve Pasierb of Partnership for a Drug-Free America, "is getting into the area of how much of a return do you get, and what are you doing to the public. You're taking a mom with a sick kid at home and you're forcing her to go to the doctor--spend money to go to the doctor with her copay."
Moreover, it's not clear that less onerous approaches aren't just as effective. In April of last year, Oklahoma became the first of more than a dozen states to require that medicines containing pseudoephedrine be kept behind pharmacy counters. The result has been a 90% drop in seizures of meth-production labs. Congress is considering legislation that would apply the Oklahoma law nationwide. State narcotics officials report similar results in Iowa, which earlier this year passed a law that allows only licensed pharmacists to sell pseudoephedrine products and limits customers to one package per day.
Oregon relocated its cold medicines behind the counter last October, and Governor Kulongoski credits the move with drastically reducing the number of meth labs in the state. Ten months later, he's ready to further burden Oregonians without any evidence that prescription requirements will help close more meth labs.
In any case, the focus on lab seizures may have gone about as far as it can go. Local labs are disappearing but usage isn't. That's because more than half of all meth used in the U.S. is produced in Mexico and smuggled across the border. One advantage of shutting down small neighborhood operations is that it frees up law enforcement resources to pursue the gangs and mobsters responsible for most of the trafficking.
We don't deny that Oregon's prescription approach to the supply problem could have some short-term benefit. But it will also exacerbate the drug problems of neighboring Washington State and California, not to mention open the U.S. market to more imported meth. Oregon might also find itself butting heads with the federal Food and Drug Administration, which regulates over-the-counter drugs. Before he signs this bill, Governor Kulongoski might want to weigh the cost and inconvenience to Oregonians against the slim chance that it will fix the state's meth problem.