CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The battle over whether West Virginians should be required to obtain a doctor’s prescription for some cold medicines will shift to the House of Delegates after the Senate approved the bill Tuesday.

In a 25-9 vote Senators approved the bill to make pseudoephedrine products prescription-only, a move advocates claim would reduce meth labs that have been busted in 45 of the state’s 55 counties in the last year.

Sen. Judiciary Committee Chairman Corey Palumbo, D-Kanawha, said two things have changed since the Senate first debated the proposal two years ago. He said there are now tamper-resistant medicines now available for residents to battle colds and allergies and meth labs are more widespread.

“They’ve gone from 229 (meth labs) that were found in 2011 to 288 in 2012 to 533 last year,” Palumbo said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “Meth has become such a scourge in our society, such a pervasive problem that reaches all corners of the state, this is the action we need to take to eradicate these labs. It’s the best we can do.”

West Virginia Retailers Association President Bridgett Lambert, whose group has joined the drug lobby in opposing the bill, said she’s not surprised the bill passed the Senate, where leadership favored the bill. Lambert said the opposition will continue to express its concerns in the House.

“There’s over 100,000 users of pseudoephedrine in West Virginia and all of those families will be impacted by this legislation,” she said. “The 400 meth labs, that’s kind of a small number.”

West Virginia would only be the third state to require prescriptions for products like Sudafed, Claritin D and some Advil products if the bill gains approval in the House and is signed into law by the governor.

Senate President Jeff Kessler, appearing Tuesday on MetroNews “Talkline,” said state residents won’t be overly inconvenienced by the new law.

“It’s calling your doctor every year and he’ll call you in a prescription and you’ve got it. Just like they call in my high blood pressure medicine every year without me walking in and seeing the doctor every time he has to refill my prescription,” Kessler said.

The Senate amended the bill slightly Tuesday, creating an opportunity for a criminal record to be expunged after one conviction of possessing the prescription only products. Sen. Dave Sypolt (R-Preston) had expressed concern it’s possible such a conviction could keep a West Virginian from getting a gun permit.

bubble graphic

39

bubble graphic

Comments

  • Aaron

    "See, it doesn't matter how clear the facts are you refuse to accept them. Are you now disputing the GOA report which you've became so fond of citing?"

    You'll have to explain how my citing the report is disputing it, particularly when your reference, "90 percent seems very high, the estimate should be considered in the context that the rate has been declining and was relatively low before the policy was implemented" is says pretty much exactly what I'm saying.

    Meth lab incidents had ALREADY declined 89% before the law took effect. It went from 632 to 67 thus when it was further reduced, given the fact that surrounding states saw the same continued reduction, I want to know how you can attribute it to the prescription requirement. I've ask you that question a dozen times and you've ran from it each and every time.

    Why? What are you scared of?

  • Aaron

    Below and on another thread, I've had a disagreement with Jason412 regarding this bill. I want to start by saying that this will be a long response but given the amount of misinformation and diversions tactics being put forth, I believe it is called for as once and for all, I will end this conversation.

    Jason supports passage of this bill because he says “Most of my high school class are now full blown tweakers, everytime I go to the pharmacy to get something I have to wait in line behind 2 or 3 tweakers giving their "allergy" stories to the pharmacists, and I'm tired of opening up the newspaper to see another "dump site" discarded in public without any regard for regular people.” This despite the fact that according to the National Drug Policy Alliance, methamphetamine use has not increased dramatically since 1999 but has hovered at between .2 to.3% or the population which is less than 1/3 of the people who have tried cocaine.

    Additionally, I find Jason412’s pharmacy claim in which he states that EVERYTIME he goes to the pharmacy, he has to wait in line behind “2-3 tweakers” giving allergy stories to pharmacists a stretch for a number of reasons. Besides his tendency for the dramatic flair if the problem were as bad as Jason412 is trying to make it out to be, reasonable pharmacist would refuse to sell to the individuals and alert law enforcement.

    What the pages of comments by myself and Jason412 and the crux of the argument get down to is this. He supports more government control, I do not. The reason I do not is simple; as the prescription requirement does not significantly increase the reduction of meth lab incidents, I see no reason to dramatically increase the cost of the product by forcing law abiding citizens to pay for a doctor’s visit simply to purchase a legal product.

    In Oregon, meth lab incidents were reduced by 89% BEFORE the requirement became law. Additionally, after the bill became law, every state surrounding Oregon saw similar reductions in meth lab incidents. Oregon’s neighbors have saw similar reductions as to Oregon’s 98% between 2004 and 2011. Washington’s incidents have been reduced by 98%. Idaho’s by 94%, Nevada’s by 94%, California’s by 93% and Montana by 91%. None of those states enacted the same prescription requirement law Oregon did.

    Jason412 doesn’t want to discuss those states because the numbers do not support his argument as Oregon’s law provided no more reductions than were seen in surrounding states but instead, he wants to focus on Mississippi, which saw a dramatic, 65% reduction in only 1 year after enacting their law. He claims that is proof that requiring a prescription works. The problem is, the numbers do not support his claim thus I say, not so fast my friend. In the same 1 year after Mississippi enacted their prescription requirement law, Arkansas saw a 63% reduction in meth lab incidents, Louisiana’s reduction was 68%, Alabama’s was 59%, Georgia’s was 58%, Florida’s was 69% and even Tennessee, home to the largest number of incidents in the southeast, saw the number of incidents there reduced by 22%. In short, Mississippi’s law did no more to reduce the number of incidents than surrounding states, none of which required a prescription.

    What Jason412 also wants to neglect is the overall meth trends in the United States. Meth lab incidents peaked in every state between 2000 and 2002. Numerous incidents motivated law enforcement to crack down but none more so than the murder of an Oklahoma state trooper who was called to a suspicious vehicle that turned out be a mobile meth lab. Trooper Nikky Green was murdered on December 26, 2003 and that incident spurred a national focus on the problem resulting in new laws in every state.

    As a result, meth lab incidents declined dramatically in every state, until 2007, when new methods coupled with smurfing saw a 3 year trend of increased incidents. Since 2010, revamped laws have seen the trend reversed as incidents are once again on the decline. If Oregon and Mississippi were alone in reducing their incidents with the prescription law, I would support it but as the numbers prove that their law does not increase the reductions significantly, I can think of no logical reason to impose a higher cost and the burden of seeing a doctor on law abiding citizens for a FDA regulated product. What I would like to see from Jason412 and others who support it is a logical reason for requiring a prescription

    • Aaron

      I should note that all the numbers used above come from Jason412's cited source, a report by the Government Accountability Office utilizing their interative map locoated on page 15. If you put the http://www. in front of the following "gao.gov/assets/660/651709.pdf" you should have no trouble accessing the page. If you do, simple google "government accountability office drug control state approach to meth" and it should bring the report right up.

      I'm sure Jason412 will now try to divert the conversation by making claims that other cites I've reference aren't credible, he will do so only because HIS numbers do not support HIS desire for increased government control.

      I'm not surprised though as I've found that those like Jason412 who favor cradle to grave nanny control by the state generally have trouble supporting their argument and often have to resort to diversion, misinformation and fallacies.

      • Jason412

        Aaron,

        Why when quoting the White House site did you leave out the beginning of the paragraph?

        "Oregon’s prescription-only law has resulted in fewer meth lab incidents in that state"

        Did you find something that contradicts everything you've said not worthy of posting?

        and the rest of the paragraph

        "In 2008, Oregon had just 20 lab incidents, and most were dump sites
        found near the borders of adjacent states. Meth-related arrests in Oregon have significantly decreased as
        well. At the end of 2009, Oregon law enforcement officials made approximately half as many arrests for
        methamphetamine manufacturing as in late 2006.7
        In addition, there have been few consumer complaints regarding the prescription requirement. "




        You're so mad it's probably the funniest thing I've ever read on metronews.

        • Jason412

          " Besides his tendency for the dramatic flair if the problem were as bad as Jason412 is trying to make it out to be, reasonable pharmacist would refuse to sell to the individuals and alert law enforcement. "

          Let's take a look at what a Pharmacist said about that, on this very board

          WVPharmacist
          February 13, 2014 at 11:20 am
          "I worked in retail chain pharmacy for 20+ years. I have seen the lines of meth makers forming immediately after a shipment arrives. It's disgusting. "

          I know the way you think is if you didn't say it, it must not be true but those are the facts.

          • Aaron

            As to WVPharmacist, ,f he suspects foul play or smurfing, does he not have the ability and the obligation to refuse the sale and contact law enforcement?

          • Jason412

            You posted a link that contradicts everything you said. And I'm the one that has reading comprehension problems?

            Are you now saying the White House "Meth Trends in The United States" is not credible? Were they lying when they say "Oregon’s prescription-only law has resulted in fewer meth lab incidents in that state" but telling the truth when they said around 400 labs in 2004?


            Your feet must be getting sore from all the backpedaling you've been doing.

            As far as the GOA report, obviously you were so busy trying to find credibility for your other posts you didn't bother to read it

            Here is your answer to the surrounding states, and I'll provide your report a small bit of credibility, by being mentioned, as you certainly didn't do it any justice.

            "Prescription-only had significant impacts on lab seizure rates compared with a selected group of controls. Contrary to the findings in Cunningham et al. (2012)13 and Strauberg and Sharma (2012)14
            Our analysis differs from the two recent studies cited above in the
            methodology, including the analytical approach and model specification, and the date on which the incident data were pulled, our analysis found
            that lab seizure rate fell by more than 90 percent in Oregon after the
            prescription-only requirement was implemented after adjusting for other factors. While 90 percent seems very high, the estimate should be considered in the context that the rate has been declining and was
            relatively low before the policy was implemented. The impact of the
            prescription-only requirement was validated when the case study state was compared with an empirically generated synthetic control. The synthetic control method confirmed the direction of the impact in Oregon. Our placebo analysis that assigned Oregon’s neighbor states as the control state showed that the reductions seen in Oregon were not projected in those states, giving some indication that the Oregon reduction was not found by chance."

            Once again, you're citing a report that contradicts everything you've said. Maybe try reading the report in its entirety before trying to make a point using it.


            In the mean time, keep whining and crying like a baby saying I haven't answered your questions while bad mouthing my character to try and convince yourself you are intelligent, I'll be sure to read it every time I need a good laugh.

          • Aaron

            "Our analysis differs from the two recent studies cited above in the
            methodology, including the analytical approach and model specification, and the date on which the incident data were pulled, our analysis found
            that lab seizure rate fell by more than 90 percent in Oregon after the
            prescription-only requirement was implemented after adjusting for other factors. While 90 percent seems very high, the estimate should be considered in the context that the rate has been declining and was
            relatively low before the policy was implemented. "

            How do you account for the fact that Idaho, Washington, Nevada, Montana and California saw results that mirrored Oregon's despite the fact that none of them enacted prescription requirements?

          • Jason412

            See, it doesn't matter how clear the facts are you refuse to accept them. Are you now disputing the GOA report which you've became so fond of citing?

            That's how you work, if it doesn't fit with what you're saying then it's wrong.

            The backpedaling you did when I posted the quote from the White House report literally made me laugh out loud.

            I decided to keep responding yesterday and today so I could watch you dig yourself deeper, while getting absurdly frustrated considering where the discussion is taking place and what it's about, and that has been a success.

            Thanks for playing. See ya next time.

          • Aaron

            I'll take that to me that since you've been proven wrong, you're going to take you ball and go home.

            As the numbers don't lie, I'm not surprised.

        • Aaron

          You have latched onto the guise that since the Cascade Report used different numbers than the GAO Report, it wasn't credible. The purpose was to prove that there are conflicting numbers out there.

          Was that really so difficult to understand?

          And now, why don't you address the numbers above that contradict everything you state?

          • Aaron

            I understand you have some reading comprehension problems Jason412 and these threads can sometimes be confusing so I want to clarify, theis statement was inresponse to your question as to why I cited the White House website.

            To reiterate, it was not meant to add to the discussion involving the number of meth lab incidents. As I stated above, I relied on YOUR cited source, the GAO report, for that information.

            The reason I cited the White House web site was to demonstrate to you that there are different numbers out there and that utilizing one that you disagree on does not mean a site is not credible.

            As I told you yesterday, if you have a problem with the Cascade Institute and/or their numbers, you should contact Dr. Stomberg or the institute directly.

            Other than that though, as I am using numbers from the GAO report, other than a failed attempt to muddy the conversation, is there a reason to keep coming back to that report?

    • Aaron

      Jason412, do you care to comment on the facts utilizing your report above regarding the reduction in meth lab incidents or are you going to continue to try and divert the conversation?

      You claimed you are focusing on Mississippi but your cited source contradicts your statement regarding Mississippi. As was the case in Oregon in 2006, why was a law needed in Mississippi in 2010 when the reduction in surrounding states with no prescription requirement were similar to Mississippi's?

  • Aaron

    "Until then, keep talking about Oregon. I'll keep talking about Mississippi. From 937 labs in 2010, ban started on July 1st, to 5 labs in 2012. "

    Why did you neglect the 2004 to 2007 numbers in which Mississippi labs were reduced from 569 to 182, a 68% reduction.

    It's also worthy to note that you failed to neglected to mention surrounding state statistics for the same time frame. Alabama saw a 75% reduction, LA saw a 74% reduction, GA saw a 82% reduction and Arkansas saw a 87% reduction.

    It seems they all went to TN, who despite a 21% reduction, still had almost 1600 seizures. It's also worthy to note that there are counties and cities in TN that require a prescription to obtain the drug.

    It's also worthy to note that the number you cited for Mississippi, 5, comes from the same cite that cite's WV number at 5.

    So now your credibility depends on you answering 2 questions.

    First, why is the cite ok for Mississippi's numbers but you question WV's numbers.

    Second, given the reductions in BOTH Oregon and Mississippi coupled with the reduction in surrounding states during the same time periods you mention, why did either state require a prescription requirement to combat meth?

  • Aaron

    “They’ve gone from 229 (meth labs) that were found in 2011 to 288 in 2012 to 533 last year,” Palumbo said on the Senate floor Tuesday. "

    So who's correct?


    http :// www . policymic.com/articles/ 65703/how-much-meth-does-your-state-cook-these-maps-show-the-drug-s-foothold-in-america

  • Shawn H

    I don't know what drs Mr Kessler goes to, but I have never had a dr just simply call me in a Rx without me having to go see them. It's a good thing WV allows concealed carry. You will need to carry to go buy Sudafed. The meth heads will be waiting outside the pharmacies.

  • Jason

    Who visits a doctor when he or she has a cold? This bill will make this medicine de facto illegal.

    • Shawn H

      They already make you feel like a criminal when you go buy it.

  • Aaron

    Smurfing as it relates to this subject is the practice of individuals going pharmacy to pharmacy purchasing small amounts of pseudo ephedrine until they have enough product to manufacture Meth.

    The majority of people who engage in this practice are low income addicts generally living below the poverty line.

    With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, these individuals now have the ability to go to the doctor and the pharmacy for their needs, paid for with their newly issued medical card.

    As evidenced by the numerous pill mills rampant throughout this country indicate, there are healthcare professionals who will circumvent the law for their personal gain.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if this bill passes and becomes law, the taxpayer will now be purchasing the Smurfs product this this bill can actually lead to an increase in meth production our state.

    The federal government is unclear as to whether prescription requirements actually work because of the drastic reduction in Meth lab seizures due to guidelines implemented by law enforcement long before states with such laws were implemented the requirements.

    That has been proven by a supporter of this bill's numbers on another thread. One area of that report stated that the cost to healthcare was unclear as no data was available.

    Now that Joe taxpayer is footing the bill for doctor visits so smurfs can purchase pseudo ephedrine, the government should have no problem tracking just how much this bill will increase the cost for law-abiding citizens.

  • The bookman

    http://io9.com/5989152/a-map-of-state+by+state-meth-incidents-in-2012--what-can-we-take-away

    Jason,

    Started a new thread. That one was too long. Look at this site. The data is from a national register of seizures. The data is from 2012. I think there are lots of variables that can explain the results of clandestine lab seizures. Too simplistic to say it is just due to rx PSE laws. Even those who advocate the rx approach see it as only a temporary fix.

    I know you have made up your mind about this issue, as I can read how frustrated you are with other positions. The point is that there are real reasons why I and others oppose it. For me it is the intrusion of government to do something, anything that makes them feel useful, even though it really will make no ultimate difference in outcome.

    This is a problem not only with this issue, but nearly every other issue they deal with.

    • Jason412

      Bookman,

      I just posted that map in the other thread(but on the justice.gov website) in response to Aaron's report, which said they used numbers from EPIC. I did not see you had already posted it.

      I'm not sure how they are measuring labs, as I think we can all agree WV had far more then 59 labs in 2012. But it says Mississippi only has 5, while maps from EPIC from previous years show Mississippi as being one of the top states, prior to 2010.

      I have made up my mind about the issue, I will not say I haven't. Particularly as it has effected my generation far more then most others

      I'm not frustrated about the issue, as I just said 2 or 3 days ago I didn't have enough interest in it to continue the debate, just felt I'd express my view yesterday. After all, now that it's passed the Senate I'm almost sure it will pass the House any frustration would be unwarranted. If it passes we will see what happens, if labs continue to rise at anywhere close to the rate they did last year I will admit I was wrong. I expect you to do the same if they plummet.

      There are real reasons why I support it as well. Most of my high school class are now full blown tweakers, everytime I go to the pharmacy to get something I have to wait in line behind 2 or 3 tweakers giving their "allergy" stories to the pharmacists, and I'm tired of opening up the newspaper to see another "dump site" discarded in public without any regard for regular people.

      That's really the last I'm going to say about it, as I'd rather talk about something else today. I appreciate the information, though.

      • The bookman

        I as well appreciate the info. In the end you may be right. For me, it is a freedom of will issue, not whether it will ultimately prove to be right or wrong. In the absence of compelling proof that such intrusion in to the lives of American citizens will result in the eradication of meth abuse, I will always choose freedom of choice. That is why I feel requiring prescription for PSE meds is not warranted. Hope I'm wrong! But even the most vocal advocates do not claim that ultimate result.

      • Aaron

        "I think we can all agree WV had far more then 59 labs in 2012."

        Why can’t we all agree WV had labs in 2012? If you look at the Government Accountability Office Report that you cited, drastic reductions in the number of labs were occurring nationwide long before Oregon passed its law, to the point that they were flattening by 2006 when Oregon's law took effect.

        You’re the one touting the numbers thus if you’re going to utilize them in claiming the Oregon and Mississippi laws are working, you must accept them regarding WV as well, don't you agree!!!

        • Jason412

          Aaron,

          Why do you feel the need to jump in every conversation I'm having?

          But you got me, I'll respond due to your repeated attempts to discredit me. Despite the fact I've proven the report you base your whole stance on to be misleading and wrong in about every aspect.

          The GAO doesn't even have a number for WV in 2012. The 59 number is from the EPIC map, who your report claims to of got their numbers from. You know, the same "unbiased, both sides of the story" report you keep referencing that says Mississippi's law went into effect in 2009 not 2010 as it actually did. The same report that is severely off on every number they reported, numbers that don't even match their source. The same report authored by a lobbyist. You know, your coveted Cascade Report.

          It's funny how the GAO and the Cascade Report both site the NSS as a source, yet the Cascade Report's numbers were vastly different then the GAO numbers and the NSS EPIC numbers they supposedly came from.

          I responded to Bookman because he is intelligent and I feel I could gain something from discussing it with him. You, however, have no credible information or respectable insight to offer. Yesterday you swore up and down your Cascade Report is respectable credible information, but they can't even get something as basic as the date a law went into effect right. I would of expected you to realize that before posting it, but I guess I expect to much.

          Anyone who wants to see the reports here are the links

          http:// www. justice .gov/dea/resource-center/meth-lab-maps .shtml -- EPIC Meth Lab Incident maps (take spaces out of link)

          http://www. gao .gov/assets/660/651709 .pdf --Government Office of Accountability Report to Congressional Requester's (take spaces out of link)

          http:// cascadepolicy .org /pdf/pub/Oregon_Meth_Law .pdf -- The Cascade Policy Cold Medicine RX Only Did Not Reduce Meth Use (Warning: May contain falsified numbers, incorrect dates, and a biased view)

          Apologies if this is posted twice.

          Could any Metronews employee give me an official rule on posting links? Is it against forum rules completely? Accepted sometimes? I only ask because there is a link in this same thread with no spaces, that didn't get moderated. If it's against the rules I'll stop doing it, but I sent an email a while back and never got an answer on it.

          • Aaron

            “Why do you feel the need to jump in every conversation I'm having?”

            I'm sorry, did I miss the posting rules? Am I not supposed to comment even though you are putting out information that in the best possible light is misleading? You’ll have to forgive me, I wasn’t aware that Jason412 was allowed to post with impunity. Once I receive the memo, I will stop correcting your mistakes and misinformation. Okie dokie

            “I'll respond due to your repeated attempts to discredit me.”

            You don’t need my help.

            “The 59 number is from the EPIC map, who your report claims to of got their numbers from. “

            Do you dispute the number from the El Paso Intelligence Center, initial a Center initially focused on identification of drug traffickers and alien traffickers along the U.S.-Mexico border whose mission was expanded in 1998-99 to include expansion of their mission nationally, ran jointly by the DEA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) If you do, If so, you can to do the Department of Justice web site (I’d provide a link but you know what that does to post) and use the “contact us” information to begin your dispute.

            “both site the NSS as a source, yet the Cascade Report's numbers were vastly different then the GAO numbers”

            What’s the NSS? I saw no reference to anything with those initials in the Cascade Report including their 2 pages of endnotes that listed all sources for their report and I didn’t read all 70 pages of the GAO report.

            So we’ve established that you don’t believe the Cascade Report, that’s fine. I won’t go into reasons why it is credible, I’ll use numbers from the report you cited.

            In 2004, there was 632 meth incidents in Oregon. In 2005, that number was reduced to 232, a drop o 400 incidents or 63% reduction in year one without the aid of a prescription requirement law. By 2006, that number had dropped to, by your numbers, 67, or a drop of 565 incidents in 2 years.
            According to your GAO report, those reductions were not confined to Oregon but were consistent nationwide and continued past 2006, particularly in the states surrounding Oregon. Given those facts substantiated by the report you cited and the numbers you posted on another thread, how can you attribute the reduction of Oregon meth to the prescription requirement?

            For all your grandstanding and hubris, that is one point you have failed to address an any of your expanded post. If you want me to stop calling out you out on your fallacies, then address simple points.

            Ok!!!!!

          • The bookman

            NSS or National Seizure System is the actual source of the data provided on the map from EPIC. Information on them can be found on the DOJ site or DEA site. They catalog all drug seizure and clandestine lab information nationally.

          • Jason412

            Aaron,

            Your lack of knowing what the NSS is proves how much "research" you've done. You read one report, that was completely inaccurate and didn't even bother to look at the sources. And you're going to be a teacher? God help those children.

            I'll answer your question when you provide me the information proving the credibility of the Cascade Report. If you can't do that, I'm done with it. Please start with why your report says Mississippi's ban began in 2009 and continue with why their numbers are so drastically different then the NSS numbers. Woops forgot you have no clue what that is, that's the National Seizure System from which your report claims to of got it's information.

            So now you're using the GOA numbers? I see you've referenced them not only in this discussion, but in the first post you made in the thread. Wait, let's take a look back at what you had to say about those very same numbers yesterday

            "Aaron
            February 18, 2014 at 11:43 am
            Your numbers are wrong."

            Keep backpedaling, bud.

            You're not worth the time debating it with because you just keep flip flopping. The report you based your whole argument off of was completely wrong in just about every aspect, why would I waste the time making the same points with the report I showed you?

            Yes, please keep correcting my mistakes and misinformation I feel so stupid for posting that Cascade Report and using it's numbers all day yesterday I wish I would of posted the GOA report that you posted. Wait, I'm confused again, you're the one that posted the Cascade Report and used it's numbers all day yesterday, my mistake.

            You wont go into why the Cascade Report is credible because it's not.

            Keep trying Aaron, I'm sure you'll make yourself feel better if you keep babbling. I know it's definitely making me feel better watching you grasp for straws

          • Aaron

            I'm not worthy of debate yet you waste no time in answering my comments.

            Interesting.

            I do wonder though Jason, in all your babbling above, you failed to answer my one simple question.

            Given that prior laws reduced meth lab seizures as drastically as they did, from 632 to well below 100 by the time the prescription requirement became law, why again was the law required?

          • Jason412

            Yup, grasping for straws.

            I know you think you're making yourself look intelligent, so please keep going. It's hilarious watching you backpedal.

            Cascade Report. Credibility. Where is it? Provide the credibility for something you were so sure was absolutely right yesterday, and I'll answer your question from today.

            Until then, keep talking about Oregon. I'll keep talking about Mississippi. From 937 labs in 2010, ban started on July 1st, to 5 labs in 2012.


            Anything else?

          • Aaron

            Given the reduction in the amount of meth lab incidents why was the law needed?

          • Jason412

            As you want to act like Mississippi doesn't exist, I will do the same to Oregon.

            "Given the reduction in the amount of meth lab incidents why was the law needed?"


            Well, since the national total of lab seizures went from 6,951 in 2007 to 15,314 in 2010 and Mississippi's seizures went from 182 labs to 937 in the same 2007-2010 time period I'm not sure I would call that a reduction.

            But I could see how someone who thought the Cascade Report was credible enough to post and base an entire argument off of, but not defend, would see a national increase of 8,363 labs and a state increase of 755 as a "decrease"

            "So we’ve established that you don’t believe the Cascade Report, that’s fine. I won’t go into reasons why it is credible, I’ll use numbers from the report you cited. "

            Now, let's hear the reasons why it's credible.


            !!!!

          • Aaron

            Mississippi saw the same decline from 2004 to 2007 that other states saw. The increase from 2007 to 2010 occurred nationally and is attributed to "smurfing" and "shake and bake" labs, both designed to get around laws meant to restrict pseudo ephedrine sales.

            As I pointed out earlier, "smurfers" are mainly addicts living under the poverty level meaning they are now eligible for Medicaid.

            That means another question for you Jason.

            1-With the aid of Medicaid, what is to prevent smurfers from shopping for product at taxpayer cost?

            2-You reference Mississippi's 2012 lab number of 5 and tout that number but that same site placed WV's number at 59, a number you dispute. Why the flip flop?

            3-Given the decline of meth production both regionally and nationally from 2004 to 2006 and again from 2010 to 2013 with surround states of both MS and OR sharing similar declines, why is it again that prescription requirements are necessary?

            Focus son, it's your credibility on the line.

          • Jason412

            Aaron,

            How credible I am to you means about as little to me as anything possibly could.

            Let's remember, I'm not the one who posted the Cascade Report.

            We both know if you had even a small piece of information that would back up that report, you would of posted it by now.

            But you don't.

            Let me remind you what report I'm talking about.

            You have been going off the false information from the Cascade Report for at least a year, by your own admission.

            The same Cascade Report authored by a lobbyist. The same Cascade Report with falsified seizure numbers. The same Cascade Report with incorrect dates. The same Cascade Report you didn't bother to check the sources on before posting it while referring to it as an "unbiased, both sides of the story report".

            Why would I feel the need to prove myself to someone who would buy into that report? Oh, I don't. How about I type up some false information, slap it in a pretty pdf with a PHD after my name and then you can run around using the numbers from it. As we both know, you wouldn't take the 2 minutes to double check the information before basing an entire argument off of it.

          • Aaron

            I think it's pretty clear why you duck the questions and instead want to divert the question.

          • Jason412

            I answered your question. Let's hear about that Cascade Report. You're trying to start an entire new debate without providing credibility for the first debate.

            If I knowingly spread misinformation, as you did by posting those numbers in the other article, I would at least try to back up my information.

            You just keep popping off questions to try and take away from the fact you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

            Like I said, provide me the information proving the Cascade Report credible and I'll take the time to answer your question. Until then, every time I see your name under one of my posts I will be bringing up that report.

          • Aaron

            "In 2004, according to
            the El Paso Intelligence Center National (EPIC) Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System, Oregon had
            approximately 400 lab incidents"

            whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/Fact_Sheets/pseudoephedrine_fact_sheet_7-16-10_0.pdf

            I've removed the www.//http, if you add that at the front of the link above, it should work. That's the White House's web site posting of a fact sheet entitled "Methamphetamine Trends in the United States" put out by the Office of the National Drug Control Policy. Note that in their fact sheet, they list the number of meth lab incidents in Oregon in 2004 as "approximately 400" citing the same data the Cascade Policy Institute did.

            Coupled with my comment at the top of the thread, consider yourself proven wrong.

  • John

    what happens if on vacation you buy this drug legally in another state and when you come back into WV you are charged with drug possession. that is Wrong. Furthermore what if someone from another state drives through this state and is caught with a package of clariton, they are charged with a crime? They cannot get a prescription for it if it is legal to buy in there state over the counter. What are you legislators thinking

  • Grant

    Don't like it? Contact your Delegate

    http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Districts/maps.cfm

  • The bookman

    Let's hope the House can break down the issues a little better than the Senate. Palumbo clearly has no faith that this bill will make a difference, and Kessler needs to realize that not every citizen in WV is the Senate President, and can call his doctor and just have a scrip called into RiteAid.

    It baffles me how easily our elected representatives cave to feel good legislation in an effort to pass something, anything, anything at all.