CHARLESTON, W.Va. — One of the most talked about bills of this regular session of the legislature heads into the last four days with major changes following action late Tuesday night by the House Judiciary Committee.

The panel significantly changed the pseudoephedrine bill leaving out the Senate-passed requirement of requiring a doctor’s prescription for certain cold medicines and instead reducing the amount of those medicines that can be purchased a year from 48 grams to 24 grams.

The committee also changed the bill to require only those convicted of drug crimes to get prescriptions if they want medicines that contain pseudoephedrine.

One of the state’s most significant drug problems has been with meth labs where cold medicines are purchased and chemically changed to produce meth. There were 533 of the labs busted in the state last year.

The drug industry has lobbied hard against the Senate bill that would have required anyone wanting to purchase cold medicines like Sudafed or Claritin D to visit a doctor and get him or her to sign off on it.

The changed bill moves to the House floor for consideration. The 60-day regular session ends Saturday at midnight.


bubble graphic


bubble graphic


  • Aaron

    From your post below Jason412

    " pick out one point of my post to try and make your point on. "

    I'm not trying to pick out one post. I generally respond to the statement that sticks out the most to me. As is evidenced by your last post, you MO when someone disagrees with you is to post in the manner you do and talk in circles.

    I'm no stranger to the lengthy post but I try not to talk in circles.

    Here's what I've gathered from you so far.

    You claim doctors can identify and stop meth heads when no one else can.

    When it was rather sarcastically pointed that in regards to pills, that approach didn't work, you followed up with 2 post of blah blah blah.

    You've read my post. If you have specific questions then ask them and I'll answer but if you're going to try and overwhelm me with BS, you win.

  • Jason

    THIS WILL DO LITTLE OR NOTHING. We (as a society) are focused on the wrong things. We try to legislate human behavior with laws, which really doesn't work very well (only law abiding citizens care about the laws day in and day out). Why don't we focus on the root causes here and work towards solving them. I dont have the answers, but if I were a politician, I would ask these questions and work towards policies of answering them. For example, WHY is there so many people doing meth? Why dont we try to start educating people with real facts (not nancy reagon DARE scare tactics on all drugs), but let's create community resources to educate our population through schools and AD campaigns to try to educate people on drugs and the facts. Also, instead of locking people up, how about we use that money towards addiction treatment facilities where people can go to get help if they are going down the rabbit hole of addiction. Humans are humans and we are all susceptible to mistakes and bad choices, but let's work towards providing resources to people to give them an avenue to get their life back together and become a productive member of society. Let's educate our family members of the different signs of addiction and work towards losing the stereotypes associated with drug abuse, so people may be more apt to seek out help. Will this work for all, probably not, but I think it would move our society in a better direction of where we want to be. Not only with drugs, but you can take the same approach to mental illness and gun crime...if everybody knew the signs of somebody that was about to go off the deep in and go on a shooting rampage and they were able to convince their son/daughter/friend, etc. to get help somewhere without the "crazy" tag being associated with it, I think we would have less mass shootings, etc....also..gun isnt the registered gun owners that are the is the individuals that have little regard to life that are pulling the trigger on each other (mainly in the urban areas)...let's focus on teaching everybody (what most already know) that pulling the trigger on another human being is bad, dont do it...making laws to control guns (an inanimate object) that are being used for crimes does little to change the actual human behavior, what we need to look at is WHY people are doing these things and work towards solutions that will actually have a chance at effecting the decisions of people. My 2 cents.

    • Gordon

      I know people will go nuts here but here is another 2 cents worth...
      How can the lawmakers (government) pass a law and expect the lawless to adhere to it???

      God is out of the schools, government, families and individuals. Yeah, we still had these issues before, but on a much smaller scale. They didn't destroy entire communities, only a few families here and there.
      Another thing is one that Welfare has destroyed.
      Personal Accountability. When government tries to be your daddy, mommy and rich uncle, where does personal accountability come into play? Don't get me wrong. I think there is a time and place for everything. Food Stamps, Unemployment, etc..
      But, over 100 weeks of unemployment? decades of the same families staying on food stamps, people not getting married because they will "lose their benefits" (welfare). If you are someone that doesn't care to better yourself or your family then where is the desire or need to work? Now, you even get free cellphones, assistance on housing, on and on.. These people are bored and have nothing to do. No responsibilities to speak of.
      There is no "fix" for this. The ability to rehab these people is not working. The communities have tried everything as has the government. $$$ has been thrown at the issue.
      I heard just this past Sunday from a good friend of mine his son cant get away from drugs because it makes him feel too bad. Well, it is time for tough love.

      Lawmakers cant spend enough or pass laws of any substance to stop the abuse. It really does only affect the law abiding people. once again....
      How in the world can you pass a law that the lawlessness will follow???? It doesn't even make sense does it!

  • Dewey Norman

    I have to take Claritin D every day . I have to get a prescription now to get the pills. I dont get it, put the crack heads in jail and leave them there. You might as well lower it to 12 grams for a year.
    You know the Federal law is 106 or 108 grams per year.
    Penalize sick people and the state can't afford to keep the crack heads in jail.

    • jlayer

      should we as a complete community stop co-signing negative patterns and force across the board consequences on the individuals crossing the line, as a group then we have a small chance of success against the issue. instead when it turns to someone close to us,generally we want lessor consequences. set the penalty harsh and serve it to all classes not just the poor or middle class.

    • Jason412


      Dewey's post above illustrates my point, same end result as script-only for average Joe, no change for smurfs. I'm not saying going to the doctor is any more of an imposition then I was before, just that if the law abiding citizen had to go to the doctor the smurfs should also have to.

      I'm also now hearing on Talkline the Mississippi governor supported it in WV. That goes against all the posts I've seen about "even proponents of the ban in MS and OR now say it didn't work" which has been repeated over and over.

      • The bookman

        I was not a proponent of the bill! Dewey's situation is the DIRECT result of government interfering in the daily lives of ordinary law abiding citizens in their effort to protect every living soul from self inflicted harm. Continue on this path and they will take every thing away all in the name of "it's in your best interest!"

        As for MS and OR, I didn't have that debate with you.

  • yep

    They've gutted this bill to make it essentially worthless. The legislative committee that watered down this bill should be ashamed of themselves to have laid down for the pharmaceutical industry like they have. Is it not ok to be critical of this gutted piece of proposed legislation? If it's not, I guess you'll delete this comment like you did my last one.

  • WV Pharmacist

    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.

    Retail pharmacies make MORE money with over the counter sales. In fact, 50% of the cost is straight profit. For a $24 dollar box, the store makes $12. If it is a prescription, they will only make $1-2 MAX. That is why companies like Rite Aid have (on the record) strongly opposed any and every previous attempt to make this drug have prescription status. It cuts deeply into their profits.

    Personally, I believe doctors offices will more than likely assess the need and abuse potential in a case by case basis, but I suspect that they will not have a problem calling in scripts for patients whom they know and treat.

    This bill makes it difficult for the people who travel from Kentucky and Ohio to purchase in WV, unless they have a script. "Tracking" programs are useless. Meth makers pay others to purchase products for them. It has been documented as a significant problem in California, as well as other states, for years.

    Everyone who is bashing this bill needs to remember, meth is NOT like marijuana or cocaine... It is not grown. It is made and made very quickly. It takes one (1) hour to turn pseudoephedrine into methamphetamine. It doesn't take a lab. It doesn't take any source of heat. People make it in backpacks, portion it out, and sell it. From purchase to having sold it all can happen in as little as two hours.

    Simply put, meth kills. A law requiring a prescription means no more having to have your drivers license and all the info it contains (and yes, currently every piece of info is recorded and put into a database) and regularly given to the police. Instead, it would go into the Board of Pharmacy's database, compiled, and just as with ALL other controlled substances in this state, only if certain criteria are met would your information be flagged. (i.e. Going to three doctors on the same day to get the same medication AND getting all three scripts filled at different pharmacies that day.) Sound incredibly unlikely that anyone would do that? It's not. Happens every week. Oxy problems have DECREASED over the past year and a half due to the use of the Board of Pharmacy's system. "Pill mills" are being shut down. If you know of one running inside the state, tell the Pharmacy Board, and the State Police will shut it down usually within a month.

    Did a "few people" mess up and "get everyone punished"? NO.

    Did lot of corporations turned a blind eye in leu of profits? Did the public get misinformed by the corporations dumping money into lobbyists pockets? Was the media mislead as to just how wide spread a problem meth really is?

    One last point... Retail pharmacists have routinely been disciplined or even fired if they speak out in favor of prescription only status. This is a huge problem because with three pharmacy schools pumping out pharmacists, jobs are few and far between. In 2006, a pharmacist could stand their ground. Now, pharmacists are seen as disposable by corporations. They can't act as their conscious demands, or they are unemployed. Additionally, pharmacists are NOT law enforcement. They come into retail stores three and four at a time. Almost all meth makers are in a hurry. They are not the type of person to make an appointment with a doctor, keep said appointment, and most importantly if they did, they would not show signs of needing PSE products.

    Contact the DEA and the US District Attorney's office. Last year, Kanawaha County, WV was the number one source of methamphetamine precursors on the EASTERN SEABOARD! So, to anyone who thinks Meth Check works? WAKE UP! It failed. End of story.

    Is RX Only going to work 100% of the time? Nothing is 100%, but it WILL be far better than what we currently are doing.

    • Robert

      Meth kills? Then let it, cull the herd. Eventually people will get the point and use will ebb.

    • Aaron

      "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. "

      So why not deny them and report your suspicions to LEO?

  • Aaron

    The really bad thing about his bill is that in the scheme of meth availability, it does little regardless of whether a state has a prescription requirement or not. Both Oregon and Mississippi have prescription and meth is readily available in both states. Despite banning pseudo ephedrine, about 70% of all meth sold is manufactured in Mexico.

    Additionally, a prescription requirement would likely do very little to reduce the amount of home cooked meth labs. In order to circumvent effective laws reducing the sale of pseudo ephedrine implemented by most states, “cookers” have resorted to “smurfing, a system where they pay individuals go out into the community and purchase small amounts of product. By requiring a prescription and allowing it to be paid for with insurance, the cost to the manufacturer would be reduced, increasing both their profit and additional cost to the taxpayer.

    With the technology we have today and the law governing the purchase of pseudo ephedrine, if pharmacist and law enforcement are doing their respective jobs, catching individuals who purchase this product for the production should be a matter of following the trends. That's the one aspect of this who debate that those who support a prescription only bill have not adequately addressed.

    • Jason412

      If someone never hits the limit how is law enforcement supposed to know they're not suffering from allergies?

      "By requiring a prescription and allowing it to be paid for with insurance, the cost to the manufacturer would be reduce"

      That's true if the manufacturer is the one going to the doctor, if they're using smurfs then the smurf could pretty much set their price as with anything on the black market.

      Considering it's like $10 a box now, even if the manufacturer was the one going to the doctor and using medicaid, they'd be saving all of about $10.

      I want to know what the law abiding citizen does now, under this bill, when they hit the yearly limit after buying just over a 3 month supply of allergy medicine? What does the single mom who suffers from chronic allergies but also has teenage kids who suffer from allergies she has to buy Claritin-D for?

      How do the pharmacists know who has been convicted of drug crimes, thus being ineligible to buy PSE? Will criminal records now show up in the Nplex system? If so, who is paying for all that data to be transferred and put into the system? It would have to be updated every single day.

      • Aaron

        "If someone never hits the limit how is law enforcement supposed to know they're not suffering from allergies? "

        How will a prescription requirement change that? Does going to a doctor automatically tell LEO that the individual legitimately suffers from allergies?

        “If so, who is paying for all that data to be transferred and put into the system? It would have to be updated every single day.”

        If only there were some sort of database that updated automatically that everyone could access if they chose to do so? Is that a serious question?

        As to the chronic sufferer of allergies, this is anecdotal but it has been my experience that those individuals already seek medical advice for their problems and most require treatment beyond pseudo ephedrine. How will this bill help them?

        As I stated earlier, I have yet to see anyone adequately explain what requiring a prescription will do that current laws cannot accomplish. Do you have an explanation?

      • The bookman

        So you argued prior today that a scrip was not a big imposition, but now it is a game changer? Not very consistent. The bill isn't perfect in my mind either, but to make it available without prescription with limitations is a reasonable compromise.

        • Jason412


          The inconsistencies lie in the no script side saying how bad it will be to go to the doctor, while now forcing anyone who uses it daily to go to the doctor. I was pointing out the end result is the same for the chronic allergy sufferer, while smurfs can still buy it just like before only in less amounts. How does this do anything to stop labs?


          "How will a prescription requirement change that? Does going to a doctor automatically tell LEO that the individual legitimately suffers from allergies? "

          So why did you say if the police are doing their jobs they should be able to catch people using it for production? How do they do that?

          The prescription law puts the availability in the hands of someone who has a lot more to lose then a 20 year old pharmacy technician. A doctor is also far better trained to recognize the signs of drug abuse, giving them a valid reason to deny prescribing it. The script would also mean if the smurf goes to the doctor and gets denied and go to another doctor they are violating doctor shopping laws. If they go to a pharmacist and are denied they go to the next pharmacy which is perfectly legal.

          As far as saying most people who suffer from chronic allergies see a doctor for it counters the entire argument the CHPA side has used, as Claritin-D was one of the main brands they were using to convince people how inconvenient it would be to go to the doctor every month.

          • Aaron

            Jason412 said part of the reason for the reduced sale of oxy in Fl in 2010 was a “a state law that took effect mid-year banning physicians and clinics from dispensing oxycodone"

            Not so fast my friend.

            “Then in 2010, a new formulation of the drug was introduced. The new pills were much more difficult to crush and dissolved more slowly. The idea, according to principal investigator Theodore J. Cicero, PhD, was to make the drug less attractive to illicit users who wanted to experience an immediate high.”

            You know the drill. Put the www in front of this… …to read the entire article.

          • Aaron

            Jason412, you said "It's been said over and over and over the reason so many people are switching to heroin is because of the tougher regulations on pharmaceuticals driving up price and lowering availability. That is a fact."

            Not so fast my friend. The two primary reasons so many switch to heroin is because 1) its cheaper than the pain pills and B)the formula of pain pills were changed so that if the user tried to crush them or melt them, it essentially killed the opiate in the drug.

            That does not come from a study, the media or the pharmaceutical industry, I heard it straight from the mouth of an addict so while I know the government has attempted to strengthen regulations, and they did little to curb the supply of pills.

            Changing the composition pseudo ephedrine so that it cannot be cooked down will do far more toward ending the problem than requiring a prescription will. If you want to do the most good though, campaign to end the failed war on drugs and instead treat addicts. That will do the most good.

          • Jason412

            "According to new figures from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), physicians’ oxycodone purchases dropped by 97% in Florida from 2010 to 2011. A large part of the decrease is attributed to a state law that took effect mid-year banning physicians and clinics from dispensing oxycodone"

            "Oxycodone has a troublesome history in Florida. In 2010, the drug was the number 1 cause of drug overdoses in that state, playing a role in more than 1500 deaths. Also in 2010, 90 of the top 100 oxycodone-purchasing doctors in the United States resided in Florida. That number showed a staggering decrease in 2011, dropping to 13 of the top 100 prescribers"

            Yeah, clearly laws have did absolutely nothing to help with the prescription pill problem.

          • Jason412

            It's been said over and over and over the reason so many people are switching to heroin is because of the tougher regulations on pharmaceuticals driving up price and lowering availability. That is a fact.

            A clear example is what happened in FL, who was a main supplier of WV pills to the point there's a cable TV documentary about it called "Oxycontin Express". When FL finally implemented prescription laws in accordance with the rest of the country their pill problem plummeted and people from WV could no longer go down there and go to 5 doctors in the same day and get pain killer prescriptions from every one of them. Are you suggesting the pill problem is anywhere close to what it was around say 2009, 2010? That's absurd.

            Even if the doctor doesn't check the medical records, a meth head still looks like a meth head and would still test positive for meth, any doctor who cares about their career would not risk it. Will there be a few rogue's? Of course, but they wont be on every corner like pharmacy's. And if a few rogue doctors in every town are prescribing all the PSE in the town then obviously they would be investigated.

            Can you clarify why the Republican Mississippi Governor took the time to lobby for a PSE ban in WV citing how well it has worked in his state, despite you insisting it didn't work?

            I love how you always talk about "but the other side doesn't want to talk about this, that and the third" then pick out one point of my post to try and make your point on. You always complain "oh you didn't answer my question" then deflect any question asked of you.

          • Aaron

            "Doctor checks medical records, see's meth head just seen another doctor yesterday."

            Oh, I see now. Of course that will work. It totally eradicated the prescription pill problem that used to be the scourge of society but now is rarely heard about.

          • The bookman


            I stand corrected then, as I see your point. I guess that's the price the public has to pay for allowing the government to protect us from ourselves. Illustrative to say the least!

          • Jason412


            I never said going to the doctor would help them be "caught", I've said all along it would help prevent the problem at the source.

            Meth head goes to pharmacist, presents ID, not over the limit, buys PSE. Law enforcement has no way of knowing.

            Or meth head goes to pharmacist, gets denied due to looking like a meth head. Meth head goes to other pharmacy, buys PSE. Law enforcement has no way of knowing.

            Meth head goes to doctor, doctor says why are your pupils so big and why do you have scabs all over you? I'm suspicious so maybe we should drug test you. Doesn't prescribe PSE to someone who shows all the signs of meth abuse, and tests positive for meth.

            Meth head says oh well goes to another doctor. Doctor checks medical records, see's meth head just seen another doctor yesterday. Doesn't prescribe PSE.

            You still haven't answered my question, as you're the one who said if law enforcement is doing their job following the trends should be all the help they need. How do they effectively use the system when people aren't hitting the limit?

          • Jason412

            Yes, it would have still been available without a script, but there would still be a limit.

            The way this bill is written, buying Nexafed is no different then buying PSE in the eyes of the tracking system.

            " And guess what I suggest to them. Nexafed! It works the same, doesn't it?"

            That suggests that someone who doesn't want to see a doctor after hitting their 10 box limit on PSE, could just go buy Nexafed.

          • Aaron

            You're making very little sense Jason412. The prescription requirement is not going to catch someone getting one box a month any more than current law will. If that's all smurfers are purchasing neither is going to work. I think but then I have said that all along.

          • The bookman

            I believe Nexafed would have still been available behind the counter without prescription.

          • Jason412

            When was Nexafed ever exempt? The way I understood once PSE went prescription-only, Nexafed would be regulated the same way as PSE is now.

          • The bookman


            If they were exempting Nexafed before, why not now?

          • Jason412

            hit enter to soon

            No I don't think it would stop criminal activity, but it would be a lot harder for a meth head to get from a doctor who's career is on the line then a pharmacist.

            pharmacy shopping is not illegal and leaves no trail at all. Someone going to several doctors would be on record

          • Jason412


            What trends? How do smurfs show up in trends buying 1 box a month any differently then a grandma buying 1 box a month? Standard investigating practices? So if you go buy 1 box a month you're opening yourself up to be investigated to make sure your not using it for meth? That is the worst kind of government interference.

            No I don't think the ban would stop crimina

          • Aaron

            Oh, wait, criminals have no fear of "pharmacy shopping" but the sudden violation of "doctor shopping laws" will frighten them to the point that they will stop attempting to get this product.

            Why didn't you just say that. I change my mind. I know support prescription requirement. I'm sorry I ever doubted you.

          • Jason412

            Uh, they'll still hit the limit in 100 days buying Nexafed. So then they have to go to the doctor, while the smurf still has readily available PSE same as before.

          • Aaron

            "So why did you say if the police are doing their jobs they should be able to catch people using it for production? How do they do that? "

            By analyzing trends and standard investigating practices.

            How do you propose they would go about catching criminals if a prescription requirement were implemented?

            Or do you naively think that such a requirement would automatically eliminate all criminal activity?

          • The bookman


            I agree that this will change little if anything regarding meth abuse. I'm not being inconsistent in that I am satisfied the prescription will no longer be required. That was the only beef I had with the Senate version. You are, however, in attempting to argue that this bill will impose difficulty on allergy sufferers in getting a scrip. And guess what I suggest to them. Nexafed! It works the same, doesn't it? The problem with bills like this is that they always infringe on someone's free exercise of something they feel entitled to have.

            As long as government attempts to solve moral dilemmas through controlling access to things that may hurt us but also help us, we shall suffer this conundrum. What a waste of time this session has been.

  • curious

    The sad part about this is that the drug industry controls our politicians.

    • Jason412

      Yup, why vote at all when the CHPA is clearly pulling the strings and basically writing the laws themselves? I'd love to see how much money the CHPA spent on commercials, robo-calls, and employees to go around the internet acting like average citizens in the last couple months.

  • Gordon

    The only way to stop the massive drug making and use in our state is to do some uncomfortable things.
    1. You want a government check or food stamps or medical card - you get tested and you pay for it yourself. Goes for your significant other that will be profiting from the check.
    2. You want to work for your paycheck - you get tested when your employer asks. Most business owners would pay for this.
    3. You want to teach in this state - you get tested. Your union can spare a few of the bucks they send to a political party and pay for it.

    Basically, your drug card will be like your drivers license. You show it on payday or you show it at a bank. Whats the big deal in this? The state can even put a fee on the card every four or eight years if they want. Put that money toward the testing costs.

    As soon as I post, I'm sure I'll hear the typical "rights being infringed upon".
    Yes, I agree. The government has gone wild on about every front. But, this one will truly be for the good of all and not just one party. Imagine that..... From either!

    • The bookman

      Thanks for illustrating to all of us the depth to which you and others would delve into the personal lives of American citizens in an effort to save us from ourselves. Amazing window into what could eventually result from the incremental erosion of responsibility that we presently see on so many fronts. Hear us!

      We don't need your protection! Lawful activity should NEVER be restricted due to the illegal activity of others. So we implore you and others of the same mindset. Please stop harassing those of us living our life, contributing to the improvement of the society in which we live, and providing a better platform upon which our children may stand. We are all human, and we all have our shortcomings. When we fail, there will be consequences. Let us experience them, for that is how we recognize it was failure.

      • liberty4all


    • Brandon


      No one's rights would be infringed. Welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc are NOT a right. They are a priveledge that is provided by the hard working taxpayers that actually earned that money in the first place.

      Beggers can't be chosers. You want a goverment check? Then you need to be able to pass a random drug test. I'm tired of our tax money supporting the drug same drug dealers we're trying to put in jail!

      • Gordon

        I couldn't agree more!

  • yep

    This is just embarrassing. Way to get owned by the pharmaceutical industry. Money talks I guess. Is there any backbone in the legislature at all? The number of meth lab busts just keeps going up and what does the legislature do about it? Essentially nothing. It looks like it's business as usual for the meth makers.

  • Jason412

    Oh, and will the average joe everyone is so concerned about not be screwed by this new limit? Leaving it over the counter means most insurances will continue not to cover it so someone who does suffer from chronic allergies will have to go to the doctor, and pay cash for at least the prescription.

    By my calculations, you could buy 10 boxes of 10 days of Claritin D 24 hour a year. What does the allergy sufferer do for the other 265 days? Oh yeah, go to the doctor. Dumb as hell.

  • Jason412

    Looks like the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on radio commercials and robo-calls worked. This "we want to require people who have been convicted of meth crimes to have the trouble" is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. I'd bet 80-90% of the people you see in your local papers that get caught for cooking meth have never been caught cooking or with meth before. It's a Federal crime, with a mandatory minimum, it's not your average WV drug charge that someone can plea right out of and be back on the streets in a week, in most cases.

    It's good to know the CHPA controls our Legislator and exactly what they insisted on is what we're getting. I'm salty as hell about this.

  • yep

    They've gutted this bill and it's pretty much worthless now. I'm pretty sure that a convicted meth maker can get someone who hasn't been convicted of the offense to buy the materials on his/her behalf. This is cold medicine folks, it's not like we would be inconveniencing people who needed medicine for cancer and besides, I'm sure there are other off the shelf products that would do the job. It's just embarrassing that our legislators put pharmaceutical interests above those of the residents of WV. Who won't our legislature lay down for? How could you even look anybody in the eye if you've played a role in watering down this bill? Backbone is what is in short supply at the legislature it seems. For meth makers it will be pretty much business as usual. Sad.

  • Aaron

    I've done some research into the discrepancy between what federal agencies post as meth lab incidents and what states post. Senator Palumbo stated there were over 500 meth lab seizures in WV in 2012 while the EPIC showed only 59.

    I spoke to a WV State Trooper about their number and he stood by it but when I talked to a retired trooper, he was a little more skeptical. Essentially what he told me was that any bust that shows any signs of cooking was automatically considered a meth lab bust, This includes AA lithium batteries, used 24 oz bottles and a handful of chemicals.

    There is no doubt that Meth is a problem in our society but to restrict the rights of legal citizens when there are clearly alternatives that work makes no sense to me.

    If we truly want to combat our drug problems, we need to end the war on drugs; we've lost, and fight it from a treatment end.

  • David Starcher

    The House of Delegates has become bigger joke then the clowns at Barnum and Bailey Circus. What an embarrassment to our state, the Senate saw the need of this bill but the clown section stripped it's power.

    • Hillbilly

      Disagree - I do not think it would have made any difference. Oxy requires a prescription now too.

      • Harvey

        Yes, but Oxy is an end use product and what is being discussed here is a raw material for the production of an end product. It is the manufacture that is to be discouraged. Law enforcement supports this. There is bipartisan support. Property owners are being harmed. Resources diverted. We need this bill. AND, if there are really legions of mothers and little old ladies out there who oppose this as the slick radio ads say, why are they not appearing in person? Answer--they are voice over actors in DC or LA hired by the people who make big money selling this stuff but who do not have to deal with the carnage.

        • liberty4all

          Plant food and top soil are used in the production of marijuana. I say require a national registration to prevent the Home Depot's of the world from just selling this stuff to anybody off the street.

        • Hillbilly

          We already have "pill mill" doctors setting up roadside shops in Logan county handing out Rx's for anything for a fee.. you will just get the same thing.

        • The bookman

          If rxPSE would make a difference, I'd support it. No reliable research presented thus far demonstrates that. If course, law enforcement supports it, as they would support anything that makes their job easier and offers any glimmer of hope. That is not a slight at law enforcement, just a realistic perspective. The variability of reporting what is and is not a lab across jurisdictions is not consistent and results in values that are all over the board. Only two states have adopted such a law and the results are not correlative in my view to a reduction of labs due to the enactment of the law. Government needs to get back to its business, and at the state level that is finishing this session and creating a fiscally sound plan that navigates us back out of the hole they are shepherding us down.

        • Aaron

          I would suggest you google and watch some some videos on the shake and bake method of cooking. Prescription requirements would not reduce this method of cooking.