Sudafed

I wrote Missouri Representative Jeff Roorda yesterday. He is apparently considering the introduction of legislation to further restrict the ability of residents to purchase the over-the-counter pharmaceutical known as pseudoephedrine - most would recognize the name Sudafed - by making it a prescription-only medicine in Missouri. His reason is that some people feel the current laws restricting the sales of pseudoephedrine are not stringent enough to dissuade those who use the ingredients in the drug to make methamphetamine.

I argue that a law which would force me and other citizens in Missouri to go to the medical doctors offices and seek a prescription for pseudoephedrine would only cost more money, not stop the trade of methamphetamine in Missouri.

Like so many other Missourians, especially in a depression like this one, I cannot afford to go to a doctor. I cannot afford the time off my job to go to the doctor and beg for the doctor to prescribe that which I can already purchase and find relief. The doctor visit, dear representatives, will only occur IF YOU PAY FOR IT. I cannot pay for an appointment at the doctor. The pseudoephedrine costs me more than enough, thank you very much. There is no reason to take away my rights as a citizen to legally purchase this medicine over-the-counter as I have done for more than 20 years. That would be violating my trust in the system - a healthcare system which is already more than flawed. This would add a layer of expense and intrusive behavior on the part of legislators and result in nothing better for the communities of Missouri.

I applaud the efforts to crack down on the use of methamphetamine. Missouri is the meth capitol, and law enforcement task forces have been used to spearhead an effort against the proliferation of this illegal drug and the manufacture of meth. But that does not equate the same as restricting the over-the-counter purchase ability. Were it as simple as restricting the ability to purchase the drug in Missouri to the extreme Rep. Roorda is proposing, then the meth activity would completely cease. It is not going to happen with the stroke of a pen at the governor's office, I argue, as the state does not have closed borders, closed interstates, closed highways, closed roads, and is not closed to the rest of the nation. Therefore, the proliferation of meth will continue in the state of Missouri for one main reason: Missouri is in the center of the country, located exactly where those who both manufacture and distribute such drugs will STILL BE LOCATED after such a measure would be put into law. The means to get the pseudoephedrine are too complex to stop it with additional local restrictions. The substances used to manufacture meth would continue to pour over the Missouri borders regardless of a newer, tougher measure.

Why? Because law enforcement does not do enough law enforcement. This is where the legislation should be focused. Get the proper money to the law enforcement agencies to combat the meth problem.

Rep. Roorda may argue that I am incorrect --- I would expect that from a man who was in law enforcement. However, statistics would also bear the fact that if we are in such a state where the proliferation of the manufacturing of meth has continued for more than a decade, then it will lessen only incrementally to the ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS. The existing laws, Rep. Roorda argues, are not strong enough. Ahem, Mr. Roorda. I cannot see how you or any law official can tell me that it is not strong enough and make the citizens of the state believe you if nobody is going to enforce the law. Enforce it first...deal a blow to those who move from point A to point B and blow up houses, make their drugs, stash their drugs, sell their drugs, and make money off their drug distribution. As a law enforcer, you were charged with making sure the public safety is upheld by striking out against the criminal element. It is not being upheld.

Again --- I represent the non-criminal element. I represent the citizenry who use over-the-counter pseudoephedrine in a law-biding manner, place my name upon the sheet stating that I am purchasing the medicine for personal use, and have consistently bought this product with only true intentions of using it to breathe easier. Were the newer versions of Sudafed --- the P-E versions --- working for me, I'd purchase that and not worry about your legislation as much. But to introduce a law which has a direct bearing on the health of our citizens means to see both sides of the picture. BOTH SIDES INCLUDES THE LAW-BIDING CITIZENS who already do their part by purchasing the products for their own use.

Law-biding citizens who use pseudoephedrine would already be aware of the meth problem and would turn in those who attempt to thwart the proper process. I know I would turn in a stranger who came up to me and asked me to buy Sudafed for them. If the problem is that you don't believe everyone else is doing the same --- turning in the offenders --- take your plea to the media, not to the legislative floor.

We need a war on meth at the street level - now - and NOT in the state capitol.