Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s quotable
Next Post: Rate Rauner’s new attack ads
Posted in:
* From Gatehouse Media…
Cold and allergy medicines containing a key ingredient used to make methamphetamine would become available by prescription only under newly introduced legislation intended to thwart production of the illicit stimulant.
State Sen. Dave Koehler, D-Peoria, has introduced a measure that would make pseudoephedrine a schedule III controlled substance in a joint effort with police to curb meth labs.
Senate Bill 3502, which would amend the Illinois Controlled Substances Act to include ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, has been referred to the Assignments Committee.
“We think it’s going to be a game changer in Illinois for meth,” Pekin police Chief Greg Nelson said Wednesday at a meeting for the Peoria Multi-County Narcotics Enforcement Group (P-MEG) policy board. “Pseudoephedrine is the only required ingredient to make meth.”
Right now, in order to buy pseudoephedrine customers have to give their names and records have to be kept. The products are also not displayed on public shelves, but kept behind the counter.
* The Question: Should the availability of pseudoephedrine be changed to prescription only? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:03 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s quotable
Next Post: Rate Rauner’s new attack ads
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
so, we’ll need to pay a co-pay and an office visit for cold medicine? When is this nightmare going to end?
Comment by spidad60 Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:06 pm
Voted no. Already too much nanny government.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:09 pm
Overkill. Besides, everyone knows you can just rob a train for the ingredients you need.
Comment by A. Nonymous Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:09 pm
i’m with spidad60, $20 co-pay and a day off work just to get cold meds. I guess i’ll stock up next time i’m in wisconsin.
Comment by foster brooks Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:10 pm
Meth prosecution and incaceration is costing illinois taxpayets millions anually. A little inconvienance to you and i niw, may save us in higher taxes for meth abusers dental and health care bills, mental health and incarceration costs down the road.
Comment by Barney Fife Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:10 pm
Has he watched Breaking Bad?
Seriously, stupid idea.
Comment by Nonplussed Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:11 pm
Game changer?? Wha? Want to control something? Make it legal and tax the hell out of it. I don’t get it. Tobacco? Alcohol? Known killers and addictions. But buy them at any corner store. Know what bill we need introduced? A bill to curb the number of bills introduced.
I voted no.
Comment by Westward Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:11 pm
They already keep these behind the pharmacy and track you when you buy them, correct?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:12 pm
This is Ira Silverstein Dumb
Comment by Nonplussed Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:13 pm
NO. Ugh, no! I have two kids. I get colds constantly. I don’t have time to go ask a doctor for permission every time one of my little disease vectors infects me!
Comment by Will Caskey Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:14 pm
As someone who uses these products for colds and sinus issues, I think this is a real overreach. You already have to show and ID and sign for it. Just don’t think you should need a RX to deal with a sinus headache. The abusers will find a way around whatever regs. that anyone comes up with anyway.
Comment by Give Me A Break Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:14 pm
Ridiculous idea. There is already a limit on the number of bottles you can buy. Obviously a lot more variables are in play.
Comment by Liberty First Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:14 pm
If someone wants to work that hard to fry themselves, fine with me. Having to go to a doctor and get a Rx for the sniffles is ridiculous. We already make you produce a State ID and sign for it, and you’re on a monthly allocation that isn’t enough if you need it chronically, but at least in that case you can go to your doc and get an Rx for a year’s worth. But for an occasional cold? No.
Comment by Harry Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:15 pm
I wonder how much of the meth sold in the US today is of the home-cooked variety. My understanding is that the cartels are not buying up Sudafed for the raw ingredients - they can just buy them from the source.
Comment by Bird Dog Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:19 pm
First of all, the efficacy of these drugs are questionable, unless you are talking about how easily they can be altered into meth. I don’t take that stuff - not good if you have hypertension. I wonder how well keeping the stuff behind the counter has been working. Does it seem to be stemming the tide of this drug? Are there other sources of the stuff that make this law useless in the fight against this crud? Howsabout some details, Senator?
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:20 pm
I voted no. I question if this would reduce the supply of meth, but rather more of the production out of the country. I’ve read that a lot of meth now is produced in Mexico. I’m not in favor of making El Chapo’s successors even richer.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:22 pm
Is there evidence the current regulatory regime is not working? It’s already a mild pain in the ass to find a pharmacy at crazy hours when you’re sick. What if you had to find a doctor as well?!?
Comment by ChinaTown Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:22 pm
Sorry, I mean- move more of the production-
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:23 pm
This should always be the threshold question for additional regulation.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:25 pm
this is the same stuff thats in medicated salt block for animals,lets ban that too..keep the drum beating for nixion`s 43 year old war on drugs. We have met the enemy and it is us…pogo
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:26 pm
No, I just don’t believe you can regulate every substance that can be used in a manner not intended.
Comment by Stones Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:26 pm
No. So now I’ll have to go to the doctor to get sinus or allergy meds? Ridiculous.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:27 pm
No. No way.
Not without first proving that the current system is somehow flawed and beyond fixing.
Is Illinois not noticing records of individual customers buying 1,000 packages of pseudoephedrine every month?
If so, why? How could we miss that? Would it help to centralize the records by uploading them to the IDPH?
Many of us are sympathetic to the meth problem in our state.
Many of us are also sympathetic to the millions of people in our state with allergies and colds who can’t afford a doctor’s visit every time they get a runny nose but still have to go to work.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:27 pm
It’s good campaign armor to be able to say that you led the fight against meth. Details? We don’t need no stinking details.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:29 pm
Repeat after Rich… “It’s just a bill…it’s just a bill.” That said, what a dumb idea that will do little more than make health care costs go up. Oh and I voted “No” of course.
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:31 pm
No. After 30 years in law enforcement I promise you if this is passed, the bad guys will find another, more accessible ingredient. The only people this will thwart are the legitimate allergy sufferers.
Comment by Former Merit Comp Slave Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:32 pm
This would definitely make me want to vote against someone who supported this bill.
Comment by Stu Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:36 pm
No. He should defer to Senator Haine, who has led on this issue alongside law enforcement and the Attorney General.
Comment by Mittuns Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:37 pm
Some of these bills this session are really over-reaching.
Taxing Gatorade? Prohibiting smoking in your car? Requiring a doctor’s prescription for some Sudafed or Benadryl Cold?
At some point, we have to remember that government cannot always protect us from ourselves if we are determined to do something stupid or self-destructive.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:42 pm
Make it all legal and in a few years the problem would be over. If you want to kill yourself then so be it.
Comment by Nieva Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:45 pm
the original intent, as I remember it, was to be able to identify those who are purchasing mass quantities of this stuff rather than those who have a legitimate need (like the flu). I don’t believe this change will alter the original intent or make it any more of a disincentive to obtain what needs to be obtained.
Comment by tubbfan Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:47 pm
It’s too hard to get in to see the doctor when you really need to. Imagine if everyone with a cold was trying to see their doctor or go to prompt care or the emergency room. Ridiculous!!!
Comment by RetiredStateEmployee Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:49 pm
Already too much that requires a prescription. Hell to get a potassium pill that has 1/10th the potassium as a banana you need a prescription.
now when I get a cold or my kid I need to go to a doctor? Want to know what contributes to rising healthcare costs? Crap like this does.
Comment by RonOglesby Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:49 pm
Pretty soon every store will be one big counter. I’m sneezy, let me just buy what I need.
Comment by A guy... Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:51 pm
A big no. As has been pointed out, you’ll have a physician visit with copay and increased health care costs for employers. There has got to be an understanding of when the societal costs of legislation exceeds the alleged benefit.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 1:56 pm
GET OFF MY LAWN
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:01 pm
It’s already a pain in the neck to have to go to a pharmacy during pharmacy hours to get Sudafed — the only cold medicine that really works, in my view. And now I have to go to a doctor? Come on, gang. Enough is enough.
Comment by Levi Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:02 pm
The meth cooks will just change the recipe and produce another drug that has about the same effect.
Comment by Jerome Horwitz Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:03 pm
Would someone who voted “Yes” please explain their vote? Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:04 pm
I voted no for many of the aforementioned responses. To me this is but a PR …
Comment by LINK Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:09 pm
Another co-pay? Really? I’ve had allergies and asthma my whole life, and this would just make me feel like some kid again. And I can’t imagine this really making a dent in the meth world.
Comment by vise77 Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:10 pm
Another example of a cop out of touch with the public and reality.
Comment by Jim'e' Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:12 pm
Doctors aren’t going to want this. You have a good relation with your doctor, they will just phone in a perscription anyway. So how does this help?
Comment by a drop in Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:12 pm
Vote No. I’m trying to imagine the DEA scrutinizing my cold medicine, while I hack in their face.
Comment by I B Strapped Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:15 pm
Voted no. This is absurd.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:17 pm
Perhaps the question be:
“Why do people take so many drugs that often do more harm than good?”
I usually don’t any take cold medicines except maybe an aspirin.
Comment by Ruby Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:22 pm
pseudo is the one ingredient that you need to make meth. There are various ways to produce it, but pseudo is the one constant. If you want to stop meth labs in the state this would be the one way to accomplish it. You will still have Mexican meth coming in, but you would stop the house fires and family exposure incidents. If you went to a prescription style law, you would eliminate the limits currently in place. You would be able to stock up with your doctor’s permission. The current system encourages a wide network of people to assist in procuring pseudo to aid in the manufacture. This in turn creates more addicts. I voted yes.
Comment by anon Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:29 pm
Hell no! It’s bad enough I have to produce an ID for a head cold. Give me a break.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:31 pm
Absolutely it should be prescription only. I mean, after all, NOBODY abuses prescribed drugs in Illinois- so this would most certainly solve the meth problem. /end snark
Comment by Peoria Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:34 pm
No! Every time addicts, dealers and dope makers abuse legal drugs the government reacts by restricting access for law-abiding patients who need and don’t abuse them. Who’s got time to wait at a doctor’s office when they’ve got a cold or sinus allergies? The government overreach is absurd. My buddy broke his arm and got treated like a druggy by Walgreens who made him jump through hoops to get his pain pill prescription filled. I’ve heard of this happening a lot to really sick people. Why treat them like criminals? Use the laws we have to go after the real criminals.
Comment by IbendahlLuvsJBT Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:35 pm
No, as it does not go far enough. I want the distinguished gentleman from Peoria to outlaw allergies and colds. That is a real tough position on the issue!
Comment by Wumpus Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:35 pm
If I voted yes it would be you can never be rich enuff. tan enuff,or hard enuff on drugs.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:36 pm
No . Really, is that all we need to worry about?
As sad as it is, people will seek out their buzz of choice, regardless of what laws are in play.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:41 pm
No. Heck no. Isn’t this what the current pain in the uh, nose record keeping and keeping them behind the counter was supposed to fix?
Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:50 pm
No. Interrupts Darwin…
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 2:54 pm
The majority should not have to pay for the sins of the few. Most people don’t abuse cold and allergy medicine. Laws of this type only serve to create a black market where the unethical profit.
Comment by Waldi Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:11 pm
This is a bad idea because it takes away an important investigative tool. The electronic tracking system already tied into purchases helps catch the perps. With this law in place it would actually make it more difficult to follow the buyers to the manufacturers and distributors
Comment by MOD Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:13 pm
Absolutely not!
Requiring prescription for disbursement is a medical issue, not a tool for law enforcement. I don’t care what the police want, in this case.
Comment by Walker Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:15 pm
Good intent, bad design. Cold medicine is expensive enough without having to get a prescription. Voted no.
Comment by Lunchbox Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:16 pm
I voted yes. There is no “cure” to the common cold, just relief. Take it off the shelf and let the drug companies come up with another over the counter med that can do the same without the potential to make a substance that may blow up a house or rot people away. This is an altered chemical, not a plant.
Comment by Throwing Stones Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:18 pm
OK, I voted yes. I’ve seen firsthand the damage meth can do to a community and to families. It’s a horrendous drug, much worse and far more destructive than others. People lose businesses and workers lose jobs because of it. Landlords lose thousands because they have to pay a hazmat team to clean up after some kooky tenant cooks meth in an apartment. Two, pseudoephedrine isn’t a life-saving, essential drug. No one’s going to die if they have to call a doctor to get a scrip phoned in, and people with ongoing allergy and sinus conditions could easily get a refillable scrip. There are also alternatives for treating colds, etc., and maybe this would encourage the pharma industry to come up with even more alternatives.
Comment by OldSmoky2 Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:20 pm
No vote. This is ridiculous. Sudafed is one of the few things that does what it’s supposed to.
Comment by Lt. Guv. Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:20 pm
The legislator in Springfield has too much time on their hands to think up new restrictions. Come on has anyone purchased a cold medicine with a D at the end of the name. Its easier to get a concealed carry permit than the cold medicine! The legislators try to figure out a way to get in the news with some new restrictive laws. They can justify they are doing something to the voters. Term limits as a constitutional amendment is the only way. They have eight years and just will have time to focus on important matters. They will not worry about justifying there time in Springfield.
Comment by Too much time Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:25 pm
No. Having to go through this already absurd process for my allergies and colds, it’s completely nuts. So now they are going to make us get prescriptions? So, now let’s increase costs in the healthcare system - and, as an added bonus, we’ll clog up the system with even more people needing appointments for utter nonsense. And as an added added bonus, we’ll have even more people going to work sick completely untreated because they can’t get into see a doctor/nurse practitioner because they’re already buried.
What’s wrong with these clowns in the legislature?
Just as a btw, the players in the meth business buy this stuff in 55 gal. drums from China and have it shipped to Mexico. The stuff gets re-labeled and shipped across the border. Every so often ICE even catches some of it.
And we’re worried about the 24 / 48 packs of tablets that you can only buy one per month?
Again, what’s wrong with these people thinking up these proposed laws?
Comment by Judgment Day Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:30 pm
No
I don’t take this stuff to manage colds so I don’t have a lot of skin in the game.
The current methods that we use to manage medications is clearly not helping to “win the war on drugs.” It seems that our extreme laws seem to be doing the opposite. Over-regulating drugs do keep people from doing them. Instead, it seems to incite them to try it.
Comment by Belle Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:33 pm
No. I agree with others. Easy to get around law, as they will find a replacement, and it burdens those who need an OTC drug.
I personally have found Johnny Black to do the trick for me.
Comment by Sunshine Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:34 pm
Sure. Why not. Who wants that garbage flowing freely throughout Illinois? The more control, the better. What the heck–I can’t even make a SAFE, 30 second call on my CELL now in my own CAR going 15 MPH down some side street of Illinois with nobody aroung to tell her I’ll pick up that Gallon of Milk we need for the Fridge on the way Home!
And…if you’ve ever spent a mere 5 minutes around a genuine Meth Addict, you know what I’m talkin’ about…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:54 pm
That was meant to read above, “…with nobody around…!”
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:55 pm
No, for all of the reasons already stated. The results of this poll need to be sent to Senator Koehler
Comment by downstate commissioner Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:56 pm
I voted no. I like my cold medicine and unlike what happened with my doctor, would like to keep it.
Comment by So. ILL Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 3:59 pm
John Q. Public 1 Drug Warriors 0
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 4:01 pm
Deciding whether drugs should require prescriptions is a job for the feds, not the states. Unless the requirement is nationwide, it just turns into a mess, witness what’s happening now with weed as we delve into all sorts of silliness such as no pot for gun owners. Creating yet another black market by doing this in Illinois wouldn’t stop meth heads at all. The price would simply increase, which would create more crime as meth users would have to commit three burglaries instead of two to get their drugs.
Comment by just pandering Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 4:03 pm
Enough already
Comment by Langhorne Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 4:16 pm
You already have to go to the pharmacy to get any type of sudafed, and give them your driver’s licence to scan in to keep track of your purchases.
And I think there is a 2 box per month or some type of limit, which I never had to worry about.
But isn’t it regulated and less difficult already?
Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Native Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 4:19 pm
No. It was explained to me by someone who has done it that you do not even need cold medicine. You can obtain the pseudoephedrine from other sources. One being medicated chicken feed. The people making meth already know how to get around this anyway.
Comment by SO IL M Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 4:29 pm
No. When I have a cold I want my pseudophed. And frankly I don’t care if people destroy themselves with meth, that would be their choice. Yes, they destroy their families,too; but they can do the same with booze and we don’t limit that.
While I have some sympathy for the neighbors whose house is damaged due to their methhead neighbor’s explosion, is this really that common? Compared to, say, house fires due to improper use of space heaters?
To my knowledge, I have never met a meth user. Pot users, heroin users, coke users, yep; but never meth users. Is it that common of a drug?
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 4:35 pm
No — because you should not have to take time off work and/or family responsibilities in order to go to the doctor and ask for a prescription if you simply need some relief from a bad cold. Nor should you have to come up with the copay for the doctor’s appointment. My doctor will not call in any prescription at all unless he sees you first (not even my wife had been into the same office three days earlier for pink eye, which I now had). Well-intentioned Koehler may be, but this bill stinks. The current registration/restricted access policy is a reasonable situation. His proposal is a massive inconvenience for law-abiding citizens who simply trying to get a good night’s sleep and get some work done in spite of illness.
Comment by Steve Downstate Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 4:38 pm
Where does it all end? We can’t afford to continue to legislate on every single issue that pops up in life. Burning leaves, cigarette butt littering, etc. The impact on the average Illinois taxpayer for the cost of these knee-jerk laws is staggering.
Comment by Frosty-The Snowman Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 4:49 pm
let`s give all meth user an english acent one way ticket to england where there bad teeth will fit in.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 4:55 pm
There are already a lot of prescription medications that really should not have such requirements. This list does not need to be expanded.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 5:33 pm
In which ways is the current law not working? How much of the raw material of the meth labs is obtained from behind the drugstore counter?
Forcing law-abiding citizens to become pharmacy- and physician-dependent is perverse.
Comment by JimmyJazz Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 5:42 pm
sorry, the gas station in stead of the internet.
Comment by throwing stones Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 6:15 pm
Good God! Fix the budget, people. Then maybe you can think about something else! Ridiculous!
Comment by Amuzing Myself Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 7:31 pm
No. In addition to the risk of meth production becoming even more of a Mexican gang, motorcycle gang product, there are still people who suffer from colds and sinus problems who can’t afford a doctor visit for every little cold.
Comment by transplant Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 7:35 pm
I remember life before nixon I voted for him…R.I.P.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 28, 14 @ 8:25 pm
A little off topic tip for allergy sufferers: if you buy a lot of decongestant medication, get a prescription. In Illinois you can’t tax medication so you save sales tax and you don’t have to mess with the pseudo ephedrine registry.
I voted no. I understand exactly what we are up against with the meth problem but this is not the solution.
The Cartel meth doesn’t cause the costs and dangers of the cleanup, local cooks cause more problems than most of us are aware of. The Cartel meth, on the other hand, is much more addictive, is smoke able and creates human wreckage where ever it is. Both have huge cost to society and users and their families.
Comment by Freeze up Saturday, Mar 1, 14 @ 8:15 am