1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13834/buy-sudafed-and-go-to-jail/

Buy Sudafed and Go to Jail

September 8, 2010 by

Well, it finally happened in my own community. That stupid Bush-era law that rations pseudoephedrine, the ingredient that makes Mucinex and Sudafed work to unstuff the nose, has finally landed someone in the slammer for 20 years. Tanna Nacole Jarrell is 31 years old and she will likely be in jail for 20 years — essentially wrecking her life. The judge said that she is a very very bad woman. Maybe so but what she is being charged with is perfectly absurd: “Jarrell was arrested by Opelika police after she purchased four boxes of medication containing pseudoephedrine at three locations within 12 days in December 2009.” And let’s just suppose that she was making Meth, thereby harming herself. What does jail actually accomplish here?

{ 102 comments }

Phinn September 8, 2010 at 8:55 am

What does jail actually accomplish here?

It establishes who is the master and who is the slave.

North September 8, 2010 at 9:08 am

Wow, that scares me. I know you’ve written about this before but 4 boxes in 12 days is actually a reasonable amount if you factor in that many households have a primary grocery shopper. One household being sick and all members trying to take tablets at work with one primary shopper?

Jeffrey Tucker September 8, 2010 at 10:29 am

Remember too that you MUST have a drivers license to buy them, so if you have a kids under 16, you have to buy for them too.

asdf September 8, 2010 at 2:14 pm

The only reason that this woman is in jail is because she bought the sudafed at three different locations. She is most likely a smurf (one hired by a cook to acquire the pills) and was trying to avoid detection. The article above contains almost no real information.For those of you who don’t care to actually look into things before you complain, I would recommend reading the article linked above. She already had two prior felony drug convictions. She is not a stand-up mother. she doesn’t even have children. She lives alone and you’re trying to tell me she took at least 64 sudafed pills in twelve days? she’d be DEAD. All things you might know if you actually found out all the information before complaining.

Jsnyd September 8, 2010 at 2:35 pm

ASDF

Are you the prosecuting attorney?

Since when is buying the same thing at multiple stores such a heinous crime? Just like JT said, Sudafed, which now requires a blood sample to obtain, was perfectly legal 5 years ago. Are you stating that all laws are just? “She has 2 prior felony drug convictions!!!” If we legalize drugs, she has committed no crime. How much harm has her purchases of drugs done to you? Did you incur any violation of life or property due to her buying patterns?? I would imagine that you did not. What we are complaining about is the great INJUSTICE system that we have. I am beating a dead horse here and you can read several of the other posts as to why we have such a rotten system.

Are we truly a safer society with this woman off of the streets?

Other than ASDF, I think we know that the answer is NO.

poiut December 3, 2010 at 11:44 am

I just bought Sudafed yesterday. You don’t need a blood sample to get it. In response to your argument, if you were to substitute any other crime for drugs in your argument, this is what results:
a) if we legalize anything, it obviously wouldn’t be a crime. If we legalized murder and rape, all the murderers and rapists would have not committed a crime.
b) How much harm has someone’s murder in NY done to a CA resident? How much actual harm has been done to the majority of the population when someone else is murdered?
Although I do not agree with the heavy handedness of the judge’s sentence, the argument you have presented where “because her crime did not directly affect me so she shouldn’t be sentenced”, is not appropriate.

J. Murray December 3, 2010 at 11:47 am

Try to make your argument without a reducto ad absurdum next time.

Sam February 11, 2011 at 8:53 am

Amen to that. Bottom line is what this woman did was against the law. Some people like JSNYD are obviously looking for excuses as to why it’s okay to do drugs. I believe one of the lines often used by drug addicts is, “I didn’t do anything that was hurting anyone else.” because it minimizes what they’re doing. Word to the wise: they keep saying that even while they’re doing time in prison.

J. Murray February 11, 2011 at 9:56 am

Fact: Every day, you’ll end up breaking at least two laws. You don’t notice because you didn’t hurt anyone. Do you think you belong in jail?

james March 3, 2011 at 8:01 pm

your sooooo right

Darcy October 31, 2011 at 1:01 pm

WOW!!!! Very well said and totally agree…..100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FINALLY!!

Jen D November 6, 2010 at 2:55 pm

Actually I just bought sudaphed for the first time and about fell over when the doc told me to take 2 pills every 4 hours. That’s up to 12 pills a day x 12 days is 144. Not saying I can manage even the 2 pills every 4 hours myself but there are two of us here fighting a virus that I was told would take up to 14 days to get under control. So even at 2 pills q.6 hours = 8 pills a day x 2 people = 16 pills a day x 12 days = 192. Sure you would have no stomach left but it’s a safe dosage according to the manufacturer. Just saying. I have no idea about this woman’s case though and do agree that more information is needed to be able to tell her intentions.

jaxx October 13, 2011 at 5:53 pm

So true on dosages that have to be taken..imagine your only 2 that are sick…here in my household at times its myself, husband, and 2 sons…and my sons have been tested by allergist and get really congested..husband and I get throbbing headaches..sometimes 2 boxes a month are not enough…

Kevin Teter April 19, 2011 at 2:33 pm

I would like to comment on this law !!!! What happened to innocent untill proven guilty, I myself was arrested on the same crime , I have never been found guilty of no drug crime in my life how can a local DA tell my attorney that he doesn”t want innocent people geting caught up buying to much sudafed , then went on to call me a meth cook , I am on trial for purchasing over 9 grams of pseudoephedrine in a 30 day period, not for manufacturing this statute is overbroad if by its reach it punishes constitutionally protected activity as well as illegal activity (Grayned v city of Rockford 408 U.S 104,114,92S.Ct.2294,33L.Ed.2d 222 (1972) to sum things up for the wantabe police who wrote this responce to this complaint above this law allows arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of said law (Kolender v Lawson 1983,357) this act violates I feel my Due Process Protected by my forteenth Amendment void for vaguerness Doctrine. Your comment she is most likely a smurf You must be running for a local DA job in my city to stereotype a person is a big no no that shows bias have a good day Kevin Teter Hutchinson KS 67501 PS my case is on Appeal in the state of Kansas Pending !!! 4/19/11

Eric September 8, 2010 at 9:18 am

In other news Christopher Ward can embezzle $840k and only get 3 years. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/us/04brfs-FORMERGOPOFF_BRF.html

Jon Leckie September 8, 2010 at 10:40 am

That’s shocking. I mean, even with the history of serious offending, and even if the felonies were really nasty and violent anti-social behaviour (note this is an “even” and not an endorsement), it’s just wrong. 20 years is … jeez it’s actually really upsetting to read about this.

For any American criminal lawyers out there, is this likely to be reduced on appeal, if not, what’s the time served likely to be with parole?

Jon Leckie September 8, 2010 at 10:44 am

That’s shocking. I mean, even with the history of serious offending, and even if the felonies were really nasty and violent anti-social behaviour (note this is an “even” and not an endorsement), it’s just wrong. 20 years is … jeez it’s actually really upsetting to read about this.

For any American criminal lawyers out there, is this likely to be reduced on appeal, if not, what’s the time served likely to be with parole?

And just out of interest, and to try and get some perspective, how many tablets are in these boxes? In the UK, you usually get around four tabs, each with three day tablets and two night tablets (ie. a 24 hours cycle x 3 or 4).

Greg September 8, 2010 at 11:09 am

Boxes here usually have 24 or so tablets, so 4-6 days worth for 1 person. I better warn my dad before allergy season hits. He used to drop a box of sudafed in less than 4 days.

Vasanth July 28, 2011 at 7:40 pm

Real scary.she would’ve thinking to stock it up for future use or she may be planning for out of country for long time

Greg September 8, 2010 at 11:27 am

According to the article, this woman had 2 previous felonies and about a dozen misdemeanors, all by age 31. I’d have to imagine there were parole violations and such mixed in with this “precursor” charge. I don’t think owning any substance, whether it’s a precursor or meth itself, should be illegal. But it’s not like they’re just throwing any random person in jail for it.

Jon Leckie September 8, 2010 at 11:37 am

Yes, I see that angle Greg, but 20 years? That’s a big bullet for a little trigger, even with the history.

Jeffrey Tucker September 8, 2010 at 11:43 am

Plus we know nothing of this history. Was it pot? DUI? I find it appalling that people could look at an obvious injustice – based on the stated reason for the twenty years – and say, well, you know, we should just trust that the system has nailed a bad guy. I mean, look at the long line of offenses here. Surely she did something wrong enough to deserve this!

The only fact we know and the only real charge here is buying stuff that five years ago was perfectly legal to purchase in bulk.

J. Murray September 8, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Honestly, the history doesn’t even matter even if the past event was a significant violation of the life, liberty, or property of another. What does a past battery conviction have to do with buying Sudafed? The punishment doesn’t fit the crime. The “crime” was buying decongestents. What in that action deserves a 20 year prison sentence? It doesn’t matter if the offender robbed banks in the past or if it’s a first time.

Jon Leckie September 8, 2010 at 12:07 pm

Jeffrey, J. Murray, I agree, as I said up above (Mr Reed please note): “even if the felonies were really nasty and violent anti-social behaviour (note this is an “even” and not an endorsement), it’s just wrong. 20 years is … jeez it’s actually really upsetting to read about this.”

Greg September 9, 2010 at 1:41 pm

I wasn’t condoning the state’s actions, and for all I know, her other offenses are all substance related, which I had stated are bogus. But from reading the blog post, you made it sound like some random housewife was thrown in jail for doing some shopping. I do believe in increasing jail terms for people who repeatedly break the law. Of course, we need to get rid of all the non-crime crimes for it to make sense.

Horst Muhlmann September 8, 2010 at 12:22 pm

Well, considering the average murderer does 7 years, 20 years sounds reasonable. Certainly buying allergy medicine is three times worse than murdering someone.

/sarcasm, of course!

geoih September 8, 2010 at 12:11 pm

“But it’s not like they’re just throwing any random person in jail for it.”

For now.

And government has never abused its power before, so we’re probably OK (most of us good people, anyway).

Nathan Reed September 8, 2010 at 11:56 am

Greg and Mr Leckie:

If you folks have the ability to “See Angles” and imagine scenarios by which people can be imprisoned then I have a suggestion. Get your own damn check book out and pay for it. Every single day we should mail the invoice for imprisoning the individual to your address and expect prompt payment. I would be willing to wager if you were on the jury and knew how much it would cost and knew your family would have to pay those cost that you would have done some very creative “Seeing” and “Imagining”. We are certainly a pathetic society.

My wife suffers from chronic asthma and we were nearly caught in this trap. I am sure glad to know that I can depend on my fellow citizens to “See Angles” and “Imagine” my wife and I in prison. Disgusting.

Jon Leckie September 8, 2010 at 12:01 pm

Mr Reed, I can only suggest that you read my posts far too quickly. Please read it again, I think you will be embarrassed.

Greg September 9, 2010 at 1:46 pm

Ditto what Jon Leckie said. You seemed to have read one sentence of my post and then jumped to conclusions. I said in my own post that I don’t think owning any substance should be a crime. I was pointing out facts that the person who started this blog entry failed to mention. Facts that most certainly went into the sentencing decision. Every state in this country treats prior offenders differently than first time offenders. I’m sometimes too lazy to read the original article, and I imagine there are others like me, so I thought I would mention some of these missing facts so we would all get a more complete picture.

Nathan Reed September 8, 2010 at 12:14 pm

Mr. Leckie:

Your post suggest you might know of a corretly sized bullet. I will clearly state that the issue described by Mr. Tucker is of no business of the state. Period. I am certainly not embarrassed. This country imprisons people at at whim. When that gun gets accidentilly pointed your direction you will be hoping that I am the one sitting on the jury.

Nathan Reed September 8, 2010 at 12:22 pm

I am however most embarrassed by the spelling error. Accidentally.

Jon Leckie September 8, 2010 at 12:27 pm

Dude read the posts. You’re off base.

Please try to understand these words: I agree with you. You have completely misunderstood my posts, which I have reread: they are clear as day. Just breathe, slow down and read again.

Doug September 8, 2010 at 12:31 pm

If you can be sent to jail for purchasing something legally….imagine the possibilities.

DayOwl September 8, 2010 at 12:57 pm

It sounds like a “3 strikes” kind of sentence, while out of proportion to the “crime” it fits general guidelines regarding repeat offenders. The report mentions two prior felony convictions. This weighs heavily when a judge decides a sentence to impose. My guess is the charges were just a way to get this woman behind bars for a host of other charges and convictions. For someone without a record the outcome would be very different.

In NC, you’re allowed to buy ten days worth, 2.4 mg, at once. You must stand in line at the pharmacy, hand over DL and sign on the digital line each time. Punishment for having chronic sinus problems. If there was a viable alternative, we’d all use it.

The law is the equivalent of using a sledge hammer on a thumb tack. It imposes a far greater cost on legitimate users than the evil it supposedly counteracts. It didn’t stop the people in the apartment next to mine from cooking meth in their kitchen. (I no longer live there.) The meth market didn’t disappear because pseudoephedrine is harder to buy.

Robby September 8, 2010 at 1:28 pm

“The meth market didn’t disappear because pseudoephedrine is harder to buy.”

Indeed it did not. The real joy here is the absolute absurdity of the results of a law like this. By imposing this restriction, it is apparently a little harder to cook meth than it used to be. Judging by the continued prevalence of meth cooking, it’s not much harder, and not enough harder to actually stop someone from doing it. Instead, producers will raise prices, telling customers “it ain’t the good ole days no more” to (very likely more than) offset the increased risk. When you factor in that a meth producer must have a higher risk tolerance than the average Joe, it is a better gig to cook meth now than it was before the restrictions on Sudafed were in place.

Result: more, not less, meth. Great going, W.

J. Murray September 8, 2010 at 1:35 pm

Also, unlike “above the board” markets, black markets aren’t hindered by laws and regulation. Black markets tend to be monopolistic in nature for any given product as the most violent and dangerous supplier will eventually be the sole provider. Note, this isn’t an argument of legalizing so people have access to police protection, it’s just another negative outcome when any attempts to protect your own existence will result in the State attacking you. It’s highly likely that the meth market adjusted by becoming just a little more dangerous as existing producers have to fight over a slightly more restricted supply chain.

DayOwl September 8, 2010 at 2:00 pm

The monopoly is violently maintained, as the bullet holes in my neighbor’s apartment will attest. (This was in a “nice” neighborhood, too.)

Russ the Apostate September 8, 2010 at 2:08 pm

Not only is the violence a problem, but the danger of cooking the meth in the first place. And cooks that haven’t completely rotted out their own brains yet will cook in someplace other than their own property, if they can, thus “externalizing” the risk onto somebody else. When I went to Lincoln, AL to work at the Honda plant there once, the hotel clerk informed me that I should be glad I picked his hotel. The one right down the street caught on fire when somebody rented a room, set up a meth lab, put out the “Do Not Disturb” sign, and then left.

Shay September 8, 2010 at 2:48 pm

I hear these meth people wear clothing. Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Better stock up before they become a restricted item.

Russ the Apostate September 8, 2010 at 6:46 pm

Not sure what you meant exactly by that, Shay. I assume it was supposed to be funny. My point was that since meth makers endanger others with the methods they use to make meth, it would be safer if it were made in properly engineered and safe laboratory conditions and sold on a free market. At least that way, the only people the morons who use it will hurt is themselves.

Shay September 9, 2010 at 9:57 am

Yes, the problem is people doing things that endanger others. So why is it illegal to buy too much Sudafed? This act in itself doesn’t endanger anyone, at least in a place with sane laws.

Russ the Apostate September 9, 2010 at 1:50 pm

“So why is it illegal to buy too much Sudafed?”

Simple. Because such laws give middle- and upper-class parents a sense of security that their little angels Tommy and Tina will never be exposed to the temptation of meth. (It’s a false sense of security, of course, but when has truth ever been a major factor in politics?) The parents then vote for the politicians and functionaries who enact and enforce these bad laws. Basically, the politicians are giving the majority of voters what they want. It will continue to be this way, until people get their heads out of their asses, or until we are no longer a democracy.

james b. longacre September 16, 2010 at 1:27 pm

It imposes a far greater cost on legitimate users than the evil it supposedly counteracts.

if the so-called law is true , then that is probably the case.

joan February 25, 2011 at 3:52 pm

FUCK SUDAFED, R U KIDDING. Ban the shit & people won’t get arrested for buying too many packages. How could anyone claim they can’t live w/out it? Maybe ur nose so clogged b/c ur sick & filled w/ a bunch of shit mucus before getting sick. of all the things to fucing complain about– the availabiltiy of fucking sudafed. Try the Master cleanse by stanley burroughs & excercise, u may get sick less & will clean out all other toxiuns in the body whinig ‘legitimate users’. The only meds i take, when i have to, is tylenol & i don’t even like taking that b/c of liver damage.

Xerik July 17, 2011 at 5:48 am

Ok taht “detox” is beyond retarded. “It cleanses the body” is a bunch of B.S. Lemons in both short term and long term actually HARM the body and dont even remove ANY TOXINS. Plain and simple… look it up. What nutrients are you providing to your body what vitimans among other things? Before you open your stupid mouth again… read up and actually take a class on foods and nutrients. My grandmother was a nutrisionist and a reflexoligist, She did follow BOTH homeopathic medicines and scientific mediciens. Following a scientifice study on herbs was a great way to keep her body healthy and to keep her body from shutting down due to cotton mouth disease. People like you are the ones that let their child die when they should have been to the doctor and taken away from you.

Cris Crawford September 8, 2010 at 2:56 pm

Now let us suppose the worst, that she was buying the stuff to make drugs. You know, when I read Tucker’s first article (the one in his book), he made the point that the reason the stuff is illegal is that the pseudoephedrine manufacturers were from India and China and the stuff was cheap – they did not have the cash reserves of the German makers of the other PE (the bogus Sudafed that you can still buy) to bribe congress to “protect” their interests. What that made me understand is that there will still be meth, there will always be meth, it just will be made by bigger fish than this woman who is going to jail or her friends. Well actually I understood this, I knew banning Sudafed would not put a dent in meth production. I just didn’t know the details until I read Mr. Tucker’s article. I don’t have to be a meth manufacturer to understand that if there is a demand for pseudephedrine, it will be met on the black market.

I bought Sudafed at multiple stores about a year ago. I went to one store and bought the wrong kind for my husband who was suffering from congestion and wanted to avoid a painful case of sinus infection (he had one before and they are notoriously difficult to treat with antibiotics). So I went back to the store where I had bought the first bunch and they didn’t have the kind he wanted. So I went to another store. I couldn’t buy it so I had a little fit. Of course I am well-dressed “white” lady so I didn’t get in trouble. But hubby had to wait for the next day for the slow-release decongestant. Please read Tucker’s article from before, the one that is in his book. It is eminently clear to me why we have to jump through hoops to get the stuff that really works.

By the way who cares if anyone anywhere makes meth. I certainly don’t. What is the point with making it illegal? Either you use speed now and then and it is not a problem, so you should be able to buy it, or you are an addict. Addiction is a biological/psychological problem, not a criminal behavior. It is just as absurd as jailing people for being blind and deaf. All it does is entrench the problem. I say go ahead and let the addicts buy their stuff, and if the addiction is a problem, let the addicts and their people deal with it. I see absolutely no reason for this nonsense other than that it provides job and financial security for sadistic thugs in blue uniforms (cops), brown uniforms (jailers), and gray suits (jail magnates). Plus the prison population can be put to work below minimum wages.

james b. longacre September 16, 2010 at 1:23 pm

i wouldnt weep for leos getting the same force applied to them as they apply to drug users.

joan February 25, 2011 at 3:57 pm

bitch that made NO SENSE whatsoever.

joan February 25, 2011 at 3:58 pm

go pop some ur valium wine and sudafed– must be an interesting high, nice well-dressed white ‘lady’

Hello May 22, 2011 at 3:12 pm

I totally agree with you.They should just let the addiction buy their stuff.They should focus more on the real criminal like,rapist,car jacking,home invasion,insurance fraud,illegal immigration,and come on what is with the click it or ticket thing.Seat belt is just uncomfortable for me i don’t see how i could harm anyone by not putting it on.Maybe the insurance company worry about paying the death ability.The cop spend more time looking for people without seat belt instead of people out there committing crimes.This is bs!

Nathan Reed September 8, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Mr. Leckie:

My name is not “Dude”. I therefore am not clear as to your meaning. Dude is a slang but can have many different meanings depending on the setting and so forth. Since I do not know you personally I can not assess the meaning and respectfully ask that your refer to me by my name which is well supplied here.

I do not know what your meaning may be when you tell me to breath. It would seem obvious that I am breathing in order for me to post on the site.

I do not know what your meaning may be when you tell me to slow down. Do you think I am running. Or perhaps you believe I am driving while posting. That cannot be known by me.

I do not know what you mean when you say:

“Yes, I see that angle Greg, but 20 years?”

I can only assume you believe that Greg has a point and that possibly it is ok to sentence a human being to some time in prison for a victimless crime.

I do not know what you mean when you say:

“That’s a big bullet for a little trigger, even with the history.”

What is “a little trigger”? And what does a bullet have to do with a trigger?

The use of your slang may convey a clear meaning to you. But when I read these words in the context of a discussion regarding the sentencing of a human being to what will probably be a life sentence I certainly do not see meaning as “clear as day”. I really do not care that you can find clear meaning in your slang. That does not clarify your meaning for me regardless of how many times you read it.

I am not Dude. I am breathing just fine. I do not think I am going overly fast. And I am not embarrassed for not understanding your slang with no context. Especially given the subject matter.

I can only assume you mean to be condescending in your last use of slang but I could be wrong. While I am happy to know you agree with me I would appreciate it if you keep what can only appear to me to be insults to yourself.

Regards

Matthew Swaringen September 8, 2010 at 7:48 pm

I personally think you are being ridiculous and are acting silly by being nitpicky.

It is not wrong to “see angles” and recognize that there is some truth behind a statement that reaches the wrong conclusion.

If I see a person steal and someone tells me “He’s poor” and I say “Sure… but I disagree with the theft anyway” am I saying that I agree with stealing? It’s exactly the same in your scenario here. He only agreed with the truth behind the statement, not the conclusion that was reached.

Jon Leckie September 9, 2010 at 3:07 am

Nathan, you’re a lunatic. A howling-at-the-moon certified raving lunatic.

Walt D. September 8, 2010 at 7:10 pm

It seems that the founding fathers did not see this problem coming -f congress passing stupid laws. It would seem that whenever congress passes “knew jerk” laws, they are very poorly thought out and often end up with unintended consequences. Since Federal powers are supposed to be limited and enumerated, perhaps all laws passed by congress should require a two thirds majority and ratification by 3/4 of the states.

Charles Boyung October 19, 2010 at 2:33 pm

That’s absolutely idiotic. Do you have any idea what our country would be like if your proposed “solution” were in place?

Grant April 4, 2011 at 1:14 pm

It would probably be drastically improved from its current state.

Ohhh Henry September 8, 2010 at 9:19 pm

I saw a guy buying potatoes the other day, then I saw him buying another 20 lb of potatoes just yesterday. We better arrest him and throw him in the slammer, 5 to 10 years if he has a clean record and 20 years to life if he’s a known scalliwag. You know, potatoes, sugar, moonshine. A real health hazard, and so much revenue lost to the gummint. Guy’s a smurf alright. Just to be safe, we also better imprison anyone buying gro-lites, fluorescent fixtures, plastic trays and tubes. Or who owns a house with electricity or a field or woodlot in the country. Damn grow-ops are ruining this country.

Charles Hanes September 8, 2010 at 11:24 pm

I have never heard a better reason to get the government out of regulating drugs — of all kinds, completely.

I would support Prop. 19 here in CA if it simply legalized marijuana. But what it does instead is replace illegality (in CA) with unlimited regulation at the local and state level. They can tax and regulate it to the point that it might as well still be illegal. Not much of an improvement.

The only answer — get the government out of it completely. What we need is not drug legalization — what we need is the elimination of government control over our lives.

Free the Sudafed One!

El Tonno September 16, 2010 at 11:02 am

Now you can go to jail faster:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/computing/it/should-police-have-access-to-computerized-prescription-drug-records/

“Last week, the Raleigh, North Carolina News & Observer ran a story about sheriffs in North Carolina requesting access to the state’s computerized records that identify “anyone with prescriptions for powerful painkillers and other controlled substances.”

Several states have such databases.

The News & Observer says that the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association is pushing hard for the access, “saying the move would help them make drug arrests and curb a growing problem of prescription drug abuse.”

james b. longacre January 14, 2011 at 2:46 am

better to sit outside out bar parking lots where drinking and driving is known to happen and stop drunk driving all together

james b. longacre September 16, 2010 at 1:13 pm

“saying the move would help them make drug arrests and curb a growing problem of prescription drug abuse.”

lies. from a bunch of liars.
the arrests wouldnt help or change anything except keep adultuering, lying leos in a job.
prescription drug use and misuse has been around for a long time. the sheerifs dont need to make drug arrests anyway. child abuse and murder, assaults/rape etc…they can look into. let the drug users and misusers get help from churhces and clinics.

Mike October 6, 2010 at 3:31 pm

Regardless of her history, intent or if she bought it from 8 stores, she was arrested for buying SUDAFED, not cocaine or any other illegal substance. There is no evidence of meth-making or anything else. All this says is if you are SUSPECTED of doing anything criminal, you will be arrested without proper cause.

james b. longacre January 14, 2011 at 2:43 am

is it a fake story??

Skeptic November 14, 2010 at 3:58 pm

I was just carded at the drugstore buying a carton of Sudafed. I thought it might help, where Benadryl did not. I was so irritated when asked to display my drivers license (which they scanned for sharing with god knows who) that I said, “Oh yes, I do intend to use if for criminal purposes.” The clerk ignored that. Then a new clerk took over, and I asked for a complete explanation of the digital screen requiring my signature. The clerk said “It says you won’t use it for criminal purposes.” Actually it does not say that, I pointed out. He then read it closely. “Well, it says you are who you say you are.” I said “I hope I am.” Jail time and/or $250,000 fine in my future apparently if I try to beat the Flexible Spending change and stock up prior to 2011. I have gotten stubborn and paranoid in my old age.

Nissa November 29, 2010 at 3:56 pm

OMFG I’m never moving to the States! American lawmakers are crazy! Going to jail for buying cold meds. I sure hope the woman appealed her sentence. That’s got to be against human rights. At least it would be in Canada.

Dave M December 18, 2010 at 6:29 pm

Give it a break….in Canada the government [provincial] has been tapping peoples phones and having detectives follow people because they raise embarassing questions at public meetings about expropriating private land to build refineries.

There are no property rights in the Canadian constitution either! Don’t act so smug when you are unaware of Canadian law.

augusto March 3, 2011 at 9:15 pm
james b. longacre January 14, 2011 at 2:42 am

but if you drive drunk as a senator you get a measly ticket and keep a senate pension

SloppyJon December 7, 2010 at 11:51 am

This is what happens when we decide to mix ideas of freedom, and justice. Pick one, you can’t have both, perfectly balanced all the time. If you want to try it, then try to do it right. I believe freedom should be given only to the just. This woman should not be allowed the same purchasing power as one who has not committed a meth related crime. We shouldn’t ever treat criminals to the same rights as non-criminals. The unjust should be punished severely, and have the freedoms associated with their crimes stripped from them.

Lastly, punishment should be severe. Fear of pain is a powerful deterrent, and pain itself is a powerful reformer. Socially, shame and humiliation also serve as powerful motivators. Criminals should be publicly flogged and humiliated in response to a criminal conviction. Punishment IS NOT punishment if it is kind and usual treatment of criminals. If it is not cruel and unusual, it is not punishment.

james b. longacre January 14, 2011 at 2:39 am

Fear of pain is a powerful deterrent, and pain itself is a powerful reformer.

especially turned back on to those who initially inflict it.

james b. longacre January 14, 2011 at 2:41 am

“if it is not cruel and unusual, it is not punishment.”

yeah..shitty hair rockers

james b. longacre January 14, 2011 at 2:42 am

describe an idea-mix

Facts December 18, 2010 at 4:56 pm

Mankind will all be controlled, bio-chipped and placed in internment camps for not projecting the proper “mass media projected” attitudes in public or private. And who will enforce these draconian laws you say? Well, it won’t be the Homeland Security staff as they are only the administrators, it will be your own neighbors and family members as it will give them a cense of power over others and new meaning to their otherwise boring lives turning “undesirables” over to the police forces for re-education. And the Bio-chip? I project not only will the population demand them, they will be backordered and the result will be a limited supply for the “good citizens” getting them first. Welcome the new empire! But don’t worry, if you’re scarred, bothered or terrified there is always Prozac and fluoridated water to keep you happy and trustful.

Robert December 18, 2010 at 5:54 pm

“…fluoridated water to keep you happy and trustful.”

Violating the sanctity of our precious bodily fluids . . .

In your case, a bit of Geodon would be more helpful.

james b. longacre January 14, 2011 at 2:38 am

you first

Dbarrett January 13, 2011 at 5:38 pm

there is no medical need to purchase that much sudafed in 12 days …. im glad she went to jail, its not just harming herself if shes making crystal meth that affects everyone in the community shes dealing it to, making it for or buying it for. That could be ur family friends for friends of friends. Im pretty sure they had other reasons for giving her that much time she probably had a lab in her home or this is not her first offense.

james b. longacre January 14, 2011 at 2:40 am

no medical need to go to the state liquor store either.

Dbarrett January 13, 2011 at 5:52 pm

and it could have very well been the 96 count box. which would add up to 384 other articles said she lived alone so thats no one to share with, and has had prior drug charges ….. really everyone defending her….. crystal meth drug addiction is a serious problem in the united state so any one contributing should def. be punished to the full extent of the law. All of you soo concerned about ur normal once in a while usage should relax they would take all factor into consideration like the number of age appropriate household member who could also be using it. i work in the pharmacy i see these kinds of people every day its their fault the rest of us who take it for medicinal purposes have to show our ids…. we have to show ids for alcohol and cigarettes too whats the big deal.

Dr. Neer January 14, 2011 at 2:14 am

I would have to say that is pretty ridiculous. I mean, giving her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she really did have a sinus infection or something like that. Hopefully that’s what she was doing, but if she wasn’t, then jail time is well deserved…

james b. longacre January 14, 2011 at 2:37 am

“Hopefully that’s what she was doing, but if she wasn’t, then jail time is well deserved…”

if you really think jail time is well deserved for that i think a meth overdose should be forced on you.

“its their fault the rest of us who take it for medicinal purposes have to show our ids…. we have to show ids for alcohol and cigarettes too whats the big deal.”

you think its an addicts fault that you have to show an id for sudafed??

Amy Wike January 18, 2011 at 1:58 pm

You can always get natural and organic sinus supplements instead of having to wait at line at the pharmacy. They always seem to work for me!

joan February 25, 2011 at 3:59 pm

listen to amy

joan February 25, 2011 at 4:03 pm

you pussys requested deletion of my post, pleeease

joan February 25, 2011 at 4:04 pm

try stanley burroughs master cleanse it does Wonders for your health! have a very happy day, wonderful people! LUV u!

joan February 25, 2011 at 4:05 pm

never mind, glad cursing is still ok here

james March 3, 2011 at 8:30 pm

We spend $20,000 to $30,000 a year to lock an addict up for 20 years ?? Anyone who believes this is a policy that has shown a decline in drug use since the war on drugs began,should have to personally pay for her incarceration….

Bob March 8, 2011 at 7:15 pm

This is so annoying. I feel like I’m going to the store every coupe of weeks just or Sudafed to help with my congestion from allergies.

Now, I’m confused by something. You said this was a Bush-era law. Is that true? I was buying as much Sudafed as I wanted until a few months ago. Bush was president over 2 years ago and it’s been over 4 years since democrats have been in complete controls of congress. So there is no law that Bush could pass that democrats did give to him to pass.

Just looking for clarification.

Thanks,
Bob

Nunyabizness March 12, 2011 at 10:59 am

Sudafed in and of itself is not a harmful substance when taken as directed on the packaging or by a doctor. However, when combined with some very toxic substances it becomes methamphetamine.

People don’t understand the enormous costs associated with the production of methamphetamine. That meth cook that got burned very seriously when his lab blew up? Well, he doesn’t have health insurance (big surprise) and the cost for his staying in a burn unit for months and all the physical therapy he’ll need to regain the use of his arms or legs is dumped on the rest of the public who have health insurance. Guess what…your healthcare costs just went up…AGAIN.

That lab the police found on the property next door to yours? Well, the whole property has been quarantined and will require an EPA approved cleanup because of the toxic waste. Your property value just went down the toilet. Oh…and even if the property gets cleaned up, that quarantine stays on the deed for LIFE.

The feds no longer have any money for meth lab cleanup so the cost of cleanup is being dumped on local law enforcement agencies all over the US. Your property taxes just went up because there is no money budgeted for this very costly cleanup.

If your doctor requires that you be on Sudafed for an extended period of time all he has to do is write a prescription for it and it will never be questioned. You won’t end up on any list because when a doctor prescribes it (even though it’s an OTC product) the pharmacist and law enforcement will never question it because you are obviously using it for a legitimate purpose. Anyone with serious allergy or asthma issues should always have their doctor prescribe it. It also cuts out any sales tax you would have paid if you’d purchased it over the counter.

Grant April 4, 2011 at 1:23 pm

None of what you said matters. All you are doing is stating that if we do exactly as we are told, we won’t be burned by the state. What you should be focused on is the rights that are being infringed upon.

If you showed your papers and they were always in order, I’m sure you rarely got harassed in the USSR. If you picked cotton and agreed your name was Toby, the beatings were probably minimal. But the bottom line is you are a slave, and obeying your master and being treated well does not make you less of a slave.

If you want to be a slave, fine, go do it on your own dime and on your own property, leave me out of it. I want to purchase all the sinus-clearing Sudafed I want and then some without getting thrown in jail.

Shawty J August 17, 2011 at 6:00 am

OMG I could not agree more….

Shawty J August 17, 2011 at 6:13 am

Well, ole boy that blew himself up may not have insurance and you may think that it’s coming back on you in taxes but the hospitals can write that off on their taxes and then it’s on the government. And the doctors do not have to do anything more than stabilize the man. Then they are freed from all liability. Tell me tho…isn’t that the same as someone that gets drunk and trashes an entire city killing and injuring 50 people that don’t have insurance? Nope its worse. I know that manufacturing drugs is a very bad thing and I’m definately not trying to defend it. I’m just trying to make a point that the government allows people to drink and act stupid so why not do meth and fidget at your nails all day? I would rather be around the drug user than the drunk….

leongsl November 10, 2011 at 2:48 pm

Having a Doctor prescribe Sudafed or a allergy medicine that has sudafed in it does nothing for being able to purchase it. Not only Down insurance no longer cover it but you have to drive to the pharmacy every 12 – 15 days if you have the need for daily allergy medicine. The pharmacy is 25 miles away two to three times a month plus the cost of meication and gas…..An unecessary problem for cronic allergy suferers. For some this is the only medication that works.

If you could get a month at a time with a prescription that would be great, but alas, this is not allowed.

Cherie A April 14, 2011 at 7:22 am

My brother just got arrested for buying 4 packages of Sudafed in the month of December. I am sure he was making Crystal Meth with it and the best thing for him and the rest of society is for him to go to jail. People know when they sign for and show their ID for Sudafed that they cannot buy over 3 packages per month. You sign a statement telling you that. Everyone knows that the reason is due to its use in making illegal drugs.

There are so many other over the counter medications out there with a different active ingredient. You are fooling yourself if you actually think the people who violate this law are innocent. They aren’t only manufacturing …but they are selling it … which gets more people hooked on it.

If they did not enforce the law then it would not do anything to stop the manufacture of meth. I doubt that my brother or the woman in this story will actually get 20 yrs. I suspect it will be far less and this story has been sensationalized so that you have sympathy for the poor drug dealer. Laws are what keeps society civilized. They are here for the protection of the majority of people.

Sending these people to jail might enable them to get clean and scare them enough to stop making drugs. I wholeheartedly agree with it … even though it will send my brother to jail. I think it will help save him in the long run as nothing else seems to have worked. Addicts of any kind are habitual liars. You cannot trust them or give them the benefit of the doubt.

Dr. P June 24, 2011 at 5:28 pm

How about just having the pharmacies ban the sale of “excessive” amounts automatically? Heck, my wife just bought me Benydryl non-drowsy due to record pollen levels here on FL. Do I have to worry about her getting arrested if I need still more? BTW, with 3 children, an elderly mother and an elderly aunt she oftentimes carries all our medications. I guess this makes her a true “drug mule” or smurf. What BS!

Mary June 28, 2011 at 7:43 am

She might have been doing the same thing I was…hoarding! You just can’t find the stuff anymore, and if you suffer from sinus infections, you know that there is just no substitute for the original Sudafed.

SODsupporter August 5, 2011 at 10:46 am

There is no solid evedence to prove that she was make illegal drugs, BUT If I had taken 3 boxes of pills in 12 days, which are very bad for your health, then there wouldnt be a fourth purchase. Why would you keep buying something that doesnt work and is expensive? I think she was guilty but wrongly convicted because you cant prove that she was manurfactering or doing anything illegal.

SODsupporter August 5, 2011 at 10:57 am

Furthermore, our justice system should not be called justice system. I have a good freind that had been hunting all morning and later attened a BBQ at the deer camp. He had been drinking and when it came time to go home, he realized that he had to much to drink and was over the blood alcohol level limit. He had decided to sleep in his truck. The police were called out to the camp and when they found him in his truck they gave him a DWI. Thats right, Driving Under the Influence for sleeping in his car. They said, “wheather you are driving or not, if you are over the limit and you are caught in a vehicle with possesion of the keys, You are GUILTY.” He lost his license for a year($100 reinstatment fee), had to pay a fine($1500), take a $100 Alcohol Saftey class, and be on probation($25 monthly) for 1 year. What kind of justice is punishing a man for making the right choice?

Shawty J August 17, 2011 at 5:55 am

I have to say that the laws are becoming absolutely absurd as the years go by but “We The People” just let it happen by NOT standing up for what is right. It’s our right as citizens of the United States to buy whatever OTC meds we want to. “We The People” vote our politicians into office and then we complain when they don’t fulfill the duties they promised. I even listen to people that do not even vote, complain…..but if all the non voters would VOTE, that could be all it takes to make the difference?? Not to change the subject but just for example….New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma(i’m sure there’s more) have the seatbelt “click it or ticket” law…and they also have the law that makes it LEGAL for motorcyclists to NOT wear a helmet!! So I could own a big huge 30 year old METAL suburban and BY LAW have to wear my seatbelt but the biker next door can hop on his harley and hit the streets WITHOUT a helmet??? WTF??? This I do not understand. If I wreck my suburban, it probably isn’t gonna cause much damage…considering it’s enclosed, and metal, If the biker next door wrecks his harley, he’s looking at some serious head trauma possibly or maybe even death. His unprotected head could have less a chance of being smashed by the car behind him when he flies off his bike, if it were protected!!! If they don’t have to wear helmets then why the hell are we wearing seatbelts BY LAW?? Cuz we don’t protest the decisions that are made. Towns don’t get together and argue these laws…States don’t…so we suffer the consequences of having to stand in line and wait for half an hr, show id, sign and pay. Just because “we the people” don’t stand up for ourselves…especially in large groups! NOOOOW….you must see your family doctor for a prescription… call and make an appt., go to appt.(after losing half days pay at work), get charged a certain amount for office visit, possibly no insurance so then you get billed for the doctors appt., drop off script(probably with kids in tote), come back 30 minutes later to pick up(with kids still in tote), PAY for script, then the next cold that comes along…..repeat process! They just need to put an age limit on it and maybe monitor only prior offenders buying or just make it illegal for the priors to buy period. I dunno but the laws contradict themselves so much and slowly but surely the government is gonna take away our civil rights if we don’t start defending what is right. I’m sorry that some chemist managed to manufacture methamphetamine and then it became a problem….why don’t they just put our pills out on the shelves again and then the government can manufacture the meth and write us a prescription FOR THAT INSTEAD…..Or regulate who is buying THAT instead…then they could pin point their problems…Or maybe if our law enforcement would just do some good old clean detective work and quit blackmailing people into RATTING…and if they wouldn’t be so crooked themselves, they could probably put a stop to the meth problem in a HUGE way. Okay….I’m rambling because this bothers me SOOOO bad but so many people have liquor problems to the point they KILL innocent lives just to try to drive home, but you don’t have to sign for that. It’s even legal to drink as long as you don’t drive or break the laws but drunks kill people everyday…just like I’m sure every drug can….. some people have no place drinking cuz they are mean or whatever….some people have no place doing certain drugs because they cannot handle themselves and are FIENDS….SAME THINGS HERE,YET ONE IS LEGAL AND ONE IS NOT AND …….WHY? SOOO AGGRIVATED ABOUT THIS!

leongsl November 10, 2011 at 2:52 pm

You cannot get a months supply even with a prescription. I have tried.

Insatiate76 October 26, 2011 at 11:02 am

It establishes that we really aren’t free to do what we want…. If your not hurting anyone else, then whats the harm here?

Darcy October 31, 2011 at 1:02 pm

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: