Restricting cold remedies won't remedy meth crisis

By Kenn Gividen 

There are 12,392 to 15,490 methamphetamine labs in Indiana.

Law enforcement estimates that for every meth lab discovered, another eight to 10 go undetected. Indiana police shut down 1,549 labs in 2004. Indiana's population is just over 6 million. That's one meth lab for every 387 to 484 Hoosiers.

During my 12 years as a Baptist pastor, I learned the serious consequences of drug abuse and narcotic trafficking. One drug-dealing father confided that he was attempting to 'help his son" get arrested for dealing. Once in prison, his son could earn enough from selling narcotics to retire upon his release.

That drug trafficking is a state crisis is indisputable. That the Republicans are clueless in finding a remedy is equally indisputable.

 Why are Methamphetamines so popular?

"An investment of a few hundred dollars in over-the-counter medications and chemicals can produce thousands of dollars worth of methamphetamine," Indiana GOP chairman, Jim Kittle, Jr. said on the state Republican Party's Web site.

"There is no way to overstate the damage this drug is doing," Gov. Mitch Daniels said recently. 'And as far as I am concerned, there is no way to overreact. There is no step too strong to take in combating it."

 No step too strong?

Daniels wants to place medications containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine behind the counter (Senate Bill 444). These ingredients, found in many over-the-counter cold medicines, are used to make meth.

Kittle cites a similar effort in Oklahoma that reduced meth-lab arrests by more than 50 percent. It's not as astonishing as it seems. A similar success rate in Indiana would reduce meth labs from one per 387 Hoosiers to one per 774 Hoosiers. Meth would still be readily available.

To justify the program, Kittle noted that "The overall cost of methamphetamine costs the state an estimated $100 million dollars a year in law enforcement, corrections, child services, and environmental cleanup."

 The problem with meth

While Daniels' solution is shortsighted and expensive, his concern is valid.

According to drugabuse.gov, 'The methamphetamine user experiences an intense sensation, called a 'rush' or 'flash,' that lasts only a few minutes and is described as extremely pleasurable." Meth users also experience euphoria, hyperactivity, and invulnerability. The thought of 'invulnerable" meth users barreling down the interstate at the proposed 70 mph speed limit causes great concern.

In exchange for the short-lived high, meth users may encounter irreversible damage to blood vessels in the brain, producing strokes. Other effects include respiratory problems, irregular heartbeat and extreme anorexia. Its use can result in cardiovascular collapse and death.

 The new law won't work

So give the governor credit for his concern. But there are more effective -- and less expensive -- solutions than tossing another 1,500 meth-makers in the slammer. And without forcing miserable cold-sufferers to needlessly stand in long lines for relief.

First, the market is answering the problem. Pfizer, which makes Sudafed, switched in January to its pseudoephedrine-free formula sold in Europe. It cannot be used to make meth. Pfizer wanted to regain profits lost to non-pseudoephedrine products while it removed the stigma from Sudafed.

Addicts won't steal reformulated Sudafed. Stores will stock meth-proof medications because they make more money on goods that aren't stolen. Other drug companies will follow Pfizer's lead to compete.

Second, closing down small meth labs will not necessarily reduce methamphetamine abuse.

While the number of meth labs in Okalahoma decreased by 50 percent,
the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Web site reported
that crystal methamphetamine use is growing.

Meth traffic from Mexico is filling the void in Oklahoma. Rather than reduce drug abuse, restrictions tend to boost the price and profitability of illegal drugs. Mexican traffickers happily cashed in.

 Federal law proposed

Predictably, Washington politicians want credit for stopping a scourge.

Congressional legislation, introduced by Sens. Jim Talent (R-Mo.)
and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), is modeled after Oklahoma's law.
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) introduced a similar House bill.

If passed, there will be fewer illegal meth labs, just like in Oklahoma.

And, just like in Oklahoma, lower supply will raise profits and attract drug lords.

This ineffective bill would make Indiana's ineffective bill redundant. But that's meaningless to Hoosier politicians. They can brag that they cared first.