FEDERAL METH ACT WOULD OVERRULE STATE LAW

A bill draft weakens pseudoephedrine rules compared to the law
recently made in Iowa.

Momentum is building in Congress to pass a nationwide law restricting
the sale of pseudoephedrine, the popular decongestant used to make
the highly addictive drug methamphetamine.

However, state leaders are upset that recent changes to the Combat
Meth Act would allow the federal government to supersede tougher
legislation enacted this year in Iowa to better control sales of
meth's main ingredient. Narcotics officials in Iowa and elsewhere say
they fear drug companies - which spend more money to lobby Congress
than any other industry - are persuading key sponsors to water down
the federal act, usurping strides made by states in recent months to
curb meth production.

Much of the concern nationally has centered on Iowa, where lawmakers
this spring passed the toughest law in the country on restricting
pseudoephedrine sales. State legislators, faced with a
second-in-the-nation meth-lab problem, decided to require
pseudoephedrine products to be sold in pharmacies, except for the
lowest-dose liquids.

A new draft of the federal measure would allow retail outlets to
continue selling liquid- and starch-based pediatric medicines that
can be used to make meth - and require all states to follow suit.
Iowa donations

A review of opensecrets.org , a Web site associated with the
nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics that tracks political
contributions, shows candidates for Congress from Iowa in 2004
received at least $333,171 from sources noted as "pharmaceu-
ticals/health products." The top recipient was Sen. Charles Grassley,
a Republican who received $260,421 from such sources, the Web site reports.

"Our legislation ought to be the national model," Iowa Gov. Tom
Vilsack said Tuesday, upon hearing of the changes. "Anything less
than what Iowa is doing can minimize the security that can come from
this bill."

As originally drafted, the Combat Meth Act, which was co-sponsored by
U.S. Sens. Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin of Iowa, would not have
superseded state laws that were more restrictive than the federal measure.

However, the proposal has since been modified by its original
authors, U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, and
Jim Talent, a Republican from Missouri, Iowa officials said.

Scott Gerber, a spokesman for Feinstein, said his office had been
"working with the industry and Republicans to try to get a bill that
everyone can support. . . . The pharmaceutical industry would fight
strongly anything that wasn't a national standard."

Vilsack, Grassley and Harkin - as well as Iowa's drug czar and
attorney general - have said they do not support the recent changes.

"I am concerned," said Marvin Van Haaften, who heads the Governor's
Office of Drug Control Policy. "We spent over two years debating,
studying, discussing and wisely constructing the (state) bill that
would become our final product. Now, the federal measure is in a
state of flux, and we could easily wind up with a bill that is
considerably weaker than ours."

Iowa's state law, as well as local ordinances and voluntary
restrictions taken by retailers in recent months, already are being
credited for a steep drop in meth-lab production. The number of
clandestine labs discovered statewide dropped 44 percent from January
to April 2005 compared with the same period in 2004.

The statewide attention focused on pseudoephedrine "has triggered
intense paranoia and fear among meth-makers," Van Haaften said.

Even greater reductions are expected in coming months, as Iowa's law,
which went into effect May 21, and those recently enacted in
surrounding states take hold.

Narcotics officials, meanwhile, say they have reason to fear the
national bill could ultimately undermine states' efforts to get meth
labs under control: Drug companies and their trade organizations have
successfully fought tougher pseudoephedrine restrictions for years in
many hard-hit meth states.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, an independent watchdog
group based in Washington, D.C., drug companies and their trade
organizations spent $758.8 million from 1998 to 2004 to lobby members
of Congress.

The Consumer Healthcare Products Association, perhaps the most vocal
opponent of pseudoephedrine restrictions, dramatically increased
spending last year to almost $430,000, up from $260,000 in 2003,
according to the association.

A representative of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association did
not return phone calls Tuesday seeking comment.

Lonnie Wright, who heads Oklahoma's narcotics bureau, said he opposes
any national law that would supersede state anti-meth laws, even
though the national measure was originally drafted to mirror
Oklahoma's current restrictions.

"The state of Oklahoma does not want to be told it can't solve its
own crime problems, and I'm sure neither does Iowa," Wright said.

A congressional hearing to discuss changes to the Combat Meth Act has
been scheduled for June 28 in Washington.

Allison Dobson, a spokeswoman for Harkin's office, said the bill is
in the "very early stages" of being debated.

"We are doing all we can to address these concerns," she said. "The
goal is to have the federal law modeled on Iowa's."