UNITY VOWS ON METH BILL FALLING APART

The resounding pledges of bipartisan unity in fighting Iowa's
methamphetamine problem were falling apart Thursday, less than two weeks
into the legislative session.

Gov. Tom Vilsack and leaders of the Republican-controlled Iowa House both
proposed tough criminal punishments aimed at controlling the state's rising
meth epidemic. But Vilsack and the legislators sharply disagree over who
should get a life sentence: people who make the drug, people who sell the
drug to minors or both.

Vilsack said Thursday the life imprisonment law should pertain to anyone
who both manufactures and distributes the highly addictive drug to minors.
But Republican legislative leaders say the law will work only if it can be
applied to anyone selling the drug to youngsters, regardless of who
manufactured it.

"We've got a problem," said Rep. Chuck Larson, a Cedar Rapids Republican
who chairs the House Judiciary Committee. "The way it's drafted right now,
it would render the new law useless."

It is estimated that up to 90 percent of the meth supply comes from outside
of Iowa. Larson said adding the manufacturing clause to the bill undermines
the overall effort because relatively few people both manufacture and sell
the drug to underage Iowans.

Some Republican critics wondered whether Vilsack inserted the clause to
appear tough while appeasing members of his own party and many state
prosecutors who oppose life drug sentences in any form.

Vilsack dismissed that notion. He said his proposal not only would punish
drug dealers, but also would reduce the number of homemade meth labs in the
state.

"We're still talking about a significant number of people," Vilsack said.
"We're focusing on the problem that we have some specific control over."

The dispute might seem minor. But in the courtroom, where the law would
ultimately play out, prosecutors say the difference would be substantial.

Earlier this week, Larson introduced the life imprisonment meth bill in the
House. A House committee was scheduled to discuss the proposal Thursday,
but the meeting was postponed amid the confusion. It remained unclear when
the bill would be debated by the full House.

House Speaker Ron Corbett, R-Cedar Rapids, downplayed the dispute. "We're
arguing some semantics here. We'll get through it," he said.

Vilsack's aides asked Larson to delay the committee meeting until next week
so they could consult with Public Safety Commissioner Penny Westfall and
the state's new drug czar, Bruce Upchurch. That request, Larson said, led
him to believe Vilsack would change his mind.

But in an interview Thursday, Vilsack said he wants to keep his proposal as
it is - to make the life sentence apply only to those who both make meth
and sell it to minors. Anything else, he said, could be unconstitutional
because the law applies to only one type of drug.

"To essentially deal with that constitutional issue, you insert the
criteria of manufacturing for two reasons," Vilsack said. "One, it relates
to what is physically going on in our state. Secondly, the manufacturing of
this product creates two additional hazards. It creates the explosive
hazard as it's being mixed up and it creates the environmental toxic hazard
as they leave."

Larson disagreed that his bill would be unconstitutional. If courts need a
rationale for why a separate law was written for meth, Larson said, "the
sheer addictiveness" of the drug is reason enough.

If Vilsack won't limit his proposal to include only meth dealers, Larson
said he still intends to push the issue in the House. "The governor
campaigned that people who sell meth to kids would go to prison for life,"
Larson said. "We want to help him with his campaign promise."

Johnson County Attorney Pat White, former president of the Iowa County
Attorneys Association, said he and a host of other state prosecutors
disagree with the life prison punishment in any form. In theory it may
sound good on the campaign trail, White said, but not in reality.

"I just do not see selling meth as the equivalent of premeditated murder.
It's just too punitive," White said in an interview. "It just wouldn't make
sense that an 18-year-old high school senior who sells to a classmate would
be sent to prison for the rest of their life."