MARSHALL SUPPORTS EPHEDRINE BILL

Dear editor:

Shortly after graduating from law school, I had a meeting with a senior
partner at the law firm where I worked. During this meeting, he explained
various approaches he used in handling cases. He advised me that, after
much trial and error, he ultimately adopted the "K.I.S.S." philosophy: Keep
it simple, stupid. This advice has stayed with me since that time, yet
occasionally I have to remind myself of its importance in addressing the
issues presented by my job.

Take the issue of crystal meth for example.

A local task force spent many months studying the issue of methamphetamine
production and use and ultimately recommended several proposals to deal
with the situation locally.

Since that time, significant progress has been made through increased
public awareness, drug prevention programs as well as increased arrests.
However, we continue to see a rise in the number of methamphetamine labs
that are discovered and graphically see its impact on our community.

The presence of illegal methamphetamine labs in a community does not
dramatically affect the amount of meth that is available for sale
illegally. In fact, over 80 percent of the crystal meth sold locally comes
from Mexico or California.

Yet, clandestine labs have far-reaching consequences outside of
methamphetamine distribution. Nationally, the clean up costs for illegal
labs amount to millions of dollars annually and significant numbers of
children currently reside in foster care because of mothers and fathers who
are addicted.

In addition, children living inside labs are exposed to a highly toxic
environment that will affect their physical and mental health on both a
short term and long-term basis.

All this leads me back to the K.I.S.S. principle.

Many methods and programs have been implemented nationally to try to curb
the growth of small-scale methamphetamine production.

The simplest approach was recently adopted in the state of Oklahoma.
Through a law passed less than a year ago, pseudoephedrine and ephedrine,
essential to the production of methamphetamine, was designated as a
controlled substance. As such, pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products can
no longer be sold at convenience stores or other retail outlets and are
limited to purchases at pharmacies. Moreover, anyone buying a product with
pseudoephedrine or ephedrine must show identification and sign a log
reflecting the purchase. This approach, uncomplicated and straightforward,
has produced dramatic results.

Since the law was passed, seizures of illegal methamphetamine labs have
fallen by almost 80 percent. Moreover, this dramatic decrease is especially
significant since Oklahoma reported the fourth highest number of
methamphetamine labs during the previous calendar year.

The results obtained from this legislation has been so compelling that 30
other states are considering measures to implement a similar program to
Oklahoma. As you might expect, these efforts have faced some opposition
from various retail organizations. This opposition is likewise true in Alabama.

Marshall County's Legislative Delegation has been extremely supportive of
any mechanism to limit appropriately the sale of ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine products.

To ultimately make a dramatic impact, Alabama needs to adopt legislation
consistent with the parameters of Oklahoma's new law and not settle for
anything less.

While I recognize there is some inconvenience created because of the
limitation on the sale of these products, I strongly believe that this
inconvenience is far outweighed by the long term and tangible benefits that
can be received locally.

Not only do we hamper the ability of a user to manufacture methamphetamine
in their own homes, we dramatically increase the opportunities for children
to live in healthier environments.

I would encourage each of you to make your opinions known to our local
legislative delegation.

To the extent that you believe that the inconvenience from such a law is
justified by the dramatic results obtained from Oklahoma's effort, I would
encourage you to contact your legislators directly.

While the business interests opposed to this approach are organized and
influential, ultimately I believe that the tangible public good created
from these efforts mandates that these restrictions be implemented.

If it is good enough for Oklahoma - and now having been similarly adopted
in Arkansas in the last week - I see no reason why Alabama cannot likewise
adopt this straightforward approach.

Steve Marshall

Marshall County District Attorney