SOME SEE COLD MEDICINE LIMIT AS TOOL IN DRUG WAR

Ten states have passed laws limiting the purchases of certain cold
medicines in an effort to curb the manufacture of methamphetamines,
and Mississippi may soon join the effort.

District 92 Rep. Dr. Jim Barnett said he intends to sponsor
legislation during the next session of Congress that would make
Mississippi the 11th state to take this additional step in the war on
drugs.

The Mississippi law would be similar to those passed in other states,
which would be used as guidelines, he said. Those states all limit the
number of packages that can be sold in a single sale. Additionally,
some have other requirements, such as mandating the drugs be kept
behind the counter.

Barnett said he expected little opposition to the proposal.

Barnett admitted he had not polled the local retailers to see how many
were voluntarily limiting sales, but he expressed concern that some
retailers would not abide by any restricting agreements without a law.

"The business people will not do that because they like to sell
things," Barnett said.

Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics Capt. Mike Aldridge said he would
probably support a law limiting the sale of the products.

"Any time it becomes more difficult for them to acquire precursor
chemicals, it helps us and we appreciate that," he said.
"Unfortunately, you can't do that for all of the precursors" because
they are all common household items.

At the source of the legislation is pseudoephedrine, an ingredient in
many over-the-counter cold medicines that amateur chemists use to make
methamphetamines in volatile and toxic labs.

"I would have to say (meth use) is still on the rise," Aldridge said.
"It's still a major problem in the state."

Aldridge said one law already on the books attempted to address the
problem. Known informally as the Precursor Law, it states the
possession of more than 250 pills containing pseudo-ephedrine or more
than 15 grams of the same substance is a misdemeanor offense.

"It sounds like the state already attempted to address the problem,"
said District 53 Rep. Bobby Moak. "I wouldn't mind looking at (a
limiting law), but I don't want to make it criminal on the retailers."

Moak said he would prefer retailers voluntarily limit their sale of
the potentially abused drugs.

"They run their own shops and they know their own customers by and
large," he said. "If they think there may be a problem, they have
their own ways they can address it."

Many already do. Most local retailers limit the amount of
pseudo-ephedrine products they sell by controlling the number of
packages in a single sale or by keeping only a few packages on display
at a time.

Some, such as Dollar General, display the medicine in open view but
keep it under lock and key. Others, such as Super D Drugs and Rite Aid
Pharmacies, keep the drugs behind the counter as a control factor.

Local pharmacists offer differing opinions of the proposed law.

"I think it would be kind of pointless unless all types of stores were
regulated," said Clint Bane of Bane's Drugs. "Why should grocery
stores and convenience stores be able to sell as much as they like and
not drug stores? It would have to be a statewide, all-encompassing
regulation."

Bane said his store did not limit their sales of the products, but
they only kept a few on the shelves at a time.

"We haven't noticed a problem with it," he said. "We keep an eye on it
and try to notice any trends among customers."

LaRue Baker of LaRue's Discount Drugs has a similar policy. Citing the
precursor law, he questioned whether another law would really be of
much help in preventing the manufacture of methamphetamines.

"You can overdo the laws," he said. "There are too many laws in
general now to try to enforce them all."

Robert Watts of Robert Watts Pharmacy said most retailers are already
doing what they can to limit the sale of potentially abused drugs.

"Most independents don't keep but a few boxes of each brand on the
shelf," he said. "I don't know where they (drug abusers) can buy the
large amounts they need."

He added that he would support a law limiting the products' sale in
bulk. However, rather than a state law that would make the sale
criminal, he would prefer the state Board of Pharmacy issue a
regulation to that effect.

The Board of Pharmacy controls licensing and a violation of its
regulations can result in the loss of license allowing pharmacists to
practice.