OFF-TARGET EDITORIAL

I just read the Globe editorial of April 25 titled "Sudafed crackdown?" I'm
sorry to say that your point of view comes from ignorance of the subject.
You said Missouri lawmakers should reject a plan that restricts the selling
of Sudafed. Well, for one, the pills they need to cook meth with is Actifed;
Sudafed is gel-coated, making it harder to break down. And nine out of 10
meth cooks only use the generic medicine.

I work at a convenience store that sells the medicine, and I used to use it
myself. I can tell the difference between a meth cook and someone needing to
treat stopped-up sinuses. The sad thing is that I can only keep the cooks
from buying more than two rather than turn them down altogether as I could
if a drunk person were trying to buy beer.

As far as retailers being upset about the law, of course they are. They're
making a killing off the stuff because it sells like wildfire.
Unfortunately, most retailers don't acknowledge that much of the
nasal-decongestant pills they sell are being chemically broken down to meth
that is eventually either going in the veins, up the nose or in the lungs of
high school students around the area. I was in high school when I first
started shooting speed. So I know there are more. I'm sorry to say it, but
perhaps eight out of 10 people buying the stuff are using it illegally, and
most store managers are unaware of the danger they're marketing. If someone
is legitimately buying nasal decongestant for its true purpose and they have
a problem with buying it at the counter just like cigarettes and lottery,
then something is suspicious.

Shannon Low

Neosho