We can all agree that the illegal manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine is a significant issue in Missouri and across the Midwest. Meth is a particularly insidious drug that destroys lives and ruins families. While some of my fellow legislators in Jefferson City continue to debate whether Missouri should enact a prescription mandate for safe and effective medicines containing pseudoephedrine (PSE) – such as Claritin-D and Mucinex-D – the more compelling question is whether or not a requirement would actually help solve the problem.
A careful look at evidence around the country shows that even a draconian policy like a prescription requirement would have little effect on Missouri’s meth problem and could divert attention and efforts away from policy solutions that are more likely to strike at the core of the issue.
The recent seizure of 15 tons of methamphetamine in Mexico reconfirmed that the majority of meth sold in the U.S. is actually manufactured south of the U.S. border and is brought into the country illegally. Some officials believe that Mexican meth makes up 80 percent of the illegal meth sold in the U.S. today. Just as troubling is the fact that much of the Mexican-made meth found in the U.S. is more potent than meth made here at home.
The sheer volume of the recent bust was staggering. It is important to note that Mexico has had a nationwide ban on PSE since 2008. Clearly, the ban has done nothing to stop meth manufacturing there. In Mexico, like Missouri, criminals find a way to get around the law and change their tactics.
Right now, some my colleagues favor a proposal that would force all Missourians to obtain a prescription to buy certain cold and allergy medicines. If enacted, this policy would impose considerable burdens on responsible Missourians, including increased healthcare costs, long wait times at the doctor and lost wages due to unwanted time off work. A prescription requirement would do nothing to stop the influx of methamphetamine to our country from Mexico and other foreign sources. In fact, it might create a new market for the Mexican drug cartels.
For these reasons, state Representative Stan Cox and I have introduced anti-meth legislation that strikes the right balance between protecting citizens’ rights and going after meth criminals. This bipartisan legislation would lower the legal limit of PSE that one person can purchase or possess, making it more difficult for drug dealers to buy enough PSE to make a significant supply. It would also make medicines containing PSE available only by prescription for those who have had a drug conviction on their record.
The STOP METH legislation would continue to provide law enforcement with the best tool available for gathering information on attempted illegal meth purchases. The real-time, stop-sale technology is called NPLEx (National Precursor Log Exchange) and it records information on every sale and attempted sale of PSE. Unlawful attempted purchases are blocked right at the point of sale. With NPLEx, pharmacists and law enforcement officials are gaining the upper hand against meth criminals and would-be criminals.
According to a new poll released on March 6, a majority of Missourians – by a margin of 16 percent – favor an approach like the Stop-Meth bill over a prescription mandate. The STOP METH bill would certainly fit that mold.
Missouri’s meth problem is a frustrating one and is made more complicated knowing that we have little control over what happens across our state and federal borders. There’s no doubt that winning the war on meth will require comprehensive solutions of which NPLEx must be a central part. What’s equally certain is that a prescription mandate is not the right approach.
The STOP METH bill offers a balanced way forward, and it’s the right one for Missouri. I hope my fellow Missourians will urge their state legislators to join me and Representative Cox in support of this important bill.
