ILNews

6 bills in Indiana Statehouse aimed at slowing the manufacture of meth

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

meth-bar-charts.gifThe description Rodney Cummings gives of Madison County makes the central Indiana area sound like a war zone.

Houses and hotel rooms have blown up, and many children live covered in chemicals. Just talking about the situation causes the Madison County prosecutor to sigh and say, “You have no idea how rough it is here.”

The source of the problem is the manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine, a volatile mix of medicine and toxins that forms a highly addictive drug. Within the past decade, clandestine meth labs found by Indiana law enforcement have ballooned from 732 in 2002 to 1,726 in 2012, according to Indiana State Police statistics.

Madison County led the state in 2012 with 96 meth labs discovered. Vanderburgh County was second with 81.

In 2005 and 2011, the Indiana General Assembly passed legislation aimed at curbing the rise in meth use. Now with six new bills introduced in the 2013 session, the Legislature is again turning its attention to the problem.

However, Cummings is not hopeful any new law will help. In fact, he said he is very frustrated and does not expect any of the bills to pass because of the strength of the retail lobby.

Moreover, he said, even if the state puts up more obstacles, the users will still find a way to get the drugs they want.

Statehouse response

The six bills circulating this session all target ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, the key ingredients in meth. Indiana State Police Capt. David Bursten compared the process of trying to make meth without these substances as trying to make water without two parts hydrogen.

Of the proposed legislation, two bills would reduce how much an individual could purchase of an ephedrine- and pseudoephedrine-containing medication like cold and allergy pills. The remaining bills – three introduced into the Senate and one offered in the House – would make medications containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine available by prescription only.
 

yoder-carlin-mug Yoder

A bill authored by Sen. Carlin Yoder, R-Middlebury, is moving through the Legislature after it was passed unanimously by the Senate Committee on Corrections and Criminal Law. Senate Bill 496 limits the amount of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine a person can purchase to 61.2 grams per year. It also increases the criminal penalty for individuals who buy certain meth ingredients with the intent to give them to someone else expressly for making meth and prohibits anyone convicted of a meth-related crime from possessing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine without a prescription for seven years.

Yoder is confident these measures will curb the making of meth because it will make the key ingredients more difficult to obtain. He called the bill a “good step forward” that still allows the law-abiding citizens access to cold and allergy medicines without having to go to their doctors and get prescriptions.

However, Cummings maintains to have a true impact on the meth epidemic, the Legislature must label ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as controlled substances that require a doctor’s prescription.

Sen. Randy Head, R-Logansport, agrees. He introduced SB 498 this session that would classify compounds, mixtures and preparations containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as Schedule III Controlled Substances and make them available only with a prescription.


randy head Head

Oregon passed legislation making ephedrine and pseudoephedrine available only with a prescription in 2005 and has since recorded a significant drop in meth labs, according to data from the Oregon Alliance for Drug Endangered Children.

The number of labs in the Beaver State dropped to 63 in 2006, less than half 2005’s total of 192. Meth labs have continued to fall year after year, landing at 10 in 2011.

Head believes that success can be duplicated in Indiana. A former deputy prosecutor, he, like Cummings, has seen the impact meth has on individuals and communities. A prescription requirement would not eradicate meth, he said, but it would significantly decrease the number of labs in Indiana and make the meth much more difficult to obtain.

Critics charge meth would still be available even with prescription restrictions. While the number of home labs would be reduced, the amount of the drug being imported into the state would likely increase.

Advocates counter that meth would still be less prevalent and much more expensive.

Even so, Head’s bill will not get a hearing this session which does not surprise him. He sees the Legislature preferring to take incremental steps, but, eventually, he anticipates the state will limit ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to prescription only.

“The people have to get use to the idea,” he said.

Getting to the cause

The Legislature’s approach, although gradual, did yield early success. After the 2005 bill was passed, which put the ephedrine- and pseudoephedrine-containing medicines behind the pharmacy counter and limited the amount that could be bought in a day, the number of meth labs fell sharply.

In 2005, total labs seized in Indiana was 1,065, but in 2006 and 2007 the numbers had dropped to 803 and 832, respectively. Yet, the drop was short-lived. By 2008, the total had risen to 1,104 and in 2012 reached 1,726.

Meth makers found a way around the law by a practice called “smurfing.” Multiple friends pile in a car and drive from pharmacy to pharmacy, each purchasing the boxes of cold or allergy medicine.

Indianapolis criminal defense attorney Ross Thomas is frustrated with the legislation passed and proposed because the measures do not recognize the difference between meth makers and drug dealers.

Meth manufacturers are being charged the same way as a dealer of narcotics, he said. However, most meth makers are not part of a system of importers, wholesalers and retailers. They are making the drug primarily to feed their addiction and not to make money.

“Unfortunately, the criminal justice system treats these cases the same way as cocaine or heroin dealers,” he said. “Fact is these people have a whole different set of priorities.”

In Madison County, 35 percent of the prosecutor’s caseload is meth related, Cummings said. Most plead guilty and get sentenced anywhere from eight to 14 years in prison. He questioned adding penalties to meth crimes.

“It’s just means we’ll lock up more people,” Cummings said. “State Department of Correction is already mad because we’re sending so many people to jail anyway.”

Yoder concurred that putting people in jail is not a solution. But he does not think making ephedrine and pseudoephedrine available only through a prescription is the solution either. Doctors are already swamped, he said, and prescription drugs are among the most abused drugs.

Although his bill does not contain language about rehabilitation, he said offering programs to help people overcome their meth addictions might be the next step.

Still, rehab efforts would cost money and require a lot of political will to implement. Chuckling at the thought of the Legislature passing such bills, Thomas said that along with education so people don’t start, helping addicts quit would do more to stop the spread of meth.

“It would be the solution, the better solution,” Thomas said. “What they’re talking about is putting a Band-Aid on a skull fracture.”

Cummings pointed to a more fundamental solution – fix the economy. In Madison County alone, 40,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost and currently 84 percent of school children are on public assistance.

Meth is an indication, he said, that “people have lost hope in their ability to live out the American dream.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT