Treating colds may become more difficult

July 7, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

There’s been a lot of talk recently about cracking down on the sale of over-the-counter medicine that has ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in it. Indiana legislators will study the issue this summer and decide whether to pursue requiring a prescription for these drugs.

In the last few years, these OTC drugs have been moved behind the pharmacy window and require you to show a valid ID and sign your name. It’s a minor inconvenience as compared to having to go to the doctor to get a prescription for a certain kind of Sudafed. A new law also requires pharmacies to post signs saying that if you buy more than 3.6 grams of it in one day, you are committing a crime.

If I have a cold, and I know a certain type of OTC drug which happens to have ephedrine or pseudoephedrine in it works to make me feel better, I’m going to want to take it. Colds are annoying and usually don’t require making a trip to the doctor. In fact, I’m sure most doctors aren’t going to want to see an increase in patients who just have colds.

But if this proposal becomes law, you’ll have to contact your doctor. Maybe they will just write a prescription without seeing you or call it in to the pharmacy, but I know many doctors like to see their patients before writing prescriptions. This law may lead to increased costs because you may have a co-pay or office visit fee. You’ll have to wait until the pharmacy can fill the prescription. Colds may get even more annoying and costly.

Supporters argue that making OTC medicine with these drugs in them more difficult to obtain will help fight against methamphetamine production. It’s possible, but it’s also possible and very likely that those who want to make meth will find other ways to get the drugs. Pain killers require a prescription, but people still find ways to abuse them. Some people also rob pharmacies to get those drugs. Who’s to say that won’t be the case with ephedrine and pseudoephdrine? Perhaps meth makers will find alternative ingredients to use to make the drug.

What do you think? Does this proposal go too far in trying to fight meth or is it about time our state cracked down even harder on the drug?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • From the same people ...?
    Did this come from the same people who gave us the brilliant idea of "carding" octgenerians purchasing a 375 ml of sherry? They are also probably the same people who rail against health care reform because it's too costly and involves governmental intervention in health care decisions. Enough already! The General Assembly faces the toughest budget session in memory, and we waste money on this nonsense.
  • An Unnecessary Burden on Law Abiding Citizens
    This proposed law would have too much of an impact on the daily lives of citizens. If passed, anyone who gets a common cold will have to spend time making a doctors appointment, time going to the doctor, spend money for a doctor's appointment, spend time going to the pharmacy, spend extra money on current OTC medications. This places an incredible burden on families, businesses and schools. The amount of lost productive time is immeasurable. The increased out-of-pockiet costs to individuals and families could be in the hundreds to the thousands per year.

    Once again, the Indiana State Legislature is turning a blind eye to the needs of law abiding citizens. This law would treat us like we are the criminals, while the criminals will certainly find ways to continue to engage in their illegal activities.

    The legislature needs to make sure this proposed law does not reach the House or Senate floor for a vote.

    This imposition on the daily lives of citizens will be ridiculous. The legislature should not put another burdensome and bureaucratic practice in place on the backs of state citizens. This is a solution in search of a problem. Put the focus on improvement of law enforcement, rather than force citizens to lose time and money on a a useless exercise.
  • Who are you kidding
    It sounds to me that the legislature wants to put enforcing illegal drug activity enforcement on the backs of drug stores and doctors and out of the hands of the police who seem to be incompetent to do so. Still no excuse to make this a prescription drug. I suspect that the AMA is behind this to get an office call charge from the patient. I know doctors who charge an office call fee for just calling in a script.
  • Dumb laws
    Another salvo fired in the totally ineffective war on drugs which is truly effective only as a war on the rest of us.

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
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT