Methamphetamine -- or meth -- is an all-too-familiar illegal drug that is addictive, dangerous and relatively easy to manufacture. Meth has become a plague and a scourge on contemporary society. "Plague" and "scourge" often are used improperly to overdramatize events, but in the case of the manufacture and use of meth, the words are correct.
Meth is a major challenge to law enforcement. There is no easy corrective, but proposed legislation could give Tennessee's law enforcement agencies an effective tool in their battle against the drug.
The key to slowing meth production is to somehow reduce the availability of pseudoephedrine, a substance with a dual personality, so to speak. Pseudoephedrine is a safe and effective ingredient in many of the leading brands of cold and allergy medicines available without a prescription. It also can be used to illegally make metamphetamine.
What's needed, then, is a way to preserve access to widely used over-the-counter medications such as some forms of Advil, Alleve and Tylenol and Sudafed, Zyrtec-D and Triaminic-D, while making it difficult or impossible for those who need pseudoephedrine to manufacture meth to obtain it. Legislation supported by the Consumer Healthcare Products Association -- already adopted in several states -- creates a system that appears to perform that service. It utilizes an electronic data base that quickly provides pharmacists and store clerks with a sale or no-sale recommendation based on an individual's purchase history after applying applicable local, state and federal laws.
In Tennessee and other states where state-of-the-art monitoring systems are not mandated or in use, an individual can go from drug store to drug store and purchase pseudoephedrine products at each, amassing enough product to manufacture meth. Laws that mandate that the products be kept behind the counter have proved ineffective at curbing sales.
Kentucky reports decline
Currently, such relatively small purchases at several stores rarely trigger an alarm. The electronic monitoring system, called NPLEx, for National Precursor Long Exchange, would flag such individuals and their purchases before a sale is consummated. The system is not foolproof, but it has proven useful where it is employed. Kentucky, for example, reports a decline in the number of meth labs. One state's improvement, however, can create a problem for another.
Kentucky and Tennessee officials agree that many would-be buyers of pseudoephedrine in Kentucky, well aware of electronic monitoring, now cross the states' common border to purchase over-the-counter products. Tennessee's participation in a national, unified tracking system would flag such sales, and certainly reduce them.
The benefits of the electronic system are readily apparent. It does not impede legal sales of over-the-counter drugs. It is a deterrent to would-be abusers of pseudoephedrine. It operates within the parameters of all applicable laws. Most importantly, states can implement NPLEx without breaking already stressed budgets. All upfront and operating costs are borne by the manufacturers of legal, over-the-counter products.
The registry system is not a panacea, and there is some opposition to it. Those opposed say any efficiencies are small-scale and that it can do little to make a significant impact on meth in the United States. That's true, in part, because officials say a majority of meth now comes from Mexico. Still, any system that is effective and cost efficient -- as the electronic tracking system has proved to be -- and that reduces the availability of meth is worth a try. Officials here agree.
'Step into the future'
Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Hammond and Hamilton County District Attorney Bill Cox say any system that can help reduce the amount of meth available has value. Lt. Van Hinton, of the narcotics special operations unit in the sheriff's department, says that if Tennessee adopts the tracking legislation it will allow law enforcement agencies to take " a step into the future."
The system, he says, would provide another way to deal with a "deadly drug" that continues to "wreak havoc" here and elsewhere.
There are other alternatives to a tracking system, but they aren't as palatable. Some argue that making pseudoephedrine a prescription drug would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain.
Perhaps so. But it would also make it more time-consuming and expensive for law-abiding citizens to obtain. It would raise costs and premiums for public and private health plans by requiring a visit to a health care professional for a prescription. And there's little doubt that a prescription drug will be pricier than that of the current over-the-counter remedy, even if it's the same formulation.
Moreover, restricting access to pseudoephedrine by requiring a prescription would decrease sales tax revenues in many states where over-the-counter drugs are subject to sales tax. Prescription medications are not. That change could negatively impact Tennessee's revenues, a state without an income tax and one in which sales taxes undergird the budget.
The battle against meth is a complicated one. It will take time and a concerted, mutual effort by law enforcement agencies, legislators and private citizens to make a difference. Electronic technology currently available can be a useful adjunct in that fight. Tennessee should approve and employ the tracking system as quickly as possible.