Grandmother Arrested For Buying Cold Medicine Twice In One Week

[Purveyor]

Last March, Sally Harpold bought a box of Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband, then a few days later bought a box of Mucinex-D cold medicine for her grown daughter. That put her over the limit for how much pseudoephedrine-laced cold meds you can buy in a week in her small Indiana town, so she was arrested along with 16 other potential meth makers earlier this month.

Her county has the unfortunate distinction of being the fifth-largest producer of meth in Indiana, despite being the 12-smallest county in the state, which may help explain the law enforcement overkill to some degree.

The Tribune-Star notes that pharmacies in the area post a "Meth Watch" sign "alerting customers that their purchases of drugs containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are being monitored," but we're not sure whether Harpold paid attention or knew about the 7-day limit.

Harpold said she did go talk to the prosecutor about the situation, and Alexander offered her the deferral program, in which Harpold is required to pay the court costs, abide by all laws and not be arrested for 30 days. At the end of 30 days, the class-C misdemeanor will be erased from her record.

We do think it would be nice if pharmacies made that explicitly clear upon purchase—"This medicine contains pseudoephedrine, and it uses 75% of your weekly allotment of the drug. If you buy anything else with pseudoephedrine in it within the next 7 days, make sure it doesn't have more than n grams." Yeah, that probably sounds like overkill, but with such a severe law on the books it might be wise to keep the public as informed as possible and actually teach them what to watch out for.

MORE...

http://consumerist.com/5370283/grandmother-arrested-for-buying-cold-medicine-twice-in-one-week

[BlooInBloo]

1. Pay cash, whenever possible.

[tosh]

4. It's no longer that simple.

ID is required, and it is entered into a system that tracks all purchases of pseudophed.

The War on Drugs, ya know.:eyes:

[woodsprite]

24. In Delaware, you have to sign for it also. n/t

[timeforpeace]

34. I assure you that the pharmacists hate the situation as much or more than you all do.

[tosh]

58. I second that assurance. nt.

[ddeclue]

53. Then stop criminalizing grandma - either make it prescription or NOT

this in between crap has to end. Nobody has any idea what is in these OTC meds.

If they know you are going to go over their limit they should simply refuse the purchase in advance without a criminal penalty.

[tosh]

65. Good solution....perhaps TOO LOGICAL? nt.

[Maru Kitteh]

68. Making it a script takes it away from those of us without access to healthcare

But, yeah. This is ridiculous.

[Horse with no Name]

61. In Texas too

I refuse to buy it. For this very reason...even though it is the ONLY OTC medication that works on my sinus and allergies (and my insurer won't cover prescription meds for sinus and allergies since they are widely available "OTC". :eyes: )

[ingac70]

5. Most states...

have a set up now where you have to go to the pharmacy counter to get this stuff, and you have to show ID, and they take down your name and address.

If you show up on those lists too many times (more than once a week0, the cops come knocking.

[BlooInBloo]

10. Oooh - just figured they tracked through debit card. Doh!

[Kadie]

13. Here in Calif. they swipe your driver's license

and you have to sign a form. It is really a pain when the entire family gets sick, or you are dealing with bad allergies.

[BlooInBloo]

17. Yes. I gathered that from the first 2 responses.

[Kadie]

30. LOL

Just wanted to make sure you understood!

:rofl:

Actually, I was just very slow typing my response. After I hit post I saw the other responses.

:hi:

[BlooInBloo]

36. :) I could be having a slow day, in which case the third would have been needed.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. God damn America -- one and all -- if we don't stop this nonsense.

Fuck anyone to death who thinks this is a good idea.

[tridim]

12. So you're for unrestricted and unlimited sales of the Meth precursor?

I'm guessing you've never seen what meth does to people.

[SoCalNative]

25. I'm not very appreciative

of being made to feel like a potential criminal because I have allergies. They do NOT sell packages that contain a 30-day supply of some of these medications, only 15-day and many places in California will not sell to you more than once in 30 days.

[mainer]

26. Have you seen what a bad head cold does to people?

Too bad pseudoephedrine works so well for cold symptoms. If we had a decent alternative, we wouldn't have to risk jail just to get some relief.

[tridim]

35. Saline solution in a netti pot works better.

And you can still buy pseudoephedrine OTC, just not in massive amounts.

:shrug:

[eShirl]

39. No. It doesn't.

I use both, btw.

[tridim]

42. What's your complaint?

Use whatever you want. :shrug:

If you have chronic allergies maybe you should buy your supply of pseudephedrine in stages throughout the year instead of buying it in bulk and risking going over the limit.

[Romulox]

49. That's precisely what you cannot do under these laws: buy more than a 15 day supply.

"If you have chronic allergies maybe you should buy your supply of pseudephedrine in stages throughout the year instead of buying it in bulk and risking going over the limit."

I'm not sure what this even means. You can buy 15 Claritin-D tablets at a time here in Michigan. "Buying in stages" is obviously required, because it is a once daily medication. :hi:

[Raineyb]

78. That is ridiculous.

A prescription would come in 30 day supply but allergy meds come only in 15? That is idiotic. Not to mention that I seriously doubt that the people who make meth are buying 2 15 day supply packs. They'd need a hell of a lot more tablets than that.

What a stupid law. Either make it by prescription or use more accurate methods of weeding out the meth cookers because buying 2 boxes of the stuff (especially when buying for two different people as this woman was) isn't enough to make anything.

We can always count on people in this country finding the dumbest least effective way to control anything and use that as policy.

[Romulox]

90. It makes me sympathize with junkies, I have to say.

There's a certain type of person (typically a high school age Pharmacist's assistant) that really get off on any little power. They often treat you like shit when you try to buy the stuff to top it all off.

Plus the price has gone up about 40%.

Terrible law.

[CreekDog]

75. keep defending this crap

really.

because people posting here using cold medicine really need your lectures on how they should buy allergy relief.

[eShirl]

57. Complaint? That it's inaccurate, maybe even silly to claim netti pots work better than

psuedoephedrine? They work in different ways.

[tridim]

60. Then buy some pseudephedrine

Netti pots clear my sinuses better than any cold medication ever has, except without side effects.

Maybe you're doing it wrong?

[eShirl]

66. As I stated, I use both.

[CreekDog]

76. i don't think your study was a double-blind, clincal study

i think you are just throwing non-scientific nonsense out as facts. :think:

[tridim]

80. It's my personal experience, not a study, not scientific.

If a non-drug therapy works better than a drug, I always choose the non-drug solution. That's just common sense, although I'm sensing that it might not be such common sense in America any more.

For example, I know people who say it's okay to skip vegetables because they take a multi-vitamin every day. :scared:

[CreekDog]

84. But you don't know that the non-drug solution works better

it's common sense "IF" it works better, but again, you don't know that.

[Romulox]

44. No. It doesn't.

I also have a netti pot, and the thing causes me excruciating pain (deviated septum).

[tridim]

48. Netti pots don't work if you have a deviated septum.

It says so right on the box.

So I'm not surprised it doesn't work for you.

[Romulox]

52. "It says so right on the box". Not on the one I have.

:shrug:

So, do I get a pass from being arrested for having a (gasp!) 16 day supply of Claritin D?

[tridim]

55. I don't know, ask your doctor.

[Romulox]

59. Funny story. My doctor wrote me a script for a 30 day supply. Kroger wouldn't dispense it.

I had to go to CVS, which opened two packages of the OTC medication and put it in a ziplock bag with a sticker on it. Oh, and they charged me a "dispensing fee" for this service.

I decided it was just not worth the hassle.

BTW, my "SinuCleanse" brand netti pot doesn't say a thing about deviated septums on the box or in the instructions (just checked.) I actually want to thank you for that tidbit, as it confirms what I learned by experimentation (youch!)

[CreekDog]

74. are you a doctor?

:eyes:

[tridim]

77. Are you?

What's your point?

I just stated my opinion, I'm not giving medical advice.

[CreekDog]

86. you are giving people a hard time for choosing Sudafed type products over neti pots

yeah, your medical background is relevant if you are going to do that.

unlike you, i never suggested anything that someone should check with a doctor to verify.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

28. If the drug companies stopped making it, then the Meth precursor will find something else to use

[eShirl]

37. surely there's some middle ground between that and arresting anyone who goes over the weekly

limit by one box

[TommyO]

41. So, you're for the criminalization of people who purchase a legal medication

for the treatment of legitimate medical needs?

[tridim]

45. Nope.

You can still buy it OTC.

[TommyO]

63. And get arrested if you buy too much of it in one week

[NOLALady]

43. I have not seen what meth has done to people.

But, I have seen what prohibition has done to this country.

[tridim]

50. Except pseudephedrine isn't prohibited.

You can buy some today if that's what you want to use.

[tosh]

56. Well, guess what? The meth-heads have already found

a way around this:

http://www.theledger.com/article/20090914/NEWS/909145075/1410?Title=Soda-Bottle-Meth-Labs-On-Rise-in-Polk-County

<snip> "Today, because of a 2006 federal law that placed restrictions on pseudoephedrine purchases, most meth labs found in Polk are of the soda-bottle size." <snip>

So while those of us with a legitimate use for pseudophed are inconvenienced, even ARRESTED...

Life goes on for the meth-heads.

[JVS]

62. Yes! Legal and clean meth is safer than the current situation.

[Horse with no Name]

64. Strawman. n/t

[CreekDog]

73. I'm against arresting grandma for buying cold medicine twice in a week

if you take anything else out of such statements you are an idiot and nobody should listen to you.

:rant:

[tridim]

81. As am I, never said the current law isn't stupid.

But I do think logical restrictions are necessary to keep meth off the streets.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. Yes. The war on drugs is a joke. Rather than playing cold medicine police and arresting grannies

we could take the $40 Billion Dollars a year we spend on the "Drug War" and do much better plowing it into treatment on demand--- and FACT-based education on the real dangers posed by some drugs. (when D.A.R.E. tells kids that smoking a joint will cause them to get date raped or their testicles to fall off, is it any wonder that they tune out the stuff regarding meth?)

These laws aren't going to "stop" meth any more than prohibition prevented alcoholics from getting drunk. We need to treat addiction as a public health issue, and not a law enforcement one.

[tridim]

95. True, no law will completely stop meth.

But this law is making it more difficult to pill shop and manufacture meth. Certainly not perfect, but if it results in even one less addict it's worth it IMO.

I am certainly not pro-drug-war. This isn't a typical drug war waste of money, it's just a restriction on ingredients used to make meth. The cost is negligible. If the fed completely outlawed psedoephedrine I'd agree with you, but they have not.

[populistdriven]

29. i hate these rules but in Oregon they have reduced both violent and non violent crimes significantly

[FiveGoodMen]

32. If you arrested everyone, you could stop crime altogether.

[Raineyb]

79. So they say n/t

[DavidDvorkin]

3. Utter madness

And how depressing it is that Americans aren't overwhelmingly demanding an end to the War on Drugs.

[Echo In Light]

11. America LOVES their phony "war$."

[no_hypocrisy]

6. It's getting to where making "hooch" at home in the bathtub will be cold medicine.

[Warpy]

7. She shouldn't be liable for those court costs

A simple explanation to the prosecutor should have sufficed. It should have been dropped right then and there, with only enough of a paper trail to alert them if she repeated the purchases the next month.

The problem with our legal system is that it refuses to allow common sense and decency to intrude.

Never mind the war on drugs is really a war on Americans.

[SoCalDem]

14. and if she has a job, she'll lose at least one day's work..maybe more

insanity:(

[subcomhd]

8. Good thing she's off the streets. nt

[SoCalDem]

9. I had to sign a book when the vet gave me cat-medicine

:rofl:

[TheMadMonk]

15. It's a fight for me to buy the bloody stuff at all here in Aust.

Got a beard down to here, so of course idjits behind counter assume I'm a biker or some such BS. Guess I qualify if you count electric mopeds.

[hughee99]

16. If the state already knows how much you bought in a week

why do they allow people to buy more and then arrest them for doing it? Why don't they just tell you that you can't get any more until next week?

[beyurslf]

18. Hmph! Just another soft-on-crime liberal prosecutor giving her the deal of a lifetime.

Deferral programs should be banned. Lock up this drug abusing addict and throw away of the key. How many little grannies do you think will be out peddling meth once we make a good example of this one?


/sarcasm off.

[WCGreen]

19. Punish the many to prosecute the few...

Brute force compliance.

[KingFlorez]

20. Completely unfair

Why should honest citizens have to suffer because some people choose to use this medicine for the wrong reason? I know meth is a problem, but there has to be a better fix that punishing law-abiding citizens.

[gratuitous]

21. Zero tolerance = No discretion

And no discretion means that nobody has to use their judgment in enforcing draconian laws and rules. I'm so glad the Republicans have carefully taught our population over the last 30 years not to trust government officials. Opens the door wide for sneaky little bastards and tin-plated Napoleon wannabes to gratify their urge to boss other people around.

[JohnyCanuck]

22. Better call the SWAT team out for this out of control good neighbor while they are at it.

The last time I checked we lived in America. Lately, however, we are hearing more and more stories of government intervening in the lives and decisions of private citizens. The most recent display of government overstepping its bounds come from Middleville, Michigan, where local DHS officials have threatened to fine (up to $1000) and jail (up to 60 days) a woman named Lisa Snyder.

Of course, this makes sense. You see, Lisa Snyder usually spends about 15 - 40 minutes of her mornings watching young children waiting at the neighborhood bus stop. She watches four or five children at the bus stop to make sure they get on safely. The parents of the children work full-time jobs and have to leave for work before the bus can pick them up. So, Ms. Snyder, who some would call a good neighbor, is actually considered a criminal by the Department of Human Services because she is operating what government officials deem an “illegal child care home.”

According to WZZM 13, an ABC affiliate in Michigan, the DHS has contacted Ms. Snyder and advised her that if she doesn’t get licensed, she’ll face steep fines and even imprisonment.

This is yet another perfect example of how the governments of our day are injecting themselves into the personal decisions of parents and caregivers. Obviously, if the parents of these children left them with Ms. Snyder, they trust her to ensure that the kids get on the bus safely. If it were up to DHS officials, they’d probably prefer to leave 5 year old kids sitting at a bus stop alone and then deal with the consequences later if the kids were hurt or kidnapped. In fact, this may bode well for the local government, because then they would have rising crime statistics to show for the area, which in turn might mean more funding for criminal enforcement.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/local-woman-to-be-fined-jailed-for-caring-too-much_09292009

[skygazer]

23. This really is a poor way to resolve a real problem

Though I would point out that being a grandmother doesn't make one any less likely to be a meth user or producer. It does make for a good headline though.

There's got to be a better way to do this. Maybe people who are buying these products should have to purchase them at the pharmacy counter where the staff would be required to explain the statute so they know what they're getting into. After all, people who don't do or produce meth, or who don't work in a retail environment are probably largely unaware of the alternate use for those products and the laws associated with them.

[Greyhound]

54. Depends on what the problem you're solving is.

Is the goal to remove meth production, or is the goal to exercise government authority over the proles?

[skygazer]

67. In this case, I do think the goal is to curtail meth production

Meth is a miserable drug. I'm not a big fan of the so-called "drug war" and I've done my share of a wide variety of shit. Meth is nasty and causes problems far greater than stuff people tend to think of as hardcore (take heroin for instance, which is addictive as hell and causes some physical problems but by and large a person can be a heroin addict for many years and still be productive). So yeah, I do think there's a genuine desire to cut down on meth production.

[Romulox]

71. Why do you expect that people choose to do Meth, if its so much worse than "hardcore" drugs?

Do you think that prohibition may distort people's choices and present perverse incentives?

[skygazer]

82. Because it's a hell of a lot cheaper

It produces an intense high, it's readily available and it's cheap.

Do you think that people's knee-jerk reaction to any kind of prohibition may distort people's perceptions of the dangers presented by particular substances and present a need to rationalize their use?

[Romulox]

85. I think you missed the point. People use meth because other substances aren't available.

"Do you think that people's knee-jerk reaction to any kind of prohibition"

If you could point to any effective prohibition of substances in this country's history, your argument would carry more weight.

[skygazer]

87. I don't agree with blanket prohibitions either

But I do think meth in particular is a dangerous drug, it's manufactured in home labs that feature no quality control which means the strength and potency changes depending on the batch and I do think it should be illegal.

Look, the original question to me was whether I thought the goal was to deter meth use or control the proles (paraphrase).

I said I thought it was a legitimate effort to deter meth use.

"People use meth because other substances aren't available."

Isn't that what I said? They use it because it's cheaper and more readily available. That pretty much says the same thing as "other substances aren't available."

I'm not sure if you're saying that meth use a great thing, or that people should be free to use anything they want or quite what your argument seems to be except to disagree with whatever I say. So I guess I have missed the point.

[Romulox]

88. I just wanted you to think about the unintended consequence of your "just a little prohibition"

model--they're not always what is expected. If you demand that pharm grade speed tablets are to be criminalized, then don't be shocked when home brewed crystal meth shows up. If you hassle hay-feaver sufferers at the pharmacy enough, perhaps it will become economical for producers to develop better supply chains to mass producers in Mexico and elsewhere?

One thing that you'll not accomplish through prohibition (selective or otherwise) is to diminish the desire of a certain portion of the population to use drugs.

[skygazer]

91. We use that model for many things

We use it to prohibit people from drinking until they reach a certain age. We use it to prohibit people from carrying weapons if they have prior violent crimes. Pretty much all our laws are based on "just a little prohibition."

People do find ways around them but laws tend to winnow out the people who are reluctant to face the consequences of breaking them.

To do away with prohibitions would be to adopt what our conservative opponents advocate for the market - an unregulated free-for-all.

I do understand your point and as I said, I don't agree with blanket prohibitions (such as the one we had against alcohol in the early 20th century). I think each situation should be taken on its own merits and I reiterate my belief that meth is a drug that we need to discourage.

Oh, and I never "demanded" that pharm grade speed tablets be criminalized - my original post on this thread stated that I felt there needed to be a better way.

[Romulox]

94. Prohibition of basic human social behavior is categorically different

from prohibition on carrying a concealed weapon. Not the least of which is because the former is predicated on the putative "right" of the state to save one from one's own behavior, and the latter is predicated on protecting the safety of others.

"To do away with prohibitions would be to adopt what our conservative opponents advocate for the market - an unregulated free-for-all."

Our founders posited that "liberty" was man's natural right. The right to full bodily integrity would seem to be the foundation of all other rights. :shrug:

"Oh, and I never "demanded" that pharm grade speed tablets be criminalized..."

It was rhetorical language. Sorry for any confusion.

[Romulox]

70. Problem was QT4 results for the for-profit prison industry. nt

[quiet.american]

27. Meanwhile, I'm sure those who are actually making meth have found all kinds of ways around this. nt

[KansDem]

31. Didn't Rush buy his Oxy out of a automobile trunk in a parking lot?

According to court documents, the investigation centers on whether Limbaugh engaged in "doctor shopping" -- getting multiple prescriptions from several doctors that he could not have received from just one. Such an offense is a felony under Florida law.

In court documents, investigators say Limbaugh obtained about 2,000 pills during five months, sometimes getting multiple prescriptions less than a month apart.

Limbaugh has insisted he has done nothing illegal.

Earlier this month, prosecutors executed search warrants to seize Limbaugh's medical records from two doctors. Under Florida law, a judge must give his approval before prosecutors can review those records.

--more--
CNN

I guess in Flordia you can buy as much as you want...:shrug:

[Romulox]

33. One more granny off the streets. Victory in the Drug War is just around the corner!

:puke:

[imdjh]

38. What a bunch of bullshit. One step forward (pot) and two back (this shit). nt

[Arkansas Granny]

40. I'm aware of the law on those medicines, but I'm not sure I would have

figured out that I was over the limit on how much I could purchase. I guess I had assumed that you would be denied the medicine at the counter when they entered it in the database. I had better be careful with the cold and flu season coming up.

[supernova]

47. Was thinking the same

I don't know how much we are allowed to purchase at time here in NC. Might as well stock up before I need it. It usually takes me a box and 1/2 to get through a cold/flu bout.

[dembotoz]

46. fucking bullshit

they take your name, write down your driver license number to verify you produced picture id.
you have to sign.
I am the main pharmacy goer toer in my family. I take claritin d every day spring, summer , fall and part of winter or i am not functional.
The rest of the family--all adult sized take thier share of sudafeds and other cold type medicene.

If i lived in this stupid burg i would be arrested...alot.

My first wife died from cancer. I would go to the pharmacy and would walk out with enough major league pain killers to be a junkies wet dream--NEVER A PROBLEM

but buy a claritin d---oh no--Bring on the paperwork.

A side note--now that the decongestants that actually work are hidden from public view-how does the average joe find out their might just be a solution to thier sinus troubles.

[get the red out]

51. absolutely right

It is like trapping people to not tell us that we are nearing our "limit". Now I have read that my state wants further restrictions, great. I guess that will mean additional prescriptions for me just to have something to open my nose, and I would imagine at increased cost.

[DBoon]

69. This happens when you profile people who *might* commit a crime

instead of going after people who actually *do* commit a crime.

You now have very sanctions against lifestyle choices, instead of clearly defined criminal acts

[CreekDog]

72. Any douchebags here defending her arrest?

seen it happen before. :wtf:

[Ed76638]

83. I would've offered the prosecutor a deferral plan of my own.

Where I deferred the prosecutor to my d*ck!

[lillypaddle]

92. It's ridiculous

When I buy decongestants and am having to give my life history/identification, I want to say, "LOOK at me, do I look like I'm on speed, fer chrissakes???"

chubby 61 year old congested woman here. :)

[MilesColtrane]

93. In my state they scan your D.L..

When you get your receipt it says something like, "You have purchased X amount of pseudoephedrine this month. You may not purchase more than X for 30 days."

[Berry Cool]

96. Buying pseudoeph is a pain in the butt these days.

I try to buy a box when I'm not sick so that I have at least one handy when I am and I don't feel like having to get dressed, go out to the drugstore and sign for a box. It's the only thing that works when I have a cold. I've tried that substitute they now use to make the versions of cold remedies without it, and they're worth exactly crap.