Meth bill would have cold, allergy sufferers pay through the nose

Legislation that would require all Nevadans to obtain a doctor’s prescription to buy certain cold, cough and allergy medications is intended, according to proponents, to curb methamphetamine abuse here. They cite grim statistics concerning the impact of meth abuse and accuse those who oppose their legislation of being uncaring profit mongers.

Senate Bill 203, however, does absolutely nothing to address meth abuse. Instead, it attempts to stop methamphetamine production in Nevada by limiting access to medications that can also be used to produce meth. Proponents of this bill ignore the fact that virtually no meth is produced here. In 2008, there were only four meth lab seizures in Nevada, according to federal law enforcement agencies. Instead, methamphetamine is brought into the state from Mexico and other areas.

Forcing Nevada allergy sufferers to go to the doctor for a prescription for what currently are common, over-the-counter medications will do absolutely nothing to stop meth from being brought into the state. But it will impose huge costs on ordinary Nevadans, particularly the nearly 600,000 Nevadans who have no health insurance coverage to offset the high cost of a visit to a doctor’s office. Their costs to obtain relief will go up about 850 percent, from about $11.50 to about $110.

So far, only Oregon and Mississippi have passed similar legislation requiring prescriptions for cold, cough and allergy medications containing pseudoephedrine. Mississippi’s legislation took effect less than a year ago. Oregon’s has been in place since 2006, and proponents of Nevada’s legislation cite Oregon’s "success" since the legislation took effect.

However, the statistics provided are misleading and do not address meth availability in Oregon. Proponents attribute a decline in crime in Oregon to that legislation, despite Oregon officials noting that "the state’s crime rate decline also has mirrored a drop in Oregon’s male population between the ages of 15 and 39, between 1989 and 2008. Most crime is committed by males in that age range, and the proportion of this group in the total population is commonly used as a predictor of crime."

Supplies of meth have not declined in Oregon since its law took effect there. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which is part of the National Drug Intelligence Center with the U.S. Department of Justice, meth availability initially declined, but by late 2008, supplies returned to previously high levels. Like Nevada, Oregon meth supplies also come primarily from Mexico and California.

Mexican drug traffickers, faced with restrictions in Mexico on imports of pseudoephedrine products, quickly learned how to bypass restrictions and also how to make meth using different ingredients. Consequently, according to the Department of Justice, an abundant supply of Mexican ice methamphetamine in Oregon has fueled rising meth abuse since the second quarter of 2008.

We already have effective legislation that works to curb meth production in our state. The evidence is clear and not disputed. Methamphetamine lab seizures in Nevada have decreased 95 percent over the past seven years from a high of 81 in 2002 to only four in 2008. This reduction is attributable to moving medications containing pseudoephedrine from store shelves behind pharmacy counters and requiring consumers show photo ID and sign a log book.

Proponents of SB203 often note alternative products are available to treat cold and allergy symptoms. However, only two ingredients are FDA-approved for these symptoms and, as allergy sufferers and physicians know, individual patients respond differently to the medications. As Dr. Damon Zavala, chief medical officer of Saint Mary’s Hospital in Reno noted, "That is why it is so critical to allow Nevadans to choose products that work for them."

We do not need additional legislation that will impose severe limitations on Nevadans who need inexpensive medications to treat common cold and allergy symptoms. We don’t need legislation that will cause additional financial hardship to the 20 percent of Nevadans who have no health insurance. We don’t need legislation that will cause huge strains on our access to medical care, as doctors’ offices become overburdened with cold and allergy patients. We don’t need legislation aimed at a nonexistent meth production problem.

Meth abuse is a serious problem in Nevada. But meth abusers are not getting meth produced in Nevada, and SB203 will not diminish the supply here.

Instead, it will pose real financial hardships to hundreds of thousands of Nevadans who need effective relief from common cold, cough and allergy symptoms.

Liz MacMenamin is vice president of government affairs for the Retail Association of Nevada.