Pubdate: Wed, 08 Jun 2005
Source: Des Moines Register (IA)
Copyright: 2005 The Des Moines Register.
Contact:  http://desmoinesregister.com/index.html
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/123
Author: Lee Rood, Register Staff Writer
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/meth.htm (Methamphetamine)

FEDERAL METH ACT WOULD OVERRULE STATE LAW

A bill draft weakens pseudoephedrine rules compared to the law 
recently made in Iowa.

Momentum is building in Congress to pass a nationwide law restricting 
the sale of pseudoephedrine, the popular decongestant used to make 
the highly addictive drug methamphetamine.

However, state leaders are upset that recent changes to the Combat 
Meth Act would allow the federal government to supersede tougher 
legislation enacted this year in Iowa to better control sales of 
meth's main ingredient. Narcotics officials in Iowa and elsewhere say 
they fear drug companies - which spend more money to lobby Congress 
than any other industry - are persuading key sponsors to water down 
the federal act, usurping strides made by states in recent months to 
curb meth production.

Much of the concern nationally has centered on Iowa, where lawmakers 
this spring passed the toughest law in the country on restricting 
pseudoephedrine sales. State legislators, faced with a 
second-in-the-nation meth-lab problem, decided to require 
pseudoephedrine products to be sold in pharmacies, except for the 
lowest-dose liquids.

A new draft of the federal measure would allow retail outlets to 
continue selling liquid- and starch-based pediatric medicines that 
can be used to make meth - and require all states to follow suit. 
Iowa donations

A review of opensecrets.org , a Web site associated with the 
nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics that tracks political 
contributions, shows candidates for Congress from Iowa in 2004 
received at least $333,171 from sources noted as "pharmaceu- 
ticals/health products." The top recipient was Sen. Charles Grassley, 
a Republican who received $260,421 from such sources, the Web site reports.

"Our legislation ought to be the national model," Iowa Gov. Tom 
Vilsack said Tuesday, upon hearing of the changes. "Anything less 
than what Iowa is doing can minimize the security that can come from 
this bill."

As originally drafted, the Combat Meth Act, which was co-sponsored by 
U.S. Sens. Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin of Iowa, would not have 
superseded state laws that were more restrictive than the federal measure.

However, the proposal has since been modified by its original 
authors, U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, and 
Jim Talent, a Republican from Missouri, Iowa officials said.

Scott Gerber, a spokesman for Feinstein, said his office had been 
"working with the industry and Republicans to try to get a bill that 
everyone can support. . . . The pharmaceutical industry would fight 
strongly anything that wasn't a national standard."

Vilsack, Grassley and Harkin - as well as Iowa's drug czar and 
attorney general - have said they do not support the recent changes.

"I am concerned," said Marvin Van Haaften, who heads the Governor's 
Office of Drug Control Policy. "We spent over two years debating, 
studying, discussing and wisely constructing the (state) bill that 
would become our final product. Now, the federal measure is in a 
state of flux, and we could easily wind up with a bill that is 
considerably weaker than ours."

Iowa's state law, as well as local ordinances and voluntary 
restrictions taken by retailers in recent months, already are being 
credited for a steep drop in meth-lab production. The number of 
clandestine labs discovered statewide dropped 44 percent from January 
to April 2005 compared with the same period in 2004.

The statewide attention focused on pseudoephedrine "has triggered 
intense paranoia and fear among meth-makers," Van Haaften said.

Even greater reductions are expected in coming months, as Iowa's law, 
which went into effect May 21, and those recently enacted in 
surrounding states take hold.

Narcotics officials, meanwhile, say they have reason to fear the 
national bill could ultimately undermine states' efforts to get meth 
labs under control: Drug companies and their trade organizations have 
successfully fought tougher pseudoephedrine restrictions for years in 
many hard-hit meth states.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, an independent watchdog 
group based in Washington, D.C., drug companies and their trade 
organizations spent $758.8 million from 1998 to 2004 to lobby members 
of Congress.

The Consumer Healthcare Products Association, perhaps the most vocal 
opponent of pseudoephedrine restrictions, dramatically increased 
spending last year to almost $430,000, up from $260,000 in 2003, 
according to the association.

A representative of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association did 
not return phone calls Tuesday seeking comment.

Lonnie Wright, who heads Oklahoma's narcotics bureau, said he opposes 
any national law that would supersede state anti-meth laws, even 
though the national measure was originally drafted to mirror 
Oklahoma's current restrictions.

"The state of Oklahoma does not want to be told it can't solve its 
own crime problems, and I'm sure neither does Iowa," Wright said.

A congressional hearing to discuss changes to the Combat Meth Act has 
been scheduled for June 28 in Washington.

Allison Dobson, a spokeswoman for Harkin's office, said the bill is 
in the "very early stages" of being debated.

"We are doing all we can to address these concerns," she said. "The 
goal is to have the federal law modeled on Iowa's."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth