IBJNews

Lawmakers struggle with bill to stop synthetic drug sales

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawmakers are continuing to struggle to write a law that effectively cracks down on the sale of synthetic drugs while remaining fair to businesses that might not know they’re on their shelves.

The House and Senate have been working on similar bills that will make it illegal to sell anything that could be perceived as a synthetic drug. But critics are concerned that the language is so vague it could make businesses difficult to prosecute.

The biggest controversy involves a section about so-called look-alike drugs. It essentially says that if a substance looks like a synthetic drug and acts like a synthetic drug, it is a synthetic drug.

That’s meant to get around a problem with past laws that tried to define synthetic drugs by using chemical compounds. Last year, lawmakers amended language to give the state’s pharmacy board more power to add to the list of banned drugs. But the state is not keeping up with drug manufacturers.

“Chasing the compounds is not working; we need to go after the look-alike issue,” said Sen. Jim Merritt, R-Indianapolis.

But Larry Landis, director of the Indiana Public Defender Council, said there are concerns with the provision.

“If it is not a synthetic drug, but a reasonable person thinks it’s a synthetic drug, it’s still a criminal act and that is our concern,” said Landis.

Landis said the bill would unfairly create a crime that takes into account neither the criminal intent nor the mental intent of the offender. So someone who is not intending to sell the drugs illegally and may not be aware that the drugs are illegal would still be prosecuted for the crime, he said.

But even after hearing the concerns, Rep. Rebecca Kubacki, R-Syracuse, said they need to move the bill along.

“At some point we have to say enough is enough, and start making some progress and stop talking these things to death,” Kubacki said. “At one point, we need to stop worrying so much about the people doing harm and start worrying about the people who are being harmed.”

Lawmakers decided to hold the bill and consider amendments next week. The similar House bill has yet to be heard in a Senate committee.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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 IBJ 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT