IBJNews

Bill for tighter cold-medication limits heads to Pence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana legislators have given final approval to a bill tightening the limits on how much consumers can buy of cold and allergy pills often used to make methamphetamine.

The state Senate voted 43-5 Tuesday in favor lowering the annual purchase limit of pseudoephedrine-based products to about 61 grams per person. That's about an eight-month supply of the current law's monthly limit.

The bill also increases the criminal penalties for anyone convicted of buying at least 10 grams of the medicines for a meth maker.

The House previously approved the bill and it now goes to Gov. Mike Pence for his consideration.

Several mayors and police groups pushed for state law to require a doctor's prescription to buy the medicines, but the bill doesn't take that step.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Targeting the Wrong People
    Once again, Indiana law makers are making a law that impacts the wrong people. Like many people in our part of the country, I suffer through allergies from April to October. This law will make it even more difficult than it already is for law-abiding allergy sufferers to obtain the medications we need on a regular basis. While we suffer, criminals who want to make meth will find another way to get their supplies. This is more bad legislation which will impact the law abiding, making things more inconvenient for us. As an allergy sufferer I want to say to the Indiana Legislature - enough is enough!

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. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT