HEALTH

Study: Prescription-only PSE laws have no impact on number of meth labs, meth abusers

BY Michael Johnsen

PORTLAND, Ore. — Prescription-only pseudoephedrine regulation has no impact on the methamphetamine trade, according to a Cascade Policy Institute study on the 2005 Oregon law, which restricts access to medicines containing pseudoephedrine.

“This study affirms what we predicted over six years ago: The law would not significantly curb meth use or production, but it would impose a considerable burden on legitimate users of cold and allergy medicines like Claritin-D and Sudafed,” said Steve Buckstein, Cascade’s senior policy analyst. “With other state and federal lawmakers considering following Oregon’s lead on this issue, we thought it was critical to find out what has actually happened here since the law went into effect.”

"Cascade’s findings are significant because a number of states around the country are looking to Oregon to decide whether their prescription mandate model is worth replicating," Consumer Healthcare Products Association president and CEO Scott Melville said. "This study shows that in addition to increased costs for individuals, lost productivity for businesses and restricted access to popular and reliable cold and allergy medicines, prescription requirements do not effectively reduce methamphetamine’s overall impact on a given state."

According to the study, the prescription requirement for cold and allergy medicines containing pseudoephedrine had no more of an impact on the reduction of meth lab incidents than other measures adopted in neighboring states. The rate of mobile meth lab reductions in Oregon is nearly identical to that of six neighboring and nearby states that do not have a prescription requirement. "Moreover, meth addicts in Oregon can still get access to their drug of choice,” Buckstein added. “Overall, our study raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of Oregon’s law and whether such a prescription mandate — which impacts all consumers in the state — is warranted.”

Key findings of the study:

  • Law enforcement in Oregon report that methamphetamine remains the state’s greatest drug threat, despite the reduction in in-state meth production, and contributes the most toward drug-related crime;

  • Methamphetamine lab incidents in Oregon declined more than 90% between 2004 and 2010. Most of this decline occurred before the prescription-only law went into effect in 2006;

  • Six neighboring states, including Washington and California, experienced similar declines in meth lab reductions without imposing a prescription requirement during the same time frame;

  • The number of methamphetamine admissions to substance abuse centers in Oregon declined about 23% from 2006 to 2009, the exact same rate as the rest of the United States. Usage was slightly higher in California at 29% and slightly lower in Washington at 20%; and

  • Legitimate users of pseudoephedrine in Oregon incur additional costs as a result of this law, because it requires a doctor visit to get Sudafed and similar products that are available over-the-counter in 48 other states. Some of these additional costs also are borne by all taxpayers who fund government healthcare programs.

According to the Cascade Policy Institute, the report’s findings are consistent with studies conducted by other independent groups, such as Oregon’s High Intensity Drug Area, which reported: “Methamphetamine continues to be highly available and widely used throughout the HIDTA region and remains the most serious drug threat to Oregon.” CPI cited the "Threat Assessment & Counter-Drug Strategy 2011 Oregon High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Report" current as of Sept. 26, 2011.

For the full Cascade Policy Institute study, click here.


Interested in this topic? Sign up for our weekly Collaborative Care e-newsletter.

keyboard_arrow_downCOMMENTS

Leave a Reply

No comments found

TRENDING STORIES

Polls

Which area of the industry do you think Amazon’s entry would shake up the most?
HEALTH

Prestige Brands expresses surprise over acquisition letter; will take under advisement

BY Michael Johnsen

IRVINGTON, N.Y. — Prestige Brands will take an acquisition offer from Genomma Lab Internacional under advisement, the company announced Tuesday evening.

Prestige Brands confirmed the company’s receipt of a non-binding letter from Genomma Lab Internacional, proposing to acquire all outstanding common shares of Prestige Brands at a price of $16.60 per share in cash.

"The ‘offer’ described in the letter is highly conditional, requiring, among other things, due diligence, significant financing and Genomma Lab shareholder approval," Prestige stated in a release. "Given the extensive conditionality, combined with the absence of detail and the expressed preference for a negotiated transaction, we are puzzled by Genomma Lab’s decision to go public without any attempt to first engage in discussions with, or make a proposal to, the board of directors of Prestige Brands. The company advises shareholders that they need not take any action at this time in response to Genomma Lab’s letter."

Consistent with its fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of Prestige Brands and its stockholders, and in consultation with its independent financial and legal advisors, the board of directors of the company will review the Genomma Lab letter and respond in due course, Prestige stated.

keyboard_arrow_downCOMMENTS

Leave a Reply

No comments found

TRENDING STORIES

Polls

Which area of the industry do you think Amazon’s entry would shake up the most?
HEALTH

Schumer calls on FDA to investigate inhaler product marketed as supplement

BY Michael Johnsen

WASHINGTON — Sen. Charles Schumer on Tuesday announced that the Food and Drug Administration has agreed to conduct a full review of the safety and legality of the new caffeine inhaler AeroShot, distributed by Breathable Foods, which hit stores in New York and Boston this past month.

The product, a lipstick-sized disposable inhaler, allows the user to inhale a powder formulated with 100 mg of caffeine. Schumer first called on the FDA to review the safety and legality of the product in December 2011, before the product started shipping in January, with a particular focus on both how it would affect teens and its use in combination with alcohol. Schumer announced that the FDA has agreed to his request and will conduct a review of the safety and legality of the product.

Schumer also questioned whether or not the product is legally marketed as a dietary supplement. “The AeroShot caffeine inhaler is being marketed as a party enhancer; it can facilitate excessive drinking, and its effects have never been examined by independent regulators to determine their impact on the human body and in combination with alcohol, especially for adolescents,” Schumer stated. “We need to make sure that AeroShot does not become the next Four Loko, [an alcohol/caffeine combination beverage pulled off the market in 2010], by facilitating dangerous levels of drinking among teenagers and college students.”

In December, Schumer urged the FDA to request and review product safety evidence from AeroShot’s manufacturer, including whether the product is harmful to children, adolescents and the overall public health. Schumer specifically raised concerns over the potential for the product to be abused by adolescents in conjunction with alcohol. In a separate letter sent to AeroShot’s manufacturer, the American Academy of Pediatrics also raised concerns about the inhaled caffeine product and the effects of caffeine on developing neurologic and cardiovascular systems, the potential for the product to exacerbate asthma, and the risk of physical dependence and addiction. The organization also raised concerns over the impact of the powder in AeroShot being absorbed by the lungs.


Interested in this topic? Sign up for our weekly Collaborative Care e-newsletter.

keyboard_arrow_downCOMMENTS

Leave a Reply

No comments found

TRENDING STORIES

Polls

Which area of the industry do you think Amazon’s entry would shake up the most?