yes, it's all true! we manage our allergies...
July 22, 2010 8:50 PM   Subscribe

My wife went to the pharmacy to purchase Zyrtec-D and the pharmacy called the police.

She has made this exact purchase at this branch of this pharmacy 10+ times in the last year and a half and never had a problem. She has been using an out-of-state ID which is still current (not expired, revoked, etc) to make these purchases. She was not told by the pharmacy on any of her previous visits that an in-state ID would be required for these purchases.

In the store, prior to the purchase being completed, she was seemingly stalled by the pharmacy staff who initially told her that they were out of Zyrtec-D. The generic form was on the shelf behind the person who told her that they were out, and when my wife pointed this out they took my wife's out-of-state ID, inquired if my wife had an in-state ID, was told she did not, became flustered and said they needed to "check some paperwork in the back". Paperwork and calculators were shuffled around by the staff but eventually the pharmacy sold the Zyrtec-D to her and let her leave the store.

My wife went to the parking lot and was approached by a police officer from the town we live in who informed her that the pharmacy had called to report her. The officer asked her a number of questions which included the address of her current residence and what her allergy symptoms were. He stated that the pharmacy had indicated that she had purchased too much, or too often, and that he was responding to that report. My wife offered that they could go inside the pharmacy together and ask to see their records, as all of these sales are recorded and reported. The police officer declined, let my wife go without citation, and then went into the pharmacy presumably to speak with the staff.

The reason I ask this question is that a friend advised that I should consult with a lawyer as he believes there is something actionable here, something that could be litigated/settled for out-of-court/etc. I'm not sure I understand exactly what that would be or how to broach the topic and would like to be better prepared before calling a lawyer looking for representation for this.

what are your thoughts, mefites-who-are-not-my-lawyers?

throwaway email : mefianonq@yahoo.com



other info :

Zyrtec-D is a NON-prescription OTC medication sold behind the counter because it contains pseudoephedrine.

Pseudoephedrine is considered a Schedule V medication in the state in which this ocurred. Records are kept similar to other Schedule V medications, and amounts in excess of 9 grams pseudoephedrine per month per legal ID are not allowed to be sold. This amount was not at any point exceeded by my wife.

We recognize that some states (including the one we're in) have a law about getting current identification after changing your residence to an in-state address. We recognize that the police could have given her a ticket for this. They didn't, and they let her go with no citations issued and a warning about this given so this is not something we're concerned with in regards to this situation. A current in-state ID will be acquired posthaste to avoid this scenario happening in the future.
posted by anonymous to Law & Government (52 answers total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
 
The police officer declined, let my wife go without citation, and then went into the pharmacy presumably to speak with the staff.

End of story.

Go to another pharmacy next time.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:54 PM on July 22, 2010 [22 favorites]


(And maybe get an in-state ID.)
posted by Sys Rq at 8:55 PM on July 22, 2010 [6 favorites]


So your wife was doing something legal... the pharmacy staff thought she might have been up to something illegal and phoned the police. The police did their job, came out, and apparently decided that your wife was doing nothing wrong, and took no action against her - which is pretty much what would be expected of them in this scenario. I can't really see why you would feel the need to start some kind of litigation here. Your wife was accidentally accused, which is annoying, but no bad came of it. Maybe I'm missing something, but starting some big legal stink about something that didn't cause your wife any harm, besides some wasted time, seems kind of pointless, except as some kind of cash grab.
posted by Diplodocus at 8:59 PM on July 22, 2010 [11 favorites]


To reverse and simplify the scenario: What if you saw someone cutting a lock off of a bike, and you called the police, suspecting this person was stealing the bike. The police come out, talk to the guy and learn that he owns the bike and lost the key to his lock. Should that guy try to litigate against you for calling the police on him? Of course not, you just saw something suspicious and phoned it in, no harm done.
posted by Diplodocus at 9:01 PM on July 22, 2010 [27 favorites]


Interesting. I used to take pseudoephedrine fairly regularly, and one time, the store's computers thought I bought too much, and they refused to sell me the 24-count box. The 12-count box, however, was fine. No police, no future pseudoephedrine troubles. This might be an Illinois thing; it seems that the stores I frequent all share the same database of how much pseudoephedrine I purchased.

Anyway, I stopped taking it because it causes noticeable hypertension (for me). My doctor prescribed Patanase in addition to my Flonase / Zyrtec / Singulair / allergy shots regiment, and now I only take it if I happen to have a cold. My allergies are otherwise under control.

So to avoid problems in the future, you might want to talk to your doctor about allergy shots or other medications. Allergy shots treat the underlying condition, Singulair prevents your body from releasing chemicals that trigger histamine release, steroid sprays desensitize your nose to allergens, antihistamine sprays will get rid of inflamation caused by histamines on-demand, and Zyrtec will prevent any reaction that those don't handle. Pseudoephedrine just makes all of your blood vessels smaller, which has the side effect of reducing congestion. But you still are having an allergic reaction, and it's better to treat that if possible.

IANAD, but just a suggestion that worked for me.

Finally, it seems unlikely that there will be criminal charges filed over this. The pharmacy is being overly paranoid; if you aren't taking more than the recommended dose of Zyrtec-D, you aren't doing anything legally actionable. It's the pharmacy that's in legal hot water for not keeping proper records.

But, if the police want to search your house or question you, etc., then you should consider a lawyer. I have heard of a case where someone bought their wife and kids allergy medicine, putting him over the limit, and charges were brought against him. Not sure what the resolution was, though.

Anyway, good luck with the law and with your allergies!
posted by jrockway at 9:03 PM on July 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


Calling the police on someone is generally not actionable. Ordinary citizens are not legal experts, nor are pharmacy employees legal experts, and sometimes people call the police about activities that are perfectly legal.

While your wife's situation is certainly distressing, there's almost certainly nothing that can be done lawsuit-wise.
posted by jayder at 9:04 PM on July 22, 2010


I'd skip the lawyer, and talk to the manager at the store. If they don't offer some kind of apology, start spreading the word about that pharmacy's poor customer service. It's sucky that they suspected your wife, but really, they were just doing their jobs.
posted by elpea at 9:07 PM on July 22, 2010 [3 favorites]


Send a strongly-worded letter to the pharmacy manager and owner and never shop there again. Maybe tell your friends. Leave it at that.
posted by Dasein at 9:10 PM on July 22, 2010 [4 favorites]


The reason I ask this question is that a friend advised that I should consult with a lawyer as he believes there is something actionable here, something that could be litigated/settled for out-of-court/etc.


There is nothing to be litigated here. Your wife was not charged or cited. What exactly are you expecting to settle out of court? Tell your wife to go get an in state ID. With an appointment at the DMV it should take no longer than an hour. It's about time.

The pharmacy reported what they thought was suspicious. I understand that you're upset that someone called the cops on your wife. But calm down and give it a day or two before you sue the police department for responding to a call.
posted by special-k at 9:11 PM on July 22, 2010 [4 favorites]


start spreading the word about that pharmacy's poor customer service.
It may have been their legal requirement to call in the police. Someone using an out of state ID to purchase larger-than-usual amounts of drugs that can be used to make meth raised some flags. Let it go. If you want to be mad at someone, find your local speed freak.
posted by sanko at 9:12 PM on July 22, 2010 [9 favorites]


I like the idea about writing a letter asking for an apology. They will probably try to cop out with, "the government made me do it", but don't let them. The government didn't force them to mistreat you as a customer. The governemnt merely required them to write down your name and the amount of PSE you bought.

Chalk this up to the usual inability of many places to do customer service. Bad customer service + stupid drug laws = worse customer service :)
posted by jrockway at 9:13 PM on July 22, 2010 [3 favorites]


The reason I ask this question is that a friend advised that I should consult with a lawyer as he believes there is something actionable here, something that could be litigated/settled for out-of-court/etc.

What loss have you incurred?

Suing someone is not a ticket to fantastic cash prizes, it's to provide redress for damages done. If you can't, straight away, identify the quantifiable loss for which you seek redress, then obtaining legal representation is jumping the gun.
posted by pompomtom at 9:27 PM on July 22, 2010 [14 favorites]


Before he died, my father used to work at a liquor store, part time, in rural Connecticut. He'd been at the job for years, but for some reason, slipped up one evening and sold liquor to an under-aged kid, and that kid got busted for drunk driving. The police fined the liquor store, and the store owner nearly fired my dad, but since he'd been working there part time for literally decades, he got by with a warning. After that, he carded everyone, even if they were hobbled and old with a cane. Everyone.

I'd be willing to bet that your pharmacy recently got busted or audited for selling the stuff without going through the proper footwork, so they were being ultra careful because your wife's out-of-state license set off a red flag.

What I'm saying is that I wouldn't take it personally. The wheels of justice apply their heavy burden to everyone equally.
posted by crunchland at 9:29 PM on July 22, 2010 [23 favorites]


Ah, when I first read this, I thought she was talking about having criminal charges brought against her, not about suing the pharamacy. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you can't sue someone for calling the police on you.

They thought the law required them to call the police on you, and they did. The police showed up, decided that this was not a big deal, and let you go on your way. Much worse things happen every day; think about people wrongly convicted and forced to live in prison for 10 years, and then being released with no recourse but an apology. If those people can't sue, neither can you :)
posted by jrockway at 9:31 PM on July 22, 2010 [1 favorite]


Do not litigate. Do not be that person. Do not ruin some pharmacist's life because he over reacted. Yes, this was a crazy, weird, stupid thing for them to do. But it's hardly worth going to court over. Your wife calmly responded and was left to go on her way. What's the problem here? It's not the cops cuffed and tazed her and it's not like the pharmacist called her a junkie.

This is over, let it stay that way.
posted by GilloD at 9:32 PM on July 22, 2010 [5 favorites]


sanko: "It may have been their legal requirement to call in the police"

Mandatory reporting for sudafed? Now I've heard everything.
posted by rhizome at 9:38 PM on July 22, 2010


I'm seeing this as a customer service issue rather than a legal one, and if I were you I would write a letter asking the pharmacy to clarify their requirements and restrictions regarding the sale of allergy meds.

I can't tell for sure, but from a quick look at the FDA info about the regulations and this previous question, it looks like the only requirement the pharmacy had is to not sell to your wife. I could be wrong, and you may have been subject to stricter state laws, but hopefully they'll be able to clarify that for you.

But yeah, calling the cops instead of saying "we cannot sell this to you at this time and here's why" seems excessive and not terribly bright. If I were you I'd switch pharmacies and leave it at that.
posted by stefanie at 9:41 PM on July 22, 2010 [2 favorites]


Please go to Google Local, look up the store, and submit this account as a review. This will be fairly visible on anyone looking up a pharmacy and will give the store a bit of a black eye for doing this. It will certainly affect their earnings by some tangible amount.

Something similar happened to my mother-in-law (a disabled 60 year old) at a Wal-Mart in East Texas when she went to buy Sudafed for her allergies... the clerk accused her of drug seeking and asked her to leave. Pseudoephedrine is apparently the new Reefer Madness of the 21st century.
posted by crapmatic at 9:50 PM on July 22, 2010 [9 favorites]


Why are you looking into lawyers? What wrong are you looking to have rectified?
posted by xmutex at 10:26 PM on July 22, 2010


Here's what beats getting the stink-eye about pseudoephedrine purchases: my brother got a visit at home from the sheriff after an undercover (or off-duty?) cop saw him buy a case of beer and a 500 count box of matches at a liquor store. For what it's worth, crapmatic, this was also in East Texas.
posted by soviet sleepover at 10:29 PM on July 22, 2010


I've been to a computer supply store (in Michigan) that checked my ID when I bought compressed air. Huffing must be, or be perceived as, a big problem.
posted by dhens at 11:17 PM on July 22, 2010


Sanko is correct. Pseudoephedrine is used to make meth, but large amounts are required. In California pharmacies are required to enter your name after seeing your ID and you are required to sign for it. As far as I know they will only sell one package at a time and you're only allowed to buy once every 14 days (I'm not sure of the actual numbers but it's something like that). I'm sure other states have similar laws and your out of state ID is probably a red flag. It's actually easier to get with a prescription, even though it's OTC. As far as suing, I doesn't sound like they did anything wrong legally. It's a stupid war on drugs law, complain to the elected official of your choice (and don't be surprised when they do nothing).
posted by doctor_negative at 12:04 AM on July 23, 2010 [1 favorite]




The pharmacist is probably in a tough position too.

Think of this - if there is a crystal meth problem in your town (and if you live in America, there is a crystal meth problem in your town), and all the problems of crime and violence that go with crystal meth - and your local meth heads are scamming this pharmacy by sending in "normal" looking people to get their drug.

Do you really want to take an action that is going to discourage your local pharmacy of from being extra careful about selling this drug?

If you do litigate, if you do write a letter slamming this pharmacist - then you should say a prayer that you are not robbed by a meth head later. Your wide was delayed for 15 minutes and made to feel a little uncomfortable - how would you feel if she was the victim of a violent crime fueled by crystal meth?
posted by Flood at 1:28 AM on July 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


If you are in Australia, this might put it in context:

Pseudoephedrine Training Resources


Pharmacies have long been targeted by people who seek to obtain pseudoephedrine to manufacture illicit drugs. In recent years the problem has escalated, with offenders finding an increasing number of ways to extract the pseudoephedrine content from various prepared medications. Pseudo-runners have also created strong networks around Australia to enable substantial quantities of the product to be purchased and diverted to methamphetamine manufacture.

In January 2006 all pharmaceutical products containing pseudoephedrine which were previously Pharmacy Medicines (S2) were rescheduled to Pharmacist Only Medicines (S3) and from April there will be further tightening of community access, with liquid pseudoephedrine preparations containing more than 800mg per pack and other preparations with 720mg or more, being rescheduled to S4.

These changes to legislation form part of a national strategy to prevent the illicit diversion of pharmaceutical preparations containing pseudoephedrine to the manufacture of methamphetamine, more commonly known as ‘speed’. The decision made by the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee (NDPSC) was the result of ongoing concern by health regulators and Australian criminal justice agencies.

Community pharmacies will undoubtedly be significantly affected by this decision, with new storage requirements for all formulations of pseudoephedrine. Pharmacy owners are being encouraged to minimise their stock holdings of pseudoephedrine formulations and customers are no longer able to self select these products. In some situations customers will be directed towards alternative products with similar therapeutic benefit.

Although there is no nationally consistent legal requirement for pharmacists to verify the identification of a person presenting a prescription, pharmacists and pharmacy staff are encouraged to utilise the free online recording and reporting system Project Stop. Pharmacists, police and health authorities will be able to use Project STOP to check for previous purchases of pseudoephedrine-containing products and record new transactions. Using this system, pharmacists will be better equipped to distinguish between legitimate customers and pseudo-runners.

So it looks like legitimate behaviour by both the pharmacy and the police.
posted by b33j at 1:43 AM on July 23, 2010


what are your thoughts, mefites-who-are-not-my-lawyers?

My thoughts are that even considering a lawsuit of any kind is ridiculous. If you feel like you need to take some action write a letter to the store manager and the corporate HQ explaining why you will henceforth be doing all your shopping at a different pharmacy. That may be called for. A lawyer? WHY?
posted by Justinian at 2:00 AM on July 23, 2010


I'd be wicked pissed but lawsuit? Life's too short. Damages would probably be minimal (her reputation wasn't ruined, she didn't get fired, she was inconvenienced for ten minutes and now you're both angry--I would be too, but it's not like all the neighbors think she's cooking meth.)

I would send a disappointed/angry letter to corporate, cc the local pharmacy and store manager/owner, maybe the Better Business Journal, your state representative, and assure them I'd be telling the story for a long, long time. The two things I've gotten from that sort of thing are: gigantic fruit basket from hospital who treated us badly when we had baby llama, and a luxury comp room at a swanky hotel for bad customer service. I don't roll that method out for everything, but for extraordinarily angry-making circumstances it works surprisingly well.

Don't email. No one listens to email.

Just doing their jobs is no excuse for stupid or failures of critical thinking. Buying this about once a month for ten months does not equal meth addict/manufacturer.

That is just dumb.

And find another pharmacist.

Maybe you'll get a fruit basket.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 2:33 AM on July 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


Your wife was briefly questioned in the parking lot and then let go. I'm curious as to what you think the issue is here?
posted by The Light Fantastic at 3:26 AM on July 23, 2010


This was improper behavior on the part of the pharmacy. The proper action if it believes the customer is coming too frequently is to decline to make the sale. That being said, I agree with those who suggest contacting the manager to discuss the situation.
posted by megatherium at 4:26 AM on July 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


I hope your wifes license plates are atleast in state because then you could also be looked into for insurance fraud and other things. Do not do ANYTHING till you get an instate license.
posted by majortom1981 at 4:42 AM on July 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


this happened to a co-worker last summer, except he got cuffs put on him in the parking lot. It was because of the state law that was passed to prevent smurfing. this was in Iowa

I agree with megatherium that the correct action was to decline the sale, but someone must be telling them to do this to 'catch the bad guys' (i.e. meth cooks).
posted by ArgentCorvid at 4:43 AM on July 23, 2010



a friend advised that I should consult with a lawyer as he believes there is something actionable here, something that could be litigated/settled for out-of-court/etc


Your friend is not helping out our society; litigation does not need to be the answer to all of the issues you come across in life. I bet your friend is a generally angry person.


I agree with the first Poster: write a note to the Pharmacy to inform them that they have lost a regular customer and that you will no longer be giving them business due to the event and go to a different Pharmacy. Move on with life.
posted by zombieApoc at 6:03 AM on July 23, 2010


Welcome to the War on Drugs. Please enjoy the ride.

(This sort of thing happens every day - innocent people getting caught up in the hysteria associated with the WoD. If you want it to stop, support one of the various national organizations created to fight it. Otherwise, have fun explaining OTC drug store purchases to the cops for the rest of your lives.)
posted by unixrat at 6:26 AM on July 23, 2010 [3 favorites]


Wow. What a bunch of fucking morons behind the counter. I just saw an episode of Penn and Teller Bullshit where a man had prescription drugs (in a wheelchair no less) and his home was raided, he was sentence 25 years for drug trafficing (no evidence). He spent 3 years in jail for having 'too many drugs". Um, the doc prescribed them. They were legal, etc.

Seems to me it's time to get a lawyer to see if anything was in violation. I would think more the pharamacy than the cops. Your wife, thank god, got off lucky.
posted by stormpooper at 6:30 AM on July 23, 2010


I think your frustration is misdirected. The cop didn't do anything wrong. And the pharmacy staff, well, you think pharmacists enjoy this ridiculous sudafed panic?

This was either poorly-trained staff, an overzealous store policy, or an overzealous corporate policy, or some combination. Talk to the manager of the store about how this situation was handled.
posted by desuetude at 6:57 AM on July 23, 2010


. . .calling the cops instead of saying "we cannot sell this to you at this time and here's why" seems excessive and not terribly bright. . .

This is the bothersome part.

There's nothing in the law which required calling the police, and certainly nothing about your wife's behavior warranted that. You call the police when you are faced with a threatening individual, or you suspect a wanted criminal is present.

They called the police BUT ALSO sold the drugs? So, if any law had been broken, it was the pharmacy breaking the law against not selling too much pseudoephedrine. And they called the cops on themselves.

I think a letter to the owners is appropriate to prevent this kind of thing for future customers.
posted by General Tonic at 7:55 AM on July 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think this was shoddy customer service. Your wife is buying a legal product, and supplied valid identification. She likely feels mortified by the suspicion and police interview.

Make an appointment with the store manager. Ask for an apology. Me, I'd ask them to make a donation to my favorite charity, but mostly, a friendly apology for poor service is a fair response.
posted by Mom at 8:16 AM on July 23, 2010


For a lawsuit, you need a cause of action and damages. I don't know what your cause of action would possibly be, and you don't have any damages.
posted by seventyfour at 8:22 AM on July 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


I agree with many other people on this thread. This was an irritating inconvenience. If this happened to me, I would be very grumpy. It's not really a reason to lawyer up, tho.

First, figure out if there is anything that the offending party (the pharmacy) can do to make this right by you. Do you want a written apology, a token gift, a change in policy or what? Do you want to meet with the manager and find out why you were targeted for this special treat?

Next, both of you go (two people are harder to ignore than one) to the store, and see if you can resolve this in person. If you try and go during 9-5 business hours when the pharmacy is not super busy, you'll probably get more attention.

If you don't receive satisfaction, keep ramping it up. Start writing and sending registered complaint letters to the pharmacy manager, district managers, and bigwigs at the corporate offices. For tips, search consumerist.com for tips on writing executive carpet bomb letters. Register complaints with the BBB, and submit online reviews that tell your story. If you have some free time to devote to this, one person can make a difference.

If you think that the laws of your state allow the pharmacist too much leeway, maybe you should send a letter to your senator or representative to see changes can be made to existing laws.

Good luck!

**And yes. Your wife really needs to get her license transferred to your current state. It's usually very simple and inexpensive, and doesn't give the police any legitimate reason to bother her.
posted by mattybonez at 9:45 AM on July 23, 2010


Sorry for your troubles. The whole sudafed thing can definitely be sort of ridiculous and some retailers/pharmacies are so much more militant about it than others. Because I hate dealing with it, and generally people upholding bureaucratic I also vote for letter to pharmacy manager/corporate HQ and a strongly worded online review should suffice.

I know you're both pissed/embarrassed/irritated, but this is no reason for a lawsuit. Do not lawyer up, please.
posted by jerseygirl at 10:05 AM on July 23, 2010


sorry that should have been:

Sorry for your troubles. The whole sudafed thing can definitely be sort of ridiculous and some retailers/pharmacies are so much more militant about it than others. Because I hate dealing with it, and generally people upholding bureaucratic nonsense, I get something else.

I also vote for letter to pharmacy manager/corporate HQ and a strongly worded online review should suffice.

I know you're both pissed/embarrassed/irritated, but this is no reason for a lawsuit. Do not lawyer up, please.
posted by jerseygirl at 10:06 AM on July 23, 2010


Just want to add a note of sympathy for the poster. I believe it was bad form for the pharmacy to call the police and be so uncool when they could have spoken with your wife themselves. I know, others will roar that these are young clerks and manager and untrained, etc. but this is a pharmacy, for heaven's sake. Someone there should be trained and your wife presented no disruption or safety danger. Actionable, I don't know but it was certainly bad form.
posted by Mertonian at 10:33 AM on July 23, 2010


You would never, ever, win any kind of lawsuit regarding what you described. Ever. It would be a waste of time, money, and the resources of the court system.
posted by nathancaswell at 11:07 AM on July 23, 2010


I know this is horrible and embarrassing, and the whole thing is stupid, but the recordkeeping and reporting are mandated by the Patriot Act. There are serious repercussions for pharmacists who do not comply with reporting requirements, because these are terrorism charges, not FDA finger-shaking.

If your wife threw a flag in the software that many drugstore chains use to comply with reporting requirements, NOT making that phone call could have resulted in some pretty dire consequences for the pharmacist. I'm actually surprised that local law enforcement is allowed any discretion in these cases, I had figured if you trip the flag you sit in the pokey until some nice men in suits come and talk to you, and then if you have pretty much all your teeth and aren't a suspicious color and your bank accounts are really boring, then you get to go home.

Buying my precious Sudafed scares the shit out of me, every time. I buy my Zyrtec unadulterated and save the magic red pills for urgent needs only.
posted by Lyn Never at 1:00 PM on July 23, 2010 [2 favorites]


I agree with a few previous posters- trying to sue for simply calling the cops? That's a bit over the top and sounds like a money-grab to me. It was nothing but a minor inconvenience [did they search her possessions? Ticket her? No? So what's the problem?] and left no lasting harm. The only thing I can see is that you're confused and a bit upset about them calling the cops about a suspected drug-related transaction. From experience working in a pharmacy setting, at least in the pharmacy I worked in>, some notification is required to the local law enforcement. It does depend on your state and even your county, though. I am not a lawyer, however, so I'm not sure how legal any of those things were.

But seriously, if it upset you so much, just don't go back. I really don't see the big deal.
posted by shesaysgo at 8:23 PM on July 23, 2010


I've thought about this since yesterday. I agree that you won't be likely to prevail in a lawsuit since no harm was done. However, as a severe allergy sufferer myself, I understand why you're concerned and angry. It was only last year that an Indiana grandmother was arrested, as in dragged out of her home in handcuffs and her picture making the front page of the paper arrested, for the terrible crime of purchasing two boxes of allergy medicine in the same week.

For the record, it was almost certainly the MethWatch program you ran afoul of. It really sets me off that allergy sufferers and grandmothers get shaken down, when it's obvious on its face that real big-time domestic meth manufacturers are stealing allergy pills or allergy pill ingredients by the tractor-trailer load, Goodfellas style, rather than buying a box or two at a time in local drug stores. Not to mention, as the MethWatch site states itself, "Primarily, meth has been imported into the United States as a finished drug from Mexico."

Therefore, if you're fired up to make somebody pay for this, start with your state and federal representatives and don't let up. Make them understand that dragging grandmothers from their homes in chains and routine hassling allergy sufferers in drug store parking lots is not an acceptable trade off for a reduction in domestic meth manufacturing. You'll be swimming against the tide, but so were the suffragettes.
posted by ob1quixote at 9:11 AM on July 24, 2010


Oh, and to everybody who says it's not a big deal, it is most definitely a big deal. How would you react if you were questioned by police for suspicion of buying methamphetamine ingredients? That's what really happened to Anonymous' wife. In my book, that's a big, fat, hairy fuckin' deal with cheese on top.

Okay, I'm done now. I just had to get that off my chest
posted by ob1quixote at 9:18 AM on July 24, 2010


I guess I'd agree with you if she had in any way been detained or even remotely harassed by the police. That she was merely questioned doesn't seem like such a big deal, though I can understand why many would see it as an overstep of authority over what seems like an otherwise trivial matter.
posted by crunchland at 9:37 AM on July 24, 2010


How would you react if you were questioned by police for suspicion of buying methamphetamine ingredients?

What's wrong with being questioned?
posted by xmutex at 11:22 PM on July 25, 2010


How would you react if you were questioned by police for suspicion of buying methamphetamine ingredients?

Answer the questions, then go about my day.

Is talking to someone really that terrible?
posted by pompomtom at 5:01 AM on July 27, 2010


Is talking to someone really that terrible?

Well, no. Unless there's the overarching threat of being arrested because you had the temerity to buy two boxes of pseudoephederine-containing OTC medications in a week.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 7:06 AM on July 27, 2010 [1 favorite]


You also can't buy a couple hundred pounds of ammonium nitrate without raising suspicion, either. So blame the terrorists and the meth heads for abusing an otherwise normal product to the point where they had to legislate the sale of it. But don't blame the salesman or the cop investigating it. They're just doing what they are forced to do by law.
posted by crunchland at 8:25 AM on July 27, 2010


« Older Metafilter, am I thwarted?   |   Job interview help Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.