WASHINGTON — Responding to methamphetamine abuse that plagues much of the country, congressional leaders hope to pass legislation this week aimed at making it harder to obtain an ingredient in common cold medicine that can be used to make the illegal drug.
Under the measure, retailers would have to keep nonprescription cold and allergy remedies containing pseudoephedrine behind store counters. Buyers would be limited on how much they could purchase and would be required to show identification and sign a log book.
"The growing meth epidemic in our country shows no deference to district or party line," Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona), co-chairman of the 135-member Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, said Tuesday. "This is an issue everyone can agree is wreaking havoc on communities across the nation.''
Although the effort to combat methamphetamine has strong bipartisan support, the measure has been attached to an extension of the controversial anti-terrorism law, the Patriot Act. Renewal of the Patriot Act is uncertain because a number of Republicans and Democrats argue that the law infringes on the civil liberties of U.S. citizens.
Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) joined with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in pushing the anti-methamphetamine provisions.
Talent said the measure would "make it harder for dishonest people to get the ingredients they need to make meth, while ensuring honest people can access the medicine they need."
A number of states, including California, have enacted similar legislation. Oregon, with perhaps the strictest law, requires a doctor's prescription for medicine containing pseudoephedrine, such as Sudafed and Claritin D.
Some stores have voluntarily limited sales of such cold and allergy medications and moved them behind counters.
But Rich Chrismer, a spokesman for Talent, said the federal legislation would keep people from "crossing state lines to get the products they need to cook meth."
The trade association representing drugstore chains had expressed a preference for a federal standard, contending that a "patchwork of more than three dozen different state requirements, in addition to scores of local ordinances in cities, towns, and counties throughout the country" confused consumers and law enforcement.
State officials succeeded in persuading federal lawmakers not to prevent them from enacting stronger laws.
