Wal-Mart Rolls Back Tough Anti-Meth Legislation

I have looked over the Des Moines Register in detail.  I can find no editorial where they blast Walmart for their position, although it is possible I missed it.  Sen Charles Grassley, a co-sponsor of the bill has the dispute with Walmart.  Sen Grassley’s position is hard to understand. He is withdrawing as a co-sponsor of the bill, because it is not as he would desire.  If he truly wants to pass an effective bill, it would make more sense to remain a sponsor where he has some enfluence.

These are the issues:  Pseudoephedrine is the primary ingredient in meth.  Pseudoephedrine can be obtained in many OTC cold medications.  The Iowa law would restrict sales of the OTC drugs which contain pseudoephedrine to pharmacies.  The federal law would allow pharmacies and specifically licensed stores to sell OTC drugs which contain pseudoephedrine.  The federal law, as currently drafted, would not allow deviations from the federal law by states. 

The problem with the Iowa law is that you can obtain the drug for legitimate uses only at pharmacies.  The consequence of this is that there are many small towns which do not have pharmacies and people needing the medication would be required to travel many miles to obtain the medication.  The other consequence is that the cost of the cold medications will go up. There have been cases where the pharmacies have been so restrictive with selling cold medications that it is causing problems.  The new restrictions are not favored by all Iowans, including those with legitimate need for pseudoephedrine.

A direct quote from the Des Moines Register.  “In a written statement, Bob Dufour, director of pharmacy, professional services and government relations for Wal-Mart, said that meth use is a “national crisis” and that Wal-Mart applauds states for stepping forward with laws.  He said Wal-Mart favors federal pre-emption to set a national strategy and national procedures for dealing with the meth problem. A solution also “should recognize the needs of the millions of legitimate consumers while providing adequate restrictions to those who use pseudoephedrine for illicit purposes,” he said.”

Walmart would certainly favor a single federal law rather than dealing with a myriad of fifty individual state laws plus a federal law.  There will be cases where it will be a matter if interpretation whether the federal law or the state law is more restrictive with the accompanying danger of a wrong interpretation.

It should be pointed out that, if the Iowa law is used, Walmart will benefit financially because almost every Walmart has a pharmacy.

I think this whole thing is moot anyway, WM moved pseudoephedrine contained medications behind the pharmacy counter ahead of these laws being passed.  Either law that gets passed wouldn’t change what WM is already foing, WM watch is just trying to create a controversy here, pretty pathetic if you ask me.

David: Does your employer (Walmart) support the tough Iowa bill or the weak White House bill? They won’t oppose either (would be a public relations disaster) but which would they prefer?

Who cares about meth orphans?? My car is f-a-s-t… if they come after me, I’ll hit 110 mph and leave them in the dust like Bo and Luke Duke!

YYYYYEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHAAAWWWWWWWWW!

David—Grassley has worked on this issue for years and is one of the go-to guys in the Senate on this issue. Why would he repeatedly sigle out Walmart on meth (this isn’t the first time) if he didn’t feel that their lobbyists were working to undercut him?

Sounds like the go-to guy is abandoning the cause.

James.  I looks like we are neighbors.  Which house is yours?  My employer, USAF Retired, has not come out with a position.

“Walmart would certainly favor a single federal law rather than dealing with a myriad of fifty individual state laws plus a federal law.”

David: Are you suggesting that Wal-Mart would sacrifice safety for the sake of convenience? I can’t imagine a responsible corporate citizen like Wal-Mart doing such a thing!

Ben, let me enlighten you, WAL MART ISN’T A RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE CITIZEN!the only thing they think about is their own money,if they lose their parafinalia customers,they lose money get it? wm cares nothing about safety considering the beat up worn out equipment at our store!

Wal-Mart was not making a profit from “parafinalia customers”, they were losing money.  The meth heads were stealing this product.  Wal-Mart wants to put all PSE items behind the counter.

Ben

It is a stretch to say that going to uniform laws will sacrifice safety for convenience. Uniform laws are much easier to implement and are much more likely to be implemented effectively.  In addition, uniform laws will prevent the methees from just going across the border to a state with less restrictive laws.  In spite of being a Midwest state, which tend to be large, there are few places in Iowa which are much more than 150 miles from an adjoining state. 

I can see no reason why Walmart would object to the Iowa law being adopted.  The biggest difference between the Iowa law and the federal bill is the control of pseudoephedrine outside of pharmacies.  Since Walmart has few, if any, stores without a pharmacy, Walmart would probably benefit from passing the Iowa version US wide.

In summary, Walmart has the moral high ground on this issue and walmartwatch is able to make an issue only by distorting the facts.

If Walmart had a moral high ground they would promote woment as much as they promote men to managerial positions.

I see nothing distorted in the FACT that Walmart would rather have weak legislation, so they can make more money.

Thanks to walmart watch two people lost thier lives yesterday.  Your little cronnies believe all your commie propaganda.

I guarantee he was a union thug.

Welcome back to the blog, Aaron! We’ve missed you and all your paranoid rants about unions, commies, pinkos, et al. Glad to have your insightful contributions…

I work at at a Wal-Mart pharmacy in Iowa, and believe me, Wal-Mart is not profiting from the new pse laws. Since the law went in to effect in May, sales of allergy and cold medicines has been down anywhere from 10-15%. It also takes alot of time to sell this product which has required extra payroll. You have to ask for their drivers liciense, look if they are in the computer and if not enter all the needed information and they have to sign their name. Then we have to ring their purchase up in the pharmacy and answer the many questions about “why do we have to do all this just to buy cold medicine?”.  I agree it is a pain to everyone involved, but if it keeps the meth problem away, it’s all worth it.  I read an article that said meth lab busts were down in July from 200+ last year to around 89 this year in Iowa.  Good news to me! 
I also have heard many companies are re-formulating the products so they do not contain pse.  They are losing big $$ since these laws have gone into effect. Many customers are doing without or using less product because of the inconvience.  The new formulas should be on the shelves before winter. Good news to me! 
I just can’t see how anyone can say Wal-Mart is profiting from these new laws, other than the meth dealers aren’t stealing them from the shelves anymore.

Good Blog!