Utopia Talk / Politics / Granny Busted 4 Buying 2 Bottle Cold Med

Liberal Member	Sun Oct 04 07:00:52 Wabash Valley woman didnâ??t realize second cold medicine purchase violated drug laws By Lisa Trigg The Tribune-Star CLINTON â?? When Sally Harpold bought cold medicine for her family back in March, she never dreamed that four months later she would end up in handcuffs. Now, Harpold is trying to clear her name of criminal charges, and she is speaking out in hopes that a law will change so others wonâ??t endure the same embarrassment she still is facing. â??This is a very traumatic experience,â?? Harpold said. Harpold is a grandmother of triplets who bought one box of Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband at a Rockville pharmacy. Less than seven days later, she bought a box of Mucinex-D cold medicine for her adult daughter at a Clinton pharmacy, thereby purchasing 3.6 grams total of pseudoephedrine in a weekâ??s time. Those two purchases put her in violation of Indiana law 35-48-4-14.7, which restricts the sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, or PSE, products to no more than 3.0 grams within any seven-day period. When the police came knocking at the door of Harpoldâ??s Parke County residence on July 30, she was arrested on a Vermillion County warrant for a class-C misdemeanor, which carries a sentence of up to 60 days in jail and up to a $500 fine. But through a deferral program offered by Vermillion County Prosecutor Nina Alexander, the charge could be wiped from Harpoldâ??s record by mid-September. Harpoldâ??s story is one that concerns some law-abiding citizens who fear that innocent people will get mistakenly caught in the net of meth abuse roundups. But the flip side of the story comes from the law enforcement arena, which is battling a resurgence in methamphetamine production in the Wabash Valley. As the 12th-smallest county in the state, Vermillion County ranked as the stateâ??s fifth-largest producer of methamphetamine just a few years ago. â??I donâ??t want to go there again,â?? Alexander told the Tribune-Star, recalling how the manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine ravaged the tiny county and its families. While the law was written with the intent of stopping people from purchasing large quantities of drugs to make methamphetamine, the law does not say the purchase must be made with the intent to make meth. â??The law does not make this distinction,â?? Alexander said. If the law said â??with intent to manufacture methamphetamine,â?? no one could be arrested until it was proven that the drug actually was used to make meth, the prosecutor said. And that certainly wasnâ??t the intent of the law, either. It was written to limit access to the key ingredient in meth â?? pseudoephedrine â?? and thereby to stop the clandestine â??mom and popâ?? meth labs that were cooking drugs throughout the area. Just as with any law, the public has the responsibility to know what is legal and what is not, and ignorance of the law is no excuse, the prosecutor said. â??Iâ??m simply enforcing the law as it was written,â?? Alexander said. Pharmacies post â??Meth Watchâ?? signs, alerting customers that their purchases of drugs containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are being monitored. Pharmacies also are required to submit a list of purchase records to police, who then examine the lists for violations of the law. It is up to customers to pay attention to their purchase amounts, and to check medication labels, Alexander said. â??If you take these products, you ought to know whatâ??s in them,â?? she said. While many people know that Sudafed, Actifed and Claritin-D contain pseudoephedrine, there are many more over-the-counter medications that also contain the key meth ingredient. Ron Vencel, a pharmacist with JR Pharmacies in Terre Haute, said consumers should check all drug labels, and notes that any drug that has a â??Dâ?? after it, for â??decongestant,â?? has a likelihood of containing pseudoephedrine, or PSE. Vencel has worked with area police to help curb the sale of over-the-counter pseudoephedrine to people buying it as a meth ingredient, and he offered insight into some of the purchasers. As authorities and retailers have limited the sale of PSE, some meth-makers have resorted to asking their relatives and friends, who are unaware of the intended use of the product, to go buy the cold medicine. That has put some innocent people unwittingly into the cycle of meth production. And a buyer may call five or six different people to go buy the cold medicine, thereby circumventing the law. Harpold, who is employed at the Rockville Correctional Facility for women, feels her reputation has been damaged by the arrest, and that she has been wrongly labeled as someone who makes meth. Her police mug shot ran on the front page of her local newspaper, she wrote, in a letter to the Tribune-Star, â??with an article entitled, â??17 Arrested in Drug Sweep.â??â?? â??That is something I have never been involved in,â?? she said of meth. When she told her co-workers about the arrest, she said, they could not believe it. They have been supportive of her, she said, and other friends in the community have tried to help stop the misinformation that has spread because of the arrest. The morning she was arrested, Harpold and her husband were awakened by police officers banging on the front door of their home at Midway along U.S. 36. She was allowed to get dressed, and was then taken in handcuffs to the Clinton Police Department, where she was questioned about her cold medicine purchases. She was later booked into jail, and her husband had to pay $300 bail to get her released. Harpold said she did go talk to the prosecutor about the situation, and Alexander offered her the deferral program, in which Harpold is required to pay the court costs, abide by all laws and not be arrested for 30 days. At the end of 30 days, the class-C misdemeanor will be erased from her record. Alexander said she is working with Harpold about the charge, but the prosecutor asserts that Harpold did break the law with her purchases and is being held accountable. â??I do want people to know that we will check the pharmacy records and we will prosecute people who violate this law,â?? Alexander said. Vermillion County Sheriff Bob Spence said he also is willing to help Harpold overcome the negative situation. â??If thereâ??s any way we can help her, we will,â?? Spence said. He explained that the process leading to Harpoldâ??s arrest involved an officer checking area pharmacy purchase records, and coming up with about 40 purchases that violated the law. That information was then taken to the prosecutor, whose staff drew up the probable cause affidavits to be filed in court. A judge then found probable cause and issued arrest warrants, and the sheriffâ??s department is required by statute to see that the warrants are served. Harpold was not arrested by Vermillion County officers, Spence stressed, since her residence is in Parke County. But she was returned to Clinton where she was questioned and processed. Spence agreed with pharmacist Vencelâ??s scenario that the people making the meth often send other people to buy the medicine. And Vigo County Sheriff Jon Marvel, who recently renewed efforts to track pseudoephedrine sales in the Wabash Valley, understands Harpoldâ??s arrest is embarrassing for her. â??Sometimes mistakes happen,â?? Marvel said. â??Itâ??s unfortunate. But for the good of everyone, the law was put into effect. â??I feel for her, but if she could go to one of the area hospitals and see a baby born to a meth-addicted mother â?¦â?? For now, Harpold is hoping to raise public awareness so others will avoid the stress she is going through. She has written to state lawmakers and to U.S. Sens. Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh and Congressman Brad Ellsworth about changing the law. So far, only Lugar has responded to her letter, she said, but she will continue to pursue the issue. â??I just donâ??t want this to happen to other people.â?? http://www.tribstar.com/local/local_story_246225916.html
TooStupidForConverte Member	Sun Oct 04 08:04:58 Wabash Valley woman didn't realize second cold medicine purchase violated drug laws By Lisa Trigg The Tribune-Star CLINTON September 03, 2009 10:58 pm - When Sally Harpold bought cold medicine for her family back in March, she never dreamed that four months later she would end up in handcuffs. Now, Harpold is trying to clear her name of criminal charges, and she is speaking out in hopes that a law will change so others won't endure the same embarrassment she still is facing. "This is a very traumatic experience," Harpold said. Harpold is a grandmother of triplets who bought one box of Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband at a Rockville pharmacy. Less than seven days later, she bought a box of Mucinex-D cold medicine for her adult daughter at a Clinton pharmacy, thereby purchasing 3.6 grams total of pseudoephedrine in a week's time. Those two purchases put her in violation of Indiana law 35-48-4-14.7, which restricts the sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, or PSE, products to no more than 3.0 grams within any seven-day period. When the police came knocking at the door of Harpold's Parke County residence on July 30, she was arrested on a Vermillion County warrant for a class-C misdemeanor, which carries a sentence of up to 60 days in jail and up to a $500 fine. But through a deferral program offered by Vermillion County Prosecutor Nina Alexander, the charge could be wiped from Harpold's record by mid-September. Harpold's story is one that concerns some law-abiding citizens who fear that innocent people will get mistakenly caught in the net of meth abuse roundups. But the flip side of the story comes from the law enforcement arena, which is battling a resurgence in methamphetamine production in the Wabash Valley. As the 12th-smallest county in the state, Vermillion County ranked as the state's fifth-largest producer of methamphetamine just a few years ago. "I don't want to go there again," Alexander told the Tribune-Star, recalling how the manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine ravaged the tiny county and its families. While the law was written with the intent of stopping people from purchasing large quantities of drugs to make methamphetamine, the law does not say the purchase must be made with the intent to make meth. "The law does not make this distinction," Alexander said. If the law said "with intent to manufacture methamphetamine," no one could be arrested until it was proven that the drug actually was used to make meth, the prosecutor said. And that certainly wasn't the intent of the law, either. It was written to limit access to the key ingredient in meth - pseudoephedrine - and thereby to stop the clandestine "mom and pop" meth labs that were cooking drugs throughout the area. Just as with any law, the public has the responsibility to know what is legal and what is not, and ignorance of the law is no excuse, the prosecutor said. "I'm simply enforcing the law as it was written," Alexander said. Pharmacies post "Meth Watch" signs, alerting customers that their purchases of drugs containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are being monitored. Pharmacies also are required to submit a list of purchase records to police, who then examine the lists for violations of the law. It is up to customers to pay attention to their purchase amounts, and to check medication labels, Alexander said. "If you take these products, you ought to know what's in them," she said. While many people know that Sudafed, Actifed and Claritin-D contain pseudoephedrine, there are many more over-the-counter medications that also contain the key meth ingredient. Ron Vencel, a pharmacist with JR Pharmacies in Terre Haute, said consumers should check all drug labels, and notes that any drug that has a "D" after it, for "decongestant," has a likelihood of containing pseudoephedrine, or PSE. Vencel has worked with area police to help curb the sale of over-the-counter pseudoephedrine to people buying it as a meth ingredient, and he offered insight into some of the purchasers. As authorities and retailers have limited the sale of PSE, some meth-makers have resorted to asking their relatives and friends, who are unaware of the intended use of the product, to go buy the cold medicine. That has put some innocent people unwittingly into the cycle of meth production. And a buyer may call five or six different people to go buy the cold medicine, thereby circumventing the law. Harpold, who is employed at the Rockville Correctional Facility for women, feels her reputation has been damaged by the arrest, and that she has been wrongly labeled as someone who makes meth. Her police mug shot ran on the front page of her local newspaper, she wrote, in a letter to the Tribune-Star, "with an article entitled, '17 Arrested in Drug Sweep.'" "That is something I have never been involved in," she said of meth. When she told her co-workers about the arrest, she said, they could not believe it. They have been supportive of her, she said, and other friends in the community have tried to help stop the misinformation that has spread because of the arrest. The morning she was arrested, Harpold and her husband were awakened by police officers banging on the front door of their home at Midway along U.S. 36. She was allowed to get dressed, and was then taken in handcuffs to the Clinton Police Department, where she was questioned about her cold medicine purchases. She was later booked into jail, and her husband had to pay $300 bail to get her released. Harpold said she did go talk to the prosecutor about the situation, and Alexander offered her the deferral program, in which Harpold is required to pay the court costs, abide by all laws and not be arrested for 30 days. At the end of 30 days, the class-C misdemeanor will be erased from her record. Alexander said she is working with Harpold about the charge, but the prosecutor asserts that Harpold did break the law with her purchases and is being held accountable. "I do want people to know that we will check the pharmacy records and we will prosecute people who violate this law," Alexander said. Vermillion County Sheriff Bob Spence said he also is willing to help Harpold overcome the negative situation. "If there's any way we can help her, we will," Spence said. He explained that the process leading to Harpold's arrest involved an officer checking area pharmacy purchase records, and coming up with about 40 purchases that violated the law. That information was then taken to the prosecutor, whose staff drew up the probable cause affidavits to be filed in court. A judge then found probable cause and issued arrest warrants, and the sheriff's department is required by statute to see that the warrants are served. Harpold was not arrested by Vermillion County officers, Spence stressed, since her residence is in Parke County. But she was returned to Clinton where she was questioned and processed. Spence agreed with pharmacist Vencel's scenario that the people making the meth often send other people to buy the medicine. And Vigo County Sheriff Jon Marvel, who recently renewed efforts to track pseudoephedrine sales in the Wabash Valley, understands Harpold's arrest is embarrassing for her. "Sometimes mistakes happen," Marvel said. "It's unfortunate. But for the good of everyone, the law was put into effect. "I feel for her, but if she could go to one of the area hospitals and see a baby born to a meth-addicted mother ..." For now, Harpold is hoping to raise public awareness so others will avoid the stress she is going through. She has written to state lawmakers and to U.S. Sens. Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh and Congressman Brad Ellsworth about changing the law. So far, only Lugar has responded to her letter, she said, but she will continue to pursue the issue. "I just don't want this to happen to other people."
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 08:50:28 I'm confused, the law says it's illegal to SELL a certain amount of it over a certain period of time, but she didn't SELL anything, she BOUGHT it. WTF?
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 10:01:43 River of Blood can't read nor comprehend. The law is in regards to how much of the medicine was bought, not sold. She went to two different pharmacies, used her ID twice at the two different pharmacies to purchase the pseudophedrin products which according to the law was over the limit you are allowed to buy in a 7 day period. That is what she was busted for. If you are confused go to the specific state and look up the specific law.
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 10:07:54 I should rephrase, the part of the law is also applicable to the person purchasing the drugs as there is a limit set.
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 10:32:23 "River of Blood can't read nor comprehend. The law is in regards to how much of the medicine was bought, not sold" From the article in the OP: "Those two purchases put her in violation of Indiana law 35-48-4-14.7, which restricts the SALE of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, or PSE, products to no more than 3.0 grams within any seven-day period." She didn't SELL anything, moron. Tell me again which one of us can't read.
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 10:37:05 I repeat: If you are confused go to the specific state and look up the specific law. Moving on. Would it be possible and this frequently happens that reporters omit such crucial details in order to write a provoking article to get the reaction you are displaying now? No, journalists NEVER do that am I right? Moving on. As I knew you were going to respond like this I took the liberty to do the job for you since you are inept. http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar48/ch4.html Indiana Code 35-8-4 | ------> IC 35-48-4-14.7 (d) A person may not purchase drugs containing more than three (3) grams of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or both in one (1) week. You fail.
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 10:44:19 I did not fail asshat, I merely pointed out that she was not in violation of the law as stated in the article and SHE'S NOT. Can you refute THAT? YOU fail for not reading the article closely enough.
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 10:50:39 She still was in violation. Just posted the law for you. The article mentions is correct, however, there was a detail omitted which I just pointed out, which was most likely written in a way to get a reaction much like you are displaying presently. Conclusion. FAIL. I'm sorry. I know this is hard for you.
Honkey New Member	Sun Oct 04 10:57:45 The dumb bitch broke the law. Throw the fucking book at her. Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 10:59:55 I think the appliance of the law in this situation was over the top.
Honkey Member	Sun Oct 04 11:01:25 The law says what it says. Send her to jail.
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 11:17:27 "She still was in violation. Just posted the law for you." I'm going to try my hardest to explain this to you one more time. I did not claim she wasn't in violation of the law. I said she was not in violation of the law as stated in the article, and she's not. If you could read the fucking thing with an adult reading comprehension you'd have notices the same thing. "The article mentions is correct, however, there was a detail omitted which I just pointed out," It is NOT correct, asshat. It says that law prohibits the SALE not the purchase. READ. That is not the "omission of a detail", that is getting a basic fact DEAD WRONG. You're a moron. And you're dismissed.
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 11:18:15 "I think the appliance of the law in this situation was over the top." *GASP!* Noooooo..... ya think??? I bet you graduated in the top of your class.
nhill Member	Sun Oct 04 11:20:33 RoB sale can be an ubiquitous term (applying to both the seller and purchaser) in law code. It's fucked up, I know, but there you have it.
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 11:34:12 "I'm going to try my hardest to explain this to you one more time. I did not claim she wasn't in violation of the law. I said she was not in violation of the law as stated in the article, and she's not. If you could read the fucking thing with an adult reading comprehension you'd have notices the same thing. It is NOT correct, asshat. It says that law prohibits the SALE not the purchase. READ. That is not the "omission of a detail", that is getting a basic fact DEAD WRONG. You're a moron. And you're dismissed. " No, you are wrong. The article is accurate, she is still in violation. As previously stated some details were omitted, but what was stated in the article is is correct. I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand. Or the fact that you are wrong and cannot accept this as it hurts your ego. There are some things that you cannot dance around as you are trying. The fact remains no matter how you 'twist' what was said in the article (which is correct), she was in violation of the law that does prohibit the sale of such products in the timeframe and limit. It was in reference of the law. Let's review and analyze; From the article: "Those two purchases put her in violation of Indiana law 35-48-4-14.7, which restricts the sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, or PSE, products to no more than 3.0 grams within any seven-day period." Keyword; WHICH meaning that it is explaining WHAT. What is being; Indiana law 35-48-4-14.7. Not only you are admitting that you cannot comprehend but that you are failing basic english too. FAIL!
Formerly Fred Member	Sun Oct 04 11:39:19 IC 35-48-4-14.7 Sale and storage of drugs containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine; application; convenience packages; age requirements; identification; record keeping; suspicious orders and unusual thefts Sec. 14.7. (a) This section does not apply to the following: (1) Ephedrine or pseudoephedrine dispensed pursuant to a prescription. (2) The sale of a drug containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to a licensed health care provider, pharmacist, retail distributor, wholesaler, manufacturer, or an agent of any of these persons if the sale occurs in the regular course of lawful business activities. However, a retail distributor, wholesaler, or manufacturer is required to report a suspicious order to the state police department in accordance with subsection (f). (3) The sale of a drug containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine by a person who does not sell exclusively to walk-in customers for the personal use of the walk-in customers. However, if the person described in this subdivision is a retail distributor, wholesaler, or manufacturer, the person is required to report a suspicious order to the state police department in accordance with subsection (f). (b) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Constant video monitoring" means the surveillance by an automated camera that: (A) records at least one (1) photograph or digital image every ten (10) seconds; (B) retains a photograph or digital image for at least seventy-two (72) hours; (C) has sufficient resolution and magnification to permit the identification of a person in the area under surveillance; and (D) stores a recorded photograph or digital image at a location that is immediately accessible to a law enforcement officer. (2) "Convenience package" means a package that contains a drug having as an active ingredient not more than one hundred twenty (120) milligrams of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, or both. (3) "Ephedrine" means pure or adulterated ephedrine. (4) "Pseudoephedrine" means pure or adulterated pseudoephedrine. (5) "Suspicious order" means a sale or transfer of a drug containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine if the sale or transfer: (A) is a sale or transfer that the retail distributor, wholesaler, or manufacturer is required to report to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration; (B) appears suspicious to the retail distributor, wholesaler, or manufacturer in light of the recommendations contained in Appendix A of the report to the United States attorney general by the suspicious orders task force under the federal Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996; or (C) is for cash or a money order in a total amount of at least two hundred dollars ($200). (6) "Unusual theft" means the theft or unexplained disappearance from a particular retail store of drugs containing ten (10) grams or more of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or both in a twenty-four (24) hour period. (c) This subsection does not apply to a convenience package. A person may sell a drug that contains the active ingredient of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or both only if the person complies with the following conditions: (1) The person does not sell the drug to a person less than eighteen (18) years of age. (2) The person does not sell drugs containing more than three (3) grams of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, or both in one (1) transaction. (3) The person requires: (A) the purchaser to produce a state or federal identification card; (B) the purchaser to complete a paper or an electronic log in a format approved by the state police department with the purchaser's name, address, and driver's license or other identification number; and (C) the clerk who is conducting the transaction to initial or electronically record the clerk's identification on the log. Records from the completion of a log must be retained for at least two (2) years. A law enforcement officer has the right to inspect and copy a log or the records from the completion of a log in accordance with state and federal law. A person may not sell or release a log or the records from the completion of a log for a commercial purpose. The Indiana criminal justice institute may obtain information concerning a log or the records from the completion of a log from a law enforcement officer if the information may not be used to identify a specific individual and is used only for statistical purposes. A retailer who in good faith releases information maintained under this subsection is immune from civil liability unless the release constitutes gross negligence or intentional, wanton, or willful misconduct. This subdivision expires June 30, 2012. (4) The person stores the drug: (A) behind a counter in an area inaccessible to a customer or in a locked display case that makes the drug unavailable to a customer without the assistance of an employee; or (B) directly in front of the pharmacy counter in the direct line of sight of an employee at the pharmacy counter, in an area under constant video monitoring, if the drug is sold in a retail establishment that: (i) is a pharmacy; or (ii) contains a pharmacy that is open for business. (d) A person may not purchase drugs containing more than three (3) grams of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or both in one (1) week. (e) This subsection only applies to convenience packages. A person may not sell drugs containing more than one hundred twenty (120) milligrams of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, or both in any one (1) transaction if the drugs are sold in convenience packages. A person who sells convenience packages must secure the convenience packages in at least one (1) of the following ways: (1) The convenience package must be stored not more than thirty (30) feet away from a checkout station or counter and must be in the direct line of sight of an employee at the checkout station or counter. (2) The convenience package must be protected by a reliable anti-theft device that uses package tags and detection alarms designed to prevent theft. (3) The convenience package must be stored in restricted access shelving that permits a purchaser to remove not more than one (1) package every fifteen (15) seconds. (4) The convenience package must be stored in an area that is under constant video monitoring, and a sign placed near the convenience package must warn that the area is under constant video monitoring. (f) A retail distributor, wholesaler, or manufacturer shall report a suspicious order to the state police department in writing. (g) Not later than three (3) days after the discovery of an unusual theft at a particular retail store, the retailer shall report the unusual theft to the state police department in writing. If three (3) unusual thefts occur in a thirty (30) day period at a particular retail store, the retailer shall, for at least one hundred eighty (180) days after the date of the last unusual theft, locate all drugs containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine at that particular retail store behind a counter in an area inaccessible to a customer or in a locked display case that makes the drug unavailable to customers without the assistance of an employee. (h) A unit (as defined in IC 36-1-2-23) may not adopt an ordinance after February 1, 2005, that is more stringent than this section. (i) A person who knowingly or intentionally violates this section commits a Class C misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the person has a prior unrelated conviction under this section. (j) Before June 30, 2007, the state police department shall submit a report to the legislative council detailing the effectiveness of this section in reducing the illicit production of methamphetamine. The report must describe the number of arrests or convictions that are attributable to the identification and logging requirements contained in this section, and must include recommendations for future action. The report must be in an electronic format under IC 5-14-6. As added by P.L.192-2005, SEC.9. Amended by P.L.151-2006, SEC.27; P.L.186-2007, SEC.9.
Formerly Fred Member	Sun Oct 04 11:43:12 d) A person may not purchase drugs containing more than three (3) grams of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or both in one (1) week.
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 11:45:03 Yep.
Formerly Fred Member	Sun Oct 04 11:47:24 Not that RoB is wrong. The OP is fucked.
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 11:50:57 And that's not what the article says. The end.
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 11:53:08 Nah, RoB's assertion is that the woman was not in violation, period. All I pointed out is that even though what the article has said is accurate and correct pertaining to the law in question, but there is a specific detail that is omitted. This is a practice frequently done by journalists to provoke certain reactions when they write their stories. RoB is commonly guilty of this as beautifully demonstrated in this thread. Ego is crushed. RoB is lashing out. It's rather amusing for me.
ehcks Member	Sun Oct 04 12:01:54 "And that's not what the article says. The end." Are you seriously trying to say that you think news articles always post all relevant information?
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 12:33:44 "Nah, RoB's assertion is that the woman was not in violation, period" Please show me where I've made that assertion, idiot. "Are you seriously trying to say that you think news articles always post all relevant information?" I'm saying that the article made a blatantly incorrect statement with regards to the law.
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 12:42:40 "All I pointed out is that even though what the article has said is accurate" Is says the law is directed at the SELLING of cold medicine, not at the purchasing of it. And you're saying that this is correct? "but there is a specific detail that is omitted" So I if I referred to the sun as "the moon" you would catagorize that as ..... an "omission"? Maybe you need to go look up the defintion of omission.
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 12:43:42 Still waiting for you to show us where I said the woman was not in violation PERIOD. hello? Gee, where did conservative go?
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 12:47:08 "Please show me where I've made that assertion, idiot.I'm saying that the article made a blatantly incorrect statement with regards to the law. " RoB's retardedness: "I'm confused, the law says it's illegal to SELL a certain amount of it over a certain period of time, but she didn't SELL anything, she BOUGHT it. WTF?" From the article: "...who bought one box of Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband at a Rockville pharmacy. LESS THAN SEVEN DAYS LATER, she bought a box of Mucinex-D cold medicine for her adult daughter at a Clinton pharmacy, THEREBY PURCHASING 3.6 GRAMS TOTAL OF PSEUDOEPHEDRINE IN A WEEK'S TIME.... ....Those two purchases put her in violation of Indiana law 35-48-4-14.7, which restricts the sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, or PSE, products to no more than 3.0 grams within any seven-day period.... ....While the law was written with the intent of stopping people from purchasing large quantities of drugs...." Now, I am sure you are short of using your critical thinking skills because you are continously doing so in this thread. But I pretty much summed it up for you to help you deduce that indeed this article is accurate and correct. Even if such a detail as was eluded is omitted. But, if I can sit here and read this article and explain to you what it said only then later support what I read with the specific law, it pretty much shows your failure of comprehension. If you want to continue this we can, but it is always going to come back to the same result. Your failure.
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 12:47:30 Wow. I just beat the complete shit out of you. I think I'll go have lunch.
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 12:47:59 "Still waiting for you to show us where I said the woman was not in violation PERIOD. hello? Gee, where did conservative go? " You posted and in with 60 seconds who wanted me to respond as I was replying to your nonsense. Patience is a virture. Failure.
River Of Failure Member	Sun Oct 04 12:48:27 weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 12:49:56 "Please show me where I've made that assertion, idiot.I'm saying that the article made a blatantly incorrect statement with regards to the law. " "RoB's retardedness: "I'm confused, the law says it's illegal to SELL a certain amount of it over a certain period of time, but she didn't SELL anything, she BOUGHT it. WTF?"" Right, according the law as described by the article she was not in violation. YOUR claim however is that I said she wasn't in violation of ANYTHING PERIOD. "Nah, RoB's assertion is that the woman was not in violation, period" - Conservative Still waiting for you to point out where I made this claim.
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 12:50:12 Where did you go RoB? Where did you go? Going to post? Oh gee, I guess RoB ran away? Where are you?
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 12:51:04 No, just still sitting here waiting for you show where I made the claim you accuse me of making.
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 12:51:21 You going to show us that or what?
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 12:51:57 Ok then, guess I'll be on my way. What's it feel like to get completely destroyed?
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 12:53:16 Done and over with. You're incorrigible, so there is nothing else to it. You can sit there and keep denying but it's in this thread and was pointed out. But continue with your futileness.
Liberal Member	Sun Oct 04 13:46:41 If that is alle Rugian posted, I see nothing wrong with it. Not nearly anything like, "(ot) I took a really rancid shit...."
River of blood Member	Sun Oct 04 13:55:04 Conservative, I'm just curious, how long did it take you figure out that this was unjust? I hope you didn't sprain any brain cells.
Rugian Member	Sun Oct 04 14:04:17 Fuck you mods. You will NOT delete my posts. Rugian Member Sun Oct 04 12:54:27 Interesting theory, FIHRIP.
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 14:17:57 "Conservative, I'm just curious, how long did it take you figure out that this was unjust? I hope you didn't sprain any brain cells. " When I first saw this story on Inside Edition on Friday, I had already had my mind made up that this was excessive. But I also understand the law and how it applied. Even reading it here, I still held the same opinion that it was excessive, but I also cannot stand blantant stupidity and ignorance, which is further explains my ridicule of you and seeing you lashing out due to your ego being crushed is great amusement for me.
Liberal Member	Sun Oct 04 14:20:20 Conservative, I'm just curious, how long did it take you to come up with your new tag after I changed mine?
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 14:21:26 What do you mean?
Liberal Member	Sun Oct 04 14:22:09 LOL.
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 14:22:36 Who are you?
pillz Member	Sun Oct 04 14:55:23 THIS IS ALL OBAMAS FAULT
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 14:56:43 This could be, there needs to be an investigation to see if there is such connection.
Forwyn Member	Sun Oct 04 15:50:25 Yet another case of the failed war on drugs.
Forwyn Member	Sun Oct 04 17:02:35 Man, that Nina Alexander bitch needs to be shot.
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 17:31:36 Doesn't make any sense in this case to prosecute this woman? I mean seriously this isn't a career criminal with a history of drug charges.
Liberal Member	Sun Oct 04 18:09:11 It would be an easy win for a prosecutor that wants to run for governor someday. People look at his won/lost record and think, he must be good. They don't care whose lives they ruin.
Conservative Member	Sun Oct 04 18:15:03 Beside it was already an easy win. The woman did a plea.
pillz Member	Sun Oct 04 18:49:23 WHY DO YOU PEOPLE LET OBAMA RUIN THIS COUNTRY
Conservative Member	Tue Oct 06 11:35:15 Epic pwnage!
The Zero Identity Member	Wed Oct 07 08:54:50 :chirp, chirp:
freaky boy Member	Wed Oct 07 09:31:25 land of the free, home of the brave, just dont buy too much coff medicine, coz uncle same will fuzzle you up.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: