Comments on: Handcuffed Grandmothers Should Just Shut Up and Think of the Children

By: Ryan Bowlin

Ryan Bowlin — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:13:32 +0000

How did the law find out she bought two boxes they where bought at different stores.Is it not against the law to give out info of what people buy.

By: milleronic

milleronic — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:22:29 +0000

The answer to all of this (tragic) bulls$#!t is simple: END PROHIBITION. Legalize and regulate and tax EVERYTHING. The more potent (and addicting) the drug, the more regulated and taxed it should be. Then we could all afford to have free healthcare so grandma could get as much cold medicine as she needs for her family, and no one would go bankrupt from health costs. And we could have fewer corrupt officials making their money honestly instead of shaking down illegal drug dealers for payoffs. And the occasional joint smoker or weekend cokehead wouldn't have a damn thing to worry about. We would all be freer, happier, and healthier. I don't care about anyone's moral issues on this, because this is about ..."Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"... If you don't like it, don't buy legal drugs. We are living under PROHIBITION. Plain and simple. Wake UP, PEOPLE!!!

By: Druk

Druk — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:45:47 +0000

Unfortunately, most people wouldn't back the grandma up if she were to have lethally defended her home against intruders after she broke this law — as long as the intruders wore the right clothing and shiny badges.

By: Howard E. Morseburg

Howard E. Morseburg — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:57:44 +0000

Oh, the Mucinex in my drawer; it was given to me by a doctor to clear up a particular problem, but proved unnecessary. I'll read the label to check it out, but once again, I won't understand the ingredients, nor do I have the formula for making meth.

By: Howard E. Morseburg

Howard E. Morseburg — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:50:03 +0000

I'm 84, and an individual who has kept up with the laws, politics and such, for a lifetime or two. I've wondered for months why I have a bottle of Mucinex in the drawer by my bed, what it was for, etc. Now, to say the least, if I lived in a state that had a prohibition against two purchases within a 7 day period, that's one law I'd not know about. Since my ladyfriend often buys such medications for me, as I'm a handicap, and were she to buy a bottle for herself too at the same time, or a few days later, she'd end up in jail, the both of us ignorant of the law and the contents of the medication. While I do understand the intent of the law, it seems to me to be a law that can trap too many innocent people for innocently violating a law. Friends often tell others about something that helped end a cold or cure an allergy, without anyone knowing the full (or any of) the contents of the pills or capsules. Hell, I'm not a druggist. Like most of us, if it says it cures allergies and it is made by a major drug manufacturer, I'd buy it, like too many of us do, and never read the contents. Why? Because I am not a pharmacist and would not understand what I was reading anyway. And, I consider myself just a tad bit smarter and more up-to-date than many. Sheriff, you Marvel, take note. And Alexander (the Greatess), take note. Ever try to read the contents on a bottle, print about 4 pts. if not smaller? With aged eyes? Come on, gal. Triplets in the family do not make this woman innocent, nor do meth babies in the hospital make her guilty. But for most of us who do not know the ingredients used in meth, nor how to mix it, we could run afoul of that law at any time.

By: ekf

ekf — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:04:46 +0000

As to the mens rea comment above, it sounds like the law was written so as to confer strict liability — i.e., the purchase of the cold medicine is the crime, not the intent to manufacture illegal drugs with the PSE contained in the cold medicine. Totally batshit, but it's also par for the course with respect to the drug war, where they strip out mens rea requirements to make it easier to prosecute people possessing related or precursor products (e.g., things like pipes and rolling papers sold by head shops) with the "aw, come on" attitude that all paraphernalia related to illegal drugs is considered evidence of drug use. With PSE-containing cold medicines — and with other meth-oriented products like lye — there are other, legal, commercial uses that don't have the slightest thing to do with meth production, and so there ought to be more of an intent requirement. However, as is so perfectly pointed out, an intent requirement wouldn't so intrusively and abusively THINK OF THE CHILDRUNNNNNN. It's some fucked up stuff, and a mens rea requirement would be useful — alas, it's not to be had here.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 02:11:14 +0000

Grandmothers don't have lobbyists? What's the AARP?

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:14:54 +0000

Will, drugstores have lobbyists. Grandmothers don't.

By: Will

Will — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:33:27 +0000

Shouldn't the drug store be prosecuted as well? They knowingly supplied her with the drugs. What about the kingpin drug companies? Shouldn't the prosecutor go after the manufacturer of Zyrtec-D? Oh, right. Corporations are never, ever liable in the US.

By: dilettante

dilettante — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:23:31 +0000

“Sometimes mistakes happen,” Marvel said. “It’s unfortunate. But for the good of everyone, the law was put into effect”.

Well, except for those filthy scumbags who have allergies and asthma. And for the rotten little brats with allergies and asthma. Society's better off without their sniffly snot-nosed wheezy asses around.

Geez. I don't think I'd have survived my childhood without pseudoephedrine.

By: 29 September 09 (noon) « blueollie

29 September 09 (noon) « blueollie — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:18:20 +0000

[...] Here are two cases. To see the first, check out the case of the old lady getting arrested because she bought two boxes of legal, over the counter cold medication for her husband. (the reason for the law: meth labs use this stuff…but [...]

By: silvermine

silvermine — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:04:06 +0000

And people wonder why I'm losing my mind over the CPSIA (the new law about lead in kid's stuff, where "kid" = 12 and under and "stuff" = anything they touch. Like the inside of pens, and ATVs.) Just wait until a state AG or the feds need to look tough on lead -- some grandma with a yard sale or a diaper-making business on ebay is going to end up with a $100,000 fine and 5 years in prison for a felony.

By: Vigo County Sheriff Jon Marvel « The Legal Satyricon

Vigo County Sheriff Jon Marvel « The Legal Satyricon — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:48:08 +0000

[...] Vigo County Sheriff Jon Marvel Wins the Homo Walmartus idiocracy asshat flunkie of the week award. Here's why. [...]

By: Indiana grandmother prosecuted for buying cold medicine

Indiana grandmother prosecuted for buying cold medicine — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:24:28 +0000

[...] been racing around blogs well known to our readers: Radley Balko/Reason "Hit and Run", Ken at Popehat, Amy Alkon, Legal Blog Watch, BoingBoing. The Vermillion County, Indiana prosecutor is offering no [...]

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:56:03 +0000

wow. It make's me seriously wonder how something like this can happen without any admission that the law is faulty. It would be great to see Sally file a character defamation suit against the police and the newspapers – of course that will never happen.