Editing Pseudoephedrine (section)

====United States====
=====Federal=====
The [[United States Congress]] has recognized that pseudoephedrine is used in the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine. In 2005, the [[United States House Committee on Education and Labor|Committee on Education and the Workforce]] heard testimony concerning education programs and state legislation designed to curb this illegal practice.{{citation needed|date=December 2023}}

Attempts to control the sale of the drug date back to 1986, when federal officials at the [[Drug Enforcement Administration]] (DEA) first drafted legislation, later proposed by Senator [[Bob Dole]], that would have placed several chemicals used in the manufacture of illicit drugs under the [[Controlled Substances Act]]. The bill would have required each transaction involving pseudoephedrine to be reported to the government, and federal approval of all imports and exports. Fearing this would limit legitimate use of the drug, lobbyists from over the counter drug manufacturing associations sought to stop this legislation from moving forward and were successful in exempting from the regulations all chemicals that had been turned into a legal final product, such as Sudafed.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.oregonlive.com/special/oregonian/meth/stories/index.ssf?/oregonian/meth/1004_lobbyistsandloopholes.html | work=The Oregonian | title=Search OregonLive.com | access-date=13 December 2010 | archive-date=17 August 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160817002349/http://www.oregonlive.com/special/oregonian/meth/stories/index.ssf?%2Foregonian%2Fmeth%2F1004_lobbyistsandloopholes.html | url-status=dead }}</ref>

Before the passage of the [[Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005]], sales of the drug became increasingly regulated, as DEA regulators and pharmaceutical companies continued to fight for their respective positions. The DEA continued to make greater progress in its attempts to control pseudoephedrine as methamphetamine production skyrocketed, becoming a serious problem in the western United States. When purity dropped, so did the number of people in rehab and people admitted to emergency rooms with methamphetamine in their systems. This reduction in purity was usually short-lived, however, as methamphetamine producers eventually found a way around the new regulations.<ref>{{cite news |title=How Legislation Changed Meth Purity |url=http://www.oregonlive.com/special/oregonian/meth/pdfs/1004meth_purity.pdf |work=The Oregonian |access-date=13 December 2010 |archive-date=15 November 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111115100801/http://www.oregonlive.com/special/oregonian/meth/pdfs/1004meth_purity.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (CMEA) as an amendment to the renewal of the [[Patriot Act|USA Patriot Act]].<ref name="CMEA">{{cite web | title=CMEA (The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005) | website=DEA Diversion Control Division | date=14 July 2017 | url=https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/meth/ | access-date=17 February 2020 | archive-date=17 February 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200217213621/https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/meth/ | url-status=live }} {{PD-notice}}</ref> Signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on 6 March 2006,<ref name="FDA legal" /> the act amended {{United States Code|21|830}}, concerning the sale of pseudoephedrine-containing products. The law mandated two phases, the first needing to be implemented by 8 April 2006, and the second to be completed by 30 September 2006. The first phase dealt primarily with implementing the new buying restrictions based on the amount, while the second phase encompassed the requirements of storage, employee training, and record keeping.<ref name="papharmacists.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.papharmacists.com/APhA%20Summary%20of%20Combat%20Meth%20Interim%20Final%20Rule.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061018011450/http://www.papharmacists.com/APhA%20Summary%20of%20Combat%20Meth%20Interim%20Final%20Rule.pdf |archive-date=18 October 2006 |title=DEA Interim Final Regulation: Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine Requirements}}</ref> Though the law was mainly directed at pseudoephedrine products it also applies to all over-the-counter products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, their salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers.<ref name="papharmacists.com"/>
Pseudoephedrine was defined as a "[[DEA list of chemicals|scheduled listed chemical product]]" under {{United States Code|21|802}}(45(A)). The act included the following requirements for merchants ("regulated sellers") who sell such products:

* Required a retrievable record of all purchases, identifying the name and address of each party, to be kept for two years
* Required verification of proof of identity of all purchasers
* Required protection and disclosure methods in the collection of personal information
* Required reports to the [[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]] of any suspicious payments or disappearances of the regulated products
* Required training of employees with regard to the requirements of the CMEA. Retailers must self-certify as to training and compliance.
* The non-liquid dose form of regulated products may only be sold in unit dose blister packs
* Regulated products must be stored behind the counter or in a locked cabinet in such a way as to restrict public access
* Sales limits (per customer):
** Daily sales limit—must not exceed 3.6&nbsp;grams of pseudoephedrine base without regard to the number of transactions
** 30-day (not monthly) sales limit—must not exceed 7.5&nbsp;grams of pseudoephedrine base if sold by mail order or "mobile retail vendor"
** 30-day purchase limit—must not exceed 9&nbsp;grams of pseudoephedrine base. (A misdemeanor possession offense under {{UnitedStatesCode|21|844a}} for the person who buys it.)

The requirements were revised in the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act of 2008 to require that a regulated seller of scheduled listed chemical products may not sell such a product unless the purchaser:<ref name="MPPA">{{cite web | title=2011 – Final Rule: Implementation of the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act of 2008 | website=DEA Diversion Control Division | date=1 November 2011 | url=https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2011/fr1201.htm | access-date=17 February 2020 | archive-date=17 February 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200217215202/https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2011/fr1201.htm | url-status=dead }} {{PD-notice}}</ref>
* Presents a government-issued photographic identification; and
* Signs the written logbook with name, address, and time and date of the sale

=====State=====
Most states also have laws regulating pseudoephedrine.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.namsdl.org/library/80BFE1EC-1C23-D4F9-7483559FA8ED0B56/|title=State Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine Single Over-The-Counter Transaction Limits|year=2013|website=Namsdl.org|publisher=National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL)|format=PDF|access-date=3 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160414233801/http://www.namsdl.org/library/80BFE1EC-1C23-D4F9-7483559FA8ED0B56/|archive-date=14 April 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.namsdl.org/library/80BA8CEC-1C23-D4F9-74BBEEA9C03FDF52/|title=State Daily Gram Limits for Over-The-Counter Transactions Involving Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine|year=2013|website=Namsdl.org|publisher=National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL)|format=PDF|access-date=3 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160814033811/http://www.namsdl.org/library/80BA8CEC-1C23-D4F9-74BBEEA9C03FDF52/|archive-date=14 August 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.namsdl.org/library/80B951FD-1C23-D4F9-74F6139A01DF427E/|title=State 30 Day Gram Limits for Over-The-Counter Transactions Involving Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine|year=2013|website=Namsdl.org|publisher=National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL)|format=PDF|access-date=3 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160815114625/http://www.namsdl.org/library/80B951FD-1C23-D4F9-74F6139A01DF427E/|archive-date=15 August 2016}}</ref>

The states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii ({{as of|2009|May|1|df=US|lc=on}}) Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana ({{as of|2009|August|15|df=US|lc=on}}), Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_52688a5f-85f6-5df1-abf5-b3eba060385b.html |title=Nebraskans to sign for Sudafed |publisher=Lincoln Journal-Star |date=13 March 2006 |access-date=20 August 2012 |archive-date=22 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180622005239/https://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_52688a5f-85f6-5df1-abf5-b3eba060385b.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin have laws requiring pharmacies to sell pseudoephedrine "behind the counter". Though the drug can be purchased without a prescription, states can limit the number of units sold and can collect personal information from purchasers.<ref name=NAMSDL>{{cite web|title = The National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL) – Issues and Events|url = http://www.namsdl.org/issues-and-events.cfm|website = www.namsdl.org|access-date = 24 October 2015|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151003040953/http://www.namsdl.org/issues-and-events.cfm|archive-date = 3 October 2015|url-status = dead}}</ref>''

The states of Oregon and Mississippi previously required a prescription for the purchase of products containing pseudoephedrine. However, as of 1 January 2022, these restrictions have been repealed.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=11919990|title=MS Senate passes bill to restrict pseudoephedrine sales|work=[[Associated Content]]|publisher=[[WLOX]]|date=2 February 2010|access-date=8 May 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928133011/http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=11919990|archive-date=28 September 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/opinion/16bovett.html|title=How to Kill the Meth Monster|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=15 November 2010|access-date=16 November 2010|vauthors=Bovett R|archive-date=1 May 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110501000756/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/opinion/16bovett.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The state of Oregon reduced the number of methamphetamine lab seizures from <!-- 467 --> 448 in 2004 (the final full year before implementation of the prescription only law)<ref name = "OregonDEC">{{cite web | title = Oregon Meth Lab Incident Statistics | publisher = Oregon Alliance for Drug Endangered Children (OregonDEC)| url = http://www.oregondec.org/OregonMethLabStats.pdf | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120306044846/http://www.oregondec.org/OregonMethLabStats.pdf | archive-date = 6 March 2012 }}</ref> to a new low of <!-- 12 --> 13 in 2009.<ref name="justice.gov">{{cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/dea/resource-center/meth-lab-maps.shtml |title=DEA, Maps of Methamphetamine Lab Incidents |publisher=Justice.gov |access-date=6 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120910081047/http://www.justice.gov/dea/resource-center/meth-lab-maps.shtml |archive-date=10 September 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The decrease in [[meth lab]] incidents in Oregon occurred largely before the prescription-only law took effect, according to a NAMSDL report titled ''Pseudoephedrine Prescription Laws in Oregon and Mississippi''.<ref name=NAMSDL/> The report posits that the decline in meth lab incidents in both states may be due to other factors: "Mexican traffickers may have contributed to the decline in meth labs in Mississippi and Oregon (and surrounding states) as they were able to provide ample supply of equal or greater quality meth at competitive prices". Additionally, similar decreases in meth lab incidents were seen in surrounding states, according to the report, and meth-related deaths in Oregon have dramatically risen since 2007. Some municipalities in Missouri have enacted similar ordinances, including [[Washington, Missouri|Washington]],<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.emissourian.com/news/washington_news/article_6aec84e6-f67e-5535-a4d9-9d8be4452a22.html|title=Council Passes Law Restricting Pseudoephedrine|publisher=[[The Washington Missourian]]|date=7 July 2009|access-date=10 December 2010|archive-date=12 March 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120312044706/http://www.emissourian.com/news/washington_news/article_6aec84e6-f67e-5535-a4d9-9d8be4452a22.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Union, Missouri|Union]],<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.emissourian.com/news/washington_news/article_6aec84e6-f67e-5535-a4d9-9d8be4452a22.html|title=Union Board Approves Pseudoephedrine Ordinance|publisher=[[The Washington Missourian]]|date=13 October 2009|access-date=10 December 2010|archive-date=12 March 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120312044706/http://www.emissourian.com/news/washington_news/article_6aec84e6-f67e-5535-a4d9-9d8be4452a22.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[New Haven, Missouri|New Haven]],<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.emissourian.com/news/top_stories/article_776823c6-ee98-11df-b2bd-001cc4c03286.html|title=New Haven Passes Prescription Law|publisher=[[The Washington Missourian]]|date=11 November 2010|access-date=10 December 2010|archive-date=12 March 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120312050316/http://www.emissourian.com/news/top_stories/article_776823c6-ee98-11df-b2bd-001cc4c03286.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Cape Girardeau, Missouri|Cape Girardeau]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.semissourian.com/story/1685849.html|title=Cape Girardeau City Council passes prescription requirement for pseudoephedrine|newspaper=[[The Southeast Missourian]]|date=7 December 2010|access-date=10 December 2010|archive-date=28 January 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110128112206/http://www.semissourian.com/story/1685849.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> and [[Ozark, Missouri|Ozark]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://ccheadliner.com/news/ozark-passes-pseudoephedrine-ban/article_4d163742-d83e-11e2-9158-0019bb2963f4.html |url-access=subscription |newspaper=CCHeadliner.com |title=Ozark passes pseudoephedrine ban: Drug now prescription-only |date=18 June 2013 |access-date=17 December 2013 |archive-date=24 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224220706/https://ccheadliner.com/news/ozark-passes-pseudoephedrine-ban/article_4d163742-d83e-11e2-9158-0019bb2963f4.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Certain pharmacies in [[Terre Haute, Indiana]] do so as well.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://tribstar.com/news/x1414109043/Four-Valley-pharmacies-to-require-prescriptions-for-certain-products-to-help-fight-meth-problem |title=Four Valley pharmacies to require prescriptions for certain products to help fight meth problem |work=Terre Haute Tribune-Star |vauthors=Trigg L |date=20 May 2010 |access-date=28 May 2010 |archive-date=24 May 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100524120248/http://tribstar.com/news/x1414109043/Four-Valley-pharmacies-to-require-prescriptions-for-certain-products-to-help-fight-meth-problem |url-status=live }} {{link note|note=Subscription required, free access for first 30 days}}</ref>

Another approach to controlling the drug on the state level mandated by some state governments to control the purchases of their citizens is the use of electronic tracking systems, which require the electronic submission of specified purchaser information by all retailers who sell pseudoephedrine. Thirty-two states now require the [[National Precursor Log Exchange]] (NPLEx) to be used for every pseudoephedrine and ephedrine OTC purchase, and ten of the eleven largest pharmacy chains in the US voluntarily contribute all of their similar transactions to NPLEx. These states have seen dramatic results in reducing the number of methamphetamine laboratory seizures. Before the implementation of the system in Tennessee in 2005, methamphetamine laboratory seizures totaled 1,497 in 2004 but were reduced to 955 in 2005, and 589 in 2009.<ref name="justice.gov"/> Kentucky's program was implemented statewide in 2008, and since statewide implementation, the number of laboratory seizures has significantly decreased.<ref name="justice.gov"/> Oklahoma initially experienced success with its tracking system after implementation in 2006, as the number of seizures dropped in that year and again in 2007. In 2008, however, seizures began rising again, and have continued to rise in 2009.<ref name="justice.gov"/>

NPLEx appears to be successful by requiring the real-time submission of transactions, thereby enabling the relevant laws to be enforced at the point of sale. By creating a multi-state database and the ability to compare all transactions quickly, NPLEx enables pharmacies to deny purchases that would be illegal based on gram limits, age, or even to convicted meth offenders in some states. NPLEx also enforces the federal gram limits across state lines, which was impossible with state-operated systems. Access to the records is by law enforcement agencies only, through an online secure portal.<ref>{{cite web|title = NPLEx – National Precursor Log Exchange|url = http://www.nplexservice.com/|website = www.nplexservice.com|access-date = 24 October 2015|archive-date = 12 October 2015|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151012235950/http://www.nplexservice.com/|url-status = live}}</ref>