Thursday, August 15, 2013

Can Threat of Life in Prison Help Stop Dog Attacks? by Alicia Graef August 14, 2013 9:30 pm


New proposals in England and Wales could mean a life sentence in prison for someone whose dog fatally attacks a person.
Under the controversial Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA), which was introduced following attacks in 1991, an owner whose dog attacks someone in public currently faces two years in jail or fines, or both, but government officials are considering changes in an effort to stop attacks and encourage responsible dog ownership.
One of the major changes being considered is increasing the penalties for owners of dogs who attack, which some believe aren’t severe enough currently, especially in cases where people have died. Officials have released a questionnaire that will be open until September 1 to ask the public what they believe the maximum sentence for owners of dogs who kill should be, which could be 7, 10 or 14 years in jail or even life imprisonment.
A 10 year sentence for owners of dogs who injure a person or kill a guide dog are also being recommended.
“Dog attacks are terrifying and we need harsh penalties to punish those who allow their dog to injure people while out of control. We’re already toughening up laws to ensure that anyone who owns a dangerous dog can be brought to justice, regardless of where a dog attack takes place. It’s crucial that the laws we have in place act as a deterrent to stop such horrific incidents,” said animal welfare minister Lord de Mauley.
The proposals follow numerous incidents, including the high-profile case of Jade Anderson who was killed at a friend’s residence this spring. No charges will be brought against the owner of the dogs in that case because it happened on private property, which is another aspect of the DDA that officials hope to change.
According to the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra), the government acknowledged that a life sentence was severe and disproportionate to the offense, comparing it to sentences for causing a death by careless and dangerous driving, which are 5 and 14 years, respectively.
However, some are welcoming tougher sentences. According to the Guardian, the Communication Workers Union (CWU) that represents postal, utility and delivery workers, whose members suffer an estimated 5,000 attacks every year, and charity Guide Dogs, whose assistance dogs are currently suffering an average of ten attacks a month, both support such changes.
Whether or not they’re fatal, the issue of dog attacks is unquestionably serious, but some are concerned about whether increasing sentences after the fact will actually do anything to reduce the number of attacks, which have increased significantly since the DDA was passed.
“Unless you solve this problem of people not being able to control their dogs properly then I still think you’re going to see a rise in dog attacks and dog biting,” David Bowles, head of public affairs for the RSPCA, told the BBC.
Others are supporting Dog Control Notices, which would give authorities the ability to force owners of dogs with questionable behavior to go through a training program, use leashes and muzzles in public, or alter their property to decrease the likelihood of an attack, among other things, which animal advocates believe is key to helping prevent attacks from happening in the first place.
Anderson’s parents are welcoming changes to the law, but are also pushing for more preventative measures, including community education.
With children being the most common victims of bites, educating communities about basic dog behavior and teaching children how to interact with dogs could go so much farther in dealing with this issue than targeting breeds or throwing people in jail after it’s too late.
Photo credit: Thinkstock

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

168 comments

+ add your own
3:43PM PDT on Aug 15, 2013
First the officials in both England and Whales need to educate and promote dog safety and dog behavior. That will have more of an immediate impact. Stiffer fines an punishment are most certainly needed for sure but education and intimidation are the quickest way to make a change
3:30PM PDT on Aug 15, 2013
I do not believe,that would be the real answer,but still,something need to be done!-and this might be a start! Just difficult to understand how careless some dog owners can be,with small children/big dog situation!!
Learn your children to have some respect also for the dog!
3:23PM PDT on Aug 15, 2013
I agree, wholeheartedly, with Heidi' comment (listed below). "I would be much more in favour of life in prison for anyone who attacks a dog, fatally or otherwise."

Well said, Heidi!


3:00PM PDT on Aug 15, 2013
I would hope so -.-
2:49PM PDT on Aug 15, 2013
I agree that we should bring back dog licenses. Also there should be compulsory training. It is not the dog's fault and I hate that they usually pay the ultimate price. It is the owner's fault.
I also feel more people who get banned from keeping animals, for various reasons, should receive much longer bans, even for life. How to manage/police this I don't know.
But the 'culture' of having 'vicious' dogs is a real bad problem and somehow something needs to be done.
2:47PM PDT on Aug 15, 2013
Thank you...
2:38PM PDT on Aug 15, 2013
I would be much more in favour of life in prison for anyone who attacks a dog, fatally or otherwise.
2:36PM PDT on Aug 15, 2013
More times it is the owner's fault... should life imprisonment apply too???
2:35PM PDT on Aug 15, 2013
A life sentence seems harsh, however dog owners do need to take more responsibilities for their dogs actions.
2:19PM PDT on Aug 15, 2013
thanks

add your comment

20


Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/can-threat-of-life-in-prison-help-stop-dog-attacks.html#ixzz2c56amTCV

Top Five Reasons the National Debt Should Matter to You on July 25th 2013 Share This Post: 22


1.  High debt levels = fewer jobs and lower wages.

In times of fiscal and economic uncertainty, consumers and businesses reduce investment and delay projects because investment is costly to reverse. Higher government borrowing can also drive up interest rates once the economy recovers, reducing the access and affordability of funds for consumers and businesses to borrow and invest in new ventures and ideas. This can hold back the economy, resulting in fewer jobs and lower wages down the road.

2.  Debt means more expensive consumer credit:  home, auto, student loans, as well as credit cards. 
Growing federal debt can drive up interest rates throughout the American economy. That means higher interest rates for people across the country who may be taking out loans for a home, a new car or truck, to pay down credit card cards or for education costs. Higher interest costs mean they will all be more expensive, resulting in higher monthly payments.

3.  Delaying action on the national debt means it will be much more difficult to protect Medicare and Social Security from abrupt, severe, and widespread cuts in the future on all beneficiaries.

Social Security’s disability program will exhaust its assets in 2016, the overall Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2033, and the Medicare Trust Fund will run out in 2026. Some of those dates may seem like a long time away, but if we want to protect beneficiaries who rely on these programs from severe and abrupt cuts – especially the elderly who have used up all their savings and other vulnerable groups – we need to start taking gradual steps now.

4.  If we do not address the debt now, federal investments in education, infrastructure, and research will decline.

We currently spend nearly $225 billion each year in interest payments alone on the national debt. And that number will only continue to rise. These payments – which have to be made – reduce our ability to fund critical investments in areas such as education, infrastructure, and research that are vital parts of a strong economy. In addition, the mindless sequester continued to cut spending throughout many of these programs, without making any decisions on where to target the savings and without focusing on the most unsustainable areas of the budget: increasingly-costly entitlement spending and an outdated, inefficient tax code.

5.  Taking steps to address our deficit now would mean a more robust economy and significant job growth over the next 10 years.

A Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates that $2 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years could grow our economy by nearly an additional 1 percent by 2023. A healthy, growing economy means more good jobs and higher wages for hardworking
Fifty years ago this month, at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. laid out his vision of equality for the entire nation. He asserted his absolute commitment to a nonviolent approach to confronting racism, poverty, and militarism. 

The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) supported the march 50 years ago, and we view it as integral to our work for peace and justice. 

But too many of the demands made in 1963 are still unmet, and many of the gains achieved afterward are under attack.

Take North Carolina, for example, where this year the state government pushed through one regressive bill after another, rolling back residents’ civil rights in a summer that feels more like the 1960s than 2013.

But thousands of North Carolinians have taken to the streets of Raleigh, showing that grassroots organizing is still alive and well in the state where nonviolent demonstrators galvanized the modern Civil Rights Movement with the Woolworth’s lunch counter sit-in.

Among the demonstrators at the Moral Monday protests this summer were many AFSC supporters, staff, and interns, including a young woman named Jodie Geddes, a student at Guilford College who spent the summer working for immigrants’ rights with our Greensboro office.

As a community advocate and as an immigrant herself, Jodie has seen how the ugliness of discrimination and ignorance play out in everyday life, both in North Carolina and at home in New York. But a firm belief in human rights and the power of community to overcome oppression have kept her in the struggle for social justice.

She says that seeing thousands of North Carolina residents take to the streets makes her want to keep going: “They understand and have always understood what community means and needs.”

With the anniversary of the March on Washington approaching, you can join the thousands of people marching for civil and human rights. Find out what’s happening in your community to commemorate the march, or start an action in your community

To realize Jodie’s dream for equal rights—and to realize the dream for the social justice issues that matter to you—we need every community to join together into what Dr. King called “a beautiful symphony of brotherhood”:


In Peace,

Mark Graham
Mark Graham
Director of Communications

Enough Is Enough


(Flickr/ Dan H)
(Photo: Flickr/ Dan H)
We try to share with you points of view that we don’t necessarily agree with but that are well-reasoned. We’re not sure whether we see entirely eye-to-eye with Marc Lynch, writing at Foreign Policy. But he makes a compelling argument for the United States cutting off Egyptian aid in response to recent events there – yesterday’s bloodshed being the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back:
The hard truth is that the United States has no real influence to lose right now anyway, and immediate impact isn’t the point. Taking a (much belated) stand is the only way for the United States to regain any credibility — with Cairo, with the region, and with its own tattered democratic rhetoric.

Author: Stand For Israel | August 15, 2013
Posted in:  Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood

Contraceptive Coverage Opponents Seek Supreme Court Case; Mo. Lawmaker Wants Personal Exemption From Rules


August 15, 2013 — After a federal appeals court rejected their case, opponents of the federal contraceptive coverage rules on Wednesday said they plan to appeal their case to the Supreme Court, The Hill's "Healthwatch" reports (Baker, "Healthwatch," The Hill, 8/14).
The contraceptive coverage rules, which are being implemented under the Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148), require most employers to offer the coverage to their workers. Houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, and religiously affiliated not-for-profits are eligible for an accommodation that ensures they do not have to pay for or directly provide the coverage to their employees. For-profit, private businesses must offer the coverage or face fines (Women's Health Policy Report, 8/9).

In January, U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg denied a request from Conestoga Wood Specialties owner Norman Hahn and his family for a temporary injunction against the rules. The family said it objects to covering some forms of contraception, such as emergency contraception, that they believe cause an abortion. They also argued that corporations' free-speech rights -- recognized in the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision -- should include religious rights.

However, the judge said that expanding the free-speech rights recognized in the Citizens United ruling to include religious rights was a "significant leap" that he was not prepared to take.

In July, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision similarly rejected Contestoga's challenge, ruling that "for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise" (Women's Health Policy Report, 7/29). The court on Wednesday also denied a request by the company to consider the case en banc.

In response, Alliance for Defending Freedom -- one of the organizations challenging the contraceptive coverage rules -- on Wednesday said that it will ask the Supreme Court to consider whether the rules are constitutional. "Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith," the group said in a statement ("Healthwatch," The Hill, 8/14).

Mo. Lawmaker Seeks Personal Exemption From Mandate

In related news, a Missouri legislator on Wednesday asked a federal court to exempt his family from the contraceptive coverage provided through his state health insurance plan, arguing that it violates his Catholic faith.

The Thomas More Society filed the lawsuit on behalf of state Rep. Paul Wieland (R) and his wife against HHS and two other federal agencies (O'Neil, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/14).

The suit states that Wieland in previous years opted out of coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients, but he can no longer do so because of the federal rules. The Wielands argue that their religious, free-speech and parental rights have been violated, and they seek a declaratory judgment and injunction (AP/Lebanon Daily Record, 8/15).

Wieland said he is not seeking a blanket ruling against the federal policy, only an exemption in his individual case. However, he added that a legal victory in his case might give other like-minded people the same option.

HHS refused to comment on the pending litigation (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/14).



The information contained in this publication reflects media coverage of women’s health issues and does not necessarily reflect the views of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

Merchants of Meth: How Big Pharma Keeps the Cooks in Business With big profits on the line, the drug industry is pulling out campaign-style dirty tricks to keep selling the meds that cooks turn into crank. —By Jonah Engle | July/August 2013 Issue 198




meth lab cleanupState troopers clean up a meth lab found on school board property about a block from a London, Kentucky elementary school.
The first time she saw her mother passed out on the living room floor, Amanda thought she was dead. There were muddy tracks on the carpet and the room looked like it had been ransacked. Mary wouldn't wake up. When she finally came to, she insisted nothing was wrong. But as the weeks passed, her 15-year-old daughter's sense of foreboding grew. Amanda's parents stopped sleeping and eating. Her once heavy mother turned gaunt and her father, Barry, stopped going to work. She was embarrassed to go into town with him; he was covered in open sores. A musty stink gripped their increasingly chaotic trailer. The driveway filled up with cars as strangers came to the house and partied all night.
Her parents' repeated assurances failed to assuage Amanda's mounting worry. She would later tell her mother it felt "like I saw an airplane coming in toward our house in slow motion and it was crashing." Finally, she went sleuthing online. The empty packages of cold medicine, the canisters of Coleman fuel, the smell, her parents' strange behavior all pointed to one thing. They were meth cooks. Amanda (last name withheld to protect her privacy) told her grandparents, who lived next door. Eventually, they called police. Within minutes, agents burst into the trailer. They slammed Barry up against the wall, put a gun to his head, and hauled him and Mary off in handcuffs. It would be two and a half years before Amanda and her 10-year-old sister, Chrissie, would see their father again.
The year was 2005, and what happened to Amanda's family was the result of a revolution in methamphetamine production that was just beginning to make its way into Kentucky. Meth users called it the "shake- and-bake" or "one-pot" method, and its key feature was to greatly simplify the way meth is synthesized from pseudoephedrine, a decongestant found in cold and allergy medicines like Claritin D and Sudafed.
Cops are waging two battles: one against meth cooks, the other against wealthy, politically connected drug manufacturers.
Shake and bake did two things. It took a toxic and volatile process that had once been the province of people with Breaking Bad-style knowledge of chemistry and put it in the bedrooms and kitchens of meth users in rural America. It also produced the most potent methamphetamine anywhere.
If anyone wondered what would happen if heroin or cocaine addicts suddenly discovered how to make their own supply with a handful of cheap ingredients readily available over the counter, methamphetamine's recent history provides an answer. Since 2007, the number of clandestine meth sites discovered by police has increased 63 percent nationwide. In Kentucky, the number of labs has more than tripled. The Bluegrass State regularly joins its neighbors Missouri, Tennessee, and Indiana as the top four states for annual meth lab discoveries.
As law enforcement agencies scramble to clean up and dispose of toxic labs, prosecute cooks, and find foster homes for their children, they are waging two battles: one against destitute, strung-out addicts, the other against some of the world's wealthiest and most politically connected drug manufacturers. In the past several years, lawmakers in 25 states have sought to make pseudoephedrine—the one irreplaceable ingredient in a shake-and-bake lab—a prescription drug. In all but two—Oregon and Mississippi—they have failed as the industry, which sells an estimated $605 million worth of pseudoephedrine-based drugs a year, has deployed all-star lobbying teams and campaign-trail tactics such as robocalls and advertising blitzes.
Perhaps nowhere has the battle been harder fought than in Kentucky, where Big Pharma's trade group has broken lobbying spending records in 2010 and 2012, beating back cops, doctors, teachers, drug experts, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. "It frustrates me to see how an industry and corporate dollars affect commonsense legislation," says Jackie Steele, a commonwealth's attorney whose district in southeastern Kentucky has been overwhelmed by meth labs in recent years.

Before it migrated east to struggling Midwestern farm towns and the hollers of Appalachia, methamphetamine was a West Coast drug, produced by cooks working for Mexican drug-trafficking organizations and distributed by biker gangs. Oregon was particularly hard hit, with meth labs growing ninefold from 1995 to 2001. Even then, before shake and bake, police had their hands full decontaminating toxic labs that were often set up in private homes. Social workers warned of an epidemic of child abuse and neglect as hundreds of kids were being removed from meth houses.
In despair, the Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Association turned to Rob Bovett. As the lawyer for the drug task force of Lincoln County—a strip of the state's central coast known for its fishing industry, paper mills, and beaches—he was all too aware of the scourge of meth labs. Having worked for the Oregon Legislature and lobbied on behalf of the State Sheriffs' Association, he also knew his way around Capitol procedure.
Bovett knew that law enforcement couldn't arrest its way out of the meth lab problem. They needed to choke off the cooks' supply lines.
Bovett first approached the Legislature about regulating pseudoephedrine in 2000. "The legislative response was to stick me in a room with a dozen pharmaceutical lobbyists to work it out," he recalls. He suggested putting the drugs behind the counter (without requiring a prescription) to discourage mass buying, but the lobbyists refused. They did eventually agree to a limit on the amount of pseudoephedrine any one person could buy, but the number of meth labs remained high, so in 2003 Bovett tried once again to get pseudoephedrine moved behind the counter. "We got our asses kicked," he admits.
Then, in Oklahoma, state trooper Nikky Joe Green came upon a meth lab in the trunk of a car. The cook overpowered Green and shot him with his own gun. The murder, recorded on the patrol car's camera, galvanized the state's Legislature into placing pseudoephedrine behind the counter and limiting sales in 2004.
The pharmaceutical industry fought the bill, saying it was unlikely to curb meth labs. But Oklahoma saw an immediate drop in the number of labs its officers busted, and Oregon followed suit later that year.
But the meth cooks soon came up with a work-around: They organized groups of people to make the rounds of pharmacies, each buying the maximum amount allowed—a practice known as smurfing. How to stop these sales? Bovett remembered that until 1976, pseudoephedrine had been a prescription drug. He asked lawmakers to return it to that status.
Pharma companies and big retailers "flooded our Capitol building with lobbyists from out of state," he says. On the eve of the House vote, with the count too close to call, four legislators went out and bought 22 boxes of Sudafed and Tylenol Cold. They brought their loot back to the Legislature, where Bovett walked lawmakers through the process of turning the medicine into meth with a handful of household products. Without exceeding the legal sales limit, they had all the ingredients needed to make about 180 hits. The bill passed overwhelmingly.
Industry's motto has been "stop meth, not meds." One lawmaker likens it to the NRA's "plea to people who own weapons that they are coming for your guns."
Since the bill became law in 2006, the number of meth labs found in Oregon has fallen 96 percent. Children are no longer being pulled from homes with meth labs, and police officers have been freed up to pursue leads instead of cleaning up labs and chasing smurfers. In 2008, Oregon experienced the largest drop in violent-crime rates in the country. By 2009, property crime rates fell to their lowest in 43 years. That year, overall crime in Oregon reached a 40-year low. The state's Criminal Justice Commission credited the pseudoephedrine prescription bill, along with declining meth use, as key factors.
For Big Pharma, however, Oregon's measure was a major defeat—and the industry was not about to let it happen again. "They've learned from their mistakes in Oregon, they've learned from their mistakes in Mississippi," says Marshall Fisher, who runs the Bureau of Narcotics in Mississippi. "They know if another state falls, and has the results that we've had, the chances of national legislation are that much closer. Every year they can fight this off is another year of those profits."

On a sunny winter afternoon, narcotics detective Chris Lyon turns off a country lane outside the town of Monticello in southeastern Kentucky, the part of the state hardest hit by the meth lab boom. In a case that shocked the state in 2009, a 20-month-old boy in a dilapidated trailer nearby drank a cup of Liquid Fire drain cleaner that was being used to make meth. The solution burned Kayden Branham from inside for 54 minutes until he died.
This afternoon, Lyon is following up on a call from a sheriff's deputy about several meth labs in the woods. His Ford F-150 clambers up a steep muddy slope turned vivid ochre by the night's rain. In the back are a gas mask, oxygen tanks, safety gloves, and hazmat suits, plus a bucket of white powder called Ampho-Mag that's used to neutralize toxic meth waste. Cleaning up labs is hazardous work: In the last two years, more than 180 officers have been injured in the process. The witches' brew that turns pseudoephedrine into meth includes ammonium nitrate (from fertilizer or heat packs), starter fluid, lithium (from batteries), drain cleaner, and camping fuel. It can explode or catch fire, and it produces copious amounts of toxic gases and hazardous waste even when all goes well.
Halfway up Edwards Mountain, Lyon pulls over in a clearing along the forested trail. Scattered over 50 yards are a half-dozen soda bottles, some containing a grayish, granular residue, others sprouting the plastic tubes cooks use to vent gas. Lyon snaps on black safety gloves, pulls a gas mask over his face, and carefully places each bottle in its own plastic bucket. Further up the mountain he finds more outdoor labs and repeats the procedure.
Police cleaning up a meth lab
Cops in Laurel County, Kentucky, work a meth lab—or, as they put it, a "glorified garbage pickup."
Lyon will drive his haul back to the Monticello Police Department, where a trailer is jam-packed with buckets he's filled in the past few days. "No suspects, no way of making an arrest—it's pretty much a glorified garbage pickup," he says with an air of dejection. "We have all kinds of information of people selling drugs," but there's no time for investigations. "About the time that we get started on something, the phone rings and it's another meth lab to go clean up."
It's a problem Lieutenant Eddie Hawkins, methamphetamine coordinator for the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, was all too familiar with before his state passed its prescription bill in 2010. Since then the number of meth labs found in the state has fallen 74 percent. "We still have a meth problem," Hawkins says, "but it has given us more time to concentrate on the traffickers that are bringing meth into the state instead of working meth labs every night." Now, he says, they go after international criminal networks rather than locking up small-time cooks.
The spread of meth labs has tracked the hollowing out of rural economies. Labs are concentrated in struggling towns where people do hard, physical work for low wages, notes Nick Reding, whose book Methland charts the drug's rise in the Midwest: "Meth makes people feel good. Even as it helps people work hard, whether that means driving a truck or vacuuming the floor, meth contributes to a feeling that all will be okay." But the highly addictive drug can also wreak havoc on users, ravaging everything from teeth and skin to hearts and lungs. And the mushrooming of shake-and-bake labs has left its own trail of devastation: hospitals swamped with injured meth cooks, wrecked and toxic homes, police departments consumed with cleaning up messes rather than fighting crime.
Meth-related cleanup and law enforcement cost the state of Kentucky about $30 million in 2009, the latest year for which the state police have produced an estimate. That doesn't include the cost of crimes addicts commit to support their habit, of putting out meth fires, of decontaminating meth homes, of responding to domestic-abuse calls or placing neglected, abused, or injured kids in foster care. Dr. Glen Franklin, who oversees the burn unit at the University of Louisville Hospital, says his unit alone sees 15 to 20 meth lab burn patients each year, up from two or three a decade ago. They are some of his most difficult cases, often involving both thermal and chemical burns to the face and upper body from a bottle that burst into flames. Many, he notes, have also been abusing OxyContin or other prescription opiates, "so it makes their pain control that much more difficult." According to a study coauthored by Franklin in 2005, it costs an average of nearly $230,000 to treat a meth lab victim—three times more than other burn patients—and that cost is most often borne by taxpayers. Meth use as a whole, according to a 2009 RAND Corporation study, costs the nation anywhere between $16 billion and $48 billion each year.

With silver hair, glasses, and a gentle manner, Linda Belcher looks like the retired grade school teacher she is. Though her district, just south of Louisville, has a meth lab problem, she didn't know much about the issue until Joe Williams, the head of narcotics enforcement at the Kentucky State Police, invited her and a few other lawmakers to state police headquarters. After a dinner of barbecue, coleslaw, and pork and beans, the guests descended to the basement to be briefed about key public safety issues. One was meth labs, whose effects and increasing numbers were depicted in a series of huge charts. One of Williams' officers laid out the startling facts. Meth labs were up for the second year in a row in Kentucky, and they were spreading eastward across the state. They were turning up in cars, motel rooms, and apartment buildings, putting unsuspecting neighbors at risk. Police had pulled hundreds of children from meth lab locations. Prisons were filling up with cooks, and officers were being tied up in cleanup operations.
Belcher had been aware of methamphetamine, but she'd had no idea how bad things were getting. She set about learning more. "I went to a meeting and there was a young lady there who had been on meth," Belcher recalls. "During the time she was on it, she didn't care about anything—not her daughter, not her parents. All she wanted was to get money and get meth. That convinced me."
A man and a woman kissing
Theresa Hall kisses her boyfriend goodbye. For being caught with meth paraphernalia and violating house arrest, she faces a year in jail.
Belcher asked Williams and other law enforcement officials what they thought should be done. They told her about what had happened in Oregon. It could work in Kentucky, they said. In February 2010, Belcher filed a bill to require a prescription for pseudoephedrine.
Soon her phone started ringing off the hook. The callers were angry. If her bill passed, they said, they would have to go to the doctor each time they were congested. It wasn't true—more than 100 cold and allergy drugs made without pseudoephedrine, such as Sudafed PE, would have remained over the counter. And for those who didn't like those alternatives, doctors could renew prescriptions by phone.
Members of the House Health and Welfare Committee, the key panel Belcher's bill had to clear, were also getting calls. Tom Burch, the committee's chairman, says the prescription measure garnered more calls and letters than any he's dealt with in his nearly 40 years at the Capitol, except for abortion bills. "I had enough constituent input on it to know that the bill was not going to go anywhere."
Yet the legislation had gotten hardly any media coverage. How had Kentuckians become so outraged?
In April of that year, Donnita Crittenden was processing monthly lobbying reports at the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission when a figure stopped her in her tracks. A group called the Consumer Healthcare Products Association reported having spent more than $303,000 in three weeks. No organization had spent nearly that much on lobbying in the entire previous year.
Curious, Crittenden called CHPA. It was, she learned, a Washington-based industry association representing the makers and distributors of over-the-counter medicines and dietary supplements—multinational behemoths like Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. CHPA had registered to lobby in Kentucky just weeks before, right after Belcher filed her bill. But it had already retained M. Patrick Jennings, a well-connected lobbyist who'd earned his stripes working for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and GOP Rep. Ed Whitfield.
The bulk of CHPA's record spending, though, was not for lobbyists. It was for a tool more commonly used in hard-fought political campaigns: robocalls, thousands of them, with scripts crafted and delivered by out-of-state PR experts to target legislators on the key committees that would decide the bill's fate.
CHPA's Kentucky filings don't show which firm made the robocalls, but the association's 2010 and 2011 tax returns show more than $1 million worth of payments to Winning Connections, a robocall company that typically represents Democratic politicians and liberal causes such as the Sierra Club's campaign against the Keystone XL pipeline. On its website, the company boasts of its role in West Virginia, where it helped defeat a pseudoephedrine bill that had "strong backing among special interests groups and many in the State Capitol" via focused calls in key legislative districts. CHPA's former VP for legal and government affairs, Andrew C. Fish, is quoted as saying that Winning Connections helped "capture the voice of consumers, which made the critical difference in persuading legislators to change course on an important issue to our member companies." Nowhere does Winning Connections' site mention the intent of the bill or the word "methamphetamine." CHPA spokeswoman Elizabeth Funderburk says the association used the calls, which allowed people to be patched through directly to their legislators, to provide a platform for real consumers to get their voices heard.
Belcher's bill never came up for a vote. Over the ensuing months, the number of meth labs found in Kentucky would grow by 45 percent, surpassing 1,000.
Belcher had learned a lesson. When she reintroduced the prescription bill in 2011, it had support from a string of groups with serious pull at the Capitol—the teachers' union, the Kentucky Medical Association, four statewide law enforcement organizations, and Kentucky's most senior congressman, Hal Rogers. Belcher also had bipartisan leadership support in the Legislature, and the Republican chairman of the judiciary committee, Tom Jensen—whose district included the county with the second-highest number of meth labs—introduced a companion bill in the state Senate.
But the pharmaceutical industry came prepared, too. Its team of lobbyists included some of the best-connected political operatives in Kentucky, from former state GOP chairman John T. McCarthy III to Andrew "Skipper" Martin, the chief of staff to former Democratic Gov. Paul Patton. In addition to a new round of robocalls, CHPA now deployed an ad blitz, spending some $93,000 to blanket the state with 60-second radio spots on at least 178 stations. The bill made it out of committee, but with the outcome doubtful, Jensen never brought it up for a vote on the Senate floor.
Soda cans and an ice pack laying on the ground
Meth cooks often set up shop in the woods.
John Schaaf, the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission's counsel, describes CHPA's strategy as a game changer. "They have completely turned the traditional approach to lobbying around," he says. "For the most part, businesses and organizations that lobby, if they have important issues going on, they'll add lobbyists to their list. They'll employ more people to go out there and talk to legislators. CHPA employs very few lobbyists and they spend 99 percent of their lobbying expenditures on this sort of grassroots outreach on phone banking and advertising. As far as I know, nothing's ever produced the number of calls or the visibility of this particular effort."
In other words: Rather than relying on political professionals to deliver their message, CHPA got voters to do it—and politicians listened, in Kentucky and beyond. There has been no major federal legislation to address meth labs since 2005, when pseudoephedrine was put behind the counter and sales limits were imposed (see "The Need for Speed," page 37). Lawmakers in 24 states have tried to pass prescription bills since 2009. In 23 of them, they failed.
The single exception was Mississippi, where a prescription measure supported by Republican Gov. Haley Barbour passed in 2010. The head of the state Bureau of Narcotics, Marshall Fisher, says one key to the bill's passage was making sure it was not referred to the Legislature's health committee, where members tend to develop close relationships with pharma lobbyists. Fisher has testified about prescription bills before health committees in several other states. "It seems like every time we've done that, the deck is stacked against us," he says. "You can't fight that." Following the bill's passage, the number of meth labs busted in Mississippi fell more than 70 percent. The state narcotics bureau, which tracks the number of drug-endangered children, reported the number of such cases fell 81 percent in the first year the law was in effect.
Page 1 of 2

How to Deal With Toxic Mom Friends June 19, 2013 by Amanda Morin 15 1


We all know the moms who always want to rain on your parade and always need you to bring sunshine to brighten their day. They suck the energy out of the room and, frankly, out of you, but since they're your friends you stick it out. But if keeping toxic mom friendships is having a negative impact on your life, it may be time to reconsider how you deal with them.
Keep reading.
What Exactly Is a Toxic Mom Friendship?
A friendship has to be balanced. Mom friends support each other, listen to each other, rejoice in each other's triumphs (and those of their children), and share each other's sorrows. Friends don't try to one-up each other, they don't try to hog all the attention for themselves, they don't begrudge you the good things that happen, and they aren't supposed to judge you.
Mom Christianne D. says when she had a baby most of her friends were genuinely excited and happy for her. One friend, however, is "always poking and making little comments" about both Christianne and the baby. Christianne elaborates about this toxic mom friend, "She is not the type of person who will be happy for your accomplishments and successes; she will always bring you down."
Circle of Moms member Katherine C. sums up toxic mom friendships with one question: "Why am I friends with this person?"
Signs You Have a Toxic Mom Friend
If you're asking yourself that question, you probably have a toxic friend. Other questions to ask yourself are:
  • Do you feel used by her? I used to have a friend whose kids were about the same age as mine. Eventually I realized she only called me when she needed someone to take care of her kids or wanted to complain about them. I could never get in a word edgewise, she didn't reciprocate with childcare, and didn't care what was going on with my life.
  • Does she try to spread her misery? Mom Richele says she was understanding when her friend was going through a divorce, but when it was clear she was trying to make everyone else miserable and stir up trouble, it was time to "kick her to the curb."
  • Is everything a competition with her? These friends are the ones who, as a mom called Mil puts it, "minimize your kids compared to theirs or compare everything from toys to underwear." No matter what your child does, her child has done it better, earlier, or — if it's a negative thing — not at all. 
  • Is she judgmental and/or insincere?  Christianne's toxic friend says she's trying to be funny when she makes snarky comments, but they have an edge that makes it clear what she really means. And, after a decade of friendship, Jen T.'s friend became harshly judgmental once Jen had kids. So judgmental, in fact, that Jen is afraid of being stabbed in the back if she ends the friendship.
How to Deal With a Toxic Mom Friend
So, what do you do with these friends, love them or leave them?  Barbara M. says you don't have to ditch them. She points out that everyone has a toxic friend somewhere in their lives.
She says she handles it by remembering to "inwardly acknowledge" that the time she spends with them won't be about her, not providing any information about her kids that can be one-upped, and reaching out to her true friends when she needs support.
Barbara's take on toxic mom friends isn't a common one, however. Most moms say it's not worth the drama to keep being friends with someone so negative. In fact, mom Alycia D. thinks experiencing and dealing with this is part of moving into the mom stage of your life.
I love her take on it and her thoughts on making a better life for yourself and your family. She says, "Creating a better environment starts with you, the choices you make, and the people you decide to have or keep in your life."