It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IN Grandmother Arrested For Buying Cold Medicine

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
This is what we've reverted to in America?

Wabash Valley woman didn’t realize second cold medicine purchase violated drug laws


CLINTON — 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.




posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
there are some old ladies that get down to some serious dope selling to be quite honest with you. however without knowing the specifics i'm inclined to believe taht she was simply buying the stuff for her family.

but seriously, just because seh's old doesn't mean she's not a crack dealer. it happens.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Yeah, I bought some over the counter med in texas several months ago and got asked for my ID. Now I would never be mistaken for a child.

At the same time...the media is using the term grandmother. Well I was a grandmother at 42. So that is just trying to gain sympathy. Just say a 45 year old woman or a 70 year old woman. Leaves out the sentimental bias.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Call it what it is...another freakin way to get money out of taxpayers. Notice how she still has to pay.

Furthermore, I find it ironic that the pharmacies keep tab of who buys what, but yet don't seem to have the system in place to prevent the sale in the first place.

Wouldn't it be easier to prevent the excess sale of cough medicine rather than run all these people through the court system?

A big ol' money pit is all I see.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


This is part of the war on drugs.

Cold medicines contain ephedrine/pseudo ephedrine which is the main ingredient of meth.

Originally the law worked, but meth dealers have evolved and now they just steal the cold medicine. It's now a stupid law, it should be removed. She should be released unless they can prove she is a meth dealer or supplier. Which Im betting she isn't.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
What a bunch of garbage these idiotic laws are.

I, my family and my husband have allergies. We live in the middle of nowhere and try not to shop more than every couple of months. I normally buy a three month or six month supply of stuff at Sam's Club (72 mile round trip) The rest of my shopping as at a local Farmers Market where I have a booth. I guess we can expect the cops at my door.

Also have you ever tried to READ the ingredient lists on those packages?? I have to bring a magnifying glass!!!




edit

It is time for Americans to be informed of their rights as jurors:

The primary function of the independent juror, is not as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by the government! fija.org...

,


The People have the ultimate power.

They choose their representatives when they vote. However, the ultimate power and insurance they have against government run amok is their power in the jury. It is the jury who decides on whether there is “probable cause” to cause a person to answer to the court AFTER they have heard testimony given under “oath or affirmation”. Today’s system is so perverted that we actually allow ONE prosecutor to decide if, when, and what charges will be brought, if any! This is the first place the people have given away their power.

If a grand or petit jury decides charges should be brought against someone, it is they who get to decide to what extent after hearing an unbiased reason IN LAW for the proposed charges. This is the second place the citizen gives away his power.

If an accused is called to answer charges, the JURY alone not only decides upon guilt or innocense; THEY have the right to judge the law that the accused is alledged to have broken. That is where the term “jury nullification” comes from. A modern jury simply gives a verdict of “not guilty” which does NOTHING to challenge the law they are judging! Of course, they are not “nullifying” their verdict; the attempt is to nullify the law whether it is unconstitutional or improperly applied.

The potential jury member of today is UNLAWFULLY instructed by the judge that they are triers of the facts and nothing more. Any potential juror who did not assent to those instructions and who understood the ancient right of declaring a law unconstitutional would not be allowed to sit on a jury. A judge is NOTHING more than a referee and is there to be certain that the laws are applied, and in some cases, interpreted and used in that manner as he sees they were meant to be. HOWEVER, the jury is still the final judge— they can ignore a judge they feel he is wrong. This is the third and final chapter in the People’s forfeiture of their rights! They simply do not understand that the SCOTUS is not the final judge— THEY ARE!

The next time someone asks you about the three branches of government in the U. S. democratic Republic I hope you take the opportunity to enlighten them to their benefit and the benefit of every citizen. The three branches of government are the Executive (President/Courts) Legislative (House and Senate) and the Sovereigns (the citizens)! Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise! Merry Colin www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...





[edit on 28-9-2009 by crimvelvet]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by liveandlearn
 


Well, here's Sally's Facebook page. You make the call.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
So -
Let's see if I have this right.

1.It's alright for any doctor to peddle his "medications" however he likes - to whomever he likes for the likes of a buck - destroying the minds and bodies of the masses.

2. It's alright for us to be strongly encouraged or forced in some places to take a vaccine that has not been properly tested - (for the likes of another buck) - destroying the minds and bodies of the masses.

3. It's alright for our government to allow Monsanto GMO foods (with minor testing - which has proven already dangerous to cells in animals) and fluoride - into our food and water sources - (for likes of even a larger buck) also destroying the minds and bodies of the masses.

These things are alright - but buying cold medicine twice in a short period of time isn't?

Ok - just wanted to make sure I got that right.


[edit on 28-9-2009 by spinkyboo]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
This is more Big Brother garbage! Who would have proposed such a law? Kick them out of office!

Make no mistake, because of this, the state just made another quick 500 bucks off the working poor. It has nothing to do with the war on drugs or the war on terror or whatever other wars they're claiming to have to arrest and fine the working class over


What if I were purchasing a bottle for my husband and one for myself because a different one worked better for each of us? This crap is getting old. I should be free to purchase two bottles of frigging cold medicine.


edit to add S&F



[edit on 28-9-2009 by Sundancer]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Yep, I would say 70 year old woman. If this is the right woman.

Why did they have to say grandmother of triplets, as if that has anything to do with anything. The story could have stood on its own merit.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Two words, right out of Orwellian Science Fiction and into our legislatures folks, Pre-Crime. You are innocent until proven guilty in this country, that's a freaking joke now.
Funny, you can buy all the Ephedra viridis plants you like, but god forbid you buy two boxes of cold medicene.

IMO, this isn't about preventing the manufacture of meth to begin with, it's about eliminating the competition for narcocorruption. If people are making cheap illegal amphetamines, they aren't spending as much on the CIA's heroin and coc aine, and they loose their black market funding for all their nasty little projects. The war on drugs is the biggest protection racket/money laundering scheme in history, ask the contras.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

SCHEDULE Special Control Ephedrine is approved by the FDA as a drug for human consumption, but because it is a precursor for several scheduled drugs (methamphetamine & methcathinone), it is highly regulated. Possession of ephedrine is legal, but sales of large quantities are monitored and many states heavily regulate the forms and methods in which it is sold.

The FDA banned the sale of ephedrine in over-the-counter dietary supplements in early 2004. See FDA's February 2004 Announcement. Although the ban was temporarily in question when a federal judge ruled it invalid, the US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the FDA;

as of August 2006, a ban is in place on the sale of any product containing ephedra-alkaloids and ephedrine that has not been specifically approved by the FDA. As of 2006, retailers in the United States are required to collect the signatures of every person purchasing pseudoephedrine-containing products in log books and view a photo ID for every purchase of any product for which the entire box contains more than 60mg of pseudoephedrine. The "Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005" provides for criminal penalties for non compliance and limits the maximum amount an individual can buy to 9 grams of pseudoephedrine per any 30 day period:

This makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly or intentionally purchase at retail more than 9 grams during a 30 day period (of which no more than 7.5 grams can be imported by private or commercial carrier or the Postal Service). -- CME 2005


link

Not sure about the site

I don't know what the hey is going on. Next month it may be illegal to buy broccoli.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Thats' the very same reason it's become so difficult to get any pain killers in the states. If you can't get a pain killer from your Dr you just might go to the streets, competition with the CIA for drug sales.
Star for you.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
this is the stupidest thing ive ever seen and the police and law makers should be put in jail and fined for wasting tax payer money on something so stupid



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
The article said that the charge would most likely be wiped from her record by mid to late september. So unless this didn't happen then the story isn't really an issue.

They realized the misake and went about fixing it.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
This is another example of how our government is completely schizophrenic...

Fortune Magazine did a recent spread entitled: How marijuana became legal.

So while this grandmother is being arrested for purchasing cold medicine in Indiana, look at what's happening elsewhere:





:shk:

Apparently, only in America.



She should have moved to another state to purchase her cold medicine....

And McDonalds clearly needs to add more stores in Los Angeles. Something tells me they'll have the business...



[edit on 29-9-2009 by loam]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Its another form of control, These pills are an over the counter allergy

medication, They come in a box of 24 pills, they last 12hrs.....so in

otherwords, per the directions on the box taking 2 pills per day, the box

woiuld last 12 days, but you can only purchase them every 30 days.

So this makes no sense, except the pharmasists where I go said I

could purchase 2 boxes at once, but this to me did'nt make sense

because I would be breaking the law "which is one box every 30 days."

can anyone explain this?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Sippin on some syrup.
That purple drink will take care of that cold for sure.
Bet the family has a history of over medications. If there were not ignorant laws like this, then the cops that served the arrest, the paper pushers and the lawyers and judges that go with that circus would not have jobs that day.... If they caught a cold from her, do you think they would increase the charges for "attacking" them?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
The article said that the charge would most likely be wiped from her record by mid to late september. So unless this didn't happen then the story isn't really an issue.

They realized the misake and went about fixing it.


Exactly how can they take away the trama this lady has gone through and the mental scars when purchasing anything not to forget her local embarrassement. What about the lost of tax payers money how will this be taken about. How will the system learn not to do this again once it is swepted under the carpet?

Will the system be punished and those inforcing something they should have know better and refused to obey i.e. harassment of this poor citizen?

Like in the playground you can say you will take it back but the victim still feels victimized! You cannot take that back. Nor can you take back the guilt the family members who were too busy working and paying their taxes who asked Grannie to purchase their needs as they just don't have the time themselves to pick up their own over the counter drugs.


Edited to say SnF to original Poster for this information and thank you for bring it to our attention

BTW who is bring the tar as I will bring the feathers where does the arresting officer live again?

[edit on 9/29/2009 by IceHappy]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
This is part of the anti-drug hysteria. Here in Illinois, I can't buy more than one box of stuff with pseudoephedrine in it in any given month. Since the pharmacy checks my ID and, apparently, records it, if I come back before a month is out, they'll refuse to sell me that second box.

This is idiotic. Yes, it is true that pseudoephedrine (PSE) can be used to manufacture something illegal, but you're not getting a whole lot for your money.

Still, the law is what it is. This woman broke the law, ridiculous as that law is. If the law sucks, then change the law. I'm sure she had no clue she was doing anything illegal, but as we've all heard from somewhere, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Heck, *innocence* is no excuse half the time.

Many of these anti-drug laws violate our Bill of Rights. People didn't mind, since they assumed these violations would only affect dope fiends and junkies. Surprise! Everyone's affected, and now people are all up in arms over the violation of civil rights. It's what we demanded and accepted. Since we allowed it, it's what we deserve.

When you pass laws that violate the rights of anyone, there is a good chance that you'll eventually have your own rights violated by those or similar laws. Maybe you don't care that the civil rights of drug dealers, Mafiosi, "terrorists", etc. are violated. After all, they're bad people, so who cares if their rights aren't preserved. Unfortunately, such attitude eventually leads to our rights being violated.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join