Published: September 10, 2009 05:00 pm         

Readers' Forum: Sept. 11, 2009

Prosecutor: Woman broke law, case handled correctly



Your editorial of Sept. 6 contains a substantive error. Ms. [Sally] Harpold did not pay a $300 bond plus a $218 deferral fee. Her deferral fee was deducted from her bond money and then the remainder of her bond money (minus the Clerk’s administrative fee of $30) was returned to her. So, since it appears from your editorial that you are soliciting for someone to reimburse Ms. Harpold the costs for her having violated the law, then you will need to advise whoever that might be that the cost was $248, not $518.

I have read your editorial several times, and I have honestly asked myself whether I treated Ms. Harpold unfairly in the handling of her case, and I still think that this case was prosecuted and resolved in an appropriate manner. Even you begin your analysis with the premise that strict enforcement of the drug laws is necessary so that your county (Vigo) and mine (Vermillion) do not experience the same kind of meth epidemic that we did just a few years ago. Surely it is not necessary to remind you or anyone else of the incredible negative impact that methamphetamine abuse had on the Wabash Valley … the destructive toll of this drug was enormous. The law which was applied in this case has had a great impact on the ability of “meth cookers” to get their primary ingredient, i.e. ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. And, as a result of this law, meth production and meth use has been substantially curtailed in both of our counties as well as all across the State of Indiana. Law enforcement officials, primarily Jon Marvel, the Vigo County Sheriff, fought long and hard for the passage of this law. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Vigo County had an ordinance in effect regarding the purchase of ephedrine long before the state legislators passed the current law. So I do not know how anyone can analyze this law and not conclude that it is a good law because it has had the desired effect, i.e. a reduction in meth manufacturing and meth use.

The law, of course, does not require that the State show that the purchaser intended to make meth. And, the truth of the matter, is that many of the people who violate the “purchase law” are not meth makers. Oftentimes, they are people on limited income who are simply induced to purchase the product because a $4 box of cold medicine can be resold for $30 to $50 to a meth maker. I am sure that there are a myriad of reasons why people violate the law, but a person’s reason or motive is seldom an element of a crime. Obviously, the reason that Ms. Harpold is upset and presumably the reason that your editorial criticizes my handling of the case is that there was no evidence that Ms. Harpold intended to make meth. However, the law does not require such an intent, and truthfully, the law would be completely ineffective if such an intent were required.

I do agree with you that it would be helpful if there were very noticeable signs posted at each pharmacy which stated the restrictions imposed by the law. However, if you study the history of the many attempts by law enforcement to control the sale of ephedrine (especially the product Sudafed) you will find that the pharmaceutical companies fought long and hard against any restrictions on these products. It is very difficult to get an industry which is in the business of selling a product for a profit to do anything which adversely affects the number of sales.

Lastly, if presented with these same facts again, I would handle the case exactly the same way. Ms. Harpold violated the law, and because she had no prior criminal history, I offered her the most lenient resolution at my disposal which is a pre-trial deferral agreement. I am assuming that she will comply with the terms of that agreement, and at the expiration of the appropriate time period I will dismiss the case against her. And, even though you disagree with my handling of this case, the public should know that our law enforcement officers review the pharmacy records approximately every 45-60 days, and I will continue to prosecute anyone who violates this law.

— Nina J. Alexander

Vermillion County Prosecutor



Obama, Dems demonizing medical profession



The exalted one is a bald-faced liar. The one who causes tingles to run up Chris Mathews’ leg when he speaks made deliberately false statements in New Hampshire last month regarding surgeon’s fees for amputations. Obama said family physicians collect “a pittance” for helping diabetic patients lose weight, watch their diets, and monitor their medications, whereas surgeons collect “$30,000, $40,000, $50,000” for an amputation of a diabetic foot.

This is a patent, despicable and gross attempt by the Democrats to demonize the medical profession in their march to socialize our Health care system and our country. Medicare reimbursements for amputations range from $700 to $1200, depending on the level of amputation. This fee includes 90 days follow up care after surgery. Most private insurance companies base their reimbursements on Medicare fees.

Mr. Obama, “the one we’ve been waiting for,” made another vile misrepresentation about doctors a few weeks earlier — that they would rather “yank out” kids’ tonsils than treat sore throats because it pays more.

As a practicing surgeon, I am outraged that this “community organizer” suggests that we casually amputate body parts for big bucks. The decision to perform an amputation comes only after a long, deliberate, non-operative process which always includes the patient’s family doctor, several specialists and the surgeon.

If one extrapolates the level of blatant dishonesty regarding surgical fees to the rest of Obama’s rhetoric, one can only be very frightened for our country’s future. Remember this guy grew up in Chicago politics and never ran anything as complicated as a Dairy Queen.

— Robert R. Taube,

M.D., F.A.C.S.

Terre Haute