There is no question in Dr. Keith Humphreys’ mind that making cold and allergy medicines available only through prescriptions can just about erase the social problem of meth labs in West Virginia.

A psychiatry professor at Stanford, the Morgantown native is gearing up for another showdown next year, provided the second such measure by Sen. Dan Foster, D-Kanawha, reaches a committee room.

Humphreys is convinced  the bill can get 15 common household medicines out of the hands of meth producers and serve a dual purpose in protecting West Virginians from taking drugs that could exacerbate such health issues as hypertension and diabetes.

Without the pseudoephedrine contained in such medications, meth chefs are out of business.

Foster’s first bill died on a rare Senate tie vote last winter, and, if the initial go-round is a harbinger of things to come, Foster can expect a massive and costly campaign by the pharmaceutical industry to sway opinions in the Legislature.

And therein lies

the telling difference in the two sides, said Humphreys.

“Nothing stops a man from understanding the facts if his job depends on him not understanding the facts,” he said in a telephone interview.

“They (pharmaceutical industry) make half a billion dollars a year off these medications. They’ve got tremendous incentive to throw dust in everybody’s eyes. In contrast, the people on the other side have no economic incentive at all. This is about protecting the weak. These labs tend to be in poor communities. It’s about protecting kids who get burned. To me, it’s really a case of doing the right thing versus making money.”

When the debate is renewed, Humphreys said lawmakers need to bear in mind the messenger, as well as the message pushed.

“When you have a doctor like Dan Foster, or a pharmacist like (Delegate) Don Perdue, or a pharmacist like (the late Delegate) Larry Border, God rest his soul, pushing this, there’s nothing in it economically for them,” Humphreys said.

“They’re doing this because they want to help people. People on the other side want to make a lot of money. They say a lot of things that aren’t true.”

For instance, he said, in Oregon, one of two states with a “prescription only” law, meth labs are practically a dinosaur, with only two or three surfacing, when once such illicit operations easily numbered 500.

“At the time, the pharmacy industry said it’s an Oregon thing, it’s out West, not America, then Mississippi does it and their meth labs drop by two-thirds in six months,” Humphreys said.

“It’s not a West Coast thing. It’s not an East Coast thing. Just basic logic. If people can’t get that chemical, they’re not going to be able to make meth labs.”

Humphreys is no stranger to America’s war against drug misuse.

Former President George W. Bush appointed him as senior drug policy adviser, a position he retained for a time when Barack Obama succeeded Bush in the White House.

“I don’t view these as partisan issues,” he said.

“We’re talking about a lot of people with drug addiction. It’s never mattered what party they’re in. All kinds of families go through this stuff. Everyone has an interest. I didn’t come back to the state (for any reason) other than the fact this is my home state and I love this state.”

Industry leaders maintain a “prescription only” law is impractical, given the ability of addicts and peddlers to get their hands on pain pills in southern West Virginia, where that societal ill has escalated into epidemic proportions.

“The problem with that argument is that it’s not true,” Humphreys said.

“Pain is based entirely on the report of the patient. You can come in and say your back hurts. You can yell when I touch your back. You can twist this way. It’s very easy to fake pain. In contrast, it’s virtually impossible to fake an allergy and a runny nose. How are you going to do that?”

Humphreys said the Legislature can attack three problems by enacting Foster’s bill.

“It’s the solution to two problems and an improvement in the third,” he said.

“Basically, it will wipe out the meth labs. There’ll be a few because people will buy in Ohio and Kentucky. But it will mostly wipe that out.

“The second thing it will do is that it will be good for the state. You shouldn’t be taking these medications without talking to a doctor if you’ve got diabetes or if you’ve got high blood pressure. Half of West Virginians have one of those two. They’re not good for you. You should see a doctor, even if there was no such thing as meth.”

Meth won’t vanish entirely, he cautioned, but West Virginia will still be a better place to live, even if the measure wipes out only half of meth users and labs.

As for inconvenience, another drawback the industry frequently cites, Humphreys said doctors can write a single prescription in an office visit, and those can be renewed simply by phoning in refills to a patient’s preferred pharmacy.

“That’s the way medicine works,” he said.

Moreover, the professor said, people should be seeing a physician routinely during the year for checkups.

“You’ve got to remember, you’re paying for this anyway, on your tax bill,” he said.

Now that the federal government no longer picks up the tab for cleanup of meth labs — a cost that can run upward of $10,000 — the expense is borne by local authorities, and that translates into higher tax bills, he said.

And the cost of meth doesn’t end with the environmental obligations, either, Humphreys said.

“You’ve got to pay when a kid goes through a burn unit,” he said.

“You pay when someone with meth addiction breaks into your house. We’re taking on enormous costs.”

— E-mail: mannix@register-herald.com