More intellectual honesty, please

This is my recent letter to the editor at the Lexington Herald-Leader:

The March 30 editorial “Bills to fight meth, pill abuse weakened” implies that the Consumer Healthcare Products Association was not satisfied with a compromise that would limit the amount of medications with pseudoephedrine a person can purchase (rather than require a prescription for purchase) even though it would “keep their smurfing customers solidly employed”.

The term “smurf” refers to purchasers who purchase pseudoephedrine products for use by those who manufacture methamphetamine.

The implication that drug companies cater to and protect those who would use their products in an illegal and unintended manner is intellectually dishonest.

Does the Herald-Leader carry this thought process over to other industries? For example, if crowbars are the most common item used to break into homes, should the crowbar industry be forced to require identification when their product is purchased? Should Kentuckians only be allowed to purchase a certain number of crowbars per month?

If the crowbar industry pushed back against attempts to regulate its product, would they be working to keep their robber customers solidly employed? I very much doubt it.