Jensen drops lead sponsorship of meth bill to avoid conflict but pledges to redouble efforts to pass it

State Sen. Tom Jensen, R-London, removed himself as the lead sponsor of a bill aimed at curtailing methamphetamine to avoid any appearance of a conflict because of his past legal work for an anti-drug program.

Jensen announced to the Senate chamber Friday morning that he would allow co-sponsor Robert Stivers, the Republican floor leader, to carry the legislation. He said some reporters had asked him about whether he did legal work through his private law practice for Operation UNITE, the Eastern Kentucky-based organization that focuses on drug enforcement, treatment and education.

Jensen said he wrote up language in 2003 — before he was elected to the Senate — for intergovernmental agreements so that county law enforcement agencies could coordinate on drug busts and treatment efforts.

While he said he didn’t feel it was a conflict, he wanted the focus back on the bill — not him.

Jensen’s announcement seemed to re-energize the effort among some lawmakers who agree with Jensen and want cold medicines containing psuedoephedrine — a key ingredient in meth — to be available only through prescriptions. The bill, Senate Bill 50, would not apply to psuedoephedrine in liquid gel-cap format because it is more difficult to convert into meth.

“It’s a shame that had to happen, but as I was sitting here, I began to think: More than likely, that will strengthen the position of the bill because typically you rally to the side of someone who had been wronged,” said Democratic Sen. Kathy Stein of Lexington.

Stein said Jensen’s announcement probably won’t have an effect on lawmakers who already are against it but could persuade some undecided legislators.

A similar measure failed to get a vote on the Senate floor last year. But Jensen pledged to have all 38 senators go on the record this year.

As the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Jensen has presided over two hearings so far in which experts, proponents and opponents have testified.

The Consumer Healthcare Products Association, which represents drug makers, is backing another bill that would require only people with meth convictions to have to get prescriptions for cold medicines containing psuedoephedrine.

Carlos Gutierrez of the organization testified on behalf of that approach earlier this month.

The industry spent more than $350,000 airing ads last year against measures to require prescriptions for those medicines.

This year, the group is running radio and print ads.

On Friday, House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, lashed out at the industry because he said they don’t have the best interest of Kentuckians.

Ryan Alessi
About Ryan Alessi

Ryan Alessi joined cn|2 in May 2010 as senior managing editor and host of Pure Politics. He has covered politics for more than 10 years, including 7 years as a reporter for the Lexington Herald-Leader. Ryan says he enjoys the challenge of interviewing political figures and civic leaders about how they want to improve Kentucky.

Comments

  • Bruce Layne wrote on January 28, 2012 06:24 PM :

    Another example of politicians ignoring the disease and trying to treat the symptoms by enacting more laws, as if the laws of physics or the laws of economics or human nature will yield to the laws enacted by the Kentucky legislature.

    Meth addiction is rampant in eastern Kentucky because government subsistence is rampant in eastern Kentucky. You can see it yourself. Drive through Stumbo’s district and half of the billboards are lawyers advertising that they can get you a Social Security disability check. Take away the initiative and enterprise, and people naturally become disinterested in life and resort to meth, Oxycontin, etc.

    More government is not going to cure meth addiction.

    All they can do is punish the law abiding citizens. Meth is already illegal. Making it more illegal isn’t going to make it less prevalent. It will make it more profitable, though… more profitable for dealers, and more profitable for the prohibitionists. And that is what the War On Drugs is all about.

    We can’t win the war on drugs, but we can sure spend a lot of money on it.

    It sure looks like Tom Jensen is passing laws as a legislator, and then representing clients who run afoul of those laws as a lawyer. If that’s not a classic conflict of interest, I don’t know what is. Withdrawing his name as the primary sponsor of the bill is one of the lamest excuses for honest government I’ve seen, and that’s saying something, as I’ve been keeping an eye on the Kentucky legislature for years and I’ve seen a lot of sleaze.

What do you have to say?





SUBSCRIBE NOW

Subscribe to email updates.

Subscribe and get the latest political intelligence delivered to your inbox.

MyCN2 Twitter Feed