Concerns about county’s new MethShield law

To the editor:
On Oct. 26, I learned about the impending implementation of the MethShield program in Jackson County. This was of special interest to me because I suffer from year-round allergies and often purchase products containing pseudoephedrine. I don’t mind the hassle of recording my name and address in a log book, but I am hesitant to hand over my driver’s license to be scanned into a system where it will be stored along with my signature. It also worried me that you could log into this system from anywhere you can access the Internet.
So, I did a little research online. Unfortunately, even after a couple hours of reading all the available literature on MethShield, my fears about the security of this product were not put to rest. In addition to not finding the information I was looking for, I also noticed several significant discrepancies in the statistics cited by the county executive’s office concerning MethShield’s effectiveness. So, I decided to call the county executive’s office to see if they could answer my questions. After reading about Mike Sanders belief in the importance of an open and professional government, I did not think this would be a problem. I was wrong.
On Oct. 27, when I called the county executive’s office, I was transferred to his assistant.  As I was expressing my concerns she said something about having someone get back to me and then hung up. When I called back I got sent to her voice mail. On Oct. 28, I called again and got sent to someone else’s voice mail. He never called me back either.
Now it is possible that Sanders is unaware of the unprofessional behavior of his staff, but I don’t think it is very likely. So, until my questions are answered, I am not going to shop at any of the 36 small pharmacies that currently employ MethShield.
If you value the security of your private information you shouldn’t either.