In my opinion, the Sudafed is not an immediate precursor because it's the stuff that gets extracted from the Sudafed that is used for making meth. That seems to be supported by HSC 481.034(f), which states, "If the commissioner designates a substance as an immediate precursor, a substance that is a precursor of the controlled precursor is not subject to control solely because it is a precursor of the controlled precursor."
While I'm at it, I've got a related question. Is it true that it is illegal to purchase or possess more than X packages of Sudafed at one time? That is the widely-held belief among everyone from meth cooks to police officers. I know individual stores may limit the quantities purchased, but I'm not aware of the specific Texas law. Is it a federal law?
Thanks.
Sec. 481.124 actually gives you a presumption of intent to manufacture meth if the defendant possesses or transports "more than 9 grams, three containers packaged for retail sale, or 300 tablets or capsules of a product containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine" AND anhydrous ammonia OR 3 things like red phosphorus, muriatic acid, and charcoal lighter fluid, etc.
But, 481.124 also is worded to prohibit possession of an "immediate precursor" which has it's own definition (that is beyond me) in 481.002(22). Here's where I need a chemist.
So it's the possession of the "chemical precursor" that is in Sudafed that could help you with a presumption of intent to manufacture meth. But I don't think Sudafed alone would get you there (unless maybe you had 10,000 tablets). Does this help?
In the latest case before me I have two guys who got caught with many boxes of generic Sudafed. They told the cops that they planned to use the stuff to make meth. But, based on what has been stated here, I don't think there is an offense. Does anyone disagree?