Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-1102 (2026)

Possession with purpose to manufacture — Unlawful distribution

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. It is unlawful for a person to possess ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine, or their salts, optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers with a purpose to manufacture methamphetamine.
2. A person who violates subdivision (a)(1) of this section upon conviction is guilty of a:
  1. Class D felony if the quantity of substances listed in subdivision (a)(1) of this section is capable of producing ten grams (10g) or less of methamphetamine; or
  2. Class B felony if the quantity of substances listed in subdivision (a)(1) of this section is capable of producing more than ten grams (10g) of methamphetamine.
1. It is unlawful for a person to possess ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine, or their salts, optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers in a quantity capable of producing twenty-eight grams (28g) or more of a Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance that is a narcotic drug or methamphetamine with a purpose to manufacture methamphetamine.
2. A person who violates subdivision (b)(1) of this section upon conviction is guilty of a Class B felony.
1. It is unlawful for a person to sell, transfer, distribute, or dispense any product containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine, or their salts, isomers, or salts of isomers if the person:
  1. Knows that the purchaser will use the product as a precursor to manufacture methamphetamine or another controlled substance; or
  2. Sells, transfers, distributes, or dispenses the product with reckless disregard as to how the product will be used.
2. A person who violates subdivision (c)(1) of this section upon conviction is guilty of a Class D felony.

History. Acts 1997, No. 565, § 2; 2001, No. 1209, § 4; 2011, No. 570, § 69.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2011, No. 570, § 1, provided: “The intent of this act is to implement comprehensive measures designed to reduce recidivism, hold offenders accountable, and contain correction costs.”

Amendments. The 2001 amendment inserted the subdivision (a)(1) and (a)(2) designations; substituted “subdivision (a)(1) of this section” for “this section” in (a)(2); and added (b).

The 2011 amendment substituted “purpose” for “intent” in the section heading and (a)(1); subdivided (a)(2); inserted “upon conviction” in the introductory language of (a)(2) and in (c)(2); inserted “if the quantity ... methamphetamine; or” in (a)(2)(A); added (a)(2)(B); inserted (b) and redesignated former (b) as (c); and substituted “(c)(1)” for “(b)(1)” in (c)(2).

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2001 Arkansas General Assembly, Criminal Law, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 429.

Case Notes

Elements of Offense.

Trial court did not err in failing to give a lesser-included offense instruction because possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine under subdivision (a)(1) of this section was not a lesser-included offense of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine under former § 5-64-403(c)(5) (see now § 5-64-443); the plain language of the two statutes indicates that they contain different elements. Autrey v. State, 90 Ark. App. 131, 204 S.W.3d 84 (2005).

Evidence Sufficient.

Fact finder did not have to resort to speculation or conjecture to find that defendant possessed pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Champlin v. State, 98 Ark. App. 305, 254 S.W.3d 780 (2007).

Private Actions.

Arkansas counties' claims under this section and § 16-118-107, failed as a matter of law because their allegations did not show that companies that produced and marketed cold remedies containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, which ingredients were used in manufacturing methamphetamine (meth), unlawfully sold, distributed, or dispensed the remedies with reckless disregard as to how they would be used: (1) the counties did not allege that the companies failed to comply with federal law or § 5-64-1101 or § 5-64-1103, which regulated the possession and sale of products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine; (2) it appeared that § 5-64-1101, rather than this section, applied to the companies because there was nothing in the record showing that the companies distributed their remedies to unlicensed or unregistered entities or that their commercial buyers, which included retailers, intended to use the remedies to manufacture meth; and (3) even if this section applied, the counties did not offer any example of the companies' alleged reckless behavior beyond their broad assertion that distributing the remedies in their current pharmaceutical formulation was reckless. Independence County v. Pfizer, Inc., 534 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Ark. 2008), aff'd, Ashley County v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2009).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1999–2011 · leading case: Indep. Cnty. v. Pfizer, Inc., 534 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Ark. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Indep. Cnty. v. Pfizer, Inc., 534 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Ark. 2008). · cites it 13× “9 Plaintiffs seek relief under four causes of action: violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, and violation of Ark.Code Ann. §§ 5-64-1102 and 16-118-107.”

Autrey v. State, 204 S.W.3d 84 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-1102 (a)(1) (Supp. 2003).”

Smith v. State, 3 S.W.3d 712 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “” We disagree with the trial court’s ruling in light of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-1102 (Repl.1997), which states that possession of ephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine is a Class D felony.”

Cherry v. State, 95 S.W.3d 5 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-1102 (a)(1) (Supp. 2001) provides that it is unlawful for a person to possess ephedrine, pseudo ephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine or their salts, optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.”

Hester v. State, 208 S.W.3d 747 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-1102 (a)(l) (Supp. 2003), it shall be unlawful for a person to possess.”

Champlin v. State, 254 S.W.3d 780 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Champlin also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction for possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture.”

Ford v. State, 55 S.W.3d 315 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “We recognize, as does the State, that the charging document and judgment reflect that the State was proceeding on Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-1102 , possession of ephedrine with intent to manufacture, but the jury verdict and all arguments at trial related to Ark.”

735 in Us Currency v. State, 205 S.W.3d 816 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-1101 (Supp. 2003); Ark.”

Hancock v. State, 381 S.W.3d 908 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “See ArkCode Ann. § 5-64-1102(a) (Repl.2005). Prior to trial, Hancock filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude the State from introducing any testimony or other evidence alluding to the fact that, at the time Hancock was arrested, there was a minor child in the vehicle.”

Indep. Cnty., Arkansas v. Pfizer, Inc. (8th Cir. 2009). “" See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-1102 (b)(1)(B). Subsection (b) was added to § 5-64-1102 in 2001, see 2001 Ark.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-1102(a) — 2 cases

Champlin v. State, 254 S.W.3d 780 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). “Champlin also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction for possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture.”

Hancock v. State, 381 S.W.3d 908 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “See ArkCode Ann. § 5-64-1102(a) (Repl.2005). Prior to trial, Hancock filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude the State from introducing any testimony or other evidence alluding to the fact that, at the time Hancock was arrested, there was a minor child in the vehicle.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-1102(a)(1) — 1 case

Autrey v. State, 204 S.W.3d 84 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005). “Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-1102 (a)(1) (Supp. 2003).”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-1102(b)(2) — 1 case

Indep. Cnty. v. Pfizer, Inc., 534 F. Supp. 2d 882 (E.D. Ark. 2008). “9 Plaintiffs seek relief under four causes of action: violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, and violation of Ark.Code Ann. §§ 5-64-1102 and 16-118-107.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.