Posted by Mitchell on September 24, 2001, at 17:26:06
In reply to Re: Posting policy » Mitchell, posted by SLS on September 24, 2001, at 15:11:59
Jane, It is reasonable to ask the administrator here to join in efforts to expand consumer access to medicine, but it is also reasonable that he would decline, if only out of an abundance of caution or concern for his professional image. I would like him to campaign aggressively for an end to the violent war against users of illegal drugs, but I am contented that he provides a site where the lay public can occasionally compare the pharmacology of legal and illegal medications.
Scott, the reason that legality is a concern for the general readership here and not just for the administrator is that readers might, as you suggested, reach conclusions about what is or is not legal based on intelligent sounding but misguided information that the administrator allows here. If he allows posts that encourage mail order use of non-U.S. pharmacies by U.S. residents, and which include statements asserting the legality of the practice, a person could reach a faulty conclusion that the practice is legal. It is not. We could compare this to passengers' responsibility when riding in a automobile. It is everyone's concern that the driver be aware of traffic signals.
Jane, you are correct that I cannot cite a single case where a person has been prosecuted from importing less-than-schedule-three medications, though your reference to "my" definition of controlled substances is flawed. My definition is inconclusive at this point, because all I have to go on is the Title 21 definition, which only seems to address scheduled drugs. I still need to know if other drugs, flouxatine, for example, are considered scheduled controlled substances or if they are addressed somewhere else in federal law. I suspect this was covered in the Prescription Drug Marketing Act but I have not yet read that act to see what provisions it established.
One writer agrees with you, Jane, that prosecution of consumers for illegal importation of pharmaceuticals is rare. According to a health care attorney quoted in American Medical News, the FDA goes after the pharmacies themselves and not physicians or consumers. Risk for physicians involved with non-U.S. pharmacies could arise at the level of state health boards, though the attorney found no such examples. http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_01/bil20625.htm
But E-Commerce Times found an example of consumers arrested for importing prescription drugs:
"Just last week, the U.S. and Thai officials announced the arrests of twenty-two people in Thailand who illegally exported prescription drugs to the United States. Additionally, six people who purchased drugs from three Thai pharmacies were arrested in New York."
(The Dark Side of E-Commerce, By Lori Enos: E-Commerce Times, March 27, 2000; http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/2825.html )We don't know much about the nature those six New York cases, such as what the six suspects purchased, or if they were convicted, but those six might not be the only examples. It is nearly impossible to determine if anyone in the U.S. has ever been convicted for possession of prescription medications, such as flouxatine, without a prescription. One would need to search the records of every county courthouse and every district of the U.S. court system. To my knowledge, those records are not catalogued in such a way as would allow a person to easily identify such a specific charge. Such cases would only show up "on radar" if they rose to the level of appeals courts. However, I would bet I could find several prosecutions in counties around the U.S. of people who possessed valium without a prescription. Valium is one of the medications offered by the mail-order pharmacies, some of which claim a person does not need a prescription to buy from them.
Two other problems with advocating importation of prescription drugs by consumers:
1. The FDA is actively investigating the practice and anyone who is now involved could be targeted by a unique first-time enforcement action.
http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/press/107ltr18.htm2. With the United States targeted for warfare by a shadowy group willing to attack civilians by any means available, importation of un-regulated drugs represents a salient opportunity to introduce a virulent pathogen. Over-the-counter medications have been compromised, with lethal consequences, by inexperienced and amature criminals. Overseas sources of medications bypass the rudamentary safeguards in place for U.S. consumers, and could allow perpetrators to hide their identity. We don't want to believe it could happen, but we didn't want to believe anyone would attack our cities, either. Let's all beware.
Other links:
1. The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce has been investigating a number of issues pertaining to the sale of pharmaceutical products over the Internet. Information regarding this investigation is provided on this page:
http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/pharmacy/onlinepharm.shtml
2. Defense Attorney Rick Collins on FDA guidelines for importation of unapproved unscheduled drugs.
"The guidance is not, however, a free license to import unapproved (and, therefore, illegal) drugs, even in small, personal-use amounts. Even if all of the circumstances noted in the guidance are present, the drugs remain illegal, and the FDA may decide that such drugs should be refused entry or seized."
http://www.t-mag.com/html/body_81attor.html3. ***** Five stars for this one:
David Mills, Cybermedicine: The Benefits and Risks of Purchasing Drugs Over The Internet, 5.2 J. TECH. L. & POL'Y 1, http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/vol5/medicinefinal.htm (2000).
poster:Mitchell
thread:2069
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/2120.html