![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 73. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by stjames on September 17, 2001, at 16:41:29
Once again Sal is telling where to get meds without a
prescription: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010917/msgs/78914.htmlDo you condone this activity, Dr Bob ?
james
Posted by shelliR on September 17, 2001, at 20:01:51
In reply to No prescription needed, DR BOB please, posted by stjames on September 17, 2001, at 16:41:29
> Once again Sal is telling where to get meds without a
> prescription: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010917/msgs/78914.html
>
> Do you condone this activity, Dr Bob ?
>
> jamesI thought after quite a long debate, Dr. Bob stepped in and said he would not censor this activiity. Dr. Bob, correct me if I'm wrong. This policy was first stated in www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/1765.html. ("People can decide for themselves what risks they'll willing to take.") In addition, Dr. bob just set up under faq, a compilation of our opinions pro and con on the topic of self-medication both from here and overseas.
Shelli
Posted by stjames on September 17, 2001, at 21:19:32
In reply to Re: No prescription needed, DR BOB please » stjames, posted by shelliR on September 17, 2001, at 20:01:51
Thanks Shelli, I had not seen the new FAQ and the
link you mentioned. It still does not change much about the questions I asked. A recient re-read of the law and publications reguarding import of meds has convinced me this is totally illegal.
The US Customs is the first US athority one must pass to import meds, and they clearly require a perscription from a doc. This is not a grey area, Customs has just been looking the other way.We cannot discuss ways to kill ourselves here, but we can discuss ways to commit illegal acts
and perhaps do great harm to ourselves, as long as it is in the intrest of "getting well". Of all the AD's, the TCA's are the ones that are most easy to kill oneself with. Sal just told someone
where to get some. How do we know what the posters true reasons are ? How do we know the condition a poster states they have is really what they have? Tell Sal you are depressed and whatever has not worked and Jason will give you a "Sal Special Coctail for Depression ". What happens if this person is actually BP ? The hospital is what happens, at the least.I don't think it is OK to say "decide for yourself" and wash your hands of it. No one should be that naive so assume lay people are able to ponder the medical and legal implications on this issue. How can most do this when the issues are so technical.
I would still like to hear what Dr Bob has to say, himself.
james
Posted by Jane D on September 17, 2001, at 23:07:31
In reply to Re: No prescription needed, DR BOB please, posted by stjames on September 17, 2001, at 21:19:32
> Thanks Shelli, I had not seen the new FAQ and the
> link you mentioned. It still does not change much about the questions I asked. A recient re-read of the law and publications reguarding import of meds has convinced me this is totally illegal.
> The US Customs is the first US athority one must pass to import meds, and they clearly require a perscription from a doc. This is not a grey area, Customs has just been looking the other way.
>
> We cannot discuss ways to kill ourselves here, but we can discuss ways to commit illegal acts
> and perhaps do great harm to ourselves, as long as it is in the intrest of "getting well". Of all the AD's, the TCA's are the ones that are most easy to kill oneself with. Sal just told someone
> where to get some. How do we know what the posters true reasons are ? How do we know the condition a poster states they have is really what they have? Tell Sal you are depressed and whatever has not worked and Jason will give you a "Sal Special Coctail for Depression ". What happens if this person is actually BP ? The hospital is what happens, at the least.
>
> I don't think it is OK to say "decide for yourself" and wash your hands of it. No one should be that naive so assume lay people are able to ponder the medical and legal implications on this issue. How can most do this when the issues are so technical.
>
> I would still like to hear what Dr Bob has to say, himself.
>
> jamesJames - I am confused. I am sure that I have seen you mention that you smoke pot - an illegal activity. Have you had some kind of epiphany about breaking the law? A law like the one that determines which drugs must be prescribed by a physician and which ones are OTC. How is this different? - Jane
Posted by stjames on September 18, 2001, at 1:17:08
In reply to Re: No prescription needed » stjames, posted by Jane D on September 17, 2001, at 23:07:31
James - I am confused. I am sure that I have seen you mention that you smoke pot - an illegal activity. Have you had some kind of epiphany about breaking the law? A law like the one that determines which drugs must be prescribed by a physician and which ones are OTC. How is this different? - Jane
James here....
It is a question of degree. It is a minor offence for possision, where I live. A fine at best. My docs all know I smoke pot.
Having meds without a script is a felony. Playing doc, without a real Dx is dangerous.
I do realize some have no choice but to get their meds illegally. But do we have to hear about it every day ? People seem to have no problem finding drugs ! I also feel that many metally ill are very impressionable and it is very hard to understand all the info to make an informed desicion.
james
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 18, 2001, at 8:38:24
In reply to Re: No prescription needed, posted by stjames on September 18, 2001, at 1:17:08
but she really got you there, James. Your answer is just pompous and retrieting (sp?).
It's already been addressed - maybe we should just let it go.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2001, at 10:02:41
In reply to Re: No prescription needed, DR BOB please, posted by stjames on September 17, 2001, at 21:19:32
> A recient re-read of the law and publications reguarding import of meds has convinced me this is totally illegal.
In the FAQ, I included a link to the US Customs Service:
http://www.customs.gov/imp-exp/trade/tools/archives/vol1n03/presmed.htm
They do seem to require (1) approval by the US FDA and (2) a valid prescription. I've added those excerpts now...
> The US Customs is the first US athority one must pass to import meds, and they clearly require a perscription from a doc. This is not a grey area, Customs has just been looking the other way.
Well, it's their job to enforce the law, not ours, or at least certainly not mine. And we can warn people of the potential consequences, legal or otherwise.
> We cannot discuss ways to kill ourselves here, but we can discuss ways to commit illegal acts
> and perhaps do great harm to ourselves, as long as it is in the intrest of "getting well".I think that's right, it's benefits vs. risks. Which people ultimately have to weigh for themselves.
> I don't think it is OK to say "decide for yourself" and wash your hands of it. No one should be that naive so assume lay people are able to ponder the medical and legal implications on this issue. How can most do this when the issues are so technical.
I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, lay people have the right to live their lives as they choose (with some qualifications). All kinds of decisions they make have potentially serious implications. And they're free to consult with others who are more knowledgeable -- or not to.
> Of all the AD's, the TCA's are the ones that are most easy to kill oneself with. Sal just told someone
> where to get some. How do we know what the posters true reasons are ? How do we know the condition a poster states they have is really what they have? Tell Sal you are depressed and whatever has not worked and Jason will give you a "Sal Special Coctail for Depression ". What happens if this person is actually BP ? The hospital is what happens, at the least.I know, it's a potential problem, somebody could be hurt or even die. But should we then assume that people secretly intend to kill themselves? We let people buy cars even though they might go drive them off a cliff...
OTOH, I suppose an alternative policy could be not to allow discussion about how to obtain drugs. Their pros and cons, fine, but not where to get them. Would be better? Hmm...
Bob
Posted by akc on September 18, 2001, at 11:18:41
In reply to Re: how to obtain drugs, posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2001, at 10:02:41
I have to say that I am leaning towards supporting the posting of information on how to obtain drugs. I've come a long way on this in a few months. There have been a lot of posts on the reasons people may want/need to go outside the traditional systems in the U.S. and I, for one, do not want to be the person judging that. I think by posting the facts -- customs laws, for instances -- you have done at least something to help those who post here becoming better informed. I wish I could think of a system to make sure that people who are thinking of obtaining drugs looked at the various sources of information available to them on this site. And while I will always advocate for a person to find a pdoc, always, who am I to deny people the opportunity to share information to maybe get the only help available to them today? There are risks no matter what we do. Folks who have no source to obtain psych meds will medicate in some manner -- maybe by using the information gleaned here, it will be in a manner that actually has a chance of helping.
akc
Posted by Jane D on September 18, 2001, at 16:56:28
In reply to Re: No prescription needed, posted by stjames on September 18, 2001, at 1:17:08
> Having meds without a script is a felony.
James - Can you please provide some references for the above statement. - Jane
Posted by Cam W. on September 18, 2001, at 17:06:51
In reply to No prescription needed, DR BOB please, posted by stjames on September 17, 2001, at 16:41:29
Posted by stjames on September 18, 2001, at 17:25:01
In reply to Re: No prescription needed » stjames, posted by Jane D on September 18, 2001, at 16:56:28
> > Having meds without a script is a felony.
>
> James - Can you please provide some references for the above statement. - JaneSorry, this is common sence ! Controled substances require a doc's script.
james
Posted by Mitchell on September 18, 2001, at 20:03:51
In reply to Re: No prescription needed, posted by stjames on September 18, 2001, at 17:25:01
> > > Having meds without a script is a felony.
> >
> > James - Can you please provide some references for the above statement. - Jane
>
> Sorry, this is common sence ! Controled substances require a doc's script.
>
> jamesJuries can use common sense to weigh the merits of factual claims, but to return a criminal conviction, courts require a citation of law. Try US Code : Title 21, Section 844, with regard to possession, and US Code : Title 21, Section 829 with regard to dispensing of controlled substances. "Controlled substance" is defined at US Code : Title 21, Section 802. Schedules of controlled substances are at US Code: Title 13, Section 812. Revised schedules are published in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1308 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.
If I understand correctly, under Sec. 844, first offense for possession of a controlled substance without a prescription is a misdemeanor, but other sections make possession of Schedule I substances a felony.
The conflict between FDA regulations for importation and U.S. Customs rules for importation can be confusing to an inexperienced investigator. Internet messages based solely on the FDA regulation, especially when posted on a board administered by a physician, can tend to create a perception that possession of controlled substances without a prescription is legal. Caveat Emptor.
Doesn't a person have to study this part of the law to graduate from medical school in the United States, and then prove their knowledge to a state medical board before they can practice? Are we missing something here, like a loophole that says this law doesn't apply sometimes? How do those "buy drugs legally without a prescription" sites remain on-line? Of course, the fact that they are still on line does not mean what they are doing is legal. If their distribution points are overseas, and if their Internet servers are overseas, maybe they are untouchable, but their customers are at risk. An expert might offer better insight, but the laws cited above seem clear enough.
It seems that the ease of mail order importation might have fostered a tide of questionable imports, which might currently be overwhelming the capabilities of regulators and prosecutors. The resulting lack of enforcement might support a perception that a person can legally possess controlled substances without the approval of controlling agencies. State attorneys general have at times prosecuted people involved in direct marketing of controlled substances through the Internet, but the lack of publicity of these cases leaves some consumers in the dark. Local law enforcement agencies also contribute to the breakdown of regulation, refusing at times to refer cases involving apparent prescription medications because of the difficulty in identifying the substance and the difficulty of proving there was no valid prescription.
Search U.S. Code at:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/States also have laws about controlled substances.
These pages link to state statutes:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/state_statutes.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html
http://www.prairienet.org/~scruffy/f.htm
................................................................
US Code : Title 21, Section 844, Penalties for simple possession(a) Unlawful acts; penalties
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess any list I chemical obtained pursuant to or under authority of a registration issued to that person under section 823 of this title or section 958 of this title if that registration has been revoked or suspended, if that registration has expired, or if the registrant has ceased to do business in the manner contemplated by his registration. Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year, and shall be fined a minimum of $1,000, or both, except that if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500, except, further, that if he commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or more prior convictions for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a person convicted under this subsection for the possession of a mixture or substance which contains cocaine base shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, and fined a minimum of $1,000, if the conviction is a first conviction under this subsection and the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 5 grams, if the conviction is after a prior conviction for the possession of such a mixture or substance under this subsection becomes final and the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 3 grams, or if the conviction is after 2 or more prior convictions for the possession of such a mixture or substance under this subsection become final and the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 1 gram. Notwithstanding any penalty provided in this subsection, any person convicted under this subsection for the possession of flunitrazepam shall be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, shall be fined as otherwise provided in this section, or both. The imposition or execution of a minimum sentence required to be imposed under this subsection shall not be suspended or deferred. Further, upon conviction, a person who violates this subsection shall be fined the reasonable costs of the investigation and prosecution of the offense, including the costs of prosecution of an offense as defined in sections 1918 and 1920 of title 28, except that this sentence shall not apply and a fine under this section need not be imposed if the court determines under the provision of title 18 that the defendant lacks the ability to pay.
(b) Repealed. Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 219(a), Oct. 12, 1984,
98 Stat. 2027
(c) ''Drug, narcotic, or chemical offense'' defined
As used in this section, the term ''drug, narcotic, or chemical offense'' means any offense which proscribes the possession, distribution, manufacture, cultivation, sale, transfer, or the attempt or conspiracy to possess, distribute, manufacture, cultivate, sell or transfer any substance the possession of which is prohibited under this subchapter...............................................
US Code : Title 21, Section 829, Prescriptions(a) Schedule II substances
Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in schedule II, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), may be dispensed without the written prescription of a practitioner, except that in emergency situations, as prescribed by the Secretary by regulation after consultation with the Attorney General, such drug may be dispensed upon oral prescription in accordance with section 503(b) of that Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)). Prescriptions shall be retained in conformity with the requirements of section 827 of this title. No prescription for a controlled substance in schedule II may be refilled.
(b) Schedule III and IV substances
Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in schedule III or IV, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), may be dispensed without a written or oral prescription in conformity with section 503(b) of that Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)). Such prescriptions may not be filled or refilled more than six months after the date thereof or be refilled more than five times after the date of the prescription unless renewed by the practitioner.
(c) Schedule V substances
No controlled substance in schedule V which is a drug may be distributed or dispensed other than for a medical purpose.
(d) Non-prescription drugs with abuse potential
Whenever it appears to the Attorney General that a drug not considered to be a prescription drug under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) should be so considered because of its abuse potential, he shall so advise the Secretary and furnish to him all available data relevant thereto................................
US Code : Title 21, Section 802
(6) The term ''controlled substance'' means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.............................................
Sec. 812. Schedules of controlled substances(a) Establishment
There are established five schedules of controlled substances, to be known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. Such schedules shall initially consist of the substances listed in this section. The schedules established by this section shall be updated and republished on a semiannual basis during the two-year period beginning one year after October 27, 1970, and shall be updated and republished on an annual basis thereafter.
(b) Placement on schedules; findings required
Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:
(1) Schedule I. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or
other substance under medical supervision.
(2) Schedule II. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently
accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe
psychological or physical dependence.
(3) Schedule III. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less
than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate
or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
(4) Schedule IV. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse
relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited
physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the
drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(5) Schedule V. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse
relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted
medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited
physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the
drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(c) Initial schedules of controlled substances
Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V shall, unless and until amended [1] pursuant to section 811 of this title, consist of the following drugs or other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated:
(a) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any of the following opiates, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers, whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers, and salts is possible within the specific chemical designation:
(1) Acetylmethadol.
(2) Allylprodine.
(3) Alphacetylmathadol. [2]
[2] So in original. Probably should be ''Alphacetylmethadol.''
(4) Alphameprodine.
(5) Alphamethadol.
(6) Benzethidine.
(7) Betacetylmethadol.
(8) Betameprodine.
(9) Betamethadol.
(10) Betaprodine.
(11) Clonitazene.
(12) Dextromoramide.
(13) Dextrorphan.
(14) Diampromide.
(15) Diethylthiambutene.
(16) Dimenoxadol.
(17) Dimepheptanol.
(18) Dimethylthiambutene.
(19) Dioxaphetyl butyrate.
(20) Dipipanone.
(21) Ethylmethylthiambutene.
(22) Etonitazene.
(23) Etoxeridine.
(24) Furethidine.
(25) Hydroxypethidine.
(26) Ketobemidone.
(27) Levomoramide.
(28) Levophenacylmorphan.
(29) Morpheridine.
(30) Noracymethadol.
(31) Norlevorphanol.
(32) Normethadone.
(33) Norpipanone.
(34) Phenadoxone.
(35) Phenampromide.
(36) Phenomorphan.
(37) Phenoperidine.
(38) Piritramide.
(39) Propheptazine.
(40) Properidine.
(41) Racemoramide.
(42) Trimeperidine.
(b) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any of the following opium derivatives, their salts, isomers, and salt of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:
(1) Acetorphine.
(2) Acetyldihydrocodeine.
(3) Benzylmorphine.
(4) Codeine methylbromide.
(5) Codeine-N-Oxide.
(6) Cyprenorphine.
(7) Desomorphine.
(8) Dihydromorphine.
(9) Etorphine.
(10) Heroin.
(11) Hydromorphinol.
(12) Methyldesorphine.
(13) Methylhydromorphine.
(14) Morphine methylbromide.
(15) Morphine methylsulfonate.
(16) Morphine-N-Oxide.
(17) Myrophine.
(18) Nicocodeine.
(19) Nicomorphine.
(20) Normorphine.
(21) Pholcodine.
(22) Thebacon.
(c) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:
(1) 3,4-methylenedioxy amphetamine.
(2) 5-methoxy-3,4-methylenedioxy amphetamine.
(3) 3,4,5-trimethoxy amphetamine.
(4) Bufotenine.
(5) Diethyltryptamine.
(6) Dimethyltryptamine.
(7) 4-methyl-2,5-diamethoxyamphetamine.
(8) Ibogaine.
(9) Lysergic acid diethylamide.
(10) Marihuana.
(11) Mescaline.
(12) Peyote.
(13) N-ethyl-3-piperidyl benzilate.
(14) N-methyl-3-piperidyl benzilate.
(15) Psilocybin.
(16) Psilocyn.
(17) Tetrahydrocannabinols.
SCHEDULE II
(a) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any of the following substances whether produced directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of vegetable origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis:
(1) Opium and opiate, and any salt, compound, derivative, or
preparation of opium or opiate.
(2) Any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation thereof
which is chemically equivalent or identical with any of the
substances referred to in clause (1), except that these
substances shall not include the isoquinoline alkaloids of opium.
(3) Opium poppy and poppy straw.
(4) coca [3] leaves, except coca leaves and extracts
of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of
ecgonine or their salts have been removed; cocaine, its salts,
optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers; ecgonine,
its derivatives, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or
any compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity
of any of the substances referred to in this paragraph.
[3] So in original. Probably should be capitalized.
(b) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any of the following opiates, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters and ethers, whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers, and salts is possible within the specific chemical designation:
(1) Alphaprodine.
(2) Anileridine.
(3) Bezitramide.
(4) Dihydrocodeine.
(5) Diphenoxylate.
(6) Fentanyl.
(7) Isomethadone.
(8) Levomethorphan.
(9) Levorphanol.
(10) Metazocine.
(11) Methadone.
(12) Methadone-Intermediate,
4-cyano-2-dimethylamino-4,4-diphenyl butane.
(13) Moramide-Intermediate, 2-methyl-3-morpholino-1,
1-diphenylpropane-carboxylic acid.
(14) Pethidine.
(15) Pethidine-Intermediate-A,
4-cyano-1-methyl-4-phenylpiperidine.
(16) Pethidine-Intermediate-B,
ethyl-4-phenylpiperidine-4-carboxylate.
(17) Pethidine-Intermediate-C,
1-methyl-4-phenylpiperidine-4-carboxylic acid.
(18) Phenazocine.
(19) Piminodine.
(20) Racemethorphan.
(21) Racemorphan.
(c) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any injectable liquid which contains any quantity of methamphetamine, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers.
SCHEDULE III
(a) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances having a stimulant effect on the central nervous system:
(1) Amphetamine, its salts, optical isomers, and salts of its
optical isomers.
(2) Phenmetrazine and its salts.
(3) Any substance (except an injectable liquid) which contains
any quantity of methamphetamine, including its salts, isomers,
and salts of isomers.
(4) Methylphenidate.
(b) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances having a depressant effect on the central nervous system:
(1) Any substance which contains any quantity of a derivative
of barbituric acid, or any salt of a derivative of barbituric
acid.
(2) Chorhexadol.
(3) Glutehimide.
(4) Lysergic acid.
(5) Lysergic acid amide.
(6) Methyprylon.
(7) Phencyclidine.
(8) Sulfondiethylmethane.
(9) Sulfonethylmethane.
(10) Sulfonmethane.
(c) Nalorphine.
(d) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation containing limited quantities of any of the following narcotic drugs, or any salts thereof:
(1) Not more than 1.8 grams of codeine per 100 milliliters or
not more than 90 milligrams per dosage unit, with an equal or
greater quantity of an isoquinoline alkaloid of opium.
(2) Not more than 1.8 grams of codeine per 100 milliliters or
not more than 90 milligrams per dosage unit, with one or more
active, non-narcotic ingredients in recognized therapeutic
amounts.
(3) Not more than 300 milligrams of dihydrocodeinone per 100
milliliters or not more than 15 milligrams per dosage unit, with
a fourfold or greater quantity of an isoquinoline alkaloid of
opium.
(4) Not more than 300 milligrams of dihydrocodeinone per 100
milliliters or not more than 15 milligrams per dosage unit, with
one or more active, nonnarcotic ingredients in recognized
therapeutic amounts.
(5) Not more than 1.8 grams of dihydrocodeine per 100
milliliters or not more than 90 milligrams per dosage unit, with
one or more active, nonnarcotic ingredients in recognized
therapeutic amounts.
(6) Not more than 300 milligrams of ethylmorphine per 100
milliliters or not more than 15 milligrams per dosage unit, with
one or more active, nonnarcotic ingredients in recognized
therapeutic amounts.
(7) Not more than 500 milligrams of opium per 100 milliliters
or per 100 grams, or not more than 25 milligrams per dosage unit,
with one or more active, nonnarcotic ingredients in recognized
therapeutic amounts.
(8) Not more than 50 milligrams of morphine per 100 milliliters
or per 100 grams with one or more active, nonnarcotic ingredients
in recognized therapeutic amounts.
(e) Anabolic steroids.
SCHEDULE IV
(1) Barbital.
(2) Chloral betaine.
(3) Chloral hydrate.
(4) Ethchlorvynol.
(5) Ethinamate.
(6) Methohexital.
(7) Meprobamate.
(8) Methylphenobarbital.
(9) Paraldehyde.
(10) Petrichloral.
(11) Phenobarbital.
SCHEDULE V
Any compound, mixture, or preparation containing any of the following limited quantities of narcotic drugs, which shall include one or more nonnarcotic active medicinal ingredients in sufficient proportion to confer upon the compound, mixture, or preparation valuable medicinal qualities other than those possessed by the narcotic drug alone:
(1) Not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters
or per 100 grams.
(2) Not more than 100 milligrams of dihydrocodeine per 100
milliliters or per 100 grams.
(3) Not more than 100 milligrams of ethylmorphine per 100
milliliters or per 100 grams.
(4) Not more than 2.5 milligrams of diphenoxylate and not less
than 25 micrograms of atropine sulfate per dosage unit.
(5) Not more than 100 milligrams of opium per 100 milliliters
or per 100 grams.Revised schedules are published in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1308 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.
_________________________________________________Excerpts of U.S. Code are republished here as allowed by U.S. law, but may not be copyrighted or republished for profit.
Posted by shelliR on September 18, 2001, at 21:14:14
In reply to Re: Yes, prescription needed, posted by Mitchell on September 18, 2001, at 20:03:51
> > > > Having meds without a script is a felony.
> > >
> > > James - Can you please provide some references for the above statement. - Jane
> >
> > Sorry, this is common sence ! Controled substances require a doc's script.
> >
> > james
>Mitchell, this is very good and helpful information. But before we stray too far beyond the topic of this thread (giving out sources for drugs on the internet), keep in mind that Sal has said that he does not give out information on ordering controlled substances from the internet. The post that James adamently objected to, concerned ordering amitriptyline (elavil), not for example, heroin, morphine, codeine, et al. James only brought controlled substances into the conversation because he could not provide references (as requested by Jane) to support his statement: "Having meds without a script is a felony. "
Shelli
Posted by Jane D on September 18, 2001, at 21:23:09
In reply to Guess we don't need health professionals, anymore (nm), posted by Cam W. on September 18, 2001, at 17:06:51
Posted by Mitchell on September 18, 2001, at 22:47:35
In reply to Re: Yes, prescription needed » Mitchell, posted by shelliR on September 18, 2001, at 21:14:14
> Mitchell, this is very good and helpful information. But before we stray too far beyond the topic of this thread (giving out sources for drugs on the internet), keep in mind that Sal has said that he does not give out information on ordering controlled substances from the internet. The post that James adamently objected to, concerned ordering amitriptyline (elavil), not for example, heroin, morphine, codeine, et al. James only brought controlled substances into the conversation because he could not provide references (as requested by Jane) to support his statement: "Having meds without a script is a felony. "
>
> ShelliFair enough. Can anybody here cite the authority that requires prescriptions for meds that are not scheduled as controlled substances? Certainly, (?) the practice of prescribing is not a voluntary system. Of course, amature legal research can be as misguided as amature medical practice, but if we could read the laws, we would be in a better position to decide. Is there a FAQ or other index that explains in simple terms the legal meaning of "controlled substance" and related pharmaceutical legal terms (in the U.S.)?
Posted by Jane D on September 19, 2001, at 0:25:53
In reply to Re: how to obtain drugs, posted by Dr. Bob on September 18, 2001, at 10:02:41
> OTOH, I suppose an alternative policy could be not to allow discussion about how to obtain drugs. Their pros and cons, fine, but not where to get them. Would be better? Hmm...
>
> BobBob - I don't think so. The pros and cons are influenced by availability and reliability of sources. I found it interesting when people here reported that a favorite Italian pharmacy had started requiring prescriptions. And also at the reports that they were not enforcing that requirement. That some (many) of the pharmacies recommended a few years ago are gone. That people don't always get what they ordered (and who they ordered it from). That (accurately labeled) medications are often not seized. I don't think the pros and cons can be discussed meaningfully without specific examples.
Everything to do with importing medications is a very big issue right now. The discussion's relevance to me is increased when it focuses on psychiatric medications so I would like that discussion take place here. I am far more interested in the US Customs position on Prozac than on Laetrile or Viagra (sorry guys).
I doubt I will ever use this information to order drugs. I use it to interpret what I read in the papers about moves to allow reimportation or about busloads of senior citizens going to Canada to buy drugs. I may use the information to lobby my congressman on some future vote. As usual, I think that more information is always best.
- JaneAnd of course, not all the users of this board are in the US.
Posted by stjames on September 19, 2001, at 1:27:22
In reply to Re: Yes, prescription needed » Mitchell, posted by shelliR on September 18, 2001, at 21:14:14
> Mitchell, this is very good and helpful information. But before we stray too far beyond the topic of this thread (giving out sources for drugs on the internet), keep in mind that Sal has said that he does not give out information on ordering controlled substances from the internet. The post that James adamently objected to, concerned ordering amitriptyline (elavil), not for example, heroin, morphine, codeine, et al. James only brought controlled substances into the conversation because he could not provide references (as requested by Jane) to support his statement: "Having meds without a script is a felony. "
>
> Shellijames here....
Actually you are misunderstanding the terms used.
Not to mention assuming. "Controled Substances" are any perscribed meds, "Scheduled" refers to the drugs of possible abuse, from no medical use to most/least addictive. Amitriptyline
is a controled but not scheduled med. Atavin
is both controled and scheduled.james
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2001, at 2:05:11
In reply to Re: No prescription needed » stjames, posted by Jane D on September 18, 2001, at 16:56:28
> > Having meds without a script is a felony.
>
> Can you please provide some references for the above statement.It doesn't say "felony", and it's importing, not just having, but see the very end of the new section of the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#decide
Or even my post above:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/2079.html
Bob
Posted by JahL on September 19, 2001, at 16:09:34
In reply to Posting policy - importation » Dr. Bob, posted by Jane D on September 19, 2001, at 0:25:53
> > OTOH, I suppose an alternative policy could be not to allow discussion about how to obtain drugs. Their pros and cons, fine, but not where to get them. Would be better? Hmm...
> >
> > Bob
>
> Bob - I don't think so. The pros and cons are influenced by availability and reliability of sources. I found it interesting when people here reported that a favorite Italian pharmacy had started requiring prescriptions. And also at the reports that they were not enforcing that requirement. That some (many) of the pharmacies recommended a few years ago are gone. That people don't always get what they ordered (and who they ordered it from). That (accurately labeled) medications are often not seized. I don't think the pros and cons can be discussed meaningfully without specific examples.
>
> Everything to do with importing medications is a very big issue right now. The discussion's relevance to me is increased when it focuses on psychiatric medications so I would like that discussion take place here. I am far more interested in the US Customs position on Prozac than on Laetrile or Viagra (sorry guys).
>
> I doubt I will ever use this information to order drugs. I use it to interpret what I read in the papers about moves to allow reimportation or about busloads of senior citizens going to Canada to buy drugs. I may use the information to lobby my congressman on some future vote. As usual, I think that more information is always best.
> - Jane
>
> And of course, not all the users of this board are in the US.Agree with all of the above. I personally have benefited from info re: sources.
Whilst in theory the objections raised elsewhere have some merit, they all seem to presume a perfect mental healthcare system.
In England at least, this is so far from the case as to be untrue. I am safer self-medicating at times.
I don't think ordering from abroad should be actively encouraged (2 regular posters are perhaps guilty of this) but neither should we pretend it doesn't happen. It does & often for good reason.
I'm a grown-up now & don't appreciate being nannied.
J.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2001, at 17:45:37
In reply to Re: Posting policy - importation, posted by JahL on September 19, 2001, at 16:09:34
> I have to say that I am leaning towards supporting the posting of information on how to obtain drugs... There have been a lot of posts on the reasons people may want/need to go outside the traditional systems in the U.S. and I, for one, do not want to be the person judging that. I think by posting the facts -- customs laws, for instances -- you have done at least something to help those who post here becoming better informed... while I will always advocate for a person to find a pdoc, always, who am I to deny people the opportunity to share information to maybe get the only help available to them today?
The question is whether these boards should be used to discuss how to import (1) prescription medication without a prescription or (2) medication that hasn't been approved by the US FDA. Both appear to be illegal in the US. The issue isn't doing it, which is addressed by the new section of the FAQ, but getting into the details here.
As you may know, I decided I didn't want people asking for medication from or offering medication to others here. Is there a difference between offering to give someone a medication you have and telling them how to get it online?
People would still be free to exchange sites on their own if they wanted, I just wouldn't be so involved myself.
OTOH, I know, it's just information, no one has to go to those sites, and I've said my own position is that it's best to take medication only under the guidance of a knowledgeable medical professional...
----
> I found it interesting when people here reported that a favorite Italian pharmacy had started requiring prescriptions. And also at the reports that they were not enforcing that requirement. That some (many) of the pharmacies recommended a few years ago are gone. That people don't always get what they ordered (and who they ordered it from). That (accurately labeled) medications are often not seized. I don't think the pros and cons can be discussed meaningfully without specific examples.
In other words, people should be able to discuss the pros and cons of specific pharmacies? Which means they would need to be able to identify those pharmacies?
> I doubt I will ever use this information to order drugs. I use it to interpret what I read in the papers about moves to allow reimportation or about busloads of senior citizens going to Canada to buy drugs. I may use the information to lobby my congressman on some future vote. As usual, I think that more information is always best.
OK, but it wouldn't really directly affect your own mental health?
> And of course, not all the users of this board are in the US.
That's true, it might be fine with other countries. But at last count, 83% of posters said they were from the US...
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/stats/20010819.html
----
> I'm a grown-up now & don't appreciate being nannied.
I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I'm just not sure I want to be so associated with this myself.
I hope it's more clear what I'm thinking now. Other thoughts?
Bob
Posted by Mitchell on September 19, 2001, at 18:16:55
In reply to Re: No prescription needed, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2001, at 2:05:11
> > > Having meds without a script is a felony.
> > Can you please provide some references for the above statement.> It doesn't say "felony", and it's importing, not just having, but see the very end of the
new section of the FAQ:Sorry, I'm lost. What is "it"? The Customs brochure doesn't *say* felony, but that is not the final word. Would a U.S. Attorney say "felony"? The U.S. Code about penalties for possession does not say "felony" but the language is implicit. Penalties of more than a year are usually for felony crimes. Misdemeanors are less than a year. First time possession of scheduled drugs (with some exceptions) under Title 21 is a misdemeanor i.e. less than a year in prison. But maybe that is an incorrect measure of felony vs. misdemeanor. At least other sections of federal law that describe misdemeanors and felonies seem to follow that guideline. A lawyer practicing criminal law in federal courts would know, as should a corporate lawyer serving the medical industry.
>it's importing, not just having
Again, what is "it"? Is "it" the question, about importing? If so, having is a part of "it", because to successfully import meds, one eventually has to "have" them. So laws that apply to having would apply to importing, because importing is attempting to have. In many states, there are generic "attempt" provisions that blanket most other laws - attempting any crime is a lesser kind of the same crime. I'm not so sure about U.S. Code. At any rate, discussion of the law involving importation would have to consider the law about possession.
> Actually you are misunderstanding the terms used. … "Controled Substances" are any perscribed meds, "Scheduled" refers to the drugs of possible abuse (james)
That would seem to be the common sense understanding, but U.S. Code seems to clearly define "controlled substance" Can anyone cite a definition other than Title 21, Section 802 :
………………………………………….
The term ''controlled substance'' means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter.
………………………………………….Not a lot of wiggle room there, though it defies common sense. If the government controls it, it would seem to be a controlled substance. Prescriptions seem to be required for importation (per the FAQ cite of U.S. Customs), but if controlled substances are only scheduled drugs and their precursors (per Sec. 802), what *is* the authority that requires prescriptions for possession of non-scheduled drugs? Is that a voluntary system? Maybe only state laws require prescriptions?
Finally,
> > >Well, it's their job to enforce the law, not ours, or at least certainly not mine. And we can warn people of the potential consequences, legal or otherwise.Certainly, but it is all of our obligation to obey the law or face possible prosecution. I don't mean to accuse, but I know of numerous cases where those who did nothing more than telling others where to get street drugs were convicted for conspiracy to distribute. I had always assumed the same laws apply to phenobarbitol, or benzodiazapam. "You can get crack on the street corner" might be legal, but "John Doe will sell you some crack, go see him on the street corner" might land you in jail. This seems to be a fine legal line, but *if* it is illegal to possess non-scheduled drugs without a prescription, it might be illegal to assist others in their efforts to illegally obtain medications. We can't "warn people of the potential consequences" if nobody here can say with authority what are the potential consequences. In the case of Napster, those who provided information about where to get illegal material (recordings) were threatened with prosecution. But then again, there are all those "where to get drugs" sites and nobody shut tem down, yet.
So…
* is it illegal to have non-scheduled prescription drugs without a prescription? Felony? Misdemeanor?
* what law requires prescriptions for non-scheduled medications?* Is it legal to tell people where to get meds without a prescription?
The more I learn, the more confused I become.
Posted by stjames on September 19, 2001, at 18:57:26
In reply to Re: No prescription needed, posted by Mitchell on September 19, 2001, at 18:16:55
> Actually you are misunderstanding the terms used. … "Controled Substances" are any perscribed meds, "Scheduled" refers to the drugs of possible abuse (james)
That would seem to be the common sense understanding, but U.S. Code seems to clearly define "controlled substance" Can anyone cite a definition other than Title 21, Section 802 :
………………………………………….
The term ''controlled substance'' means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter.
………………………………………….James here.....
Tis confusing ! I did look around the net, even more confusion. My local pharmacist agrees with the way I use these terms. Scheduled meds are 1,2,3,4, and 5. Controled meds are all the prescribed meds, including the scheduled ones.
So, going forward, now you know what I mean when I use these terms. Right or wrong, I really don't care, I know what I mean, and now y'all do too.
james
Posted by JahL on September 19, 2001, at 19:14:48
In reply to Re: Posting policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2001, at 17:45:37
> > I'm a grown-up now & don't appreciate being nannied.
>
> I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I'm just not sure I want to be so associated with this myself.This wasn't directed at you. After all it's not you that keeps bringing this up.
As I see it, this wouldn't even be an issue if one or two posters were a little more discreet on the subject.
However I can understand yr concerns from a liability viewpoint, tho' I don't think this is a point of principle.
J.
Posted by shelliR on September 19, 2001, at 20:16:27
In reply to Re: Posting policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2001, at 17:45:37
Dr. Bob, I continue to hold to my opinion that almost all information is useful, in some way or another, as long as it is provided *as* information. So I remain in favor of not censoring the names of places where medication is available.
Several weeks ago someone who had returned from France to live in the US was finding it impossible to have anyone prescribe buprenorphine to her husband, although that was the medication he had been given in France. I gave her a online site where it was available, because it made more sense for her husband to continue with the success of that medication than it did to stop the drug because doctors here are reluctant to prescribe it. I have no guilty conscience and hope that that person was able to get the drug. (and live happily ever after, whatever :-) )
Insurance is a major issue in this debate, particularly in this country ; (I am not familar with stats in other countries.)
In the 1998 U.S. Census reports, 25.2% of all households earning less than $25,000 a year do not have health insurance.
Insurance is astronomically expensive. You've got to be dirt poor to qualify for medical assistance; folks earning minimum wage would generally not quality for any assistance. And it is a personal decision, even if one can afford insurance, how much they are willing to give up in their lives to pay the high premiums. So, I guess I see allowing sites to be listed where people can get presciptions without a physician, in a small sense a bit of a leveler. There is not equal access to physicians in this country; especially those with an expertise in psychopharmocology.I am convinced that psychobabble, with both it's information and it's resources contributes to the well-being of both it's participants and hundreds of lurkers, soaking up the information without our direct knowledge. And I think that this issue is arising now, not out of a philosophical concerns, but out of the controversy surrounding one poster.
Nevertheless, it *has* come up and if you don't feel comfortable with the sites posted then you should base your decision on that. If you decide in that direction, (and I'm hopeful that you won't) there will still be posters who ask for sites and give out their e-mail addresses so they will get the information anyway, I imagine. And I hope that will be okay?
Shelli
Posted by Mark H. on September 21, 2001, at 3:51:41
In reply to Re: Posting policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2001, at 17:45:37
There are multiple issues to consider, some of which have already been mentioned.
1.) First, most of us know the importance of working WITH our doctors to find the right balance of treatment, including medications, for our conditions. Circumventing the process of getting help from a licensed physician and pharmacist is simply dangerous and unnecessary under most circumstances.
2.) Legally speaking, most of us know little or nothing about federal law and regulations regarding the importation of medications for personal use. Travelers who have been prescribed a medication in another country may bring their medications into this country, but the mail-order use of off-shore pharmacies is a phenomenon that arose mainly with widespread use of the Internet.
At least one UK-based pharmacy (that carefully limits the types of medications and supplements they offer) includes an elaborate written explanation with every shipment of what they believe is the total legality of a US citizen's right to order (and their right to provide) medications that are not controlled substances (Scheduled), including a threat to sue any agent or representative of the US government who interferes with the delivery of their shipments. They cite agency guidelines indicating that it is allowable to import up to a three-month supply for personal use under the care of a physician (but not necessarily requiring a prescription -- this is where it seems to get a bit grey). I honestly don't know how one would sort this out.
At the other end of the spectrum, one online drugstore recently mentioned here disclaims ANY responsibility for or knowledge of the importation requirements of the consumer's country. I take this to mean that a consumer in the United States could innocently push the "buy" button, provide his/her name, address, phone and credit card number, and be faced with two types of unintended exposure: significant financial loss in the form of non-refundable payment in the event of seizure of the shipment by Customs, and legal liability for the importation and possession of medications that may turn out to be controlled substances. Note that this pharmacy offers syringes and needles, anabolic steroids, thyroid preparations, antihypertensives and other powerful, potentially dangerous medications, as well as Tylenol!
3.) I don't know if others have already mentioned this issue, but another factor is over-charging. Many of the online sources for prescription medications charge TWICE OR MORE the retail price for their medications. If they were selling gasoline or groceries, no one would buy from them at all. Some even take the additional step of including an online physician consultation as part of the cost of the medication (e.g., for Viagra).
4.) Purity and patent violations are another consideration. The rogue pharmacy I mentioned above offers a choice of manufacturer for many of the meds it offers. Do you really want to take a generic version of your medication whipped up by an unlicensed facility in Thailand?
In the end, I am concerned that abuse of the openness of the Internet and e-commerce will bring about restrictions that will make the legitimate use of off-shore pharmacies unavailable to those who really need it. A good example would be the story cited elsewhere of a French citizen in the United States who had been treated successfully with a medication not available here -- should he not be allowed to continue to obtain his medication while in the United States? But if too many people abuse the availability of controlled substances without prescriptions, I predict we will lose all personal choice in the matter whatsoever.
I'm sorry that these considerations are not more conclusive.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.