![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 73. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Neal on September 23, 2001, at 0:31:28
In reply to Re: Posting policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 19, 2001, at 17:45:37
Gee, that's too bad if we have to have a censored site here. One of the things I have liked here was the openess, the sense that everything was on the table to be discussed. It's hard for someone who's never been depressed to understand, the desperation that people have who's depression is not under control. That's what stimulates the discussions of foreign meds, and 3 posters that I know of have been helped by them.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 23, 2001, at 14:25:49
In reply to Re: Posting policy, posted by Neal on September 23, 2001, at 0:31:28
> 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?
Sorry, but if I didn't want people learning from this site how to do something illegal, then I think I'd have to say that asking for -- or offering to give out -- that information would *not* be OK, at least not here.
----
> Gee, that's too bad if we have to have a censored site here. One of the things I have liked here was the openess, the sense that everything was on the table to be discussed. It's hard for someone who's never been depressed to understand, the desperation that people have who's depression is not under control. That's what stimulates the discussions of foreign meds, and 3 posters that I know of have been helped by them.
I agree, it's too bad, but this site has already been "censored" for a long time. The question now is where to draw the line, not whether to draw one.
I understand that some people are desperate, but (1) I don't think the answer is necessarily to do something illegal, (2) if someone did decide to do that, they could ask elsewhere, and (3) discussion of the medications themselves would still be fine here.
Bob
Posted by shelliR on September 23, 2001, at 14:57:49
In reply to Re: Posting policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 23, 2001, at 14:25:49
> > 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?
>
> Sorry, but if I didn't want people learning from this site how to do something illegal, then I think I'd have to say that asking for -- or offering to give out -- that information would *not* be OK, at least not here.
>Okay, then I must have misunderstood the meaning of this exchange:
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.*
Shelli
Posted by galtin on September 23, 2001, at 15:08:36
In reply to Re: Posting policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 23, 2001, at 14:25:49
> > 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?
>
> Sorry, but if I didn't want people learning from this site how to do something illegal, then I think I'd have to say that asking for -- or offering to give out -- that information would *not* be OK, at least not here.
>
> ----
>
> > Gee, that's too bad if we have to have a censored site here. One of the things I have liked here was the openess, the sense that everything was on the table to be discussed. It's hard for someone who's never been depressed to understand, the desperation that people have who's depression is not under control. That's what stimulates the discussions of foreign meds, and 3 posters that I know of have been helped by them.
>
> I agree, it's too bad, but this site has already been "censored" for a long time. The question now is where to draw the line, not whether to draw one.
>
> I understand that some people are desperate, but (1) I don't think the answer is necessarily to do something illegal, (2) if someone did decide to do that, they could ask elsewhere, and (3) discussion of the medications themselves would still be fine here.
>
> Bob
This is a reasonable compromise on both philosophical and liability issues. After all, our purpose is to share information about the meds themselves, not how or where to get them. I haven't seen any posts extolling the pricing and service of, say, one drug store chain above another. Liability issues, unfortunately, must be cognizant of the worst case scenario--somebody dying from a medication obtained through information publicly exchanged on the site. At this point, legality concerns would be very much in the forefront. What site manager or sponsor wants to operate under this threat.As Bob says, there are other ways to get information on how to obtain renegade drugs sans script. The obvious one is to talk to knowledgeable posters off site. That leaves everybody else able to focus on the meds themselves, rather than their procurement. This is the site's primary purpose--why fool with it?
galtin
Posted by Shar on September 23, 2001, at 15:16:04
In reply to Re: Posting policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 23, 2001, at 14:25:49
"I understand that some people are desperate, but (1) I don't think the answer is necessarily to do something illegal, (2) if someone did decide to do that, they could ask elsewhere, and (3) discussion of the medications themselves would still be fine here."
I think it gets very tricky at this point to draw the line based on illegality. If this viewpoint prevails, people will not be able to talk about taking illegally obtained drugs. Or using illegal drugs. Or, warning readers of, say, a bad experience they had with an overseas pharmacy, because they would have to name the pharmacy (source) of the meds.
There are things talked about here, on many different topics, that include reports or self-reports of illegal activity--to one degree or another. I hope the plan is not to consistently apply the 'is this perhaps illegal' standard to all posts. We will need a psycho-lawyer then to sort out what is ok and what is not.
Shar
> > 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?
>
> Sorry, but if I didn't want people learning from this site how to do something illegal, then I think I'd have to say that asking for -- or offering to give out -- that information would *not* be OK, at least not here.
>
> ----
>
> > Gee, that's too bad if we have to have a censored site here. One of the things I have liked here was the openess, the sense that everything was on the table to be discussed. It's hard for someone who's never been depressed to understand, the desperation that people have who's depression is not under control. That's what stimulates the discussions of foreign meds, and 3 posters that I know of have been helped by them.
>
> I agree, it's too bad, but this site has already been "censored" for a long time. The question now is where to draw the line, not whether to draw one.
>
>
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 23, 2001, at 15:17:49
In reply to Re: Posting policy » Dr. Bob, posted by shelliR on September 23, 2001, at 14:57:49
> I must have misunderstood the meaning of this exchange:
>
> > 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.*I hadn't yet considered the scenario you presented, and had to think about it, but at this point, I think my stance would be, doing so on their own would have to include finding those to do so with.
Is there a difference between someone asking for information to be posted here and asking here for it to be emailed to them?
Bob
Posted by shelliR on September 23, 2001, at 15:52:48
In reply to Re: Posting policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 23, 2001, at 15:17:49
>
> Is there a difference between someone asking for information to be posted here and asking here for it to be emailed to them?Of course there is. In the first scenario there is information about sites up on your board, so in some way, *perhaps* you can be held accountable (or seen as offering support) for the posting *if* it turns out to be an illegal scenario. If somewhat says "can someone tell me where to get X, my email address is ...@..., then you do not even have to assess whether getting X is legal or not, because the information is not being posted on your board. As far as you know it could be absolutely legal to get X. The poster may have a prescription from his pdoc (say adrafinil, for example) and still not know where to obtain that drug.
Anyway, if your decision was to be based on legality alone, why did you even ask us for our input. I agree with Shar. Why not just ask an attorney?Shelli
Posted by jane d on September 23, 2001, at 16:46:31
In reply to Re: Posting policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 23, 2001, at 15:17:49
> Is there a difference between someone asking for information to be posted here and asking here for it to be emailed to them?
>
> BobDo you really want to be put in the position of having to read between the lines of every post? "Please e mail me information on buying drugs" is easy but what if they merely post that they wish they had the option of using foreign meds and leave their email address showing?
Jane
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 23, 2001, at 18:09:44
In reply to Re: Posting policy » Dr. Bob, posted by jane d on September 23, 2001, at 16:46:31
> I think it gets very tricky at this point to draw the line based on illegality. If this viewpoint prevails, people will not be able to talk about taking illegally obtained drugs. Or using illegal drugs. Or, warning readers of, say, a bad experience they had with an overseas pharmacy, because they would have to name the pharmacy (source) of the meds.
It definitely is very tricky to draw a line. My preference has always been not to, but sometimes I do think there's more to be gained by facing an issue than avoiding it.
People would still be able to talk about taking drugs and to warn others about the dangers. They just wouldn't be able to say where specifically they obtained them.
----
> > Is there a difference between someone asking for information to be posted here and asking here for it to be emailed to them?
>
> Of course there is. In the first scenario there is information about sites up on your board, so in some way, *perhaps* you can be held accountable (or seen as offering support) for the posting *if* it turns out to be an illegal scenario.But even if someone just posts a request to be emailed, couldn't I perhaps be seen as offering support for that request?
> Anyway, if your decision was to be based on legality alone, why did you even ask us for our input. I agree with Shar. Why not just ask an attorney?
Sorry if it seems like I'm ignoring your input. I do value it, however, and it does help me think this through. As I said, I hadn't thought about your scenario before...
Lawyers can tell you the law, but they can't necessarily tell you how it will be interpreted and applied, that's up to the courts and may depend on the circumstances of the specific case.
----
> Do you really want to be put in the position of having to read between the lines of every post?
No, but see above.
> what if they merely post that they wish they had the option of using foreign meds and leave their email address showing?
You're not going to make this easy for me, are you? :-)
That would in fact seem like an invitation be emailed such an option. I guess it would depend on how sure I felt about what I read between the lines?
Bob
Posted by SLS on September 24, 2001, at 1:13:43
In reply to Re: No prescription needed, posted by stjames on September 18, 2001, at 1:17:08
> 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.
>
> jamesI noticed someone's reference to this thread on the PB board, so I figured I'd check it out. I've managed to make it this far. I'll work on the rest tomorrow (if my hippocampus is cooperative).
Hi James.
I think I know where I'm heading with all of this, but I want to be able to take in what everyone else has offered.
Actually, this is just a brief comment/question. I don't think it is necessary for you to address the issue regarding your illegal acts. As I understand the point being made, the real question is whether or not you suggest to others on Psycho-Babble that they smoke pot and tell them where they can get it.
Do you?
I've never seen you do it. If you haven't, then, as I see it, there is no incompatability between your position on this issue and your described behaviors.
- Scott
Posted by Jane D on September 24, 2001, at 2:52:47
In reply to Re: Posting policy, posted by Dr. Bob on September 23, 2001, at 18:09:44
> > I doubt I will ever use this information to order drugs.
... As usual, I think that more information is always best.
>
> OK, but it wouldn't really directly affect your own mental health?My initial response to this was going to be along the lines that banning discussion of many things, opiates for example, would have no direct affect on me. In the end, however, as more and more topics were banned it almost certainly would. This is just another familiar abstract argument - though still a valid one.
Recently, in a more morbid state of mind, I've been able to envision just how easily this could become personal. The choice here is not always between buying overseas on your own or seeking a doctor's prescription for FDA approved meds. The choice may be between making a last ditch effort to go it alone or giving up completely. Suicide (and when will discussing that become taboo?) or just drinking yourself into oblivion will always be options. Today, the next step for me is to try another doctor. But in darker moments I'm already envisioning being 10 years older, and having tried many doctors, only to be where I am now. And I've been asking myself what comes next. Ordering my own meds is one next step, one I would feel obliged to try before giving up entirely. At that point, whether it was an effective course would be irrelevant. It would be better than the only other alternative I saw open. This may still be hypothetical but it's a future that feels very real right now. It is reassuring to know that there is one more layer of options between me and total desperation.
This doesn't address whether the information should be posted here. I know that there are other sources. Today, when I don't need it, I know I could find those sources. If I was desperate enough to need it I probably couldn't.
> I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I'm just not sure I want to be so associated with this myself.
What, specifically, bothers you about this? I don't think you have a legal exposure here but, in a direct analogy to the original argument, if the risks are yours, the decision is also yours. Morally, I think that the potential usefulness of these posts outweighs the potential risk to readers, especially since both are hypothetical. Again it's your call but I'd be interested in hearing why you choose what you do.
One thing that really does bothers me about this entire thread is that I feel the legal threats have been made to promote an entirely different, less supportable, agenda as indicated by the quotes below."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"
and "Guess we don't need health professionals, anymore (nm)"
I think both quotes fairly represent the posters positions as presented in many other posts. They suggest to me that this is really about whether people should be allowed to (and are competent to) make their own health decisions. The implications of deciding that people in general are not really does frighten me. The suggestion that I personally am not enrages me.
Jane
Posted by Mitchell on September 24, 2001, at 6:53:21
In reply to Re: Posting policy » Dr. Bob, posted by Jane D on September 24, 2001, at 2:52:47
> The choice may be between making a last ditch effort to go it alone or giving up completely.
There might be other choices, too, such as between making a last ditch effort to go it alone, and purchasing mail order drugs from an off-shore source then being charged with a crime.
> One thing that really does bothers me about this entire thread is that I feel the legal threats have been made to promote an entirely different, less supportable, agenda as indicated by the quotes below. … They suggest to me that this is really about whether people should be allowed to (and are competent to) make their own health decisions.
Maybe it is about that for some people, but my interest is to protect people's right to make their own health decisions. If people who want to control their own health care are invited to participate in illegal activity, acceptance of self-care could be damaged. If I needed to do something illegal as part of a self-care plan, I would not do it out in public, such as on the Internet, or at least I would be very savvy about how I use the Internet to facilitate something that might be illegal.
Far from being an advocate against self-care, I would rather see a general loosening of controls on healthcare, if we could do it while still having in place systems for quality assurance and as long as low-income clients enjoyed similar quality assurances as would moneyed clients. I also advocate for expanded free speech, including the freedom to encourage people to use substances that are now banned. But reasonable advice for a person maintaining a forum that offers a modicum of free speech would be to not do things that would jeopardize the forum itself.
The risk that people will make a wrong choice if allowed unregulated access to drugs is a legitimate element of the discussion here, though it is not a great concern for me. The same risk clouds a forum such as this with regard to information that might encourage a person to plead with their doctor for an inappropriate medication, or learning in this forum how to report a symptom in proper terms to get a prescription for a medication that prove dangerous or inappropriate.
The real risk, and I think the one the administrator cited, is the risk of providing a forum where people may advocate participation in illegal activity. To be more precise, I don't think the concern is that people will advocate illegal activity, but rather that the forum will be implicated in illegal activity. I think an administrator would do well to consider how an attorney general might view a discussion where amateur diagnoses are coupled with recommendations of medications and instructions about how to get those medications outside the law.
The main concern seems to be that purchase of meds from an off-shore pharmacy without a prescription is illegal. It is also illegal to facilitate such purchases. Providing a forum where people exchange links along with recommendations to try specific medications from those sites could be seen as facilitating and promoting purchases without a prescription. As far as I know, people can offer on these boards reasonable and civil arguments for opiates, for marijuana, for ecstasy, for any other illegal drug, or for any approved or unapproved medication, but they cannot use the board to help people obtain those drugs outside the law.
It seems to me, the best thing a person could do if they want to be allowed to direct people here to offshore pharmacies would be to cite a legal authority (other than the claims of the overseas merchants) that would show why they believe it is legal to import non-scheduled drugs without a prescription.
Posted by Jane D on September 24, 2001, at 11:19:36
In reply to Re: Posting policy, posted by Mitchell on September 24, 2001, at 6:53:21
> > The choice may be between making a last ditch effort to go it alone or giving up completely.
>
> There might be other choices, too, such as between making a last ditch effort to go it alone, and purchasing mail order drugs from an off-shore source then being charged with a crime.Or there might not be other choices. Or there might not be any risk of being convicted of a crime. I doubt you can point to any case of someone being convicted for importing personal amounts of drugs in schedule 3 or less (to use your definition of the words for the sake of clarity).
> If I needed to do something illegal as part of a self-care plan, I would not do it out in public, such as on the Internet, or at least I would be very savvy about how I use the Internet to facilitate something that might be illegal.
> Far from being an advocate against self-care, I would rather see a general loosening of controls on healthcare, if we could do it while still having in place systems for quality assurance and as long as low-income clients enjoyed similar quality assurances as would moneyed clients.Quality assurance but not options? You seem to be saying we should be quiet about the internet option in order to preserve it for the sophisticated who are already in the know. Banning this information disproportionately penalizes the poor who are latecomers to the internet, who do not have the option of traveling abroad in person or of doctor shopping until they find one who will rubber stamp their import requests.
> The real risk, and I think the one the administrator cited, is the risk of providing a forum where people may advocate participation in illegal activity. To be more precise, I don't think the concern is that people will advocate illegal activity, but rather that the forum will be implicated in illegal activity. I think an administrator would do well to consider how an attorney general might view a discussion where amateur diagnoses are coupled with recommendations of medications and instructions about how to get those medications outside the law.
> The main concern seems to be that purchase of meds from an off-shore pharmacy without a prescription is illegal. It is also illegal to facilitate such purchases.
Your concern is touching which makes me wonder why this sounds so much like a threat. Perhaps some of your previous posts, where you have expressed a general hostility to this site, have caused me to misinterpret your meaning here.
The liability of the board owner is unproven. It is also unlikely to materialize out of thin air. If there is any at all it will end up, in practice, being determined by the level of the so called offense. That is unclear here. I spent several hours with most of the sites listed and I'm damned if I know what they say. I did not, however, find much to support any of the claims made here about what they say. It seems that the sites can be used as a kind of strange rorschach test - where what you see in the text has everything to do with your beliefs and nothing to do with the seemingly deliberate ambiguities of what is actually written there. It is that ambiguity that makes all your scenarios unlikely at best.
That said, this is an area that is sure to be clarified. Why not wait for the clarification to take place? You probably won't have to wait long. I suspect we may soon see a very entertaining dance where drug companies, who make most of their profits from their US sales, are eager to restrict the import of approved drugs from less expensive sources while preserving their option of bypassing the FDA by encouraging importation of non approved drugs.
Jane
Posted by Jane D on September 24, 2001, at 11:32:29
In reply to Re: No prescription needed » stjames, posted by SLS on September 24, 2001, at 1:13:43
Sorry Scott - This thread may well have moved beyond that issue but at the time of my original post it was still relevant. I referred to a post on the original thread on PB that was used to re open this subject that I, at least, thought had been resolved. See
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010917/msgs/78960.htmlThis certainly implies that illegality is a sufficient reason not to do this.
Jane
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.