Slashdot Mirror
DEA Argues Oregonians Have No Protected Privacy Interest In Prescription Records
schwit1 writes "Like emails and documents stored in the cloud, your prescription medical records may have a tenuous right to privacy. In response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) over the privacy of certain medical records, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is arguing (ACLU response) that citizens whose medical records are handed over to a pharmacy — or any other third-party — have 'no expectation of privacy' for that information."
Oregon mandates that pharmacies report information on people receiving certain drugs to a centralized database (ostensibly to "...help people work with their health care providers and pharmacists to know what medications are best for them."). State law does allow law enforcement to access the records, but only with a warrant. The DEA, however, thinks that, because the program is public, a citizen is knowingly disclosing that information to a third party thus losing all of their privacy rights (since you can always just opt out of receiving medical care) thanks to the Controlled Substances Act. The ACLU and medical professionals (PDF) don't think there's anything voluntary about receiving medical treatment, and that medical ethics override other concerns.
You've lost sight of your own Constitution and what you stand for.
Now you're a bunch of witless idiots cowering in the dark.
crack (they're on it, apparently)
Of these three-letter-agencies twisting the law to fit their needs. And, without any of the necessary oversight that we were promised.
So, I guess my question is, are things going to get better because we have a more aggressive flashlight for exposing these secret interpretations of our law, or, will this just keep getting worse until something significantly worse happens? Something like, Egypt, Syria, etc...
Revolutions are nothing new... I just wish they weren't so damned violent and terrifying.
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
DEA, meet HIPAA and HITECH.
I'm puzzled; I'd think that this was covered by the Medical Records Privacy laws.
Personal information you give to your doctor is shared with insurance companies, pharmacies, researchers, and employers based on specific regulations.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html
https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs8-med.htm
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It's just another unconstitutional agency full of thugs. Problem solved.
Hmmm, let's see...if I'm being treated for a condition, any condition not involving an illegal act, and someone walks into my doctor's office and says "Give me Example Guy's current medical records", the first words out of my doctor's mouth will be "Show me your warrant or get out of my office."
So if the doctor prescribes medication to treat my medical condition, that comes under doctor-patient confidentiality. The ONLY people I have to share that information with are the pharmacy tech and pharmacy manager who do not share that information with anyone else outside that doctor's office.
So why do authority and police organizations think it's okay to grab my records at a whim because I'm taking, say, Ritalin to treat severe ADHD? They have no business or right to be pawing through peoples' records looking for criminals unless they serve a warrant to every physician involved. There is no condition under which legally prescribed medication falls outside of those parameters unless the patient himself gives said organization written authorization gained in a legal manner to search their own records.
So take your 'public disclosure' bull and stick it up your backside along with badge, Mr. Policeman. The rules apply to EVERYONE, not just the people who don't own their very own cheap tin badges.
"Courage is being afraid to do the Right Thing, and doing it anyway."
Why would the DEA waste their time and money on this? HIPAA thoroughly establishes prescription records as being contained within the scope of medical privacy.
If the DEA argues that medical care is purely voluntary, rather than necessary, and thus 'choosing' it constitutes consent, would it be entirely ethical for medical professionals to refuse 'elective procedures' to all DEA functionaries? After all, the patient himself says that the procedure is totally voluntary, so I don't see why they have any professional or ethical obligation to assist with it, not when they could be treating people with actually urgent problems....
The DEA has become the enemy of the American people and needs to be disbanded, or at least have it's house cleaned.
Arguably, it would be more amusing to apply genetic engineering techniques to construct a virus that splices in cannaboid synthesis mechanisms when it infects and organism. Then release it into their ventilation system.
An entire department full of psychoactive DEA agents whose bodies synthesize Schedule I controlled substances would be the ultimate in zany stoner comedy.
Step 1: Install license plate reader in cop cars.
Step 2: Get a database of everyone to their plates from the DMV
Step 3: Get a list of all drugs that you should not drive if you are on.
Step 4: Get a database of what drugs people are on.
Step 5: for every plate you see, check if they can be driving
Step 6: pull over anyone who fits the profile. If their picture matches,
Step 7: Issue tickets and jail time
Step 8: profit!
Am I the only one who read that title as "DEA Argues ORANGUTANS Have No Protected Privacy Interest In Prescription Records"? I was genuinely interested then thoroughly disappointed.
Ask a silly question...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Or perhaps:
And if we can work our way around the Fourth and Fifth amendments, let's have at the First as well.
This is foolish and hopefully the laws will overturn it. If I could support only two bills this year, one would be a bill that would henceforth hold accountable corporate heads who engage in the sort of shenanigans that led to the recession. It would require jail-time. But if I could only support one bill, it would require jail-time for the heads of alphabet soup agencies whose policy decisions are found to violate the Constitution. A judge might yet throw this out, but if the people who make such decisions do not suffer they'll just try again in a different way. If he wishes to sit on the throne, let Damocles sit under the sword.
2c
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
So the question becomes does he know about it or not. If not lets make him aware, if he does than he approves of it by the mere act of letting it proceed this way.
His job as CiC is to know what his government is doing, and making sure it does things right.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Sounds like a great way to reign in the deficit while we're at it.
Repeat after me "the federal government does not have general police power". "The federal government does not have general police power".
See United States v. Dewitt, Employers' Liability Cases, Keller and the 10th amendment, which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"Find scam doctors" is not one of those delegated powers, which are listed in article 1, section 8.
This part of the filing on page was interesting:
The DEA is not required to obtain a court order based on probable cause to issue a subpoena or to have it enforced.
Fourth amendment, anyone?
ACLU has to defend even the bad guys from bad government. If they wait until the good guys are in trouble, you have piles of case law to undo before you can get to the actual defense.
Same way patents are attacked before being granted.
protecting free speech means a lot of things you disagree with get said. protecting privacy means some guilty people go free. This is how the country is supposed to work.
That is for me and the doctor to decided, not the government.
You mean you, the doctor, and the insurance company? Because that's the current situation, is it not? It constantly amazes me how a profit-making private company can be more trusted than a non-profit public organisation.
But then I live in one of those communist European states that have had universal healthcare for 60 years, what would I know.
" Obama has proven himself to be even worse than Bush"
sigh, no he hasn't been.
Now I'm going to say the same thing I have said about every president during the last 30 years: They aren't Omnipotent. They do not know what everyone under them is doing, and they aren't really hands on running each agency beneath them.
No that doesn't absolve them from their actions, it's jut a reminder that people do things of their own will and not everyone in the federal government emails the president asking them for permission for everything they do.
Now, abut this article.
The DEA's primary arguments seem to be:
1) Prescription aren't private, based on a ruling by the supreme court:
"mportantly, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no constitutional right of
privacy to prescription information. Whalen, 429 U.S. at 603-05. The Ninth Circuit
recently summarized the holding in Whalen when it stated: “The holding in Whalen was
that the New York law did not violate any constitutional rights of the patient whose
prescriptions were revealed to the government.” Seaton, 610 F.3d at 537.
Case 3:12-cv-02023-HA Document 43 Filed 08/20/13 Page 27 of 31 Page ID#: 741"
What that specific case ment bt prescription information, I haven't a clue. COuld have simply been the amount of prescritons, could ahv ebeen everytihg, could have been under a specific set of circumstances not mentioned.
However, based on the information I do have, it seems the DEA doesn't need a warrant.
The other primary point, to me, is:
2) Probably cause. Which has held up fine.
I suspect people like you love this becasue if Obama steped in and told the DEA not to do this, you would be pounding out some feeble opinion that Obama is bad for not letting the DEA enforce laws, or if he says nothing you can say look at what he is doing.
And before you attempt to pound some sort of response:
I do not agree with the DEA, I think this is wrong.
I think it's ludicrous the Marijuana is rated at the Class it is.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Judging from the AC post below, I think you have your answer: deflect, deflect, deflect.
Nevermind the fact that Obama lied to the nation, repeatedly, about the extent of NSA spying.
Nevermind the fact he's still, still pushing for a war with Syria, despite the opposition of pretty much every single American citizen.
Nevermind the fact that Obama claimed to want the "most transparent adminstration in history," he's prosecuted more whistleblowers than even Bush did.
Obama makes Bush look like a regular champion of civil liberties.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If the DEA wins, then surely Oregon's database (PDMP) is in violation of HIPAA, which means the database should be shut down, which means that there would no longer be any data for the DEA to collect.
So, great work DEA. Shut down a useful database.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
This is a trend that has been going on more-or-less continuously since the J. Edgar Hoover administration and will continue to go on long after you die of old age.
I honestly can't tell if you're implying that Hoover, the first FBI director, was really the man pulling the strings of one or more US Presidents, or if you meant to type "Herbert Hoover".
I am not a crackpot.
Obama is a conservative Reaganite republican 5th column plant who masqueraded as a liberal during his first campaign. And the only reason we didn't kick is gestapo ass out of office for the second term was that the alternative was even worse.
I think its ludicrous that there are classes, defined by a bunch of stuffy old politicians, few of whom have any medical credentials.
Simple fact is, marijuana use is drug use. Period. There are more pot users than the next 3 major illicit drugs COMBINED. You take pot out of the mix and it is hard to justify any of this crap.
Even worst is the drug related crime, an entire class of petty crimes that happen really, for no other reason, than the artificially inflated price of drugs. Just look at portugal or the swiss heroin study. Criminality amongst drug users is clearly driven not by drug use but by drug high prices.... prices which prohibitionist tactics aim to raise.
Just look at alcohol problems today, and tell me that they are real problems when compared to the alcohol problems during prohibition. When was the last time some people were executed by a street gang over alcohol distribution? When was the last rash of people blinded by methanol added to bootleg liquor?
Its not just bad scheduling of marijiuana, its the very idea that the government should regulate what people can choose freely to put into their own bodies that was wrong.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Now I'm going to say the same thing I have said about every president during the last 30 years: They aren't Omnipotent. They do not know what everyone under them is doing, and they aren't really hands on running each agency beneath them.
If *I* know about it, what's the President's excuse for not knowing about it? When he finds out about these issues, what's his excuse for not firing the head of the agency? Why is Eric Holder still AG, when he violated Obama's promise to respect state laws on medical marijuana? Why is James Clapper still DNI, when he lied to Congress? For that matter, has Obama disciplined ANYONE underneath him for well established abuses of power?
Obama doesn't give a shit about us, our rights, or America. All he cares about are his cronies.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You know about it because you read a one-sided story fed to you by the media.
If the media story is so one sided, how do you know that "In this case, the DEA claims their actions are justified by a SCOTUS ruling"? Does the President not have access to the same newspapers I do? Or does he not read them, because he doesn't care?
The President's office is exactly the same. They get their updates through thousands of periodic reports, and each one comes with a ready-built rationale for what they're doing.
Right, so where is his office of civil liberties that brings the abuse potential to Obama's attention? He doesn't have one, because he doesn't care.
Of course, in hindsight, we can easily see the reports, the flimsy justification, and the resulting inaction, but that doesn't make the situation any better.
If Obama used that hindsight to discipline his underlings, then you might have a point. The fact that he has not, even once, despite well established abuses of authority proves that he doesn't care.
The buck used to stop with the President. Where does it stop now?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Indeed, the Interstate Commerce Clause is one of the most abused sections of the Constitution. If something is grown and consumed locally, you and I might deny it has much to do with interstate commerce. Indeed, it would seem to be the very definition of intrastate commerce. But the sophists, er... sorry, the Constitutional lawyers will argue that growing drugs locally rather than buying them from other states will affect the markets in those other states. Since the activity has interstate effects it will be counted as interstate commerce.
So it's not just that an air molecule might cross the state border. It's also that by having air within the state borders, we have no vacuum within the state. Our lack of a vacuum in the state means that we will not draw on other state's supply of air, so affecting the air market in those states. We're in charge now...
Lest what I say seem to absurd, consider this from the font of all knowledge:
I read TFA, and the linked FAs, and one of them gave the DEA's reason as background.
Right, so the media may not be as one sided as you initially claimed.
Then I used a bit of critical thought, and realized that the ACLU might not be wholly unbiased, so I read more, mentally emphasizing the DEA's justification.
And the DEA isn't biased? Why do you only apply critical thinking to the ACLU and not to the arguments of the DEA?
Then, applying Hanlon's razor, I assume that the DEA believes their own justification, and would apply that in their reports to the President.
Exactly, the DEA is biased in its own favor, and the President reads their reports directly. The President doesn't listen to the ACLU or any civil liberties groups. That's a huge bias towards authortiarianism.
Sure, he has access to the same newspapers you do, but he's also getting the counter-biased reports, so he's not likely to be as overcome by hatred as you are.
The DEA itself is a hate group tasked with the persecution of drug users. Pressuring doctors to underprescribe necessary pain medication is hateful. Imprisoning people who provide needed medication to the seriously ill is hateful. Refusing to even consider rescheduling a drug that has very clearly established medical use is hateful. Imprisoning black drug users at 10 times the rate of white drug users, when the rates of drug use are the same is hateful. Hell, simply disrespecting the right of your citizens to decide what they do with their own body is hateful. Drug prohibition is nothing but hate. It's an atrocity.
I speak only from a position of love for my fellow man. Evil is as evil does, and the DEA does evil. If you want what is best for your fellow man, and actually apply reason, the only conclusion is legalization.
The same place as every other President's: In the other branches. Funny thing about the President is that he has no ability, per the Constitution, to stop anything.
The DEA is in the executive branch. The President absolutely has the ability, AND the responsibility, to direct its enforcement efforts in a way that respects the rights of the people.
Or it proves you don't know everything about what's going on, and are just looking for a scapegoat for your prejudice against the government.
Ok then, educate me. What exactly is going on?
And prejudice? Let me put it this way. "Fool me once, shame on â" shame on you. Fool me â" you can't get fooled again." When every power that can be abused has been abused, you'd be an idiot to assume that further powers will not be abused.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Oh I disagree entirely, I see no evidence that government involvement actually helps. Drug abuse is, at its worst, a medical problem. Prohibition does jack shit to address the real issues. In fact, what it really does is create these drugs.
Yes create them. Over and over we see prohibitionists setting their sights on whatever happnes to be popular at the moment, disrupting the market, and then something else crops up. Prohibition encourages increasing potency, encourages ignoring safety protocols and releasing untested and unsafe drugs onto the street.
Many of these drugs would never have gained any serious popularity at all if not for prohibitionists creating the market for them.
And beyond all that.... my body my choice. Fuck you for even having an opinion about what I, or anyone else, might or might choose to use.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Yes, the DEA enforces more than just marijuana laws.
They enforce laws against opiates. This jacks up the price, and driving addicts to commit crimes to get a fix. This also decreases the quality and consistancy of the supply, killing people.
They enforce laws against cocaine, turning people towards more easily obtained, yet far more harmful stimulants like meth.
The enforce laws against psychedelics, depriving most of the country from one of the most awe inspiring, and still incredibly safe experiences life has to offer.
And to top it all off, they drive these industries underground, enriching violent cartels at great human cost.
The DEA serves no desirable purpose whatsoever. I challenge anyone to put forth a single well meaning, well informed argument for prohibition of any drug.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Prohibition works quite well when alternatives are available for the same market - it works so well that you only notice it in cases where there is no or poor alternatives, and so a black market is created. The FDA bans lots of drugs because they're just too dangerous for the goal they achieve, and that's a worthwhile goal - it's effectively fraud prevention. That's quite different from drugs like pot that are banned because of the goal they achieve.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I didn't read the whole article, but it seems to be a controlled substance prescription database like the one we have in CT--I think we were one of the first states to do this. Prescribers and pharmacists are required to enroll, and information has to be reported to the State, by state law. That information is used to identify prescription drug abuse. We use it fairly regularly in the hospital I practice at when overdose patients arrive, or patients enrolled in a chemical dependency program . This doesn't violate HIPAA because the Act allows disclosure of information to a health oversight agency for oversight activities authorized by law.
That is not hyperbole in the least. They are both examples of the exact same thought process in different contexts. Both are wanton cruelty justified by a twisted sense of morality. In both cases, the agressor believes that he is doing the right thing while harming individuals and his community.
If I'm wrong, what exactly is the difference?
This fails the "well meaning" test. Whether or not they have to use drugs, or can get clean is irrelevant. What matters is what policy yields the best public health outcomes. Prohibition has absolutely failed on this measure. It has no effect on rates of addiction, and makes addiction far more dangerous. Continuing prohibition in light of this fact is simply being cruel because "those people deserve it".
Also, consider that an islamist could use the same argument. "She didn't have to get an education/refuse the veil/drive a car/etc." This is just blaming the victim.
Oh, and "Addiction is no excuse for breaking the law." is begging the question. Presuming that opiates should be illegal because addicts should be punished for breaking the law is circular reasoning.
He's wrong in the first case, as you'd expect from a police officer lecturing about pharmacology. Cocaine and methamphetamine both act at the norepinephrine and dopamine transporters. Cocaine blocks reuptake, while methamphetamine runs the transporter in reverse. Both lead to extra neurotransmitter in the synapse of stimulatory/pleasure systems. The main pharmacological difference is that methamphetamine is metabolized much more slowly.
He's right in the second case, but the reasons for that are largely cultural and economic. If everything is equally available at reasonable prices, and people are educated properly, cocaine would likely displace a lot of meth use, leading to better public health. You'd also eliminate meth labs in one fell swoop.
As if nobody ever dies at the Grand Canyon? As if psychedelics that unlock corners of the mind and put us in touch with the closest thing to divinity that can be scientifically reproduced are not a natural wonder of the world, every bit as worthy of experiencing as the Grand Canyon? As if I couldn't say "If your life is so boring that you MUST see some giant hole in the ground, you need to
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!