Slashdot Mirror
FDA to Regulate Internet Drug Sales
ThatGuyAZ writes "The Clinton Administration today announced that it'll be seeking to license all internet drug sales. This seems to be the first step in sweeping the power to regulate these transactions from the states to the federal government. (States currently license pharmacists.) I know the /. libertarians want no regulation at all (right up until they receive a bad prescription themselves), but is giving this problem to the federal government really a solution? Will this soon be happening with state-based licensing of lawyers, doctors, etc.? " Very interesting application of the inter-state commerce clause, although my unschooled opinion is that it's a defensible application of said clause.
right......
Words cannot express how deeply I loathe the Democratic party (mind you, I know many nice Democrats - but they are misled)... Since I didn't vote, I can't complain. All I can say is PLEASE VOTE LIBERTARIAN! I just don't want anymore Nazi^H^H^H^HDemocrats in office... Do what's right for your country...
It sounds so gay. ANAL ANAL
Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that each of these issues is central to the racism debate. I want to share this with you because we must do away with the misconception that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. At first, the FDA just wanted to force us to do things or take stands against our will. Then, it tried to violate all the rules of decorum. Who knows what it'll do next? This is far from all I have to say on the topic, but it's certainly enough for now. Just remember one thing: Anal-retentive scofflaws are unable to see that those who are the most sensitive about this are not the average incompetent depraved stool pigeons, but a minority of sexist idiots.
Getting you too worked up, Sailor?
thank you mr self righteous living-up-to-the-stereotype american.
Should I be allowed to fire my gun in the air randomly?
should your neighber be allowed to run a brothel in his house? or a drug lab?
I've seen anarchy in action, it aint pretty.
What the hell are you talking about? Subjects! References Specifics!
well, incorrect drugs can kill people. As oppased to amazon where you might loose a couple of bucks.p.note. amazon is just an example not flame bait/
The whole pharmacy licensing thing is absolutely ridiculous. This is an administration which is riding on an economic crest which they had nothing whatsoever to do with, and which has in fact completely bollocksed up everything they have gotten their hands on. The so-called Department of Justice have brought a new era of shame to this country by being constantly involved in either questionable decisions (no special prosecutor for campaign finance) or outright screw-ups (Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc).
The feds can't handle what they're already responsible for... why would they possibly want more responsibilities?
>The first thing that comes to mind is Internet taxation. It has been proposed (and defeated) before Where'd you get that idea? The most recent measure relating to net taxes, guaranteed that they'll be instituted. That's what a "moratorium" or "holding period" is for: when something can't be passed now, pass a law saying "We'll have a moratorium on [human cloning/taxing the internet] for two years." What's left unsaid is that when the 2 years are up, anyone and everyone can go ahead and clone babies/tax the netters.
I guarantee that if someone self-prescribed and then either overdosed or took something that was harmful, they would sue the drug companies, the pharmacists, and the doctors for not "protecting" them from themselves
I suppose that's part of the problem, though, isn't it? Laws are (ideally) meant to protect you from other people, not from yourself. If the company you bought a drug from intentionally deceived you, then the company is liable; but if some idiot prescribes things for himself that he doesn't need and ends up hurting himself, its his fault. If he wants to sue somebody, let him sue himself.
I'm not sure how many peole actually do this, but thats the law. Now here is a situation where the govermant lets the people bare the respocibility, yet no one takes there respocability serious, so now the govt. needs to step in.
and yes, tax's are neccesary. we should always knoe where the money goes, but it takes money to run a govt, no matter how efficient it is.
what the hell does this have to do with anything other than the word "regulate"?
If you can demonstrate that your cube neighbor negligently contributed to the harmfulness of a disease you contracted, then you should be able to take him to court. This is one of many reasons why most people would want to see a doctor before taking many medications. It's not a reason to force people to see a doctor and jump through other hoops before receiving important pharmaceuticals.
Um, I'm going to have to disagree. The readership on /. is definetly more educated reguarding computers, however is just as ignorant as everyone else reguarding anything else. The one thing that is definetely predominant on slashdot is an amazingly high level of arrogance (as demonstrated by the poster you replied too),.
even if it is the correct drug , is it expiered? expired tylenol can cause kidney failure, and death.
I've been in countries with very little regulation, it is unhealthy and dangerous.
remember you may be a 'good' person, but your neighbor may not be.And certainly corperation will not be.
becaise of regulation, here in Los angels, there are 4 times more cars on the road then in 1970, but half the pollution. why? regulations.
what is regulated must be carefully watched, because not all thing should be regulateed. But things where people's lives are at stake probably should be.
you may noy mind if the pilot of the plane you're on is not regulatd, but I sure as hell do.
what about automobile industry? no regulation? there goes safety. you may never cause an accident, but when some drunk smaks into while yuor at a stop light, and your fuel tank explodes, you will probably re-think your 'nothing should be regulated attitude'. Just look at the conditions of the world 100 years ago when there was almost no regulations in business. children5,6 yhears old working 8 to 10 hours a day. chemicals dumped into the water supply.
maybe you should look around a relize how much your life depends on some regulations.
bottom line: you may take responsibility for yourself, but who takes responsibilty for your wacko neighbor?
Pardon my ignorance, but since when has having
a government license stopped someone from getting a bad prescription?
Look into the history of licensing of professions - they all started as attempts to limit competition - not to ensure the safety of the public.
In case you didn't realize their is such a wealth of information out there that it is impossible for any one human to parse it all. I hate to break this to you, but you just can not do it. You need help, just like the rest of us, sorting the whole deal out. Would you rather trust a for-profit reviewing site or an impartial government organization that usually does the right thing. Honestly, why have the government regulate anything, you can do it all yourself! You can check to make sure your house wont fall in on itself yourself!, You can pick your own treatement for cancer (those idiot doctors spending years researching it couldn't know any better than buycancerdrugshere.com, you conduct your own safety tests of automobiles, you conduct your own tests of saftey on electronical appliance, you check your food to see whether or not its safe to eat). Either put up or shut up. Until you dorks start doing everything yourselves, you reall oughta shut up
In truth this regulation is all about control. It is about the belief of people in the federal government that they have the right to control every aspect of our lives. The entire concept of prescription drugs is founded on the idea that citizens do not own their own bodies and do not have the right to self medicate beyond what Big Brother has Aproved.
Spoken like a true completely ignornant libertarian idiot. Don't believe everything you read off the internet. Please spend 4 years in med-school before comming to a decision on the regulation of drugs.
In many countries, "prescription" medicines are available over the counter today. In these countries, the same medicines are also usually cheaper, by orders of magnitude, than in the USA.
>I wish I knew where people got this stuff. It's completely wrong.
Reality - check it out sometime.
>The total Federal workforce has shrunk by about a million employees since 1993.
And everyone of them and more has been replaced with contractors that are indistinguishable from civil servants.
>It's the state and local governments that are growing.
That's true and just as bad.
>And the reason your taxes are highest now is because of the growth in state and local taxes, not federal taxes.
When I do my taxes every year, ALL categories are going up.
Come on, the only thing mentioned in the article was ensuring that a valid prescription was presented. Nothing at all about any "scrutiny and rules" related to consumer protection, ensuring that prescriptions are accurately filled, etc.
As an earlier poster pointed out, the "problem" of idiots dosing themselves up with unstable combinations of things solves itself (much like the "problem" of people who drink Drano solves itself). If there's really a value or comfort factor in FDA approval, it would work just as well without being mandatory.
Unrestricted grants? Give me a break! There is no such thing. Why purpose does it serve for the federal government to disburse "grants" to states. Why does the fed have to touch *any* of that money? There is this great concept among a lot of companies lately--that of removing the middle man. States may have more power these days than they did a decade ago, but the federal government is still taking a large portion of the funds and mandating its use.
>This is all about protecting American consumers from bad drugs (fakes, for example) and to keep people from getting prescription medicines without a valid prescription.
A
A
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
That was the best laugh I've had all day. We're from the government and we're here to help you.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Fine Print: BTW, in exchange for us helping you, don't forget to remit N%. We'll figure out what N is later, but it will be fair.
> SO I should be allowed to sell whatever
> I want on the internet?
Of course. Providing, of course, that it is yours to sell.
> Please. We are talking about life and death
> here.
All the more reason not to trust politicians and bureaucrats with the decision. Their decisions will be based on their own self-interest, not yours.
> Should I be allowed to fire my gun in the air
> randomly?
What possible harm am I doing to another if I buy a medicine without Big Brother's permission?
> should your neighber be allowed to run a
> brothel in his house? or a drug lab?
Of course, unless you have some sort of covenant or contractual agreement forbidding this.
Think of it this way: should your neighbor be allowed to send a SWAT team to your door just because he disapproves of your lifestyle?
> I've seen anarchy in action
I very much doubt it.
. . . and maybe the gov't ought to protect them (us) from their (our) own stupidity.
The only reason we can have this conversation is because we are the most heavily-protected populace in the history of the world.
We have nothing legitimate to worry about, and so we start freaking out about:
- germs (putting antibiotics in every damn product)
- terrorists (that kill fewer people in a year than hunger kills in an hour)
- drugs on the internet (because somebody might possibly order something that could conceivably hurt the user if taken incorrectly)
All this talk about whether the gov't ought to defend us from our own habits is ridiculous, and only indicates that we aren't worrying about actual problems.I guarantee that if the average US Citizen was worried about living to see the next day, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
In the end, all of this simply shows that we're a bunch of namby-pamby, couch-potatoes whining about whether or not we could be even MORE comfortable and fat-assed than we already are.
Why don't we all start worrying about REAL problems? Just for once? Please?
Seriously, I want to see a constitutional amendment allowing the people to create ballot (get 6-10% of populace to sign to get and initiative on the ballot. 50% plus one vote to pass. Ballot initiatives, by decree, remain subservient to the constitution, though.) initiatives on a national leve just like the people within states can right now. This is the only way THE PEOPLE can take back control of a gov't run amok. Of course, the politicians, big business, and special intrest groups will never support this. It'd be like signing their own death warrants.
Yes, taxes are shown on each pay stub but
that gets easily ignored. ATM fees are there on
the screen "Do you want to pay and continue?"
(No, I want to get MY money without a $3.00
charge for a $0.35 transaction.)
Can you imagine the outrage if folks got all
the pre-tax income on their paycheck and then
each pay period had to write out the checks to
pay taxes rather than the current
direct-extraction? There'd be riots.
You've GOT to be kidding or ignorant on this. The FDA attempts to regulate international pharmaceuticals coming into this country as well, by snatching random packages. Many of these pharmaceuticals are for AIDS virus carriers or people with memory deficits caused by stroke, alzheimers, etc. Protecting us from bad pharmaceuticals?! What ever happened to (1) Suing (2) Shutting down places that don't sell what they say they're selling? What about bad vitamins? Bad herbals? Bad beer?!?!
>Spoken like a true completely ignornant libertarian idiot. Don't believe everything you read off the internet. Please spend 4 years in med-school before comming to a decision on the regulation of drugs.
#KneeJerk On
Spoken like a true statist jackass. Got the daily Demopublican fax of your opinion, huh?
#KneeJerk Off
Seriously, why the fsck can't someone be opposed to government cartel protection (and that's what the medical industry/regulation primarily is) and still recongnize that experts are still required. I have allergies that occasionally get out of whack beyond what over-the-counter stuff can handle. Explain to me exactly why I should have to pay a doctor $$$ when I have far more experience with my condition. Typical conversation:
Me: Doc, my allergies are out of whack again and the OTC stuff isn't hacking it.
Doctor: (looks in ears, nose, mouth, and listens to breating) OK, what has worked in the past?
Me: (List of several drugs)
Doctor: OK, here's the scrip
When I go to the pharmacist, he talks interactions and provides any information I need. Doctors typically don't know jack about those types of issues.
Bottom line: I could get the same product/quality of service/safety/reliability for a helluva lot less with an HTML form/expert system backend for 90% of all medical interactions. For the other 10% of the time, I will seek out appropriate medical advice. I don't need the government's help and don't want the overhead for heavy regulation. They should only be worried that the products are not adulterated and that the _pharmacists_ are not misrepresenting the products. If I lie and say that I don't have a heart problem because I want Viagra, it's my own damn fault when I die.
It's time to thin the freaking herd.
Yeah, but what if you lived in a small town and didn't want to deal with the embarrassment of having the whole place know you needed Viagra to get jiggy with your wife? A Viagra site would be VERY welcome!
That's right. And they don't all have little Georgie Bailey to see them putting the wrong medicine in the bottle and so not delivering it, protecting them from a life on the street. Wasn't George himself the perfect Libertarian, helping all those people all by himself, without any help from the government? Heck, the government tried to shut him down! Forget Ayn Rand - Frank Capra rules!
Seriously, birth control pills AND the abortion pill should be sold over the counter and over the net. They are in France and elsewhere. Besides, what better way to circumvent the control-freak protesters. It's easier to bomb an abortion clinic since they are few and far between. Sell an abortion pill in every drug store across the nation and you can't organize an effective rally since people can readily go elsewhere and avoid picketers. And have the drugs shipped via UPS and no one will know what's being transported; just a brown box.
Nope, you can buy cars on the Internet too. Do you have any idea how many people I can kill with a car? At least with drugs, I would have to trick them into ingesting on of my mystery pills. I would have to work at gaining their trust. With a car, I can take out dozens of total strangers without taking the time to con them.
In Mexico, stores sell Penicillin over the counter. As well they should. The assumption that overuse of certain drugs will lead to unstoppable superbacteria presumes that medical science doesn't also evolve. It's "Imminent death of the net" predictions all over again. Sorry, chicken little. You're wrong.
Here in Nevada you can go to any casino and set up a betting account with one of the local sports books. Then you can place bets via YOUR OWN ISP using a web browser from your machine at home. This is legal. What if your ISP is AOL. Your packets travel from Nevada to Virginia and back and through a bunch of other states too. Yet this is legal. This should work for drug purchases too. Besides if the drug vendor is outside the US, he has no obligation to enforce foreign laws on customers. Buyer sends CC number, vendor mails back drugs. What's the big deal?
this works fine if you're filling your own prescription. But how do you protect yourself from an undeducated, unregulated, and unscrupulous "e-pharmacist"?
...are exactly that way.
... isn't. The author is a hypocrite, or a Democrat, or something, but s/he is most emphatically NOT a Libertarian.
"Gee, that's nice of you to assume that people who don't agree with you must be hypocrites who will discard their principles at the first inconvenience."
I have long since lost count of the number of Slashdot posts that begin "Well, I'm a Libertarian, but..." Every time this happens, it reinforces the same attitude among non-Libertarians that led to the offensive title paragraph of this story.
Hint: Anyone who writes a sentence beginning with the phrase "I'm a Libertarian, but..."
Libertarians don't claim to be more intelligent than everyone else. It is a false assumption to make such a claim. Typically when people don't know something, like what drugs they need to take, they hire a consultant (a doctor) who does the research and advises them. Libertarians don't expect everybody to know everything about everything. They expect everybody to use common sense and ask questions. Exactly how many accidental shootings are there in the US and what criteria did you use to conclude that the number is ridiculous? alanc123@hotmail.com
Why are there no major independent medicine-safety certifying organizations in the US (in the way that we have UL and other consumer-safety certifiers for things like electrical appliances)? Because the government has appropriated that role and crowded them out.
It clearly makes sense to say that, while the government regulates things, there is no practical alternative for most people to get useful safety information. But that doesn't imply that there is no possible alternative; if the government allowed people to make these choices and didn't force everyone to use its particular certification services, there would be more demand for other certification services.
Now, some people say that this produces "suboptimal outcomes" because the government is better at doing safety inspections or because of severely asymmetric information (government agents and corporate manufacturers are so much smarter than the average consumer that the average consumer doesn't even know how much information he is missing out on). That could be, but libertarians would still support this project because of liberty interests -- freedom can be inefficient.
It's people like you that make the future for personal freedom look grim.
We give people dangerous things all the time, like cars, which will/can harm them and other people.
There are herbal remedies in use for millennia which also have strong, sometimes deadly, side-effects.....But, being the U.S., considered a 'freedom of choice' country, you think we would allow people to kill themselves if ignorant, just as they do every day with alcohol, cigarettes, bad food, and automobiles.
Paternalists, please stop being trying to be my parent!!! I will kill or preserve myself as I please, and defend your right to do the same.
SO I should be allowed to sell whatever I want on the internet?
Yes. It doesn't mean people have to buy what you're selling. Your freedom to sell what you wish doesn't absolve you of the responsibility not to commit fraud or sell something to somebody with the intent to harm them.
Should I be allowed to fire my gun in the air randomly?
People don't shoot in the air because it's dangerous, not because it's illegal. If you shoot into the air and harm somebody you can be held civilly liable for damages if you're caught.
should your neighber be allowed to run a brothel in his house? or a drug lab?
It sounds to me like you're asking, "shouldn't I be allowed to use force against my neighbor to stop him from doing things I dissaprove of?"
alanc123@hotmail.com
One problem: You can't really prove who you got a disease from. "I was around when he sneezed" just won't cut it in court.
And you would turst a commericial organization whose sole intent is to generate revenue over the government right? RIGHT....
Thats about as quantitative as you can get. You get what you pay for ... Managed Care.
Agreed. Stupid people SHOULD be allowed to overdose and die and I SHOULD be able to write my own prescriptions. All people are born with a basic inalienable human right to harm themselves as long as they do not harm others in the process. Now there are a lot of prescription drugs that one shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle, etc. while taking, but that's a different branch of the law.
We have a system of civil courts, wherein if somebody sells me something that harms me, or misrepresents what they are selling, I can sue them for damages. In the long run, this acts as a better control than licensing to prevent abuses, because a single inspector is much easier to bribe than an entire court system.
1) There is little difference between "illegal" drugs and "prescription" drugs in the US. Illegal drugs are just the ones you can't get a prescription for, either because they're schedule I and you can't, or they're schedule II and no doctor wants to give you one. It's the same system, so it's relevant.
2) The slashdot story had an attack on the Libertarian idea of personal responsibility. Is arguing in response to attacks on your group off-topic? What parts of the slashdot stories should the comments be about?
The medical industry is a powerful force in this country. The corporations which control it fear the new online retailers, this is the first step in their efforts to get them under control. It's all about profits over people. The entire medical industry is designed to MAKE MONEY, not to help people. Obviously if I am ill I have the mental capcity to research my illness, find out what treatment I need, and then get that treatment. If that treatment is going to a doctor, then so be it, if it is a presciption for some exotic drug, then I should be able to get that drug. I shouldn't have to go down to the doctor, sit in his office for an hour, have him come in and not even look me in the face while I tell him what's wrong, and then have him scribble on a piece of paper which I then have to drive to the local pharmacy and stand in line and then finally get the medicine I need at a grossly inflated price. American pay more for drugs than any other country on the planet. The exact same pills cost more here than they do in other parts of the world. The system should be deregulated. People should have easy access to whatever drugs they feel they need.
A mutant TB that kills people in 24 hours and spreads like wildfire won't kill EVERYONE. The people that survive will be RESISTANT to the virus. Evolution works both ways you know. Sure it sounds cold, but the mass death will really only be felt by the surviving generation. Do *you* hurt because of the millions that died before you were born due to bubonic plague?
so why don't we reboot it? www.the-revolution.org
Last I heard, running a brothel was perfectly legal in Nevada anywhere outside Los Vegas county, and I think in Alaska as well.
There are no zoning laws in the state of Indiana, and it doesn't seem any the worse for it.
And yes, it is perfectly legal in many rural locations of the United States to fire a gun
in the air any damn time you please!
is proof that you do. Your too stupid to recognize your own ignorance.
Go for it. Really. If you don't need it, you can't take enough of it to be affected. (read: swallow the whole danged bottle, you're not gonna get anything)
"The Clinton Administration today announced that it'll be seeking to license all internet drug sales. " I presume you mean , all *US* drug sales. Being in the uk , it would be quite scary otherwise :) How will this work internationally?
I can agree 100% that antibiotics should be carefully controlled for public health reasons. However when you get to 'drugs of abuse', stop the nonsence NOW!
> Pharmacists know a hell of alot more than the
> average joe about what you should and should
> not take.
You don't need laws regulating the sale of medicine and requiring prescriptions in order to walk up to your pharmacist and ask him a few questions. Just open your mouth and ask. I myself always listen carefully to what the pharmacist tells me about a medicine, and read over any printed material accompanying the medicine.
> I know the /. libertarians want no regulation
> at all (right up until they receive a bad
> prescription themselves)
Gee, that's nice of you to assume that people who don't agree with you must be hypocrites who will discard their principles at the first inconvenience.
As a libertarian, I don't want any *governmental* regulation, because I find it thoroughly immoral to apply or threaten violence against a person just because they bought or sold something without your approval.
But government isn't the only effective source of regulation. For example, the safety of most appliances you buy isn't assured by the government, but by Underwriters Laboratory, a private group. That little "UL" symbol you often see certifies that the appliance in question has passed UL's testing. Companies seek UL certification both because of consumer pressure and (perhaps more importantly) because insurers demand it.
I find third-party certification much more useful in finding quality products and services than government regulation. I recently bought a kerosene heater for emergency heating. What do I know about evaluating the safety of kersone heaters? Nothing. But Underwriters Laboratory knows a lot about the subject, so I made sure that I bought a heater with a solid UL rating. Similarly, when I need an auto mechanic I look for AAA approval and ASE certification.
> Very interesting application of the
> inter-state commerce clause, although my
> unschooled opinion is that it's a defensible
> application of said clause.
Have you ever heard of the separation of powers? Are you aware that the US Constitution explicitly gives Congress the sole power to make laws? Clinton has repeatedly usurped the legislative powers of Congress, but apparently those 900 illegal FBI files contain enough dirty secrets to keep them from squawking. The US used to be a republic, with separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It seems that the US is now an empire, with an emperor who can simply impose new laws by decree.
If you walk into the lobby of the FDA there is a large portrait of the comissioner who refused to approve thalidomide for sale in the US despite it being approved in Canada and Europe.
Requireing safety and efficacy studies before approving a drug for sale is a very different issue. The issue here is weather or not I have the right to buy and use a drug that has allready passed those studies without a doctor's permission. Weather or not it is SMART to do that is another matter as well.
Various drugs should indeed be restricted to prescriptions. If every time we got a sniffle and grabbed anti-biotics, whether they are needed or not (i.e. a virus) then we just encourage antibiotic-resistent bacteria (which are very nasty, as my sister just had surgery since antibiotics no longer work).
I agree that that's a problem, however, it seems that the prescription laws didn't exactly prevent the problem. Many doctors have (and some still do) prescribe antibiotics for a virus just to make their patient happy. Why they don't prescribe placibos (sp?) I don't know.
OTOH, since that is a public health issue rather than simply an individual issue, perhaps it is justifiable to seperate it from other prescription drug issues.
For that matter, is the average person going to understand the gobbligook that is written about a medical trial and treatment?
I have read some of that 'gobbligook', and it has mostly made me wonder why some drugs are EVER prescribed. Apparently many doctors are willing to have me take something that I would NEVER decide to take.
As for the lawsuit issue, that's one for tort reform, not the FDA.
where common sense should have played a role.
But common sense SHOULD have played a role here. Common sense should have told the guy:
Researching drugs and their faults is something best left for specialists.
Even with prescription laws, common sense has to play a part lest someone get a prescription for Viagra and decide that if one is good, 5 would be better (people do that with prescription drugs all the time, others take all 4 doses in the morning so they don't forget etc...).
The short answer is NO, because your taking any old drug can in fact affect others in a lot of different ways.
No more so than any other activity. Examples include watching TV while driving, leaving the potato salad for the company picnic out over night, wireing the 'deadman' and the self propel lever back on my lawnmower (I've actually seen someone do that, the results in that case were merely comical, but could have been worse) etc...
When the FDA says something ok to market, it means that in some clinical trial it looks like the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks. NOT that it is 'safe'. There is no such thing as a 'safe' drug.
Agreed, that's why I won't take many drugs at all, including many that doctors hand out like candy. I don't want to find out that I'm the 1% with serious complications from a stupid allergy medication.
Your wise or unwise use of drugs affects no only yourself, but can effect your decendents because of genetic effects when misused. Some drugs are showing effects on third and fourth generations.
In spite of current prescription laws.
Some drugs are such potent teratogens that just traces of the drug in the male sperm are suspected of being able to cause severe birth defects.
I am aware of that. What are they doing on the market? We have laws that cover the case of alcohol (it's considered child abuse), they would equally cover other drugs.
Not only that, but who decides what drugs your children get? We already have too many tragic cases of kids harmed by simple overdoses of liquid Tylenol. I shudder to think what would happen when parents have the ability to buy stronger drugs freely and give them to their children.
I will. There are and allways have been dumb parents, and they often manage to harm their kids through stupidity. All the laws in the world won't stop that.
n addition, things like overuse of antibiotics lead to spread of resistant bacteria. Many countries outside the US have VERY severe problems with this becasue they do not regulate the sale of antibiotics.
We have a problem with that in the US as well. Mostly from doctors who should know better prescribing antibiotics for the flu (at patients' request) and people failing to take the full prescribed course of antibiotics. Actually, that argument is the best argument I have heard yet in favor of prescription laws. I will concede that perhaps antibiotics (at least the ones that are known effective against resistant strains) belong in a special category.
IN ADDITION, a lot of people resent the FDA controlling drugs at all. They take off to Mexico or wherever to take whatever some quack can talk them into. The same libertarian philosophy that rejects the concept of prescriptions also rejects the idea that ANY drugs, be it marijuana, heroin, LSD or thalidomide should be controlled.
Thalidomide actually does have valid medical use (leprosy). It like many other things should have a strong warning label. As for recreational drugs, I do, in fact, advocate legalisation (even though I don't advocate their use)
I do NOT want to be saddled with the taxes to support a brain damaged kid with flippers where his arms should have been, or having to worry about my kid getting a antibiotic resistant form of TB just because you felt you had an overriding right to take any drug you wanted.
Nobody does, but it happens all the time with or without prescription laws. For every problem due to lack of prescription laws, there is likely a problem of someone who might have avoided serious illness with early treatment had a doctor visit not been required (not everyone can afford a doctor visit, but many antibiotics are quite inexpensive).
With these facts in hand, one can make an informed decision instead of just swallowing pills and hoping that the right combination makes you fell better.
Removing prescription laws wouldn't prevent you or anyone else from doing the right thing and having a doctor prescribe your medication. It also wouldn't remove the manufacturers' responsability to make medical grade products, and to label them properly. It wouldn't remove the pharmacists' responsability to dispense what you ask for.
A doctor would still be responsable for what is prescribed to you. Just as he would be if he told you to drink a gallon of (non-prescription) antifreeze and call in the morning.
What prescription laws really are is an assumption that most of us are darwin award cantidates and the foolish notion that we idiots won't 'find' another way to win the award. The same people who would die without prescription laws probably take their prescription sleeping pills with a pint of vodka (because they'll be more effective that way) and operate a blow drier in the bathtub (saves 5 whole minutes in the morning).
If the prescription awards are necessary, perhaps we should also card people (for an electrician's license) before selling them light bulbs, wall switches, or any tool that can be used to work on electrical equipment. Perhaps a mechanic's license to buy auto parts (people DO die regularly from improperly secured cars slipping off the jack).
Or we could save a ton of money and just require warning labels on what are now prescription drugs.
that education in most cases is favorable to education
Naturally, I meant "favorable to regulation."
Letting any Joe Bloe in the country pick up whatever prescription drugs he wants is not only stupid, it's negligent. The article states that the legislation is aimed at curbing illegal sales of prescription drugs. What better way to sell something illegally than over the Internet? The legislation only gives the FDA power to verify the quality of online pharmacies and to ensure that they are getting the required authorization before filling any orders for prescription drugs.
With respects to the whole concept of prescribing drugs, the average citizen is an idiot. This is why we have smart people who are licensed to make certain decisions for us, like doctors. If you have a medical problem that can be treated with prescription drugs, you have to get a doctor to make that diagnosis and decision. The doctor writes out a prescription, so that the pharmacy knows you've gotten a doctor's consent before they go handing out potentially lethal drugs. Would you really rather live in a country where anyone can buy any sort of drug and use it as he desires? What happens when that drug, or perhaps a certain mixture, causes sterility? Heart failure? Death? "Oh shucks, he should have known better." ? There are perfectly sane, legitimate reasons we license and prescribe drugs in this country.
Agreed, but another important provision in this law is the power of the FDA to investigate the quality and set standards for online pharmacies. If an online pharmacy consistently mis-fills 10% of its drugs, or skimps out on a few pills out of each prescription, the FDA could then pull the pharmacy's license until they shape up. If the pharmacy continues to operate, the fines are quite severe.
This also makes investigating online pharmacies the explicit responsibility of the FDA. Without this legislation, that responsibility is ambiguous, and would generally require a state or a person to file a lawsuit.
I don't think this legislation has anything to do with international orders.
Of course I'd have to actually read it or have someone give a better summary than what was provided in the article, but it seems to only apply to domestic pharmacies.
It would be kind of hard to require every 'Net pharmacy in the world to get a US license, and if they didn't comply, how is the US going to enforce a fine or penalty?
No, I don't think this law does much in the way of international pharmaceutical orders. In those cases, I would simply hope that the host country would have similar laws (and most, if not all, do) regarding what types of drugs can be sold and how those drugs are sold and transported.
Who do you think is going to be "pushed" out of the US as a result of this legislation (assuming it passes)? The legal, legitimate, quality pharmacies? Really doubtful. The burdons placed on them as a result of this legislation are probably going to be very trivial. Certainly less than the costs of moving their operation to another country. Think of it as a business license. They already have to get one sort of license (or more) for the state they're doing business. What's one more?
So who's left? The illegal pharmacies, for one. Oh damn. Guess they'll have to move their illegal drug operation to another country, or maybe they can just try to hide their web site a little better. Then there's the pharmacies that don't seem to have any sort of quality control. If a pharmacy is consistently mis-filling prescriptions and acting really negligently, I would expect the FDA would pull their license. So I suppose there's a possibility there that they would move to another country. Again, good riddance.
If I'm ordering a prescription from an online pharmacy in the US, I would take much comfort in the fact that we had an oversight body in place licensing and monitoring these pharmacies.
If your entire business consists of 2 72" racks in a datacenter, and a local sysadmin, it's pretty easy to move your company to any country about as fast as you can propagate a DNS change.
Apparently you're forgetting the nature of the business. Pharmacies require taking in stock of drugs, filling personalized prescriptions for specific dosages of those drugs, and shipping them out. We don't care where the web site is; we care where they're doing their business. It takes a bit more effort to move this type of operation to another country than simply relocating data and making a DNS change.
Most countries have their own import/export laws with respects to controlled drugs. If it were so easy to get these things shipped out via standard mail, why aren't more people sending heroin, cocaine and marijuana via the USPS?
Think about it. Somebody else already has.
What if it is sent by a private mail carrier, like DHL?
I may be wrong, but I think private carriers might possibly share some liability here. It's probably quite illegal to ship controlled drugs from one country to another (where it may be illegal in either one). If a carrier is getting lots of international orders from a shifty-looking online pharmacy, an investigation might be performed. Carriers (at least in the US), I believe, have the right to open and inspect any package you put in their custody without a warrant.
This legislation only applies to companies selling *across* state boundaries (thus bringing it into the federal domain). The vast, vast majority of pharmacies sell in a physical store, so they're only subject to the individual state's laws.
I don't necessarily disagree that education in most cases is favorable to education, but really, it's unrealistic.
Perhaps a thousand years ago it was certainly possible for one person to learn the sum of all human knowledge. A hundred years ago one could probably be pretty fluent in most subjects, but today, it's not possible for someone to educate themselves regarding everything that affects his life.
"He should have known better," is something I tend to say pretty frequently, but only when dealing with things where common sense should have played a role. Researching drugs and their faults is something best left for specialists.
Doctors are *trained* to know what types of drugs are best for what situations, when certain drugs shouldn't be used, and what existing medical conditions could make the use of such drugs harmful, or when the risk is acceptable. Further, they may know of a drug that performs the same thing but with a different set of side effects and problems that would be preferable.
Sure, I could probably go to some medical web site, look up my symptoms, find an ailment that causes those symptoms, find a common drug treatment, and do all sorts of research on that drug to make sure there aren't any problems, but who's to say my work is complete or accurate? Perhaps that ailment wasn't really the problem, and taking that drug only exacerbated the situation and caused my untimely death?
The average person is not qualified to make these types of decisions with *controlled substances* that have harmful and fatal side effects when not used correctly or in the correct situations. Nor is the average person qualified to have enough background knowledge in medicine to even attempt a thorough amount of research into their own ailments and what drugs they should take to cure them.
Sure...if noone is anywhere nearby that could
possibly be hit. Otherwise you are endangering
others.
So by this I assume that you do not support statutes for things like "disturbing the peace"? If my neighbor started shooting all sorts of firearms in the air while my baby girl was trying to sleep, you can bet I'd be a bit angry, and there are laws on the books that makes this type of behavior illegal (at least in most cities).
One could argue that allowing a pharmacy to operate negligently or illegally is, in fact, "endangering others."
Why is it any of your buisness if they run a
brothel?
So I guess then that you are also opposed to anti-prostitution legislation, and various zoning laws about where businesses and industries can be built? I personally love the fact that my neighbor can't tear down his house and replace it with a coal-burning factory that produces foul-smelling tires. Not to mention the fact that if my neighbor started up a brothel, the value of my home would probably drop quite a lot, but then that's why we have homeowners associations, yes? Or are you against them also?
Why not? Why is it you are so interested in what
your neibor does in the privacy of his own home?
Do you keep track of what he does...make sure he
isn't having sex outside of marriage too?
I can't really tell if you're trying to have a legitimate argument here or if you're just trying to be annoying. It sounds like you're against all sorts of laws that are already in the books (in this case, laws against the production of illegal drugs)...
If you really have such a beef about these laws, perhaps you should try writing to your local legislature. I sincerely doubt these things will ever be legalized, so maybe it would be in your best interests to move to a lesser-developed country that doesn't have these laws. It sounds like you'd be happier there.
I was kind of
thinking off alone in the middle of a feild
where noone is around.
And as far as I know, this is perfectly legal. I think the original poster was thinking from my frame of reference, in a quiet neighborhood.
Should we require prescriptions
for those too? perhaps ban the sale of them?
How about require the makers of these items to disclose all known health risks and to put serious restrictions on their methods of advertising. And while we're at it, limit the purchases of these things to people that are 18 or 21 years old, so we can be sure they're old enough to make an informed decision on their own.
I suppose we could do exactly the same thing for all prescription drugs, but the resources required to not only put this into effect, but to monitor and ensure full disclosure and compliance on the parts of the makers of prescription drugs would be prohibitive. As prescription drugs tend to be individually things the average person knows little about (unlike alcohol and tobacco, which are quite common), it makes more sense to entrust a certain class of people with the tasks of learning the details about when certain drugs should be used, how they're used, how they're not to be used, and acceptable, less-risky alternatives, and require that class of people to give their consent before these items are given to the general public.
I see nothing wrong with
a brothel. As long as they keep quiet, why not?
OK, aside from the fact that we'd have to get rid of most commercial zoning laws as well as laws banning prostitution (each independently having merits outside of this situation), your argument is that what one does in the privacy of his own home is acceptable. So when does a building cease to become a home and start to become a place of business? Or does it matter? In my opinion, by opening up his doors to customers looking for sex, that place ceases to become simply a private home. While I don't entirely disagree with your point of view here, I would rather not see my neighbor's house turn into a brothel simply because it would attract all sorts of unsavory people and attention to my neighborhood and generally cause me headaches. I'd say let's make this more of a community law/ordinance, but I think for the most part, it already is.
I am firmly against the idea
that the government should have any say in what
people can or can not do in the privacy of
their own home, or with other consenting
adults (ie using drugs, paying for sex).
This is moving out off of the topic at hand, but let me ask you this:
Let's say I invent a drug X that, given a single dose, mimics the effects of alcohol while having an extremely addicting effect on the taker. So addicting, in fact, that one dose is sufficient to addict an adult in such a way that 99% of the people that take it begin taking it regularly. This drug is "marketed" as a quick, safe high by the dealers and quickly spreads.
So you think a substance like this should be allowed to be created and sold? All of the people that end up taking this drug, whether or not they know about its addictive effects, deserve to be hooked on it? And when prices go up tenfold, they deserve to have their bank accounts drained paying for a steady supply? Or do you think they should just "suck it up," "bite the bullet" and check into rehab? Overcoming a drug addiction of a severe magnitude is not a pretty or painless thing. Did they have it coming?
Now, I'm not saying that all illegal drugs have these types of effects, but there are plenty that do. It all boils down to the fact that people today have a need to be protected from their own ignorance and stupidity. To suggest that everyone is capable of making educated, informed decisions about everything that will affect their life is naive.
Now I'm a firm believer in Darwinian natural selection. I do not feel we need to spend so much money and time keeping the stupid people in our country alive and healthy. I do not, however, wish to see pharmaceutical companies marketing their prescription drugs like it were laundry detergent, and things are starting to move in this direction. I am pleased that we have doctors that are trained to know what drugs are required for specific situations and when those drugs can not and should not be used. If we eliminate this requirement, for doctors to give prescriptions for certain drugs, I shudder to think how many people will, incorrectly and sometimes fatally, turn to prescription drugs when they don't need them.
To be honest, it sounds like your beef is more with illegal drugs and how you feel drugs should be legalized entirely than with legislation of online prescription drug pharmacies, and this is out of the scope of this thread.
Whoever committed fraud by claiming that it was a safe drug, and by marketing something so dangerous without adequate warnings, would be mostly to blame
Wow, you're right. Those damn drug dealers. Let's put them in jail!
But the people who took it without bothering to look up any information on the drug are also to blame for their own recklessness.
Right-o. Those kids hooked on crack deserved what they got. Let 'em sit in misery for the rest of their life. But gods, no, let's not blame the drug or the maker.
I hope you're not saying that any real drug, illegal or legal, is nearly that addictive.
It's all about scale. There are *plenty* of OTC and prescription drugs that are addictive in nature, but *how* addictive is one factor in many in determining how a drug should be classified. Drugs with a high-degree of addictibility tend to be made illegal, sometimes regardless of their medicinal value.
If people are incapable of making decisions for themselves, it's because of two reasons.
Perhaps. Without these laws, however, how many more people would be addicted to narcotics? Cigarettes? How many people would -- due entirely to their own mistake -- die or become severely ill due to an improperly researched drug purchase?
Is it worth it for people to be permitted to purchase recreational drugs (which is what they would be -- after all, this whole thing is about getting drugs a doctor won't prescribe for you, right?) if it means a substantial increase in death and illness for people that either don't have the time nor the money to do research?
It's easy to generalize a story, thus making pretty much any topic that fits in that generalization "on-topic."
The story is about legislation giving the US federal government jurisdiction over the licensing and monitoring of Internet pharmacies. It is not about whether all drugs should be made free and legal. I'm not here to debate this with you, but I think it's safe to say the vast, vast majority of Americans disagrees with this standpoint, so it's highly unlikely you will live to see your views realized. Of course, I'm not saying you shouldn't continue with your protests. By all means, continue. I'll just be dropping out of the discussion now.
The scenereo was specifically of a drug that was fraudulently marketed.
...as are crack, cocaine, and other narcotics. There'll always be people out to make a quick buck by not disclosing all of the truth, or outright lying. I was pointing out that, despite laws forbidding this, drug dealers are still out on the streets selling drugs to people that may or may not know the risks. Should we be placing the blame on the users, the dealers, the manufacturers? A combination of both? Or is there no blame at all?
People still have a responsibility to check if what they're about to ingest is safe.
What would you consider a 'responsible check'? How much research must one do before they cease to be irresponsible and become responsible?
Now realize that if we move to a free market, where anyone can pick up any drug they wanted, those that make and sell dangerous drugs are probably going to want to hide a few things here and there, or downplay some risks. That may make it a bit more difficult for someone doing a cursory check on the risks associated with a drug to come up with something that changes their mind. If the company is good at obfuscating the risks, the average person is neither going to understand or recognize the significance of what their research has turned up.
Now who's to blame? The user for not being in the top tenth percentile of educated people, or the manufacturer for listening more to their marketing people than their scientists?
Since both are readily available, I don't see your point.
Just because a law is 90% effective does not mean it's a useless law. Stamping out the law will allow a sort of equilibreum to be established, between the makers and sellers of harmful substances and the users of those substances, each with varying degrees of education about the risks of those substances.
The idea is to prevent people that don't know any better from using something known to be harmful and addicting.
It costs nothing to go to a public library.
Are you really suggesting that everyone go to the public library every time they feel a desire to go out and get some prescription drug for some random ailment they've just noticed?
How many people are going to do that? I'll probably round my estimates to the nearest whole number and say zero.
In a world where people were free to choose what drugs they take, pharmacists would probably want to keep a good amount of information on hand in order to serve their customers
They'll probably only do so if/when it helps them to earn money. I imagine "hole-in-the-wall" type online pharmacies would have plenty of business without wanting or needing to set up information centers for people to research the drugs they're wanting to buy. I'd say the majority of prescription drug purchases are for refills or drugs that the person is probably going to be taking for the rest of their life. Why go to a pricey pharmacy when you can find one that doesn't have to spend money on education, training and offering research material and can get you a much better deal?
So now that we've established that these places will exist, why would a mother on welfare supporting 5 kids want to even start her drug shopping at a classy place to begin with? Chances are, one of her friends has told her she needs to give her kid drug X and Y to clear up two symptoms, so she does goes to Cheap-Ass Pharmacy and orders those drugs. As Cheap-Ass Pharmacy has no reference material (not that she'd take the time to read it anyways), she does not know that drugs X and Y are mutually exclusive and will cause certain death if mixed. Oh damn. Is it her own fault then? Does her kid deserve what he got? What if it's something more benign.. let's say the kid has some kidney disorder that would make drug X potentially lethal, but the mother of course doesn't know this. A doctor would be able to check for this disorder before prescribing drug X. Is it the mother's fault for not knowing this?
government does not need to protect people from themselves. I realize that some people won't be able to handle that.
You're right, because it's been shown time and time again that people are NOT smart enough to be able to survive in this world without some laws designed to protect them from their own stupidity. Look in your home, on the backs of appliances, on the tags on your furniture, on the very plastic bags that these things were shipped in. How many different and distinct warning labels do you see? Every one of those warning labels was brought about because somebody was too stupid to care for himself.
I agree in that I'd like to see the government regulating less than it currently is, but I firmly believe that existing laws regarding the need for prescriptions before drugs can be given are quite necessary and inconsequential. I've probably been prescribed drugs 2 or 3 times in my life, and every time it's been the result of me going to see a doctor. If people are so adament that they be allowed to get potentially dangerous drugs without needing a prescription, what exactly do they need these drugs for? Common sense says to get a doctor to investigate your latest ailment, not to try and diagnose it on your own, yet that seems to be what people are shooting for here, and I don't quite understand why. Under what circumstances would you ever need a prescription drug (versus an OTC drug) without going to see a doctor?
X-rays and drug-hunting devices and dogs are pretty common, I'd wager.
If people are going to take a drug without either professional advice or the information to make their own decision, that is their own responsibility.
What I'm trying to say is that people WILL be taking drugs without adequate information on the risks. There is no possible way someone is going to be able to do all of the research necessary to be sure that a given drug will not affect them adversely, either in concert with another drug they're taking or an ailment, disease or other defect. In fact, people are going to be MORE likely to be influenced by marketing and word-of-mouth than by any degree of research they will be able to do, which (as I'm sure you'll agree) is not the safest way to do your prescription drug shopping.
The only way someone can be relatively sure that they a) need a prescription drug at all and b) know that the drug they need will be safe for them to use (or get an alternative), will be to either consult a doctor, or to utilize some yet-to-be invented computer system that can diagnose illnesses and predict risks imparted by taking a drug or a series of drugs. Sounds like a robotic doctor to me.
I guarantee you that if legislation were dropped requiring a doctor's prescription that there would be a tremendous buying frenzy of prescription drugs that people do not need. There will also be a *significant* increase in the number of ailments, overdoses and deaths that will be a direct result of people purchasing prescription drugs without adequate knowledge or research as to how these drugs are to be used.
It's not a simple matter of convenience here. It sounds like some of you don't want prescriptions simply because you want to get access to drugs that a doctor will not prescribe for you. Chances are, he has a VERY good reason for not prescribing those drugs for you.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I do see where you're coming from, and in an ideal world, yes, I would imagine everyone would have the means and opportunity to do their own research on drugs and have the maturity and faith in their own bodies to know when they do and do not need to use those drugs, but this is far from an ideal world. People's lives are regularly being destroyed as the result of addictive drugs, and removing the requirement for safeguards such as the current prescription drug system will only serve to hurt people.
Bingo! You've hit the real reason for this legislation. National pharmacy chains want to close the door on smaller pharmacies.
Of course, the other problem with this is that many drugs are not controlled substances and are legal to ship into and out of the US (of course, many others ARE controlled substances and are illegal to ship across the border).
It is (or was) perfectly legal to drive from the US into a store in Mexico and buy a bottle of, say amoxycillin with no prescription then take it with you back to the states. It should be legal to order the same bottle from a store in Mexico and have it sent via overnight delivery.
Not that I'd want to with that paticular antibiotic, as once it is mixed it really needs to be refridgerated, but you get the idea (substitute, say, predisone tablets, of which I need to keep a supply around all the time).
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
I found it quite amusing that so many Libertarians were outraged by this. Let's assume for a second that not everyone is as 'intelligent' as you, and, believe it or not, they could possibly make a mistake. Of all the things sold on the internet, drugs are probably the riskiest. It's unlikely that reading too much of that book from amazon will kill you, nor will listening to track 1 on repeat from a cd do too much damage, however, taking as little as 50% more of the medication you've been prescribed can.
It's all well and good to believe that we deserve certain freedoms; I do too, but keep in mind that not everyone has the requisite knowledge to make use of freedoms.
To put it another way, a lot of people *think* they can handle firearms, maybe some of them do, but the number of accidental shootings in the US is ridiculous. Obviously, people have trouble dealing with too much freedom on occaison.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
My concern is that continued application of such law to the Internet will begin a trend of Internet-related regulations which will result in new legislation. The first thing that comes to mind is Internet taxation. It has been proposed (and defeated) before, but if the US Government can regulate aspects of Internet trade, I see the attitude toward Internet taxation relaxing a bit.
I think it's important, if you share my concern, to take an opportunity like this to write your Congressperson and express your concern over such controls. Make your opinion clear, complete, and concise -- staffers read such letters, and will get bored with them quickly if they are too long-winded.
What does everyone else think? Could decisions like this soften the attitude toward Internet regulation and lead to taxation of Internet commerce?
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
One common response that I have been reading a lot has to do with the stupid consumer scenario.
I don't remember anyone mentioning the common Libertarian response of the regulation encouraging the stupid consumer. By having the regulations, consumers become accustomed to being less vigilant over the purchases they make.
On the other hand, if it's something important, we do indeed pay a certain amount of vigilance in how we buy things. Between a website selling prescription medications whose page layout dates from the Mosaic days, and one that is sophisticated and complex, chances are people would take the nicer looking one. The nicer looking one implies that money and time was put into site creation, and therefore that use of resources further implies that the company intends to be around for some time.
That is of course an irrational way of doing things, the nastier looking site may be just as legitimate, and they may proudly note that the savings in site creation were passed on to you. On the other hand, out of desperation for viagara, people may be willing to buy from any site.
I am not debating the point that prescription medications are unsafe (heck, nearly 110,000 people die yearly from prescription medications, whereas less than 5,000 die from illegal drugs. Admittedly, it doesn't take long to see what's up with that statistic.) I am willing to say that some form of *certification* is necessary.
But there are some important footnotes here:
*Certain types of widely used prescriptions have been thoroughly tested, and need to be. Antibiotics for example, will be more or less taken by everyone, and many times the ailments for which they are being taken aren't life threatening. On the other hand, the FDA runs all medications through the same testing process, which is rather absurd. Hodgekin's disease and AIDS sufferers have much less to lose, and in cases where they need the drugs more desperately, the testing processes should not be as drawn out.
*Related to the complex testing processes, those medications are terribly expensive because of the testing used. For people who are near death or suffering severely anyway, the testing is difficult to justify.
*The FDA has police powers. Not only can they stop you from buying something, they can raid drugstores and warehouses. In fact, other than ATF, the FDA is one of the better armed federal regulatory bodies.
*Testing, as it has been pointed out, doesn't guarantee much at all. It used to be that the companies, by undergoing the testing, didn't have so much liability, but changes in federal law have guaranteed liability no matter the testing. This is one area, like aviation regulations, where the companies have little reason to cheat and sell a dangerous product. The punitive damages are pretty severe. Thalidomide has not occurred again not so much because of regulations, but because liability damages are uncapped. (Toxic Shock causing Rely Tampons were approved, but removed by Procter and Gamble for fear of killing the clients.) There are of course fly by night companies which would be difficult to sue, but a consumer needs to weigh the consequences of flying JimBobJoe airlines, or taking a drug from JimBobJoe pharmaceuticals, as opposed to United Airlines and Ciby-Geigy.
*Is it proper for a government to interfer with a contract between two people? Regulation is there indeed to "protect" you but when that regulation actually threatens your life, or severely restrains your liberty, like in this egregious example then the presence of the regulation is questionable.
Libertarians often cite underwriter laboratories as an good example of private regulation (although perhaps it's disingenous to compare drugs which work biochemically on the body to lamps, which cause understood effects.)
Certifications can be granted by such trusted groups to phamaraceuticals, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors. You can of course go to an uncertified doctor or pharmaceutical reseller, but that is the case today, otherwise you wouldn't be able to explain the huge marijuana market. It is simply irrational to expect that the presence of the regulation means that people won't have access to the drug. If that's the case, who is the regulation helping anyway?
Two comments.
One, the swipe at Libertarians in the summary of this story is irresponsible, and would be moderated down as flame-bait if I could moderate comments.
Two, even *were* I to receive a "bad prescription", I would still oppose this silly regulation. Too many of you are saying "without this, it's too easy for Joe Blow to get into trouble with dangerous drug interactions and hurt/kill himself", yadda spew.
Maybe. It is not, it simply is not, the business of the federal government to protect people from their own ignorance and stupidity, though. If you go out and recklessly order and mix drugs, without doing your research, you probably get unpleasant results. But this does not mean it is the role of our Favorite Uncle to "protect" us.
Freedom means responsibility.
I'm going to stop reading this thread now, because it's going to piss me off too much. Don't tell me how to live *my* life, and I won't presume to rule yours, ok?
The Federal Government is the largest it's been ever. But I think the real problem is not the government, but the complacent Americans who sit and let it happen while getting really worked up watching NASCAR and Ally McBeal. We currently are at the highest tax level we've been at since World War II, and Americans are freaking out about ... having to pay ATM fees?
Those of us who belive in freedom and individual responsibility must evangelize. Nowadays I like Linux and Libertarianism for the same reasons: for me, both mean that I am smart enough to make my own choices and I do not need any other person, government, or corportaion to make my choices for me.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Does this only apply to prescriptions ordered online from US pharmacies? They're already regulated, at least at the state level. If it applies to international pharmacies as well, that means they're hoping to override a very convenient, useful, and oftentimes necessary loophole purposefully left in the US Customs laws. I just don't really see what this attempt at regulation is trying to help; certainly not consumers.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
The announcement that the Federal Government wants to regulate prescription sales over the Internet is hardly uprising. One of the unholiest and most monopolistic industries, and one of biggest lobbies in Washington has finally started to flex it's political muscle. Considering the track record of the American Pharmaceutic industry, I doubt there is anything the common man can do about the upcoming regulation of prescription drug sales over the net in the US.
The Pharmaceutical business, as it is composed today, has 3 basic branches. There is the manufacturing branch, the dispensing branch, and the third party payment branch. I spent large parts of my career in all three branches. On proper inspection of the workings of the drug business in the US, most people can see that it's one of the most corrupt businesses in the US. They abuse of patents in a way which makes the computer business seem soft in comparison.
Drug Regulation in the US started in 1906 with the Federal Pure Food and Drug Act in response to the growing problem, as rightfully recognized by Teddy Roservelt administration, of problems with food purity and and medical quackery. In these early years, a number of small pharmacist, mostly around the NYC area, started to bring industrial production to the compounding and creation of Pharmaceutical products. Among these small businesses emerged some of the biggest world-wide corporations today, including familiar names like Merk on Canal street, Pfizer and Squib in Brooklyn.
In 1938, several people died do to an antibiotic being distributed using what amounts to anti-freeze being used as a suspending agent. So the government responded by increasing safety regulation. All new drugs in industrial production needed to be submitted to the Food and Drug Authority for approval. Generally, this has been a good thing. But the Federal Government had not yet mandated a prescription for drug sales. Of course, the new regulations did not end the deaths that are secondary to bring new drugs to market on global scales, and again the Law was strengthened after the Thalidomide deaths in the 1960's. The new law was called the Harris-Kefauver amendment. It required efficacy studies as part of the New Drug Application. And even this did not end the potentential for deaths do to new drugs as Eli Lilly killed off a few folks with a release of a standard Aspirin like drug, not long after.
While this assortment of regulation was being applied to the manufacturing and marketing of drug, increasing regulation was also being brought to bare on the dispensing end of the business. 2 aspects of drug dispensing was coming under regulation. First, the dispensing of habit forming and addicting drugs started to become regulated with the implementation of Controlled substances (like Morphine, Cocaine and THC). These laws have accumulated to the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and the Controlled Substances Act of the same year. They essentially established a schedule of drugs C ontrol 1 through Control V and are under the jusidiction of the Drug Enforcement Agency. These controlled substances are either illegal to distribute, like Heromin, or highly regulated and inventoried from raw material to distribution to the patient.
What was most important was the general dispensing of a non controlled drug to the patient. Up until 1951, it was legal for a Pharmacist to dispense a drug upon request as they saw fit. But with the decline in Pharmaceutical compound and the threat of drug sales going completely over the counter by the growing presence of supermarkets and such, Humphrey, who had a relative who was a pharmacist, decided it was in the best interest of the Pharmacy professional to have a law prohibiting the dispensing of most drugs accept upon the presentation of a prescription of a doctor. This is the law which prevents you from walking into Kmart and buying Viagra.
The problem that has occurred in the industry is two fold. First of all, American Pharmaceutic Companies have badly abused their patents. There was for a time a gentlemen agreement among the Pharmaceutical manufacturers to not compete with each other by producing a drug developed by one another company. They artificially inflated the cost of drugs whose patents expired decades ago. Eventually, there was a consumer backlash, which finally brought about the creation of todays generic drug industry. But years of monopolistic activity (sound familiar) left these companies very wealthy and they lobbied repeatedly for extension of patents on drugs which really have passed their 17 year patent. For example, Park Davis had a drug called Lopid which was brought to market to treat live threatening conditions which involved high triglyceride counts. Park Davis did not do extensive research into the agents other benefits. It didn't sell well. But then Merk came out with a drug a new drug to fight cholesterol called Mevacor. It was huge sellers, despite it's potential side effects, and interest grew in the Park Davis drug, Lopid. The problem for Park Davis was that their patent was expiring. They spend millions of dollars petitioning the government to extend it's patents.
And this is not an isolated case. Pharmaceutical manufactures hold huge sway in Washington. Drug prices have gone through the roof and no one cares because the insurance companies are picking up the bill. Drug companies waste billions of dollars a year bring useless agents to market to replace drugs going out of their exclussive domain. Merk even had the nerve to fire 3000 workers in response to the Clinton's administrations threat to bring prices under control with regulation in the early 1990's. A week after the announced layoffs, Hilary kept Drug Price controls out of her healthcare bill. The Clinton's heard the threat loud and clear.
As a result of all this, the manufactures have developed a 2 tier price structure. A drug may cost your local pharmacist 100 dollars for 30 tables. They then make a deal with the insurance company to give them a 30% rebate. But the cash customer pays full price. On top of this, the insurance companies discover the poor pharmacist is completely helpless to effect pricing. So that drug which cost the Pharmacy $100 dead net, he has to sell to HIP for $101.50, and then HIP get's a rebate. Then, the majority of the repeat drug business, like heart and blood pressure medicine, is farmed out to Mail Order prescription services. These huge houses reduce the profession of Pharmacy, which is a Doctoral degree in the US today, to standing at the end of an assembly line checking prefilled prescriptions, 400 or more a day. And yet, drug errors increasingly plague the medical system as everyone is trying to fill as many drug orders as possible in the littlest time possible, mail prescriptions to patients they never see of get to consult with.
This current system is no better or worse than selling drugs through the Internet. Merk went out and brought the largest mail order prescription house in the US. Companies like Retailed want to prevent small pharmacies from dispensing drugs over the Internet because it's a cheap and effective way for small professionals to get back in the game. And the Feds are looking for a test case to regulate the Internet. Don't be fooled. This is bad news for everyone. Drugs already cost 3 times more in the US than overseas and most countries don't even require a prescription for dispensing. All that medical knowledge by your pharmacist is being wasted and not leveraged for the patients benefit.
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
My girlfriend and co-founder of The Sync acquired gastroparesis from eating tainted food. She has been unresponsive to all prokinetic medicines available in the US by prescription.
One medicine which has not been approved by the FDA is Domperidone. Her gastroenterologist revealed to us recently that despite the drug being available in many countries around the world (Japan, South Africa, UK, etc.) it was not available for prescription in the US. Evdiently the costs of trials to get US FDA approval turned out to be prohibitive.
Severe gastroparesis is a disease that works havoc on your quality of life, limiting your diet, and often making sleep impossible for days on end.
Fortunately, she knew a doctor in El Salvador who was willing to ship the drug into the United States. There, all medicines are over-the-counter. Her US gastroenterologist could not even legally contact the drug company to check on side effects, or give her a prescription for needed blood tests to check how the drug was affecting her liver. Thanks, US government!
I'm certainly a ranting libertarian, but I'm willing to compromise on this issue. Let's say the FDA is an "advisory" body rather than a regulatory body. If you want the FDA "stamp of approval" on your medicine, you run the huge, expensive trials. Perhaps the FDA should also be in charge of purity of ingrediants in medicine. However doctors should be free to prescribe the drugs that people need, regardless of FDA status.
Given the strong tort system of the United States (w.r.t. breast implants and Phen-Fen, both of which got a bum rap in the courts), and the lucrative field of malpractice suits, the FDA is not needed today as the ultimate regulator of drugs.
...Is because of Viagra. In our un-ending desire for more and better sex, Viagra is turning out to be a major "culprit" in this arena. While listening to the radio this morning, it was noted that recently a man who had a _diagnosed_ heart condition was able to snag some of those blue pills on the 'net and ended up having a massive heart attack and died because of it. Whoops. Hope he died a happy man...
I can see why we need to regulate this. People will do anything to get a fix - whether it be Viagra or painkillers. Why should it be any different than the CVS store down the street? We're not talking about eToys here.
That doesn't mean you should be able to purchase it just because you want it. Your doc can still prescribe it. But you and I both know better that if a drug like Viagra were to be freely available, we'd have millions of guys walking around with hard-ons, seeing blue, and many of them dropping dead because they ignored the warning about side effects.
True, they do have that right, but does the government? The obvious answer is yes, if they think there are drugs or other controlled substances. But, how would the government know? Would they search all packages? DHL is not responsible for tracking who is shipping what, they operate under a "common carrier"-esque type law (IANAL). As far as I know, if they know something is illegal, they can and do stop it, but they are not required to try and find out.
Without seriously sitting down and thinking about it, I have to say this does not look like a bad thing. Currently similar regulations exist to make sure brick-and-morter drug stores do this, why should online drug stores be any different? I think the perscription system works quite well, or at least is better than the alternatives.
My question is: what about international drug retailers? What is to prevent a company from setting up shop in Outer Mongolia and sending all sorts of drugs (perhaps even `medicinal' pot) without a perscription? Does this already happen? For example, there are several abortion pills that a legal in places like France, but still illegal here. What is to stop me (or, rather, my girlfriend) from just ordering them from a French online pharmacy?
The only way I can see the US `solving' this is actually opening packages and doing chemical samples, and thats a pretty scary thought! What if it is sent by a private mail carrier, like DHL? It gets pretty thorny pretty fast!
First of all, I don't really see myself buying any kind of drugs on the Internet. BUT, if I did (and I'm sure there are plenty of people out there), I would want the same scrutiny and rules and whatnot applied to online pharmacies (in effect what they are) as is applied to traditional brick-and-mortar pharmacies.
I can understand the cries of "less government" and the like when it comes to some things, but when it comes to the legitimate protection of citizens, those cries seem nothing more to me than ignorant babble. Come on people, use your heads on this one.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Exactly. That's the reason why my country (Slovak Republic) won't take any smart drugs legislation. Because the pressure won't allow us to trade and to become part of international structures (such as EU and NATO). Remember the Wassenaar agreement and the letter of Janet Reno to government of Germany ? I prefer legalisation, but if US government would stand on his old-and-not-working-option on drug war, more people will die (of hard drugs).
Can an auto mechanic make a mistake that ends up with the same result as your mistake? Sure. They are human. But I'd wager that an auto mechanic is going to make a lot fewer mistakes fixing my brakes for me than I would if I did it myself.
So why do we continue to allow these auto parts pushers to operate, selling parts to unlicenced mechanics? While it's true that very few deaths are attributed to unlicenced auto repair, it's only a matter of time. We need to stop this practice before innocent lives are lost. After all, if you're too stupid to work on your car, isn't your neighbor?
--------------------
Earth first? Oooh, and I was thinking of paying the rent.
Umm, no, it's not. The 10th amendment:
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.
The licensing of doctors is a state power - my Dad's license is from the Wisconsin Medical Board. The Federal government does not have the power to step in here, and I'm certain the current Supreme Court would affirm that. It's only when things start to cross State lines (sometimes the Fed's idea of "crossing State lines" is pretty laughable) that the Federal Government steps in.
You can go on-line and buy as much pot from Amsterdam as you want, and they will sell you. The snag is that as soon as you and the seller agree to ship the product into the US, you are an internation drug smuggling conspiracy, and that is illegal, at least for you, in the U.S. (I don't know about the other end.)
-- Spring: Forces, coiled again!
It's a little late to be replying I guess. I agree with you completely that regulatory oversight of medication and its distribution is in general a necessary and even good thing. I only wished to point out that:
(1) Just because regulation at first glance looks like a good thing doesn't necessarilly mean it is, either in practice or in theory (when looked at more closely).
(2) Any regulation, no matter how useful or necessary, carries with it a significant price tag which all too often is not even considered, much less taken into account. With respect to regulating medicine (and food quality, for that matter) our society has (IMHO correctly) decided that that price is well worth paying.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I vehemently oppose regulation of speech, etc., but I fail to see the terrible harm that would come of safeguarding against bad medicines.
Consider the folowing scenerio:
Tribal lore in an undisclosed State, on an undisclosed Indian Reservation, has managed to preserve a remarkably effective treatment for [insert your favorite ailment here] in the face of several hundred years of seige to their culture by European settler's.
A large pharmaceutical company "discover's" the tribes technique, finds it to be useful, and co-opts the idea. Perhaps they are granted a patent, or perhaps merely FDA approval. Either way, the regulartory apparatus of our government will always work in favor of the drug pusher^H^H^H^H^H^H company and against the folk doctors in question. The result? It will probably be unlawful for the tribe to continue practicing medicine in the way they have for thousands of years, while the drug company will likely get exclusive rights to market their treatment, probably at a much inflated price.
This is an example where "safeguarding against bad medicines" does indeed do immediate and ongoing harm.
Real world examples? Synthetic THC vs. Marijuana for glaucoma and nausea treatment, for one. Numerous other examples exist -- check out some of the patents granted to the pharmeceutical industry recently, based on folk-cures from Indonesia to Brazil which have (had?) been in use for thousands of years, and are now the sole intellectual property of various drug companies, who will let you use it, for a monopolistically high price.
Regulation can be a good thing and is sometimes necessary, but it has a side which grows ever uglier the greater corporate influence comes to dominate the regulating institution, namely our state and federal governments, and (even when justified and necessary) regulation always carries a heavy price.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
1. Attempt to impersonate a nurse calling in a perscription.
2. Take a perscription form and write what I want down on it.
One of my relatives is a pharmacist. She is quite good at detecting bogus prescriptions. The typical case is an individual who walks into the pharmacy, looking like a junky, with a badly forged prescription for a highly abusable drug. They usually disappear as soon as she picks up the telephone. Certain drugs must be prescribed on special, numbered prescription forms. If anything is questionable, the pharmacist calls the doctor to verify the prescription. A more common problem is old doctors who will write prescriptions for a fee. They don't care if they lose their license since they were going to retire anyway.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
That would certainly be feasible, but it wouldn't be desirable. Whichever states had the weakest regulation would be the states that all the drug sellers would move to, and one thing that certainly needs to be regulated consistently is medicine. I vehemently oppose regulation of speech, etc., but I fail to see the terrible harm that would come of safeguarding against bad medicines.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
A neighborhood pharmacy might, for instance, setup a website so that regular customers can place perscription orders on-line and recieve email notification or instant messages when the perscription is ready to be picked up. They might also make arrangements with the local clinic or doctors.
This legistation would require website that provide strictly "local" service (local to a single neighborhood) to be federally regulated. This seems to largely tip the scales in favor of large national providers of drugs.
Considering they're dealing with _drugs_ I'd say it is OK. There is a reason you need a license to sell drugs in a regular store, that reason is at least as strong when dealing with a net-store. My $0.02.
Short answer: See NWO, errrr, I mean WTO.
Long answer: The way it would work internationally is that the US would put pressure (in the form of withholding aid and technology, increasing tarriffs, etc.) on the countries that don't go along with its plan. Just like they put pressure on other countries with regard to their drug laws, intellectual property laws, etc. That should take care of most of the countries outside of Western Europe. As for those guys, they're even more liberal than the United States, so it's hard to imagine their governments keeping their fingers out of it. Also, as the ridiculous "War over Kosovo" showed, for some reason they have a hard time saying no to the United States.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Sounds like a suicide to me. Why are my tax dollars being spent on preventing suicide?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Yeah, ok, that makes sense... sure. I never said I didn't agree with people getting meds online. My point is that this legislation merely puts the online med retailers on level ground with all the Eckard's, CVSs, Wal-Mart's, etc. out there. Of course, it is government regulation, so a great many people will fuss about it for that reason alone.
Eric
Now, I'm sure all the states'-righters out there will have problems with this, but in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this legislation. I don't have widespread knowledge of the workings of other states, but here in NC, it is illegal to purchase perscription drugs without a perscription from a licensed medical practitioner (for the most part, read doctor).
;->), wait for verification (if that indeed is part of the procedure), wait for Bubba to go to the warehouse, search for the medicine (you don't expect them to pay licensed/trained pharmicists do you?) and ship it to you. I'll pay a few extra bucks to get it filled in the store in about 15 minutes.
As stated, the purpose of this legislation is to force online medicine retailers to obtain a valid prescription before selling the drug to the customer. This is the way all drug stores (as opposed to e-drug-stores [this e- crap gets ridiculous sometimes:) ]) work. If they violate this practice, and get caught, they are in deep doo.
In my opinion, this legislation simply requires that online sellers play by the same rules. On the other hand, I'm not sure how they plan to verify a patient's prescription. Do you have to mail them a copy of the paper-prescription? What happens if it is lost in the mail? Do you allow scanned/faxed copies? How do you prevent forgery in those cases?
Personally, if I get a prescription for medicine, I assume my doctor wants me on it as soon as possible. I'm not going to wait for a prescription to get to the retailer in Outer Mongolia (or wherever
In short, I think this is a good idea, but as is the case with all good ideas, it need a good implementation plan for it to be universally accepted.
Eric
> impartial government organization
That's an oxymoron.
Doesn't the Food and Drug Administration already review new drugs and place a fine on improper distribution? If I understand correctly, there are mail-order pharmacies that will ship out of state, and they are already under federal jurisdiction. Regulating US-based e-commerce of prescription drugs seems to be a natural extension of that role. This wouldn't keep people from ordering drugs from France, just like it wouldn't keep them from physically going to Mexico to buy them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the more important significance of this is the fact that the Feds are finally trying to get into the Net world in a real way. It will be interesting to see if it has any effect.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
I can, with my limited knowlege of medicine and prescriptions, intimate from the press announcement *exactly* what harms it addresses. One, bad drugs from disreputable e-commerce firms can kill. Buy a book or toy or computer part from a shady e-commerce firm and the worst you get is ripped off. Buy your high blood pressure medication from a shady firm, and you could die. Big difference.
Second, I heard all manner of stories about Viagra being sold on the web to people who claimed prescriptions they did not have, or just plain didn't have to provide one at all. Viagra is a medication that has all kinds of warnings about it's use with heart medications and such, and even the megaconglomerate drug stores that are reputable keep a cross-reference of your other scripts to ensure that you don't take two scripts that are contra-indicated.
Finally, control over the distribution method just like they have in brick-and-mortar operations. Don't kid yourself, the DEA already spends plenty of resources keeping errant doctors and pharmacists in line. I know, my cousin is one of them. While pharmacies may be state regulated, they still need a DEA number to operate and are subject to DEA inspections and investigations. This has always been the case, it's not one of the Fed taking on new ground, just adapting to new technology.
My liberatarian background tends to shun fed involvement in state matters, but control of deadly substances is not one of them.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
Congressional representatives are effectively
owned by Big Money, and there are few institutions with more of that than the pharmaceuticals.
Which is of course a problem with the Feds assuming regulatory control; they are effectively controlled by Big Money.
Not that I see any alternative --- allowing the states to regulate sales over the internet is doomed to failure unless the states reinstitute border import controls (which would be a massive change in our economic structure that nobody is going to support).
how does regulation prevent bad prescriptions?
If you walk into the lobby of the FDA there is a large portrait of the comissioner who refused to approve thalidomide for sale in the US despite it being approved in Canada and Europe.
If you want to see what a bad prescription can do, read "Slaughter of The Innocent" by H. Ruesch.
Pharmacies are basically glorified pill counters these days.
So you are a great expert on the effectiveness of the databases that pharmacies use to catch drug interactions, eh?
still need to be made in a manner that they are safe to consume...if not then they are selling dangerous product
There is no such thing as a safe drug. You might feel you have a right to dose yourself, but I think society should protect your children at least. And that includes preventing you from dosing yourself with teratogens.
Even worse is that the overuse of some drugs, i.e. antibiotics is a national health issue. For simple public health reasons these have to be controlled.
No more so than any other activity. Examples include watching TV while driving,
Another example of something that is illegal.
Some drugs are showing effects on third and fourth generations.
In spite of current prescription laws.
These laws limited the impact of these tragedies.
Thalidomide actually does have valid medical use (leprosy). It like many other things should have a strong warning label.
Alcohol has a strong warning label too. It doesn't stop tragedies from happening.
Thalidomide is still (thankfully) illegal in the US except for clinical trials.
The problem with prosecution for child abuse is that it is an after the fact remedy.
You are still left with a crippled child.
Drug laws can and do PREVENT such cases from occurring.
For every problem due to lack of prescription laws, there is likely a problem of someone who might have avoided serious illness with early treatment had a doctor visit not been required (not everyone can afford a doctor visit, but many antibiotics are quite inexpensive).
Selling antibiotics over the counter is a public health disaster, PERIOD. They are many antibiotics that have dangerous side effects, including birth defects. Wide unregulated availability in third world countries has been PROVEN to lead to the genesis of antibiotic resistant diseases. While we have a problem with such diseases in the US, the fact is that these are predominately imported from outside the US.
Many drugs require sophisticated laboratory testing to determine the correct dose, and to insure the drug is working as intended without
side effects. Many diseases, especially chronic diseaases require such testing to detect before they become problems. There is no way these can be self-dosed.
The fact that some patients cannot afford a doctor's visit is a public health problem due to the crappy medical insurance system we have in the US. This leads to a lot of bad results, including high infant mortality rates that cannot be solved by merely removing prescription restrictions.
Universal access to a health professional is the correct solution that will have a large number of public health benefits. Removal of prescription controls would be a disaster, period.
The issue here is weather or not I have the right to buy and use a drug that has all ready passed those studies without a doctor's permission
The short answer is NO, because your taking any old drug can in fact affect others in a lot of different ways.
When the FDA says something ok to market, it means that in some clinical trial it looks like the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks. NOT that it is 'safe'. There is no such thing as a 'safe' drug.
Right now there is a lot of concern because death rates from prescription drugs are rising rapidly - a lot of new powerful drugs are coming on the market. While these are a great boon, their power also increases the risks.
Your wise or unwise use of drugs affects no only yourself, but can effect your decendents because of genetic effects when misused. Some drugs are showing effects on third and fourth generations.
Even simple drugs like alcohol have bad effects on the fetus. Some drugs are such potent teratogens that just traces of the drug in the male sperm are suspected of being able to cause severe birth defects.
Not only that, but who decides what drugs your children get? We already have too many tragic cases of kids harmed by simple overdoses of liquid Tylenol. I shudder to think what would happen when parents have the ability to buy stronger drugs freely and give them to their children.
In addition, things like overuse of antibiotics lead to spread of resistant bacteria. Many countries outside the US have VERY severe problems with this becasue they do not regulate the sale of antibiotics.
IN ADDITION, a lot of people resent the FDA controlling drugs at all. They take off to Mexico or wherever to take whatever some quack can talk them into. The same libertarian philosophy that rejects the concept of prescriptions also rejects the idea that ANY drugs, be it marijuana, heroin, LSD or thalidomide should be controlled.
I couldn't give a shit if you, as a mature adult go to hell in a handbasket. But you are NOT operating in a vacuum when it comes to drugs.
I do NOT want to be saddled with the taxes to support a brain damaged kid with flippers where his arms should have been, or having to worry about my kid getting a antibiotic resistant form of TB just because you felt you had an overriding right to take any drug you wanted.
Removing prescription controls would unleash a night of horrors on our society. To suggest such is the height of irresponsibility.
Well, you can go and research the medicines. But there are thousands out there, how are you going to know what medicine to take? What about drug interactions, both with other drugs and any physical conditions/ailments you may have? What about overdoses?
For that matter, is the average person going to understand the gobbligook that is written about a medical trial and treatment?
I guarantee that if someone self-prescribed and then either overdosed or took something that was harmful, they would sue the drug companies, the pharmacists, and the doctors for not "protecting" them from themselves.
-- Error: Cannot find file REALITY.SYS - Universe halted, please reboot!
I don't see how my chances of getting the wrong drug are any greater just because some verification is made that I have a prescription.
Because if you have a prescription presumably a doctor gave it to you. Assumption: A doctor is more likely to know what drug you need (if any) than a randomly selected person.
The reason this measure is necessary is that there are a lot of idiots out there who want to self-prescribe Prozac or Ridlin or Viagra or something. I think a BETTER measure would be to give the USERS licenses. Here's the kind of scheme I envision:
Person A is born and has no licenses. At age 8 he is given a test.
Tester:"Johnny, pour this hot coffee in your lap".
Johnny: "No."
Johnny then receives a "Can Eat At McDonald's" license.
The applicable test in this case would be given around age 12/13:
Tester: "Janey, take this pill."
Janey: "What does it do?"
Tester: "Cures your condition."
Janey: "What condition? And how?"
Tester: "Just take the pill."
Janey: "No."
Janey now has the "Can Purchase Prescription Drugs Without Body Cavity Search For Perscription" license.
Other licenses include:
"Can View Uncensored Internet" (test involves knowing the difference between instructions for making a bomb and a bomb itself)
"Can Play Violent Videogames" (test involves knowing the difference between fantasy and reality)
"Can Make Right Turn On Red" (test involves being able to recognize oncoming traffic)
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
>Will this soon be happening with state-based licensing of lawyers, doctors, etc.? Ha, I hope I am mis-understanding you, because if you're saying "what if the states suddenly start licensing doctors" I've got news for you, they are licensed by a state medical board. You must posess a license from that state to practice medicine in a particular state. James
Um... Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
"[Congress shall have the power to] regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Um... No. The "commerce clause" of the constitution only applies to the regulation of interstate commerce. The tax powers appear in separate clauses, and have nothing to do with commerce regulation. The proposed expansion of FDA administrative regulations do not need to be, (and are not) "disguised" as a tax law. (Indeed the FDA as an agency has no tax powers, so it would be impossible to do so.)
I almost hate myself for saying this, but I believe we need to enforce restrictions on controlled substances in this country and around the world (OUCH! That hurt.)
I was a security guard at Ciba-Geigy, a pharma^H^H^H^H^H^Hdrug company, among other chemicals. The place I worked actually concentrated on dyes. Anyway, we would often get calls at the guard desk from people who needed 'emergency supplies' of one drug or another that had certain 'side-effects'. These callers usually got 'irrate' when we tried to explain that we had no way of helping them (usually by saying that they needed to see their doctor).
My brother-in-law just spent Christmas Eve driving around town to various crack houses looking for his adolescent neices father. When the dirty bastard showed up, he had spent every penny he had (which was given to him to buy the child a present) on crack. I can't believe this would happen without the addictive nature of the drug. I enjoy a cigar now and again, but I wouldn't trade the Christmas morning look on my boys' face for one. Drugs like crack can't be handle by normal humans and the government has a responsibility to protect.
I detest government regulation, but in this case I see the collateral damage of a free drug society being worse than federal intrusion. The FDA should have the power to watch over the online drug stores to insure that they don't become online drug pushers.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
First the usual caveats: I'm not a physician or pharmacist, but I've spent a fair portion of my career as a healthcare IT consultant, so I do know a little about this.
This is probably both needed and not needed. (Remember, though, that Bill and Hillary have not given up on socializing medicine in the US, and will take any incremental steps they can that will interpose government control between you and any healthcare resource. It should go without saying that such control is a bad thing.)
Pharmacies and physicians are registered with the FDA today. Every doc (and presumably every pharmacist) has an "FDA number" that they must use to identify themselves with certain classes of prescriptions, particularly narcotics. (In fact, many of the better medical web sites on the web require an FDA number to get at the "good stuff", which is presumably not safe for viewing by the riff-raff (that's us.))
Based on my consulting experience, it seems that state laws are the primary governing factor in regulating prescriptions, and that the variations from state to state complicate things for providers that operate in more than one state. In particular, only a few states allow electronic prescriptions and/or signatures - most require a written prescription because they are far more traceable, immune to tampering, and tamper evident (very important) than their electronic counterparts.
I'm talking reality, not theory here - I think electronic prescriptions would be a very bad thing: this industry can barely handle its paper, and pays seriously substandard wages to its professionals from CIOs on down. Their chance of doing this well as an industry is near-nil. Doing this right is not a trivial problem: It involves the best cryptographic systems available and must provide all the usual crypto benefits: privacy, authentication, non-repudiation, and a serious audit trail as well. Pluggable authentication was about to make this happen a few years ago, but now that we can't do that, there will have to be an entire infrastructure built on a single crypto technology which will then leave everything vulnerable and slow to react in the event it's ever cracked. The government is more than part of the problem here, so I find their desire to help kind of ludicrous.
While it might be nice to streamline the prescription process across states, it's clearly an area where the states have control today (and are granted that control under the tenth amendment.) Still, it wouldn't surprise me to see an FDA number required on all prescriptions in the near future as an attempt to normalize the process across the states. Unfortunately, that will remove the abilty of some states to continue to use their own, more effective regulations.
Now, whether the FDA should exist at all is an entirely different (and quite valid) discussion topic. (Let's just say the FDA's record is far from sterling, and places it among the very worst Federal violators of the constitution.)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
You make some valid points, but it's quite unfair to paint pharmacists as just "pill counters".
Actually, I trust the pharmacists knowledge of drugs, their uses (indications), interactions, and situations to avoid (contraindications) far more than I trust the doctor's knowledge of the same. Although the compounding chemist of the old days is sadly becoming extinct, many of the newer drugs require active and knowledgeable management by the pharmacist.
This is particularly true with the new classes of drugs called "kinetics", which are custom mixed in response to events in the patient's own body chemistry and require close cooperation between the lab, pharmacist and clinical staff. True, kinetics are mostly used in hospitals, but they are beginning to be used in more outpatient settings, and in any case, pharmacology is one of the most rapidly changing areas of medicine today.
These folks know a lot, and often know it better than the docs, who have enough trouble just keeping up with new treatments without trying to keep up with all the drug innovations, too.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
The rapid rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the past few years is truly scary. Sure the docs are somewhat to blame for continuing to prescribe antibiotics when the patient appears to have a cold just to "give them the appearance of doing something". (This is probably THE major problem in medicine - the refusal to admit that there's nothing medicine can do about a lot of things.)
At the same time, they're our first line of defense at containing antibiotic resistance, so controlled access to these drugs is critical.
Do a web search on VISA and VRSA to get an idea of what's at stake here. (VRSA is Vancomycin Resistant Staphlococcus Aureus, VISA is Immune. Staph Aureus is the most common Staph bacterium, and infests most hospitals. Vancomycin is generally regarded as "the antibiotic of last resort", so VISA is very bad news, indeed.)
FYI, if you are interested in these things, you can read much of The Lancet online (the British medical journal) with registration at www.thelancet.com. As an interested party with no real medical background, I think this is a great deal - I could never justify subscribing (it's relatively expensive), but this lets me learn a lot about current research and findings without the cost or hassle of visiting a medical library, which I'd never bother to do - it's just not that important. I started out there doing research on prions, which are even scarier than VISA and a very good reason to wonder if you really want to ever go to the dentist again...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
So how will this proosal interact with Int'l Law? Most other countries have their own standards bodies with regartds to what and what isn't accpetable for phamaceutical use. (ie. The whole RU-486 thing in France).
As the 'net is supposedly without int'l boundaries, how does the Clinton Administration believe that they will be able to enforce a $500,000 fine?
And last, wouldn't the threat of regulation drive some of these companies completely underground, or at least to places where the drug laws are much more lax? Would there be anything to stop someone from setting up a website from Amsterdam that allows you to buy pot online? Would this not be similar to the current situation?
--sugarman--
Various drugs should indeed be restricted to prescriptions. If every time we got a sniffle and grabbed anti-biotics, whether they are needed or not (i.e. a virus) then we just encourage antibiotic-resistent bacteria (which are very nasty, as my sister just had surgery since antibiotics no longer work).
I'm sorry, but for my own health I don't want my cube neighbor going down to the local pharmacy and buying antibiotics for the flu. There are specified doses of various drugs which vary based on age, weight, and family history. If drugs were unregulated we'd have a nightmare on our hands. There'd be lots of ODs and other problems.
As for antibiotic resistant bacteria, they are becoming more and more common, especially in countries that overprescribe antibiotics.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Apparently, your own lack of principles leads you to think that libertarians have no principles. You would be wrong there. The proper libertarian solution is brand names. They work. Think about how Tylenol responded to their tampering problem.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
You're making a wrong assumption: that I need protecting. Of course your conclusion is then completely wrong.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Um, Alik?? Prescription medications are *already* regulated in every state. You haven't explained why we need federal control.
-russ
p.s. yes, sometimes private entities fail. However, those that fail go out of business, and their owners fall into disrepute. When government fails to properly regulate, does it ever go out of business? Do any government employees suffer?
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
There's a fundamental problem here... what about every website that's run OUTSIDE OF THE USA?
I predict we'll see more and more of this internet regulation as government agencies slowly realize that they are unable to control or collect revenue from online business under the traditional, over-complicated, time-consuming, labor-intesive process.
How can you impose import restrictions, trade bans, tarrifs, sales tax, etc when you're dealing with encrypted transactions over the internet.
Most online business today chooses to voluntarily comply with various regulations, like what products ebay chooses to not auction, but if ebay chose to allow others to auction prescription or illegal drugs *and* it were located outside the US, what could be done?
Governments can make the rules, but can the rules REALLY be inforced? I bet that once governments start trying to enforce these rules, you'll see businesses move to small countries with the most free business environments.
If your entire business consists of 2 72" racks in a datacenter, and a local sysadmin, it's pretty easy to move your company to any country about as fast as you can propagate a DNS change.
The cold hard reality is that online businesses can use encryption and change location faster than government can figure out how to deciper what's going on and find a way to collect money or regulate.
Attempts to tax and regulate the internet will only end up driving out businesses from opressive countries. The interesting thing is that your company HQ can be anywhere, and your employees can be anywhere else.
Laws and regulations will divide into two types: those that are enforcable in the physical world, and those that are enforcable in the online world.
It's also the area in which the case for government regulation is the weakest. A private organization like Underwriter's Laboratories could easily certify pharmacies. People would be unlikely to use uncertified pharmacies, and those who did would be taking the risk knowingly.
This means that it's usually stupid to take a drug without first getting expert advice. There are exceptions, but you need to know what you're doing when you take something. Actually, by the way, it's also stupid to take something, even if you have expert advice, unless you've researched it yourself, or, if you're not qualified to research it, gotten the best second opinion you can.
However, there's a philosophical issue here. Should the government stop people from doing stupid things? Especially, should the government stop people from doing things that may not be stupid in a particular case, even though they might be stupid in general?
I say no. That means that as far as I'm concerned, you ought to be able to choose to buy, say, Viagra, if you feel like it. If doesn't work because you bought it in the wrong situation, that's your tough luck. If it gives you a stroke and kills you, good... the gene pool has been improved. Nonetheless, it's your choice and your right to make that choice.
Of course, that also means that if it gives you a stroke and it doesn't kill you, I'm not going to feel particularly obligated to pay for your nursing home care. I may just let you die in the street. That's the price of stupidity.
Talking about "informed decisions" is meaningless in a system in which the patient can't make a decision. I cannot buy certain drugs without a prescription, no matter how informed I am. It's just an outright lie to call that giving me an informed decision.
As far as stocking up on EBay goes, the reason that's dangerous is that it's illegal. It's pretty hard to set up a reliable certifying organization for an illegal activity, and furthermore decent operators are likely to be put off by the illegality, leaving the field for fast-buck operators. This is an almost inevitable consequence of outlawing something, and is one of the reasons why outlawing things that people are going to do anyway, and that hurt nobody but themselves, is stupid.
The interstate commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate actual interstate commerce, not every possible "opportunity" for interstate commerce, "effect" upon interstate commerce, etc. Nebulous interpretation of the interstate commerce clause is one of the main lockpicks used by the Feds to escape their Constitutional cage.
Congress may lawfully regulate each specific instance in which a drug, or anything else, is taken from State A to State B. However, this is not a general power to regulate the marketing of drugs, or anything else, in general.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I don't know who you are, but you speak the truth!
I cannot tell you the number of times I have gone to a doctor, waited for hours in the waiting room, only to be told I needed this antibiotic or that, here's a scrip. I can generally tell when I have an infection - something that needs an antibiotic. When I am unsure, and I can't diagnose myself, then I use a few home med books (a couple of reader digest things, and a PDR) and the internet to try to come up with a diagnosis. If I am STILL unsure, then I go to the doctor (one time, I had a problem where I got a sharp pulsing pain in my head - aleve did nothing - I went to the doctor, and found out it was probably allergy related - some allergy meds later, I was fine - this is something I didn't know, now I do). But if I think I have a clue, then I choose to medicate myself - I will NOT blame someone else if I screw up and die (because I will read about side effects and drug interactions in my PDR, and online).
It all comes down to responsibility. I feel as an ADULT, I can be responsible for myself. I feel that others should be responsible to themselves as well - and if they fuck up, then they have no one to blame but themselves. Unfortunately, these elitists think that they should try to control me (fuck 'em, I get my pills in Mexico!).
You are right - it is time to thin the herd.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
You make good points - points 2 and 3, especially.
The problem I hate dealing with when I "self-medicate" is figuring out drug interactions and side effects. The problem is that I know the information exists in electronic form, but isn't accessible to ME.
Pharmacies use drug interaction databases to figure out if there will be a problem with two prescriptions - why can't I get access to this software/database? Why can't I get a system to tell me possible side effects of a drug or combo's of drugs? After all, we are merely talking a large expert system here - why is this data denied to citizens who have the knowledge, will and machinery to use it?
Your third point on public health is a good one - esp related to antibiotics. For a long while Tetracycline and Erithromycin (sp?) were two long acting and highly prescribed wide ranging antibiotics, but recently, they are being prescribed less and less (to keep things from building resistance). They now prescribe other drugs (with even weirder sounding names). I try to keep a list of the "new" drugs, and when I travel to Mexico, I try to get these. Why isn't there a database or something with a list of drugs like this - one year Tetracycline, the next - something else. At least then, I can be better informed!
A web site like this (drug interactions/side effects/current antibiotics) would be of great use (maybe even add an expert system on the back end for diagnosis?)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I can't do it all myself - I am an ADULT. I can recognize what I CAN DO, and WHAT IS BEYOND ME. Checking to see if the house will fall in? I can probably do that, to a point. Cancer treatment - haven't been there, but I think that is beyond me, and should be left to a doctor. Automobile/appliance safety? Autos may be difficult, but it can be pretty easy to spot an unsafe one, to a point (would I do my own crash testing? No, but even I could see the Sidekick had too high of CG). Appliances would be the same way (as long as "they" keep putting screws on the damn things so I can open them up and check!). I also always try to check my food - or I grow my own.
You see, I am willing to do quite a lot for myself, but I know when something is outside of my realm of knowledge or experience. At that point I will seek further advice, be it from a doctor or a mechanic. Even then, I will always ask around - to see if someone knows someone who has had an experience related to mine (this is called word-of-mouth - you generally will know if something is safe or whatnot via it long before you try it - unless you happen to try it first - which is why I tend to avoid version 1.0 products in the first place - let others be the beta testers, IHNSHO)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I do have a PDR (in the smaller, "novel" sized book form - at the Mexican pharmacy I go to they have a PDR that is several LARGE volumes - don't know where one would get that, let alone where one would put it!) - I will have to look into the site you speak of. I have also seen similar drug info on the web site of the Mayo Clinic - it was pretty helpful.
Today I came across a perl based medical query/expert system (on one of the script archive sites). I can't remember if it was free or pay (for a license), but it sounded interesting. It would just be nice if you could go to a site, type in a list of your symptoms, then have it spit out a "treatment", along with a list of possible drugs and possible interactions with anything you are currently taking...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
That seems to compare fairly favorably with the masses of people who die from FDA-approved drugs given to them from regulated pharmacies and doctors with the legal power of prescription...and which are, of course, still produced by companies who have to acknowledge the risk (in any drug) of adverse reactions in some circumstances.*
Regulation doesn't seem to be doing that great a job protecting us from bad or misused drugs. Yes, we avoided thalidomide (which Europe, Center of Regulation, allowed!), but we didn't avoid Phen-Fen. Yes, some idiots would die (and do anyhow!) from using Viagra when they have a heart condition, but many people die from reactions, side-effects, and plain mis-prescriptions in the current system.
* Anyone who doesn't read the warnings and other information about any drug they (or their kids) take is an idiot, and there's simply no denying that. You can't protect people from themselves.
"I believe in free speech, but there's got to be an exception for dirty words/weird ideas/this thing I don't like."
"I believe in open government, but they have to be able to keep secret things like how much money they spend on any "classified" military design project/their evidence justifying "anti-terrorist" actions/how the current war is really going."
"I believe in due process, but in order to fight the drug war we have to have no-knock warrants/Army soldiers wandering around and ending up shooting goat-herders/ludicrous mandatory minimum laws/property confiscation laws."
All noble compromises, certainly.
As Ben Franklin pointed out, when you start trading away your freedoms for safety, you don't get either.
No kidding! Where, precisely, did I say anything remotely like it wasn't?
Genuine needs of self-defense may require secrecy, but I will laugh in your face if you try to claim that, far more often than not, the privilege of military secrecy hasn't been used by the US government to hide grotesquely swelling budgets, impress politicians, and hide misdeeds. Or that the overwhelmingly vast majority of "crucial secrets" lack anywhere remotely near the importance of the examples you site. Are you aware that the design for the heated urinal in the SR-71 spyplane was once classified top secret, even though it did not compromise any aspect of the plane? A urinal. Top secret.
If you want to pretend that is what I was talking about, you are welcome to your own delusion. It's a pleasant one, certainly, since I wish that was the only time our supposed Consitutional rights get "bent". Do feel free to ignore that numerous innocent, unarmed, unresisting people have just happened to have died in "high-intensity" police drug raids that happened to arrive at the wrong house. Or that the US Army is being used for drug interdiction along the US/Mexican border, and that an innocent South Texan teenage goatherd was shot to death while tending his herd on his own property last year
Interesting. Examples of harmful broad and specific ways that people have decided it was necessary to "bend" fundamental principles and liberties for their various interests (as noble as they considered them) are, in your opinion "strawmen". I must conclude that either you really don't understand the meaning of the term or that you completely missed what I was saying. Or both.
Yes, the very nature of government requires that you surrender complete freedom of action in order to have your liberties protected. The idea is that one has the moral right to freedom of action where it does not impinge on the freedom or well-being of others. This is what government is supposed to allow, by stopping those who would impinge on others' rights.
Most libertarians, including myself, acknowledge government as a necessary evil because we don't happen to believe that a peaceful, genuinely free anarchy would last, as much as we'd like that. However, the power and reach of this evil must only be tolerated to the precise extent needed to preserve our liberties. Unfortunately, most people are far too willing to surrender "little" bits of their (and our!) liberties for many reasons. Even many people who call themselves "libertarians" are willing to make a fool's trade with their rights and the rights of other people on certain issues.
The idea behind perscription drugs is that, unlike over-the-counter medications, they aren't safe to be taken without medical advice. For example, many perscription drugs are potentially addictive--for example, many people get addicted to sleeping pills, tranquilizers, or worse; you also need to know about side effects and safe dosages. Ideally, doctors and their pharmacies would only let people have the drugs and the supply that they legitimately need. I believe that a few people have died while using Viagra from heart problems--unsurprising given the circumstances, but hopefully doctors would limit perscriptions to the healthy.
Of course, "internet doctors" don't exactly closely examine their patients. So how can they be assured that their perscription is appropriate?
But the internet isn't the only problem with the perscription drug system. Even if all doctors are honest, I can:
1. Attempt to impersonate a nurse calling in a perscription.
2. Take a perscription form and write what I want down on it.
I have no idea how pharmacies guard against this. I imagine it's quite possible to get an illegitimate perscription through these conventional means, though. Regardless, aren't telephone and paper perscriptions amazingly primitive anyway?
Here's my proposal for digital age perscriptions: A doctor enters a perscription on a computer (perhaps using convenient pull down menus of typical doses), enters his passphrase, and sends the digitally authenticated perscription to a database accessable to the pharmacies. The patient goes to a pharmacy which retrives the authenticated perscription. No more messy handwriting mistakes (which do happen), no phony perscriptions.
The power to license doctors and regulate the distribution of medicines is absolutely the realm of the Federal government. Moreover, only the Federal government can reglate this area effectively and without bias.
Let's look at the alternatives:
THE CONSUMERS: which is to say, the marketing divisions of the drug companies that stand behind these products. Whatever confidence I may have had in the wisdom of the Average Joe, is now lost in the haze of happy-feely "all natural" and "herbal" labels I see on potent chemicals like St John's Wort and various binge pills^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hweight loss supplements. It's clear that the noble consumer can be won over by smooth talk and obfuscation, all of which is fostered by large corporations that consider 10 or 20 deaths acceptable in the name of profits. "After all, nearly 90% of EZ-Thin Herbal All-Natual Weight Loss Dietary SupplementTM live for five years or more after taking our pill with only minor complications!!!! Proven at the University of Nairobi to make you smarter and more attractive!!!!!! All Natural!!!*"
*(some test subjects experienced heart failure and testicular shrinkage)
THE PHARMACEUTICALS: Don't make me laugh. History is replete with examples of powerful companies that will ignore or downplay the lethal or detrimental effects of their products in the quest for that extra $1M.
THE STATES: Essentially this is the pharmaceuticals all over again. Congressional representatives are effectively owned by Big Money, and there are few institutions with more of that than the pharmaceuticals. Why would a representative prevent a drug manufacturer, that brings perhaps hundreds of jobs to the state, from producing a dangerous drug that might not even have a very large market in the host state? The wonderful thing about the internet is that you can base your operations in Kansas and sell primarily to people in Idaho, or Washington, or vice versa.
With regards to the contention that will undoubtedly be made by some righteous libertarian or other, the Federal government enjoys this power because it is a matter of interstate commerce. Offering products for sale on the internet constitutes a nation-wide purchasing opportunity, unless the host company is unwilling to ship out of state. But in the case of prescription drugs, which carry a high profit margin, I don't think that will be the case.
Now, I do lament the loss of personal discretion that comes with the Feds assuming power in this matter. Informed individuals should have the right to choose. The trouble is that many people believe they are informed when in reality they are sadly, or even dangerously misinformed. That kills people. And it's why we have an FDA to begin with.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
My grandmother came to this country from a country where drugs were not regulated (at the time). One of the consequences of that is that she had to be more informed about what drugs she was prescribed or prescribed for herself.
Since she's been in the U.S. of A., this knowledge has saved her life no less than 20 times in the last ca.25 years. How? Because while spending time in hospitals (she's old) she has been brought drugs that would have killed her. She is still alive today.
Another consequence is that this knowledge or an interest in it tends to be passed down through generations (like cooking recipes). Never in my household are any drugs taken without consulting a PDR (Physicians Desk Reference) and usually a few other sources. A similar culture can be seen by contrasting cultures that consume alcohol responsibly from an early age and most U.S. cultures, where we are restricted by law from consuming alcoholic beverages before the age of 21yrs.
Incidently, the rabid regulation of drugs in the U.S. prevents the use of less expensive and more effective drugs. Cocaine and paregoric are just two that come to mind. (Check WordNet, btw).
This kind of regulation was long over due. People started to notice something when Viagra came about. There are some pretty desperate men out there that are will to break the law and put themselves at risk just to get a drug that *might* help them with ED.
You missed the point of this kind of regulation. You missed the point of medicine and perscriptions. The point is that unless you are ABSOLUTELY sure the functions of the body and the medicines invovled, something really bad can happen. Regulations like this make it the doctor's and pharmacy's responsibility to let us know these things. I know I don't know about the biochemical reactions when I take an antibiotic but I will trust my doctor and my pharmacy to tell me if there is a large side effect or anything else I should know about.
With these facts in hand, one can make an informed decision instead of just swallowing pills and hoping that the right combination makes you fell better.
If you don't believe this, then why not just hang out at eBay and stock up on your drugs now. Or maybe you do really trust those guys?
I'll admit to being a bit biased, being in med school and all that. However, I think the points that some other posters have made need to be reinforced. It's true that in an ideal libertarian society, there'd be no need for any kind of prescriptions; you could just find a pharmacy and buy what you wanted. The problem is that this ideal depends on having an educated citizenry. Issues of intelligence aside, in order to be educated about a medication, you need valid information. How likely do you think it is that the pharmaceutical industry, if left unregulated, would be willing to provide negative information about their products? The chemical structures of drugs would probably be locked up as "trade secrets". This is a fairly clear case of abuse of power. (Remember the days when people went around in wagons selling their Patented Cure-All Tonics?) Hence, the Food and Drug Act, which has had a net benefit for the health of Americans.
It's true that people should take responsibility for their actions. However, there's a limit to how much self-education you can expect someone to do. It's not reasonable to expect every person to keep perfectly up-to-date on biochemistry, consumer electronics, economics, and every other field of study which might affect his or her life. The volume of information out there is just too huge; this is why the pundits say we're in the Information Age. Therefore, like a good little capitalist economy, we specialize in various fields of knowledge. The problem comes when we can no longer trust a given person to have or use the knowledge their role implies. Without the ability to trust individuals or corporations directly, we have to fall back to the trusted-third-party model.
One poster suggested that instead of government, we rely on corporate entities (profit or nonprofit) whose job is to certify credentials. That sometimes works, but not always --- witness the recent problems with TRUSTe. In this case, the Federal Government doesn't have anything to gain by playing favorites, and therefore it can probably be trusted. (The FDA, IIRC, is made up of appointed officials, not elected ones, making it a bit harder to corrupt with money.) Therefore, the Feds might not be the optimal solution, but they strike me as better than any proposed alternative.
Alik Widge
MD/PhD Program
University of Pittsburgh/Carnegie Mellon University
Um, Alik?? Prescription medications are *already* regulated in every state. You haven't explained why we need federal control.
IMHO, the Feds have to be invoked in this case because we're not dealing with transactions within one state. Most e-pharmacies are trying to sell to the entire nation at once, which suggests the need for national-level regulation. If nothing else, it clearly brings in the interstate commerce authorities.
p.s. yes, sometimes private entities fail. However, those that fail go out of business, and their owners fall into disrepute. When government fails to properly regulate, does it ever go out of business? Do any government employees suffer?
I haven't seen TRUSTe go out of business...
Aside from that, you make a fair point. Government is poor at noticing when something is broken. However, I still claim that the government is likely to do a better job than a private entity; see next post.
Alik
'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 poeple.'
Like all other unconstitutional federal laws, it will be disguised as a tax law. Although, I don't think they even try to hide it anymore.
It is amazing how people can miss the atrocities in front of there faces, but go totally mad over some little issue that matters none.
Death to SB-486
So the real issue is truth in advertising? This is the first anyone's mentioned that. Are the online pharmacies being deceptive? Is the FDA accusing them of that?
When people make mistakes like these - mistakes that aren't really their fault - they want government to help.
It certainly is their own fault. (And I havn't seen anyone complaining about what drug they bought on an online pharmacy. Where are these people?) It should be obvious that you have two options, do the research on your own and decide whether you should take a drug, or consult a professional (a doctor). I'm not saying that the option of consulting a doctor should be taken away. I'm just saying that the people who don't want to deal with a doctor for whatever reason still should have the right to purchase whatever drug they want. An intelligent person can make a more informed decision than a doctor, because they can take the time to do research, a doctor will rarely do that before prescribing a drug.
A study found that 91% of the time, patients were not adequately informed about health decisions by their doctor. Am I so incapable of thinking for myself that I should be thrown in prison (and any pharmacy that helps me fined a half-million dollars) if I want a drug without a doctor's prescription?
Then everyone should strongly advise against this, but let the above-average person still have the right to do it. Anyone with the ability to read and get to a decent library can read all the same information that doctors have access to. A great deal of information can be found right on the net.
I'm really surprised to see so many people on /. arguing that the world needs to be kept safe enough that even the most foolish people can't hurt themselves.
Here is a Usenet post from someone who called up the police department and pharmacy trying to get information about this case.
I realize it's just an example, but I should point out that acetominophen is a pretty dangerous drug, compared to how casually it is treated (the toxic dose is fairly low). In fact, it's added to drugs with recreational value (e.g. codeine, hydrocodone, dextromethorphan) so that anyone trying to get high off of it will destroy their liver. For some reason, it's considered more desirable to cripple or kill people than to let them get high.
I'm really shocked to see the crack at Libertarians in the story. Especially when it doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand.
I don't think any of the online pharmacies have been accused of messing up orders. (Though it wouldn't surprise me - real pharmacies do it all the time, and sometimes it kills people). The issue is that they're selling people prescription drugs when they don't really have a prescription. This perpetuates the dangerous idea that the people have any right to determine what they put into their own bodies, so of course the government must put a stop to it. I suppose also at issue is fewer people being forced to go to a doctor just to get a cursory examination, the prescription they knew they needed, and a $75 bill for the office visit.
I don't see how my chances of getting the wrong drug are any greater just because some verification is made that I have a prescription.
Drug interactions and dosages are information that is readily available to anyone, whether or not they are a doctor. An individual doing research for themself can do a much more thorough job than a doctor, who is probably not going to take the time to do any research at all. A doctor could easily forget something, or not be aware of new information.
For that matter, is the average person going to understand the gobbligook that is written about a medical trial and treatment?
I can understand it, and I have no medical training or education. I have to look up new words frequently, but I'm able to tell that I havn't seen that word before and I need to look it up. It's not like I'm not understanding it and not realizing. If someone knows they're not able to read medical literature, then they can consult a doctor. I don't think anyone is arguing against seeing doctors. Just that people who don't want to should have that right.
Since mention was made of what hte libertarians would say about this, I thought I'd give what libertarians would generally agree on in this area. Licensing serves two purposes main purposes -- to provide information to the consumer about whether they can rely on someone, which libertarians would support (but see below), and to prevent consumers from doing business with people the government doesn't approve of.
If I were ordering drugs online, I would like to see that the pharmacy is licensed by someone who I believe is qualified to evaluate a pharmacy, like a state board. I don't particularly care whether it is california's (where i live) board of health that has licensed them. I just want to know that they aren't selling rat poison as aspirin. I don't need a federal law requiring licensing for drug sales over the internet, I just need a federal law that makes fraud a crime, so that no one can say they are licensed by whoever unless they are really licensed by them. You don't need to force people to go for this kind of licensing. People won't buy anything from people who aren't licensed. A better term would be "certified". It's like being UL Listed. In this scenario, my chances of getting a bad prescription are very low.
The other purpose of licensing is similar to the charters governments used to grant. It isn't to protect the consumer, it's to make sure that some industry is in fact controlled by the government. The government wants to keep an eye on drug companies and licensing is the easiest way to do it (why track them down when you can just require them to register). This doesn't have a damn thing to do with my getting a bad prescription, but it does mean that I can't get a bottle of decent painkillers to carry for emergencies when going on off road motorcycle trips without having to worry about whether the federal government approves of what I'm doing.
This is the argument libertarians would give about why this licensing is a bad idea. In fact, we really want to avoid the licensing because we want people to be able to buy their heroin online cheaply so that they don't have to rob us for drug money, or lurk in alleyways and bring down property values.
--Kevin
Thomas Jefferson also thinks that the Federal government has no power to make the buying and selling of medicine a crime:
[From the website of the Constitution Society:] Jefferson: Federal Criminal Powers Limited
Jefferson: Federal Criminal Powers Limited
Copyright © 1994 Jon Roland. Permission is granted to publish with attribution.
Thomas Jefferson, in the Kentucky Resolutions , 1798:
This is the classic Jefferson quote in which he succinctly states the constitutional limits on the powers of the central government to prosecute persons under criminal law for acts committed on state territory. He does not get into the "general legislative powers" of Congress over federal territories, which have been reasonably interpreted to allow broad criminal jurisdiction, but the Constitution clearly states that such jurisdiction extends only to territory not the territory of any state. One might also argue that the constitutional provision that empowers the federal government to guarantee to the States a republican form of government confers powers of criminal prosecution in the event that the federal government had to step in temporarily to govern a state in which government had failed to maintain a republican form, in which case it would be governing the state as a kind of federal territory for the duration of the emergency. The only other exception is a power to discipline military personnel for acts they might commit, including those on state territory. However, this power would not extend to nonmilitary government officials, who would be subject only to federal civil remedies or removal from office, or criminal prosecution under state law.
Federal "territory" does not include property owned in fee simple by the federal government that lies within state territory, nor property on which activities are otherwise subject to regulation as interstate commerce or for excise or import taxation, neither of which create "federal territory" unless the land has been ceded to the federal government by the state legislature, nor do the powers to regulate or tax provide authority for criminal penalties (disablement of life or liberty), only for civil penalties (disablement of property).
Apply this standard to most of the statutes passed during the last 60 years or to the federal agencies and regulations established during that period, and it is clear why constitutionalists see a conspiracy to incrementally overthrow the Constitution. The constitutional guarantees of civil rights won't protect us if the restrictions on governmental powers are not strictly enforced. Those who imagine they can support only the provisions they like and ignore violations of others are deluding themselves.
Citizens have failed to do their duty to independently determine the constitutionality and legality of official acts. They have been all too willing to delegate that duty to courts, superiors, or legal advisors. The Principle of Nuremberg is that the duty to make such a determination cannot be delegated. The U.S. Constitution was meant to be understood and enforced by every citizen, according to the intent of the Framers, and not according to the passions of the moment. We have seen what happens in other countries, like the old Soviet Union, when an otherwise good constitution is not enforced by every citizen. This is especially important when courts become corrupt, and interpret the Constitution in ways that serves not the people but their would-be masters.
Constitution Society Home Page
Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?
If you want to know what the Commerce Clause means, it might be wise to consider what the man who was the principal author of the Constitution had to say on the subject. He discussed the matter with great clarity in a letter to Congress, in which letter he explained why he was vetoing a bill (he was President at the time) in spite of the fact that a) he agreed that the project funded by the bill was a worthy cause, and b) it had been argued that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to spend the money as the bill proposed to do:
Veto of federal public works bill
March 3, 1817
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.
"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.
A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.
If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.
I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
James Madison,
President of the United States
There is no greater authority on the meaning of the Constitution than James Madison.
Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?
Rather than waste a vote on a Libertarian, vote Republican. They may not be much better than Democrats but they are still better. I wouldn't be concerned about the abortion issue, George W. Bush isn't going to push it and no one in Congress or the Senate that has any clout will either. Libertarians have too many loonies in their camp to be taken seriously. How many people are going to vote for a party that considers child prostitution and child pornography as legal activities so long as the children agree to do it??? I'm not so sure we are ready to accept the privatisation of the police force either. The thought of competing private security agencies worries me a bit for some reason. I'm all for open borders and limited government but having seen the results of the anarchy in Africa and the lack of the rule of law in the former Soviet Union, I would prefer to see an evolutionary path towards a more capitalist society rather than a bungled attempt that ruins the progress that has already been made. Xandis
The readership on /. is (occasional appearances to the contrary notwithstanding) educated and informed, but most of the world is not. Without regulating prescriptions, we would have a problem that would quickly start to solve itself - since the people prescribing their own medicines would begin to die.
How may people who make decisions for others have their head up their ass? Plenty? Then consider Joe Average who has far less formal education and access to relevant data than the nitwits in charge.
Check your sample size - there are too many really clueless people for any government to allow its citizens to make decisions like which drugs they should take. That is simply not responsible government.
Guy: I want that drug that makes your dick big.
Rx.com: Special on Viagra, free Spanish Fly with every order! Please transmit your prescription.
Guy: This guy needs Vaigro whatever. Signed, a reel docter.
Rx.com: order automatically processed.
After the package arrives, he's dead of a heart attack 30 minutes later. Oops!
Even if most of us aren't that stupid, the point is there are a lot of dangerous drug interactions that often get caught by the local pharmacist. With an Rx.com, you have no guarantee that the company has a legal pharmacist on staff, or that they will have assets in the US (insert your country of residence here) when your next of kin sues them.
Meanwhile, the majority (by number) of Rx.coms exist solely to facilitate improper drug transactions. Perhaps that doesn't bother you, but the government itself would be negligent if it didn't try to stop them.
While the Federal government may have justification to move into the area of prescriptions now that segments of the industry are involved in inter-state comerce, I think the real question is should me have a system of Prescription Drugs at all. Are we all truely better off because we have to go to a doctor in order to recieve a drug to treat an ailment. In this age of information where I can research my symptoms through medical web sites and books why can I not also choose to treat myself with the medication I require. Prescriptions are simply a way to force more people to contribute money to the medical establishment. Sure going to a doctor is normally a good thing to require, but I don't feel the state should be in the postion of a nanny. Medical Care should be a option, yes you can, and often should go get the advise of a Doctor before taking a drug, but requiring such a thing resticts my right to choose how exactly I wish to treat my own body.
> Spoken like a true completely ignornant
> libertarian idiot. Don't believe everything you
> read off the internet.
> Please spend 4 years in med-school before
> comming to a decision on the regulation of
> drugs.
Somehow I need to go to med School to see that
prohibition doesn't work?
This isn't about drugs. This is about freedom.
It is about the fact that my body is mine and I
reserve the right to say what goes in it and
what doesn't.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
This is offtopic but...since you ar ehaving
trouble...
Whenever I have the need (or desire) to look up
info on a drug I use the "Physicains Desk
Reference". I have it available from a web page
due to some complex circumstances...however its
behind a firewall and there is no way for me to
tell you how to access it.
I am sure it must be available in book form or
elsewhere. It is actually several differnt
resources together.
It has all sorts of info. Contraindications,
average dose, half life, overdose dangers and
treatment, tetragen status. even has some
cases for some situations.
Its truely a great reference, I highly recomend it
for anyone who wishes to self medicate (or check
up on the doctor)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Course then there is the other side of the ball..
I know of a person whose doctor screwed up and
wrote down 2 refills on one of those drugs that
refills are not allowed on (Thank you schedual 2)
The pharmacist didn't catch it either...not until
the person went back to get a refil.
When she did, the pharmacist accused her of fraud
and she is no longer allowed to buy medicine at
that pharmacy anymore.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> Seriously, why the fsck can't someone be opposed
> to government cartel protection and still
> recongnize that experts are still required.
Its good to hear the voice of reason.
I would like to state for the record...I do know
a good deal more about drugs than "Average Joe
Citizen", I have some access (due to previous
employment and friends related to medical
institutions) to informtation not everyone has
at their fingertips.
I am against prescriptions (as I previously said).
When I get sick...I go see my fsck'n doctor
if my treatment doesn't clear it up or at least
show major improvement in 3 days. (or if the
symptoms are inconsistant with things I am
fammilair with)
I have no problem with getting expert advice. I
love the idea that its there. However...even
then...
Doctor gives me a script? I check it out no matter
what it is. I look up the contraindications and
side effects myself before I start taking it.
> If I lie and say that I don't have a heart
> problem because I want Viagra, it's my own damn
> fault when I die.
Exactly. Just as it would be the pharmacies fault
if they lied about what the drug was. Look at it
this way...pharmacies WANT buisness. If they
tell you that a drug is dangerous for you...they
could save your life. They LIKE that.
Think about it...if you die...your not going to be
a repeat customer. However if they warn you that
it could be deadly because of your condition...
well...you may just be greatful enough that next
time you need medication, you go to them.
I think that if you lie...or refuse to heed the
warnings, then you deserve what you get.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
hmmm so people lik myself want no regulation
until we get a bad prescription ourselves? Hmmm
how does regulation prevent bad prescriptions?
Even without Licenceing etc all the drugs they
sell still need to be made in a manner that they
are safe to consume...if not then they are selling
dangerous product. In fact...most of the time the
drugs are made by the same manafacturer as the
normal pharmacies buy from.
Pharmacies are basically glorified pill counters
these days. Licencing doesn't prevent them from
fucking up and counting wrong. It doesn't
prevent them from picking up the wrong bottle
and giving you the wrong pills.
An online pharmacy that sold anything except what
they are advertising is still in trouble for
breaking existing laws...like say fraud.
In truth this regulation is all about control. It
is about the belief of people in the federal
government that they have the right to control
every aspect of our lives. The entire concept of
prescription drugs is founded on the idea that
citizens do not own their own bodies and do not
have the right to self medicate beyond what
Big Brother has Aproved.
Its funny how anti-drug propagandists always talk
about the "Message it sends". I don't know
about you...but I don't like the message that
these control measures send.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
-ted
What would the federal government bring to this industry with regulation? Hmm, let's see...
Well, for one, this sure is a GREAT check-off item to help Bill Clinton push through the National ID system. "See, we need to regulate who's getting drugs, and the only way to do that is with a national medical id..." I can see it now.
Does anyone here want this? Doesn't this scare ANYONE?
Bill Clinton wants desperately to be "relevant" to our times. After all, when he's gone, what will we remember him for? Monica? Whitewater? The implementation of the National ID would, in his mind, make him relevant.
The point is, this industry is already regulated by the Federal goverment. Ever heard of the FDA? Have the states done a woeful job to this point? Does the Clinton administration feel that the movers and shakers in the e-commerce world cant' do the same?
Just my quick rant. I'm done now. :)
"We apologize for the inconvenience."
The press announcement reads as if it is a "consumer protection" measure, yet never goes into what identifiable harms it supposedly addressed.
"critics say there is a potential for harm to consumers who do not know the quality of the firm they are dealing with"
Quality of the firm? How is this any different from most other forms of e-commerce?
Actually, I can think of a few good reasons why the feds might be interested in regulation; such as ensuring that scripts actually exist before they are filled, that the right meds are dispensed, or that a licensed pharmacist is in the loop somewheres. It's either this sort of measure, or restrict web-based pharmacies to the state they physically reside in. But those are mainly control issues, rather than direct consumer protection issues. I see double-talk in the rationale given to the public.
If the federal government does end up setting the statutes by which this sort of thing is regulated, it will serve to put down a single standing rule for every state in the union. However, as each state is a little bit different, wouldn't it be feasible to set down a blanket rule that requires/allows for interpretation by the individual state to suit it's constituents needs? Just a thought.
The Libertarian baiting is getting rather tacky, so let's review: which statement(s) below do you agree with:
A) The government has a duty to protect consumers from the malice and evil designs of others (online pharmacists in today's case).
B) The government has a duty to protect consumers from their own stupidity.
Answers:
Agrees with A and B: You are a Democrat.
Agrees with A only: You are a libertarian.
Agrees with B only: You are a Republican.
Disagree with both: You are in a cabin in Montana with far too many guns in your immediate vicinity.
The government's obsession with situation B is to me the root cause of most people's dissatisfaction with government. Not to mention it's depriving me of the schadenfreude which is my right as an American.
[/OFFTOPIC]
The federal government can and should regulate online pharmacists, tainted food and bad drugs is why the FDA was created in the first place. OTOH, if someone feels that six-inch vitamin C suppositories will keep them from getting cancer, I've got to say that's none of the government's business (except to ensure the purity if the vitamin C). I reserve the right to view the Xrays of the aftermath.
--
My other computer is your IIS server.
There are one or two of us "/. libertarians" who actually have the courage of our convictions. I want no regulation at all even when I receive a bad prescription myself. Y'see, unlike most people, I take responsibility for myself. I don't expect (or want) the Mommy State to take care of me.
--
I moderate at +3, Highest Scores, and I always mod down.
If you don't like it, vote me off the island.
Not necessarily. Most people who get one set of prescriptions and are done are as likely to just go to the drug store and get it done with, right? What about the people on the long term plan?
My cubicle-mate is on blood pressure medication. He has to take this stuff every day and has been taking it for years. If he can just get it delivered to his house every month a few days before he runs out of medicine, that makes a lot of sense for him, doesn't it? There are other examples, but the online drug stores are very convienent for people who have to take madication for a long time.
Online pharmacies also save a few bucks, so you KNOW what HMO's think about saving money... This could mean that an HMO who didn't do their research could be sending all their clients to that cheap guy who just packs whatever is handy into the little bottle. Government regulations allow those insurance companies to cut another corner without putting Joe-consumer at risk... as much.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
On the other hand, this simply gives the FDA some new powers. Since traditionally, the FDA doesn't do a lot, it really doesn't change much. For example, anything your local GNC probably sells, the FDA can't and won't investigate. (It's not a medicine or a food.) For example, here's their stance on homeopathic medicines: "FDA regulates homeopathic drugs in several significantly different ways from other drugs. Manufacturers of homeopathic drugs are deferred from submitting new drug applications to FDA. Their products are exempt from good manufacturing practice requirements related to expiration dating and from finished product testing for identity and strength. Homeopathic drugs in solid oral dosage form must have an imprint that identifies the manufacturer and indicates that the drug is homeopathic. The imprint on conventional products, unless specifically exempt, must identify the active ingredient and dosage strength as well as the manufacturer."
In short, they don't care unless it's a food, cosmetic, or medicine.
Now personally, when I order a few grams of coke, I want coke, not baking soda. At least now I have the FDA to complain to!
(Think about it. If they sent you Premarin instead of antibiotics you'd want someone to complain to.)
No Zen is good zen
Our federal government CANNOT regulate the internet, can it? I mean come on.. they would mess up a wet dream and we are talking about the internet here! Won't this leave the net open to other regulatory demands? What about the foreign sites that sell pharmcy goods.. How will they attempt to regulate this? With ssh and other encryption technics, not mentioning foreign based shell accounts, one can currently do just about anything they want to. I think if they try to stick their noses into the internet to deep they'll face more obstacles than solutions. Is this really just a payback from our u.s. government to lend a helping hand to an industry that has been very profitable and good to those in elected office? {at the expense of raking over our senior citizens and once living people of pharmacutical companies in the middle east}
You (and the earlier poster) are, well, wrong. Trying to cast drug use (esp perscription drugs) as taking chances with your own health alone is not just selfish, but foolish. The drug you put in your body can endanger me, and that makes it a public issue, not a private one.
Someone has already mentioned antibiotic resistance. This can happen not just when you decide to take drugs you don't need, but when you don't take a full course. Ever notice how some drugs say "as needed" on the dosaging while others say "complete full course of perscription, even if symptoms reside"? It's not just doctors or pharmacists having a power trip, it's protecting the health of your entire community. If your ignorant self administration of drugs kills you, whatever. If it can give me a new and virelent strain of a disease, thats called public health.
And what about side effects? If the side effect is you getting liver disease or impotence, its not my problem. If the side effect is that one beer (which you as a responsible self controller have determined you are safe to drive on) puts you in a state where you get in an accident and kill my NICOE, you bet its my problem! And yes, there are drugs which have exactly this sort of combination effect with alcohol.
If making a bad choice in drug use had no more far reaching effect than drinking drano, you would have a consistent argument. (not one I would agree with, but thats a more fundemental philosophical issue). But far more people than the individual making the choice can be endangered, and that makes it my, your and everyone elses problem.
...will work for Chick tracts...
I dunno, I tend to respect people who can believe in the importance of some ideal or freedom without having to believe that it it of absolute unapproachable importance and can never be comprimised for any other ideal or freedom.
I can believe in freedom of action and still believe in protecting the public. I can believe in privacy and still believe in accountability. I can believe in parent's rights and children's rights at the same time. Parscing out what happens when two important freedoms/rights interfere with each other is what ethics (and being an adult) is all about.
A person who says "I'm a libertarian but..." may not be a libertarian. Or (s)he may just not be a fanatic.
...will work for Chick tracts...
"The plan, which is to be announced later on Tuesday and will be included as part of President Clinton's 2001 budget request, would have to be approved by Congress."
Why don't we wait until it actually gets submitted in the budget and approved by congress.
Sounds like "Cut Bait" to me. Just fodder for them to be able to cut when they really have to get to their fiscal mark at budget crunch time.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Getting the wrong drug is gonna happen in any pharmacy, and will probably happen whenever a human is ever involved in the process. This is aimed at screening for the drug that's gonna hurt you - the drug that a doctor or knowledgable pharmacist wouldn't have given you. That's (in theory) what the FDA is all about.
T
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
I think this law may be either a good or bad...Like many things, it depends on the implementation.
I am currently working for one of the major online pharmacies, and I think there are some misconceptions out there:
All *legitimate* e-pharmacies currently require a verfified prescription in order to ship any type of controlled medication.
This verification can take several forms - an original prescription mailed in (not advisable if you are currently suffering some sort of acute condition), having your doctor call it it, or electronic transmission from your doctor's office.
This law will probably not affect the major players - CVS.COM, PlanetRX, etc., because they already comply with these types of regulation.
It may add another layer of bureaucracy, it's hard to say just yet.