I don't believe that I said all sched II drugs, but if that is the way it came across I'm sorry. So you are saying that cocaine, cocaine precursors and opium extracts can be drop shipped? We had fields for "signed for", "signed for by patient", and "administered by physician" in pharmacy/insurance processing software back in the late 80's. Lots of logic that if certain drugs were prescribed that those fields had to be affirmative. We just worked with what the Doctors of Pharmacology and their staff told us.
No. Mail order pharmacies who dispense drugs to citizens in Illinois must report the transactions to the Illinois state prescription drug monitoring program. The person delivering the drug does not have to be a licensed pharma or pharma tech. That requirement is only if the drugs are picked up from a retail pharmacy.
Ah, but I have a house that, barring eminent domain seizure, is mine for the rest of my life as long as I make the property tax payments. I couldn't care less that I didn't make the absolute maximum back on my invetment dollars. I am a very conservative investor and I like it that way. If I ever get into a cash flow deficit I will not be wiped out by my debt load and I will have ample credit available to weather the deficit period. That's the key, being comfortable with your investment stratagy.
No basically about it. And only the patient can take possesion of the them, unless that has changed. That means that you can't have your spouse or noncustodial parent pick them up. Almost no pharmacies will dispense them even if you have a script, as well as the fact that many can only be dispensed and used while the attending physician is , well, in attendance. Right there with you.
Yes, but there are MILLIONS of citizens in the U.S. that live in these situations you mentioned. Add to that the prevelance of mail order phamacies and it becomes even less clear. Saying it is wrong to dispense drugs from a pharmacy that is out of state for a patient that is out of state is ridiculous. If the writers of the scripts are intent on circumventing the law, then they need to be slapped down, but not residing in your doctors state isn't, and shouldn't be wrong or criminal. Simply taking NY/NJ, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Memphis, and Chicago, there are 10s of millions of potential cases of being unethical by your standards.
That said, anyone who is writing scripts for a lot of Scheduled drugs without seeing their patient, or dispensing when they know that the patient was not examined, or dispensing by mailorder, will get a rude awakening, and then a cellmate named Bubba who thinks they have a "purdy mouth."
Mail order pharmacies are perfectly legal. As long as the pharmacies are meeting the documentation and reporting requirements for the FDA and DEA the vendors don't care. If you order Sched III drugs from the vendors, the DEA will know when and how much. You had better be able to account for the vast majority of them by the scripts you filled. Having six 10,000 count packages of Vicoden unaccounted for can get really ugly for the pham and the dispensers both. 10-15 years ago Sched III handling requirements were a pain, I can't imagine what they are like now, and I wasn't even a pharmacist, just in the industry on the IT side.
But that is not, in and of itself, illegle. Many people get prescriptions from doctors in different states and have them filled in a state that they were not written in. Say someone lives in Indiana, goes to a doctor in Illinois, and has the script filled in Wisconsin since he was heading to Green Bay for the game that weekend. This is all legitimate. Nothing wrong at all.
OK. I am not sure where you got your numbers, but...
I spent less than $2200 on my home theater. that includes projector, sound system, screen/wall prep, and a couple of cheap comfy seats. That comes out to 129 trips to the theater for two. using your 5 year projection I can go to the theater once every two weeks for the cost of the home theater. I will have cable regardless of whether I go to the theater or not, so that is specious reasoning on your part. That doesen't even start to cover the coast of drinks and snacks as well as the fact that I have a family of FOUR, so...
p.s. I have a nice home theater, but I do a lot of other activities besides watching TV. Riding my recumbent bike comes to mind. Oh yeah, I paid off my mortgage in less that half of the notes life. According to the government, that makes me a bad person bucause that behavior can cause deflation.
Ummm, a wall prepped with several coats of high gloss white with two coats of matte Behr Silverscreen using a nice 2000 lumen XGA resoloution DLP projector gives me 116" horozontal display on the basement wall. That coupled with 400W surround sound beats the snot out of a theater, and cost less than the plasma screen you mentioned. It will be about $500 U.S. to replace the bulb when it dies, but quite impressive to watch. The two biggest drawbacks are that NTSC television signals look horrid at this size because they were never designed to be viewed that way, and there aren't nearly enough decent movies to watch.
WHY IS IT THAT A 1940's ERA war plane can KICK my Cessna's Butt????????? THIS DOES NOT SEEM LIKE PROGRESS.
Becuase you will not die if you can't out fly, out shoot, and out think the guy in the learjet over there. You don't need a 12 or 16 cylinder engine to put out enough power that you can catch up to a retreating FW190 and blast it from the sky so it can't do the same to you tomorrow. You don't need to have the lift capability to cary two 1000lb bombs below you plane so that you can destroy the supply ships taking food and ammo to Iwo Jima. That's why. You need to get from here to there in a safe manner.
Yes they can, and they do. Several companies have gotten press time in the last year for laying off people who smoke. Not just smoke at work, but smoke away from the workplace. Several others have had terminations for obesity and other things. You may actually want to read the news a bit before making the sweeping comments.
From the disclaimer I would say thet the report was not a university sanctioned project, but a funtime project for a couple of students. They then published it in a manner that implied that it was offical work of the university, or at least sanctioned by the professor. Now, whether the study is right or wrong come peer review, the university wants it known that it wasn't their project. A peer reviewed research project is much different than throwing together a bad stats class midterm and putting the results on a university server.
What? You never ran a D&D campaign as both the DM and the party? Turn in your geek card at the door on your way out. Oh yeah, please leave now. I feel dirty after all that.
Well, it's been over 20 years since I read my source materials concerning Einsteins theories, but wasn't the e=mc^2 from photoelectric effect, not either of the reletivity theories?
I guess I'll have to dig some old books out and reread some stuff.
Oooh. A nice dose of sarcasm right back at me. I may not have totaly missed in my intent. To answer you questions, I believe that photo enforcement is pretty much a revenue generator as you say. I would love to see a review process for intersection light timing and stop sign placement that wasn't simply people at the town hall meetings screaming "think about the children" or "do you know how much that would cost the city in revenue". And lastly, I believe we should have just as many poll taxes as we have cameras in restrooms and changing rooms.
Yes. And if you wish to bring up assinine arguments like that, then the owner can't ban the shopper because the shopper can simply use his weapons of mass destruction... so on and so forth. In simple terms, he can not legally do whatever he wishes simply because he owns the business.
p.s. You CAN legally ban people from your store. No reason needed as long as you can prove it wasn't for illegal reasons like race and such.
You are right. The owner doesn't have to sell to me or anyone else. That doesn't mean he can do as he pleases. there are laws that govern what any private citizen or corporation can do. You do not become the property of the business owner simply because you go into his store. He doesn't have to sell to me. He can bar me from his shop. He can not break laws just because he owns, or leases, the property and runs a business out of it. Seems more like you don't get it.
Unlike you, I have no issue with cameras in public places. If it's public, that pretty much means that anyone and everyone can see you there. You use the "cameras are OK in fitting rooms because they cut costs due to less shoplifting" excuse, but don't like it when they increase the governments tax base and lower your insurance rates by busting speeders and red light runners. I find this amusing. Remember, if you don't want the government enforcing the traffic laws on you, you are perfectly welcome to walk or take public transportation. Driving is a privilege, being clothed in public is pretty much legislated most places.
1. But what if all stores do this? 2. Yeah, right. You ever have cloths tailored? They don't just take 3-4 measurements and viola perfect fit. They take upwards of a dozen measurements for certain articles of clothing, and they then usually do a final fitting. You think you can take in a seamstreses tape and get the fit right? 3. They can simply stop taking returns, or make them prohibitvly annoying. Some stores are already doing this, and more are following the trend. 4. Most people have neither the time, talent, or experience for this. 5. See the comments on 2. for tailored clothing plus add in the prohibitive cost.
Yep. I don't think selective breeding, or recombinant gene engeneering are panaceas, and they can be dangerous, I believe that the "natural" way is just as dangerous, and we have better control over the processes that we design.
As more information comes out about the prion "diseases", I am really, really, glad that very few places in the world are so nonindustrialized as to be forced to use human waste products as fertilizer any more.
You say this with an emoticon at the end of your statement, but I have had this in real textbooks. Some of the maths in a science book in high school were wrong. The publisher simply sent stickers with the corrected information, and we got to paste them in our brand new physics texts.
I am guessing you are poking fun at the evoloution story a while back that wanted to put stickers in textbooks in, I believe, Georgia that said something about evoloutin not being proven, and that Intelegent Design was a viable alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe that I said all sched II drugs, but if that is the way it came across I'm sorry. So you are saying that cocaine, cocaine precursors and opium extracts can be drop shipped? We had fields for "signed for", "signed for by patient", and "administered by physician" in pharmacy/insurance processing software back in the late 80's. Lots of logic that if certain drugs were prescribed that those fields had to be affirmative. We just worked with what the Doctors of Pharmacology and their staff told us.
No. Mail order pharmacies who dispense drugs to citizens in Illinois must report the transactions to the Illinois state prescription drug monitoring program. The person delivering the drug does not have to be a licensed pharma or pharma tech. That requirement is only if the drugs are picked up from a retail pharmacy.
Ah, but I have a house that, barring eminent domain seizure, is mine for the rest of my life as long as I make the property tax payments. I couldn't care less that I didn't make the absolute maximum back on my invetment dollars. I am a very conservative investor and I like it that way. If I ever get into a cash flow deficit I will not be wiped out by my debt load and I will have ample credit available to weather the deficit period. That's the key, being comfortable with your investment stratagy.
No basically about it. And only the patient can take possesion of the them, unless that has changed. That means that you can't have your spouse or noncustodial parent pick them up. Almost no pharmacies will dispense them even if you have a script, as well as the fact that many can only be dispensed and used while the attending physician is , well, in attendance. Right there with you.
Yes, but there are MILLIONS of citizens in the U.S. that live in these situations you mentioned. Add to that the prevelance of mail order phamacies and it becomes even less clear. Saying it is wrong to dispense drugs from a pharmacy that is out of state for a patient that is out of state is ridiculous. If the writers of the scripts are intent on circumventing the law, then they need to be slapped down, but not residing in your doctors state isn't, and shouldn't be wrong or criminal. Simply taking NY/NJ, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Memphis, and Chicago, there are 10s of millions of potential cases of being unethical by your standards.
That said, anyone who is writing scripts for a lot of Scheduled drugs without seeing their patient, or dispensing when they know that the patient was not examined, or dispensing by mailorder, will get a rude awakening, and then a cellmate named Bubba who thinks they have a "purdy mouth."
Mail order pharmacies are perfectly legal. As long as the pharmacies are meeting the documentation and reporting requirements for the FDA and DEA the vendors don't care. If you order Sched III drugs from the vendors, the DEA will know when and how much. You had better be able to account for the vast majority of them by the scripts you filled. Having six 10,000 count packages of Vicoden unaccounted for can get really ugly for the pham and the dispensers both. 10-15 years ago Sched III handling requirements were a pain, I can't imagine what they are like now, and I wasn't even a pharmacist, just in the industry on the IT side.
But that is not, in and of itself, illegle. Many people get prescriptions from doctors in different states and have them filled in a state that they were not written in. Say someone lives in Indiana, goes to a doctor in Illinois, and has the script filled in Wisconsin since he was heading to Green Bay for the game that weekend. This is all legitimate. Nothing wrong at all.
OK. I am not sure where you got your numbers, but...
I spent less than $2200 on my home theater. that includes projector, sound system, screen/wall prep, and a couple of cheap comfy seats. That comes out to 129 trips to the theater for two. using your 5 year projection I can go to the theater once every two weeks for the cost of the home theater. I will have cable regardless of whether I go to the theater or not, so that is specious reasoning on your part. That doesen't even start to cover the coast of drinks and snacks as well as the fact that I have a family of FOUR, so...
p.s. I have a nice home theater, but I do a lot of other activities besides watching TV. Riding my recumbent bike comes to mind. Oh yeah, I paid off my mortgage in less that half of the notes life. According to the government, that makes me a bad person bucause that behavior can cause deflation.
Ummm, a wall prepped with several coats of high gloss white with two coats of matte Behr Silverscreen using a nice 2000 lumen XGA resoloution DLP projector gives me 116" horozontal display on the basement wall. That coupled with 400W surround sound beats the snot out of a theater, and cost less than the plasma screen you mentioned. It will be about $500 U.S. to replace the bulb when it dies, but quite impressive to watch. The two biggest drawbacks are that NTSC television signals look horrid at this size because they were never designed to be viewed that way, and there aren't nearly enough decent movies to watch.
You can still be deaf. The phone is used for a text message with the invite text.
WHY IS IT THAT A 1940's ERA war plane can KICK my Cessna's Butt????????? THIS DOES NOT SEEM LIKE PROGRESS.
Becuase you will not die if you can't out fly, out shoot, and out think the guy in the learjet over there. You don't need a 12 or 16 cylinder engine to put out enough power that you can catch up to a retreating FW190 and blast it from the sky so it can't do the same to you tomorrow. You don't need to have the lift capability to cary two 1000lb bombs below you plane so that you can destroy the supply ships taking food and ammo to Iwo Jima. That's why. You need to get from here to there in a safe manner.
Yes they can, and they do. Several companies have gotten press time in the last year for laying off people who smoke. Not just smoke at work, but smoke away from the workplace. Several others have had terminations for obesity and other things. You may actually want to read the news a bit before making the sweeping comments.
From the disclaimer I would say thet the report was not a university sanctioned project, but a funtime project for a couple of students. They then published it in a manner that implied that it was offical work of the university, or at least sanctioned by the professor. Now, whether the study is right or wrong come peer review, the university wants it known that it wasn't their project. A peer reviewed research project is much different than throwing together a bad stats class midterm and putting the results on a university server.
What? You never ran a D&D campaign as both the DM and the party? Turn in your geek card at the door on your way out. Oh yeah, please leave now. I feel dirty after all that.
Yes there is, it's called "Insightful".
Well, it's been over 20 years since I read my source materials concerning Einsteins theories, but wasn't the e=mc^2 from photoelectric effect, not either of the reletivity theories?
I guess I'll have to dig some old books out and reread some stuff.
Oops. Sorry. My bad. I really should spell check.
Oooh. A nice dose of sarcasm right back at me. I may not have totaly missed in my intent. To answer you questions, I believe that photo enforcement is pretty much a revenue generator as you say. I would love to see a review process for intersection light timing and stop sign placement that wasn't simply people at the town hall meetings screaming "think about the children" or "do you know how much that would cost the city in revenue". And lastly, I believe we should have just as many poll taxes as we have cameras in restrooms and changing rooms.
Yes. And if you wish to bring up assinine arguments like that, then the owner can't ban the shopper because the shopper can simply use his weapons of mass destruction... so on and so forth. In simple terms, he can not legally do whatever he wishes simply because he owns the business.
p.s. You CAN legally ban people from your store. No reason needed as long as you can prove it wasn't for illegal reasons like race and such.
I just gotta remember that there are many, many, sarcasm and irony challanged people populating Slashdot.
You are right. The owner doesn't have to sell to me or anyone else. That doesn't mean he can do as he pleases. there are laws that govern what any private citizen or corporation can do. You do not become the property of the business owner simply because you go into his store. He doesn't have to sell to me. He can bar me from his shop. He can not break laws just because he owns, or leases, the property and runs a business out of it. Seems more like you don't get it.
Unlike you, I have no issue with cameras in public places. If it's public, that pretty much means that anyone and everyone can see you there. You use the "cameras are OK in fitting rooms because they cut costs due to less shoplifting" excuse, but don't like it when they increase the governments tax base and lower your insurance rates by busting speeders and red light runners. I find this amusing. Remember, if you don't want the government enforcing the traffic laws on you, you are perfectly welcome to walk or take public transportation. Driving is a privilege, being clothed in public is pretty much legislated most places.
1. But what if all stores do this?
2. Yeah, right. You ever have cloths tailored? They don't just take 3-4 measurements and viola perfect fit. They take upwards of a dozen measurements for certain articles of clothing, and they then usually do a final fitting. You think you can take in a seamstreses tape and get the fit right?
3. They can simply stop taking returns, or make them prohibitvly annoying. Some stores are already doing this, and more are following the trend.
4. Most people have neither the time, talent, or experience for this.
5. See the comments on 2. for tailored clothing plus add in the prohibitive cost.
Yep. I don't think selective breeding, or recombinant gene engeneering are panaceas, and they can be dangerous, I believe that the "natural" way is just as dangerous, and we have better control over the processes that we design.
As more information comes out about the prion "diseases", I am really, really, glad that very few places in the world are so nonindustrialized as to be forced to use human waste products as fertilizer any more.
You say this with an emoticon at the end of your statement, but I have had this in real textbooks. Some of the maths in a science book in high school were wrong. The publisher simply sent stickers with the corrected information, and we got to paste them in our brand new physics texts.
I am guessing you are poking fun at the evoloution story a while back that wanted to put stickers in textbooks in, I believe, Georgia that said something about evoloutin not being proven, and that Intelegent Design was a viable alternative.