|
I believe those are Dutch SS |
|
You already have to show ID to pick up pain meds. I do it practically every week and swipe my driver's license thru the little electronic thingy.
As for friends etc picking up the prescription, Uhh, no that's not allowed already. So what exactly did this ordinance accomplish? |
|
This certainly fits in well with no longer being able to use flex spending money for OTC medication unless you have a prescription for it.
A prescription for over-the-counter medication. I thought the idea behind making them OTC in the first place was to reduce costs of drugs whose use didn't require close supervision from an MD. |
|
Why sure! Because showing ID to buy drugs is EXACTLY THE SAME as Nazi SS troppers and death camps. 
|
|
Quoted: Why sure! Because showing ID to buy drugs is EXACTLY THE SAME as Nazi SS troppers and death camps. The OP suggested that it was another nudge. I suggested that Nazis approve. I'm sorry that you don't see it as a step in the direction of a totalitarian state. Moreover, given the ineffectiveness of government to deter drug smuggling etc. I find the hassle to law abiding citizens revolting. |
|
One thing that this stuff is 'good for' is waking up some people. When they have to start signing for cold medicine, and then you reference about how much paperwork and redtape is involved with buying a handgun, so people start to realize that there is some bullshit going on.
But....nothing changes and we just get more paperwork and gov't oversight added onto our daily lives. |
|
Will this law actually prevent anything that isn't illegal now?
How much, in terms of actual cost to the consumer, will this law add to each prescription? One of the things I noticed while reading the article was the law required businesses to put in place a security plan, and then do the fingerprint thing, along with other record keeping. All of these things cost money. Not only in equipment, but in time to actually administer these programs. You as the consumer pay for this. How much of the dreaded prescription drug fraud will this actually prevent, that was not preventable with the laws already in place? |
|
Quoted:
Liberty, freedom, and your right to get perscription drugs without fingerprinting ... all casualities of The War on Drugs. Heck, make that ANY drugs––MS has made cold and allergy meds prescription only (you know, the stuff they moved to behind the counter with monthly limits,) due to meth, and LA is looking to do the same. I'm sure that will spread, and all the folks who used to go buy some Claritin (like the missus,) for their allergies will now have to make an appointment, see a doc., and get a scrip for it. |
As a dentist the sheer number of people angling for a scrip for pain meds is unbelievable. Creatively refusing people like that is kind of a hobby of mine. (You should see the disappointment on their little faces when they realize they're getting ibuprofen - it's adorable! )
I can see requiring people to show ID and sign for narcotics, particularly if it's not the patient who is picking them up. Controlled substances are controlled for a good reason. Why make life easy for the drug addicts? The trouble is there still isn't anything built into that type of system to track people who are gaming the system. The only real reason to do it is to limit liability for the pharmacies once said drug addict is found dead of an overdose. Fingerprinting is beyond stupid. |
|
There's more money to be made off middle and upper middle class people who will actually pay fines rather than focusing on theft, robbery, murder, rape, child abuse and illegal immigration who will cost more just to prosecute and jail.
Reminds me of my old neighborhood, we hear gun shots every night. It never stops. Yet the dog catcher is up my ass on a weekly basis because I keep my dogs outside 24 hours at day. (so I don't get robbed or killed) It finally got easier to move to a safer community. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Liberty, freedom, and your right to get perscription drugs without fingerprinting ... all casualities of The War on Drugs. Heck, make that ANY drugs––MS has made cold and allergy meds prescription only (you know, the stuff they moved to behind the counter with monthly limits,) due to meth, and LA is looking to do the same. I'm sure that will spread, and all the folks who used to go buy some Claritin (like the missus,) for their allergies will now have to make an appointment, see a doc., and get a scrip for it. Claritin was a prescription drug until about 2002. See my comments above about prescriptions for non-prescription drugs. |
|
Quoted:
As a dentist the sheer number of people angling for a scrip for pain meds is unbelievable. Creatively refusing people like that is kind of a hobby of mine. (You should see the disappointment on their little faces when they realize they're getting ibuprofen - it's adorable! )
I can see requiring people to show ID and sign for narcotics, particularly if it's not the patient who is picking them up. Controlled substances are controlled for a good reason. Why make life easy for the drug addicts? The trouble is there still isn't anything built into that type of system to track people who are gaming the system. The only real reason to do it is to limit liability for the pharmacies once said drug addict is found dead of an overdose. Fingerprinting is beyond stupid. So they don't break into my car and steal stuff or break into my house and rampage through my medicine cabinets to do what they're going to do anyway. |
|
Locally, our pharmacists just tell the pill heads to get lost and refuse to fill the prescription. It's so painfully obvious to spot. Some "doctors" are black listed at many pharmacies. I never, ever, go the the pharmacy unarmed. It's that bad around here. Hillbilly Heroin. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just legalize drugs already. Especially Meth & Coke & Oxycontin & Heroin & PCP ? Show me in the Constitution where it gives the fed govt the authority to make substances illegal? Show me in the Constitution where it forbids the government from regulating substances? You are pretty confused on what the Constitution is, aren't you?
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just legalize drugs already. Especially Meth & Coke & Oxycontin & Heroin & PCP ? Show me in the Constitution where it gives the fed govt the authority to make substances illegal? Oh what have you done? Asking Calgunner to show proof of something.... I am sure he will counter by calling you a liberal NAMBLA supporter... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just legalize drugs already. Especially Meth & Coke & Oxycontin & Heroin & PCP ? Show me in the Constitution where it gives the fed govt the authority to make substances illegal? Show me in the Constitution where it forbids the government from regulating substances? You are pretty confused on what the Constitution is, aren't you? I think you might be off––-the Constitution is a set of limits on the federal government, along with a description of what it can do. Or are you arguing that since nothing in the Constitution says the federal government can't limit you to reading one book per month of their choosing, or to only having one child, or to only eat vegetarian meals, that that would be OK? |
|
Quoted:
Unpossible, I've been informed by LEOs here that laws come from the legislature and they are what "society" wants. Also smells a little bit like a HIPAA violation in the making. Yep. These laws aren't being enacted based on the will of the people. They're being enacted based on the will of law enforcement. That's not the way our system was supposed to have worked. 
"Peoria law enforcement officials proposed a new ordinance to the City Council last week that would require anyone filling a prescription for drugs such as oxycodone and methadone to show ID and be fingerprinted at the pharmacy counter. Anyone picking up a prescription for a family member or friend would have to submit to fingerprinting, under the proposal." |
| It is critical to the liberty of the republic that people be prevented from making independent decisions about what to ingest. If in the press for ordered liberty some small personal interests fall by the wayside, that is a burden to be borne for the greater good. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just legalize drugs already. Especially Meth & Coke & Oxycontin & Heroin & PCP ? Show me in the Constitution where it gives the fed govt the authority to make substances illegal? Show me in the Constitution where it forbids the government from regulating substances? You are pretty confused on what the Constitution is, aren't you? As are you, apparently. The Constitution describes the limited powers the gooberment has, and throws in a list of stuff they specifically can't do, just in case they got uppity. The idea that the feds/state can do anything they want, as long as it isn't specifically prohibited by the Constitution, is not only wrong, but stupid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just legalize drugs already. Especially Meth & Coke & Oxycontin & Heroin & PCP ? Show me in the Constitution where it gives the fed govt the authority to make substances illegal? Show me in the Constitution where it forbids the government from regulating substances? You are pretty confused on what the Constitution is, aren't you? 9th Amendment. Whose permission did Thomas Jefferson need to buy opium? |
|
Quoted:
Just legalize drugs already. +1 People who abuse drugs are idiots, imo. However, I'd rather deal with drug abusing idiots (that I already avoid anyway) than to have more government encroachment into the average persons life (including my own). If I have to choose between having security versus having freedom then I'll choose freedom and do the best that I can to keep myself secure (which is pretty much what I'm already doing anyway). Call me crazy if you wish but I just don't have a big desire for bigger and bigger government in my life. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just legalize drugs already. +1 People who abuse drugs are idiots, imo. However, I'd rather deal with drug abusing idiots (that I already avoid anyway) than to have more government encroachment into the average persons life (including my own). If I have to choose between having security versus having freedom then I'll choose freedom and do the best that I can to keep myself secure (which is pretty much what I'm already doing anyway). Call me crazy if you wish but I just don't have a big desire for bigger and bigger government in my life. I absolutely 100% agree. The idiots who are going to abuse drugs, are already abusing them anyway. They can go ahead and put that "Big Brother" shit back into whatever ass they pulled it out of. |
|
Quoted:
Nope, they're not the first. Thanks to this kind of legislative Orwellian thinking in Tx, I have to sign for my kids cold medicine if it contains Pseudoephedrine. I can get scheduled narcotics from the hospital on my signature... but due to a month's supply of Zyrtec-D having more than 3.6 Grams of PE it was easier to get an Rx from my doctor instead of making multiple purchases (which raised all sorts of flags by itself). Actually, you can thank the feds for that - the "Methamphetamine Precursor Control Act" and the "Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005" which was an amendment to the Patiot Act. Most of the states simply followed suit. I can understand restrictions on plain Sudafed (gee... PE, a binding agent and food coloring  ) but without a chemical separator (a $22k bargain on ebay!) and a fair amount of training you'll have a hell of a isolating PE from the other active ingredients in Zyrtec-D, Benadryl-D or any of the other combination OTC's.
A classic example of the need of politicians to "do SOMETHING!" even when that something is useless. |
|
Quoted:
You already have to show ID to pick up pain meds. I do it practically every week and swipe my driver's license thru the little electronic thingy. As for friends etc picking up the prescription, Uhh, no that's not allowed already. So what exactly did this ordinance accomplish? So uh, what about the guy who is just released from the hospital, can't go pick up his meds, and has someone else go instead? Because that's exactly what happened to me after surgery. And that was for almost 1/2 gallon of liquid codeine. [couldn't eat/swallow anything solid to include meds] Either the script is good or it's not. Fingerprinting is just a sneaky backdoor way to build their database. |
|
Quoted:
Unpossible, I've been informed by LEOs here that laws come from the legislature and they are what "society" wants. Also smells a little bit like a HIPAA violation in the making. 1. It's the Health Insurance Portability Act (HIPA), not HIPAA. 2. HIPA is contained in the Code of Federal regulations (45 CFR). 3. Section 164.512(f) which allows for limited disclosures to LEO's on investigations. Kind of like reporting all gun shot injuries. FWIW. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unpossible, I've been informed by LEOs here that laws come from the legislature and they are what "society" wants. Also smells a little bit like a HIPAA violation in the making. 1. It's the Health Insurance Portability Act (HIPA), not HIPAA. 2. HIPA is contained in the Code of Federal regulations (45 CFR). 3. Section 164.512(f) which allows for limited disclosures to LEO's on investigations. Kind of like reporting all gun shot injuries. FWIW. HIPAA. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just legalize drugs already. +1 People who abuse drugs are idiots, imo. However, I'd rather deal with drug abusing idiots (that I already avoid anyway) than to have more government encroachment into the average persons life (including my own). If I have to choose between having security versus having freedom then I'll choose freedom and do the best that I can to keep myself secure (which is pretty much what I'm already doing anyway). Call me crazy if you wish but I just don't have a big desire for bigger and bigger government in my life. I absolutely 100% agree. The idiots who are going to abuse drugs, are already abusing them anyway. They can go ahead and put that "Big Brother" shit back into whatever ass they pulled it out of. Spot on. What we get for our trouble is more people in prison, more people disqualified from gainful employment because of felony convictions based on drug law violations, the rampant violence that universally attends contraband markets, and an avenue for unlimited funding of the very worst sort of people, including Islamic terrorists. Anybody who wants drugs of any kind can get them right now, even in prison. The liquor trade was rife with lethal violence and spread corrupting tendrils into government during Prohibition. The liquor trade before and after Prohibition was and is nonviolent and not particularly corrupt. Before about 1914, drugs of all kinds were freely available in any quantity to any person who could pay for them. There were no discernable attendant problems, other than the private miseries of addiction and abuse (which inexplicably persist under the present program). The evil sought to be suppressed by drug prohibition was the manufactured evil of coked-up Negroes raping or seducing white girls. The program has been a fraud from day one, and persists only because it serves the ends of government (chief among them being the expansion of government power and funding), because there is a bizarre unwillingness or inability on the part of all concerned to examine the first principles underlying the current regime, because the recovery industry would find itself in a ditch if it were not fed by the judiciary, and because limited as their influence may be, the people immediately profiting from the trade could never hope to compete with pure, inspected, guaranteed Bayer Cocaine for $5 a gram at Walgreen's. The net results of drug prohibition are almost 100% negative in terms of economics, social stability, and liberty. Most of the erosions of 4th Amendment protections in the 20th Century have been a result of the drug prohibition scheme. The only positive effect I have been able to discern, and it is a real though small one, is that drug law violations are a useful (though not perfectly accurate) marker for a certain kind of degenerate I'd just as soon not have around anyway. Other than that, the program is an unqualified abomination, and will one day be recognized by historians as the root of the American Security State and the death of American liberty. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unpossible, I've been informed by LEOs here that laws come from the legislature and they are what "society" wants. Also smells a little bit like a HIPAA violation in the making. 1. It's the Health Insurance Portability Act (HIPA), not HIPAA. 2. HIPA is contained in the Code of Federal regulations (45 CFR). 3. Section 164.512(f) which allows for limited disclosures to LEO's on investigations. Kind of like reporting all gun shot injuries. FWIW. HIPAA. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. I stand corrected, Thanks |
|
Quoted: Why sure! Because showing ID to buy drugs is EXACTLY THE SAME as Nazi SS troppers and death camps. All about mindset and incrementalism. Or, you can be as extreme as you think he's being. That would be ironic, no? |