PDMP just got passed so you may well now be banned from firearms ownership if you take prescribed controlled substances.

Before you say bbbbbbbbbut HIPPA.... it was changed in 2016 to allow this information to be provided. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/nics/index.html

Go check if your senator or rep took their 30 pieces of silver.

0% chance parson will veto.

Explain how that would work exactly. The bill does not allow PDMP info to be shared with law enforcement or any others not involved in prescribing drugs. Also the law specifically says the information can’t be used to deny firearms purchases.

The St. Louis County system currently in use in like 60% of the state (80% of the population) has none of those protections. The SB63 system has more privacy protections and will replace the SLC network.

What am i missing?

https://www.senate.mo.gov/21info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=54228843

Did laws matter when the Missouri Highway Patrol dept handed over Missouri's CCW database? You put in place the mechanism and it will be abused.

I mean, it's not like the administration is rewriting laws left right and center is it?

The law never stands for any meaningful amount of time as it’s originally presented / written.

Laws are damn near meaningless in this country now.

Take your pick.

Take both if you want.

The Parson administration?  This is a state law, not a federal law.

Besides, we have a nearly statewide PDMP already. Nearly every area where anybody lives already participates in a program administered by St. Louis County. Those are your choices: the St . louis county program or one drafted by the Republican legislature. Not having a PDMP is not an option at this point. I gather you prefer Sam Page to be in charge of your medical data.

PDMP is monitoring opioid prescriptions and the people selling their prescribed drugs on the street.  While a pretty useless feel good bit of legislation, WTF does this have to do with gun ownership?


Oh right, nothing.

And the law he’s criticising has a specific provision that says the PDMP data can’t be used to deny firearms. That’s not true of the existing patchwork PDMP network.

The OP is wrong about this one and should feel bad.

And when it's in court before a democrat appointed judge that provision will be struck because of the supremacy clause...  just like voter ID.

But hey... you support it, so I hope you're first on the list.

Now you're being deliberately deceptive... you know full well it was a reference to the Biden administration that has decided to reinterpret what a firearm is and what sex is etc.

As for "nearly every area where anybody lives" well... I guess you want to do way with the electoral college and go to just a 50% +1 vote too huh?

But but but... law enforcement...

HHS calls and asks for the info for statistical purposes and puts it in a federal database... federal database gets linked to NICS... someone decides "addicted to" means filling a script monthly....

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/16/presidential-memorandum-improving-availability-relevant-executive-branch

I’ll type slow so you can keep up . . .

It’s not a question of supporting a pdmp. We already have a pdmp. It’s s matter of this pdmp being less bad than the one we already have.




Again, typing slow . . .  60% of Missouri’s counties, with 80% of the state’s population already participate in the St. Louis County pdmp program. Virtually all of the heavily populated areas are already under a pdmp

This pdmp has more privacy protections than the existing system.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

If you're going to start with insults then I guess that says a whole lot more about you than me.

No, actually WE didnt have a PDMP... YOU may have had one..


Again... as posted above... no it doesnt.

But hey the Constitution and Bill of Rights are just suggestions...

Any politician who voted for this should hand in their resigntaton.

Well, i’ve never had a prescription for an opioid, so there’s that.

As for the reach of the existing PDMP, there’s a map at:

https://pdmp-stlcogis.hub.arcgis.com/

Yep.

No one is going to stoop to his level by pointing out how he couldn’t make it in the Private Sector , so he decided to secure his place at the .Gov trough and then proceed to talk down to us little people.

I talked down to little people when I was in the private sector, too . . . just saying.

You should stop digging'.

....

You bunch of 'Cranky Posters'...can't we just get along!?!

Lemme guess.

You edited out something along the lines of

‘Respect my authority’

And/or

‘You need to trust us to get this right, this time ‘

Maybe even

‘You’re too ignorant to know what’s good for you ‘

If you must know, i made an “ARock” inference about your post that alluded to personal details. Decided to let it drop.

Btw, i tried sending this response to you privately but your IM box is full.

Man, the people with average intelligence who think they are smart sure do go out of their way to pretend they are smart, don't they?

You know what. I agree with that assessment.

Frustrations are frustrating.

It won’t happen again.

I appreciate that. In hindsight, i was unnecessarily snarky to madmacs. I didn’t need to do that, and i apologise. I felt he was missing the point about the existing pdmp network. I could have made my case more respectfully.

Hmmm I have been prescribed opioid pain meds after surgeries by the VA on several occasions over the last 10+ years. No one has ever beaten down my door to take my firearms And we all know how the VA feels about us crazy vets and guns.

I live in a small town of 1,100 people and the opioid abuse is rampant around here. I have seen people drive from over an hour away to my small town knowing that the old doctor would write a script for Vicodin Oxycodone or what ever flavor of opiod the patients wanted with no questions asked. Everyone from the local PD to the DEA knew what the doctor was doing but he did the bare minimum to keep from getting arrested.

Participation in the new PDMP is entirely voluntary. If a pull-pushing doc doesn't want to provide prescription information to the PDMP, he doesn't have to.

JFC

I'm sure SSM would make it a requirement... not to mention his insurance company.

Here's an article from 2017 that suggests SSM was already onboard with the St. Louis County system . . . Again, although this system was launched by St. Louis County, it was in use and in place in many parts of Missouri prior to passage of this new law.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/health/prescription-drug-monitoring-program-goes-live-in-st-louis-and-st-louis-county/63-434099099

Well that doesnt make it voluntary... oh! Wait... the Dr. can just leave and find another job.

I don't know why this is devolving into an argument again. That's not my intention.

But I would point out that there is a difference between state statute requiring a doctor/pharmacist to participate (which the new law does not do) and a doctor's medical group/employer requiring his participation (which, as you point out, SSM would surely do, and apparently already does).

But that said, when you described a small town doc who was passing out prescriptions freely, I assumed you were talking about an old school unaffiliated private doc. If the doctor you describes is part of a big structured group like SSM (that surely requires participation in PDMP programs) that only illustrates how ineffective these sorts of things are.

Just to be clear. I've never suggested that PDMP programs are useful or desirable. I merely objected to your contention that people needed to kiss their guns goodbye because of this law.

Pretty sure I didnt describe any doc passing out prescriptions...

Do you dispute that HIPPA has an exemption for NICS?

Do you recognize that MO has sovereign rights that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the federal government.

Because if you dont, then the federal government has the right to demand the information in that database and to use it to deny Missourians their firearms rights. You might be okay with that though.

Do you deny that the federal government has directed numerous departments, including HHS, the department thatcould easily and legitimately require access to the PDMP database?

You're right. That was Chumpmeister. My bad.



What I said was that the bill passed by the Missouri General Assembly contains specific language that prohibits sharing the data with law enforcement and that the bill states that the information cannot be used to deny firearms purchases. That is what the bill says. As far as I know, there is no similar prohibition included in the existing St. Louis County system that currently tracks prescription data for something like 80 percent of Missourians . . . .

https://www.senate.mo.gov/21info/pdf-bill/tat/SB63.pdf

11.No patient dispensation information shall be 191provided to local,state, or federal law enforcement or 192prosecutorial officials, both in-state and out-of-state, or 193any regulatory board, professional or otherwise, for any 194purposes other than those explicitly set forth in HIPAA and 195any regulations promulgated thereunder.196

12.No dispensation information submitted under this 197section shall be used by any local, state, or federal 198authority to prevent an individual from owning or obtaining 199a firearm.




The point still remains that a PDMP is not new thing in Missouri. Something like 80 percent of Missourians are already covered by the existing St. Louis County network. So, the question in my mind is not whether we should have a PDMP. The question is whether the PDMP system envisioned by the law just passed offers MORE privacy protections than the current system. I'm persuaded that it does. It appears to be an improvement over the existing system.

I suppose a fella could say, well, yeah, but we shouldn't have one at all, but that wasn't what the legislature was considering. The question they faced this year was whether they should leave the current system in place or substitute a new system with prohibitions, limitations and protections crafted by Majority Republican lawmakers. Personally, I think they made the right choice. I respect your right to have a different view, but I would hope you approach the issue from the same perspective. Again, it's not a question of PDMP vs. No PDMP. It's a question of St. Louis County PDMP vs.  Majority Republican Legislature PDMP.

I can certainly understand how somebody who lived in an area of the state not covered by the St. Louis County PDMP network would have opposed this bill. But for the rest of us, it's a question of which is the less objectionable system. If you live in one of the shaded areas, your prescriptions are already being tracked:



https://pdmp-stlcogis.hub.arcgis.com/

I'm guessing you dont remember a clerk handing over MO's ccw database...

Yes, I remember that. Not sure how that's really relevant beyond saying "You can't trust the gubment." Are you suggesting the same thing couldn't happen with the data in the St. Louis County system? What would prevent that?

FWIW, the law does include a felony penalty for unlawful disclosures:

(2)Any person who unlawfully and purposefully 214accesses or discloses, or any person authorized to have 215patient dispensation information under this section who 216purposefully discloses, such information in violation of 217this section or purposefully uses such information in a 218manner and for a purpose in violation of this section is 219guilty of a class E felony

You’re making light of some pretty serious issues.

It’s easily recognized that you have your place at the trough and will pull every trick in the book to mentally gymnast your way into tricking the weak minded.

We are not in the minority the .Gov and MSM have tricked you into believing, so expect to be having your authority disrespected more and more as you back us closer and closer to the wall.

Your tinfoil is on too tight.

No.  It isn’t.

And you know it.

Bad shit is currently happening right before our eyes and you’re trying to tell me I can’t believe my lying eyes at the same time resorting to name calling / ridicule.

Our .Gov has an extensive history of breaking their word, changing the rules, and getting away with it.

But you don’t want that to be discussed.

You’d rather do what you just apologized for earlier in this thread.

OK. So explain to me how my logic is flawed. I think a PDMP system enacted by a majority Republican legislature -- that includes a specific prohibition against using the data to deny firearms -- is preferable to an ad hoc system developed by officials in St. Louis County that doesn't have those same prohibitions. What's wrong with that logic?

And are you seriously suggesting that my "tin foil" comment qualifies as name calling and ridicule? Seriously? Because, otherwise, I don't know what I've said that you could possibly be offended by. Are you really that sensitive?

You know what? Forget it. You're right. Don't go to the doctor. They'll take away your guns.

You want us to believe the .Gov doesn't have a history of changing the rules a few years down the road while no one is paying attention.

No One was held accountable for handing over our CCW list to the Feds even though THAT was specifically against the rules too.  Not to mention all the laws .Gov broke during this last presidential election.

The fact that you actually need me to spell that out for you even after all the times it's been brought up to you in this thread...
Attached File


You have a spot at the .Gov trough and your obtusity is either from pure ignorance or you're intentionally trying to deceive.

I think you're of reasonable intelligence, so I believe it's the latter.

I've got your number.  You are definitely not part of the solution.

I'm done with you.

Handing it over to HHS isnt a violation. No doubt the fact that HHS has been instructed to make ALL relevant information available will be conveniently ignored by the person handing it over.

Bump for convenience.