Are the OCSes opposed to having to use a registered pharmacy or do they have reservations about obtaining the registrated practioner?

What is in the bill/amendment that is so bad that would make anyone in power want to make an effort to change?

Nobody is going to sponsor a bill to allow people to obtain prescription drugs like hydrocodone or alprozalam without seeing a physician...

That battle, the battle for the loophole, is already lost... what needs to be fought is the battle for proper care for chronic patients...

These laws go into effect because we, the people, are intolerant and resort to extreme measures to seek protection for our loved ones... when parents ask for rohypnol to be banned because it was used to rape... you make bills like these easyer to pass...
Just by seeing how people react when someone asks anything about rohypnot, ketamine, or steroids in this board... is proof of how intolerant we all are and how our actions come back to hurt us instead of protecting us...

I was always under the impression that it was against the Rules to discuss rohypnol or ketamine here, but I agree with you that the government will nanny us to death.

Aside from that, I've read the Act several times and I see many loopholes in it. Has any of the OSCes explored the loopholes and come up with alternative means to work within the Act? Telemedince is here to stay. The Ryan Haight Act won't end it. Might even promote it as a more viable option to medical care if people would read past the first few paragraphs.

The big problem is that the Nazi DEA has terrified the medical people and now has put limits on how much medication the pharmacies can dispense every day. Meanwhile pain patients have to wait and wait when an OCS loses it's pharm and they scaramble to find another. Until the doctors and pharmacy industry at some point strongly object and take a stand on being told what to prescribe their patients, it's only going to get worse. I get so angry when I read some of the horror story posts on this board about how human beings are being treated or better, not treated. It's the DEA practicing medicine. They have way too much power. If all the politicians had to go through what we do, you'd see some new compassionate action taking place. Til then expect the Nazi DEA to be making life miserable for us all.

,,,, Well admin, one case in point, naming a bill after a drug abuser....does offend me...It just shows me how much knowledge they have about Ryan? They named a law, Jessica "s law...which is named after a innocent child is a moral dis justice for this child,,,since Ryan joined these ranks ,,,,,in my knowledge no law is named after a person with low morals,,,,,

For all my years here, I too thought the same. It seems once a medication gets a 'street name', whatever medical benefits it has the potential to provide get lost in the hysteria.

Mentions of "Roofies", "Special K" and 'roids all make for tantalizing headlines. "Vikes" and "Zannies" didn't help the reputation of those so often vital medications in the minds of practitioners or the public.

It's too little, too late, but perhaps we should have had an unspoken policy to try to use the generic or brand names when speaking of medication.

Admittedly, the written word on the 'net is expected to contain its share of net-lingo simply out of convenience. After all, I can't spell Alprazolam without looking at my wife's Rx

Still, so much is a matter of perception and quotes can be wildly distorted when street jargon is used to refer to medication. I realize no one here, including Admin, wants to be the language police. After all, for the most part, we have something called free speech in most of The Americas and Europe and elsewhere just for starters.

-----

As far as receiving effective pain or anxiety relief outside of the online world, I fear it may take some time for the current pharma-hysteria to pass before that happens.

Soon, another substance or group of substances will take its place in the newspaper headlines and perhaps some of the 'heat' will cool down for legitimate prescribers.

After all, there was a time when it was no big deal for a Doctor to prescribed controlled medications as they deemed fit. I hope we all live to see that day come again.

------

I too am leaving Ryan Haight's name off the "Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008" when referring to it. Legislators are exploiting the fact that they can push any law through unchallenged if they preface it with a young person's name. Be sure to add an ancient picture of the young man strumming a guitar in his tidy bedroom on any propaganda used in lobbying efforts. After all, few would be moved by a picture of Ryan Haight puking his guts out on the sidewalk outside some club after a wild night of "funning".

Too bad we had too much class and maturity to not have tried to fight this misguided law with a "Google Bomb"....


JMHO,

patient2all

P2A, have you come across ANY interview with the Haights where they assign personal responsibilty for what happened to their son either to Ryan or themselves for giving him unlimited, unsupervised Funds?

What I am saying is that we are also to blame and that it is not always someone else or "them".
It is like enjoying a day at the beach... or park... in a not so distant future people would use the beach as if if was their garden and most people would have a great time... then someone started complaining about the dogs, the music, the balls, the surfboards, the smokers, and in no time everything was illegal...
The same happened with prescription drugs...

My fear is, just as the Feds have banned websites that promote terrorism (bomb-building) and the procurement/manufacturing of drug-paraphernalia; websites that promote on-line drug purchases will be the next to be added to the bans.

I'm just not getting it. The Ryan Haight Act does not make telemedicine illegal.

We might already be there. From the Ryan Haight Act....

"(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or intentionally use the Internet, or cause the Internet to be used, to advertise the sale of, or to offer to sell, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance where such sale, distribution, or dispensing is not authorized by this title or by the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act.
‘(B) Examples of activities that violate subparagraph (A) include, but are not limited to, knowingly or intentionally causing the placement on the Internet of an advertisement that refers to or directs prospective buyers to Internet sellers of controlled substances who are not registered with a modification under section 303(f)."

but then it somewhat contradicts itself by...

"‘(C) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to material that either--
‘(i) merely advertises the distribution of controlled substances by nonpractitioners to the extent authorized by their registration under this title; or
‘(ii) merely advocates the use of a controlled substance or includes pricing information without attempting to facilitate an actual transaction involving a controlled substance.’"

No I have not.

I've barely seen mention of the ongoing antics of him and his carefree friends. He thought he was real smart.

I thought I was real smart at 18 too.

But I, like millions of us, was unsupervised by 18, had limited funds, most of which had to go toward eating, lodging and transportation.

I had some fun too at 18 and had more than ample opportunity to make dangerous, deadly choices. Many of my co-workers in those days were parolees and hard drugs were right there to be had. Back then, when parolees returned to their halfway houses in the evening, "drug screening" only consisted of smelling their breath for alcohol. So instead of drinking, they did every drug in sight during the workday.

However, despite the array of narcotics of all types freely available, I stuck to what were then called "soft drugs" and also had a bit of sense and restraint that kept me alive.

Pills were all over the place then too, but I had no pains nor desire for pills.

-------

There is something to be said for not having everything handed to you in life.

My dad did give me the money for the fine after my single, youthful, non drug-related arrest. He understood, he'd been 18 too once

--------

Decades later, like millions of us, "drugs" mean something else entirely.

patient2all

I am sure there wont be any reports about his unsupervised activities. That doesnt make for a good story and would actually put responsibility on the parents. They are too busy wanting to blame someone else. I am sure that the truth will never come out and now the damage is done, the law is passed and us true CP sufferers will pay.

It's sad that he ODed himself. But, "unsupervised activities?" He had reached the age of majority. I'm done with supervising mine when they turn 18...probably sooner. If he was 10, I'd question the parent's lack of supervision. I really don't see any more roadblocks then there already were. Like I said earlier, I think it's more of a token gesture.

Tigersmom, I don't mean to start a fight or be rude. Why is it that the OCS will not be licensed? I don't know if the OCS itself has to be licensed anyways because they're not a pharmacy or Dr. The only thing I can think of for a phsyician is State licensing problems. Would it be at all cost effective, feasible or even possible to have Dr.s in other States...especially the no-ship States to do either telemed or consults? It's alright for you to tell me I don't know jack...cuz I don't.
Also, it seems like the OCS procure their own pharmacy. I don't know why, but if the OCS had Dr.s in different States a pharmacy within that State could fill the script. Seems to me that more people would join a network like that.
Any insight would be appreciated because I really think this can work within the laws.

When I first started reading DB, it seemed like opinions were that OCS services were acting within the gray area of the law. OCS businesses were failing, Dr.s and pharmacies were getting busted. Revisting the subject after 2 yrs. of joining, I see a lot of possibilities now.

Excuse me for jumping in. There would be doctors in a series of states and pharmacies in each of those states? I do not think it is easy to open a non brick amd mortar pharmacy in a lot of states. AFAIK.

Internet pharmacies are addressed in the Ryan Haight Act. Actually, to me it seems they will regulating the pharmacies more than the Dr.s in the Act. It would think that it would keep an OCS running smoother having a few more registered pharms. filling valid prescriptions. Using one pharmacy filling some many scripts for scheduled meds. always has raised the red flag and brought things to a stand still. I tend to be naived and to look to the bright side, so don't feel bad correcting me.

One more thing. I don't think it's necessary to "open a non brick and mortar pharmacy." Why couldn't a brick and mortar pharmacy that already exist and is licensed to fill prescriptions, obtain the registration from the Govt. to fill valid internet prescriptions? Is that workable?

bump

How can you compare web sites that promote terrorism and on line pharmacies?..........Are you serious?

He(she?) isnt comparing online medication to terrorism, he is comparing discussing illegal activity IF discussing online medication becomes illegal.

This isnt rocket science.

I wonder if he had ever forged dad's name on any script pads?

NBC's Al Roker has a new series debuting tomorrow (Sunday) evening titled "Generation RX". The ads already have the same old connotation that American kids are buying strong medications (easily) on the internet. It'll be interesting to see how Mr. Roker gives the impression that it is indeed easy to obtain pain medication online. I would like him to actually try and get pain medication on the internet (easily) without any medical record or ID. I'm sure he'll bring up the RH act and how it's going to save the children.
This program looks to be a series of several to follow.

As long as long as they save "the children" ---- I guess it is ok for the rest of us to suffer chronic pain without adequate treatment --- as long as "the children" are safe (insert sarcastic comment here)- we can suffer

For more info provided by the DOJ and DEA on this please see:
http://www.drugbuyers.com/freeboard/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/874271#Post874271

Damn our government and the pigs that help enforce the unjust selfserve thieves we refer to as our reps.

va sends pain meds, suppose to sign for them, ha, one time, they get lost frequently and guess what, tough luck.
Screw them. I'll go with an IOP. some dude in pakistan has more honor.

Does this increase the penalties for folks who do order? Just curious. I know this changes some laws and eats up the loop holes, but does it mean their will be more prosecutions?