That's right. Also, Phenergan is related to the phenothiazine antipsychotics (in fact it was developed in this way and the antihistamine effect was almost incidental). Best thing is to get a friend in the UK to send you some. They don't cost that much.

I suppose using Phenergan for its sedative effect is termed 'abuse', since it is licensed for allergy and nausea. But other promethazine products are licensed for insomnia, so that wouldn't be abuse. Silly Rules.

I wouldn't promote trafficing any medication from one country to another. That is totally illegal. I'm surprised you of all people would suggest that.

I had a meeting last week with my boss and our top guys...we are in a field related to healthcare and insurance. One of the 3rd party products we are going to be selling as part of our service is "teledoctor". Call up he doc, he decides what to do and possibly rx and calls in a script if so needed. I was like...isnt that a hot topic and how can they do this? They said, you need to fill out a questionnaire beforehand. I said, doesnt that doc need to be working with your own doc in conjunction? They said no.

We are going to start using it at our office sometime soon. So, how the heck is that possible?

Well, that is possible because certain pharmacies are legally operating in such a mannor.

But isnt this whole LE stance centered around the doctor patient relationship?

That is true, if there is no face to face then the OCS is definitely operating in a grey area of the law. That's been made quite clear to me. Also not all phone consultations are even done by a real doctor. Some are just PAs.

Well then this 3rd party company is selling their service that is operating in a gray area of the law then (to quite legit hospitals, large companies, etc) I guarantee they will continue to do business though.

You are correct Oxy....In fact, the majority of the time, it is the PA doing the consult, not the dr...not all but most

Well if there's a difference between being totally illegal and any other kind of illegal, I wouldn't have thought sending non-controlled items was at the 'total' end of things, especially when money isn't exchanging hands. They may get seized but I'd be surprised.

Alternatively, one could buy them from a registered UK pharmacy, which isn't illegal from the UK end or they'd be thrown out of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain:

http://www.pcpdirect.co.uk/Pharmacy/Slee..._56_Tablets.htm

They also do some cheap generic low-dose codeine/APAP tablets:

http://www.pcpdirect.co.uk/Pharmacy/Pain_Relief/00317_Co-Codamol_Effervescent_8/500mg_32_Tablets.htm

and a codeine liquid:

http://www.pcpdirect.co.uk/Pharmacy/Colds_&_Coughs/00110_Pulmo_Bailly.htm

maybe they won't be able to prescribe scheduled drugs.

haha

funny

Back to high school civics;

Law is made by the Legislature, executed by the president and actively enforced by the police.

The DEA/FDA/CBP does not make any law that is not included in its devolution of power from Congress, namely, a charter detailing its ambit of authority.

It is my opinion that these agencies are acting, in many many instances, unlawfully, under the guise of "protecting the general welfare"

Again: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode21/usc_sec_21_00000384----000-.html

Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 9—FEDERAL FOOD, drug, AND COSMETIC ACT
Subchapter 8 - Imports and Exports
§ 384. Importation of prescription drugs

(J) Waiver authority for importation by individuals

(1) Declarations
Congress declares that in the enforcement against individuals of the prohibition of importation of prescription drugs and devices, the Secretary should—

(A) focus enforcement on cases in which the importation by an individual poses a significant threat to public health; and

(B) exercise discretion to permit individuals to make such importations in circumstances in which—
(i) the importation is clearly for personal use; and
(ii) the prescription drug or device imported does not appear to present an unreasonable risk to the individual.

(2) Waiver authority
(A) In general
The Secretary may grant to individuals, by regulation or on a case-by-case basis, a waiver of the prohibition of importation of a prescription drug or device or class of prescription drugs or devices, under such conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(B) Guidance on case-by-case waivers
The Secretary shall publish, and update as necessary, guidance that accurately describes circumstances in which the Secretary will consistently grant waivers on a case-by-case basis under subparagraph (A), so that individuals may know with the greatest practicable degree of certainty whether a particular importation for personal use will be permitted.

Once the substance is in your possession, however: Possession is 9/10 of the law absent a prescription.
The possession aspect becomes a 10th amendment "power reserved to the state" issue the second the parcel is out of the Federal agencies hands.

It is also my opinion that this is why people receive 5,6 or 10 LL's and nothing comes of it. It is my opinion the Feds will not waste their time on an issue they very possibly will lose in court. And setting you up is very arguably entrapment.

THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS ANY QUALIFIED ADVICE, RATHER, MERE OPINION MIXED WITH FACT.

The letter of the Federal Law. I posted all of this in the wrong forum. My bad.

No agency acting under color of law and proactively enforcing laws gets away with the words or de facto actions of "I'm telling you what we can do" when I'm the object of said proactive enforcement.

I find out what, in fact, that agency or department may do, in Law.

As mentioned in another post, it was indescribably weird to receive a package with a scheduled substance that was referred to CBP/DEA, opened, inspected, green taped and stickered, and forwarded with schedule 4 content.

I had to find out. The above post is what the FBI doesn't want anyone to find.

The US Code is like reading an entire encyclopedia. This is all a legal grey area and citizens, for personal use, get the benefit of the reasonable doubt in Court.

[again, unqualified opinion mixed with fact] /EndRant.

If I ever gain standing I will [try to] nail the Feds to the wall on the issue.

It's never been adjudicated in Court before in my legal approach to the matter, or any legal approach to the matter, from what I can find.

Just waiting to get through law school. I don't have 25 grand to retain one of among the best federal attorney's.

[spring break = too much time on my hands, and NEEDING to avoid bad pseudo-friends]

Lit.....Thanks for the rant....Welcome to DB !!! Your Input will be an asset to all of us!
Stevo

Of course its legal. If you close your eyes and hit the buy button there is no way you can get arrested. If you get a knock on the door from the feds just say i ordered it with my eyes closed, then they cannot arrest you and always just walk away nodding there heads. Always works, never fails.

Hi all, I post every once in awhile.I am really grateful to all of you who post. I know it has saved me from using a bad site. This may be a dumb question but are all these types of forums going to disappear after that law takes affect in April? I don't know that much about that law, except it has something to do with ordering meds online. I order diet aids from pbrx and others, and I really need to know what is happening before everything disappears! Thank you sooo much for any advice!! Deb

StuntGoat

sarcasm understood, but when a Judge applies law to the facts of a case, the judge uses
(1) the literal and commonly accepted usage of the words in the statute
(2) the intent of congress as explicitly or implicitly stated in statutory language

The mere mention of "prescription medication" does not definitively imply that a prescription be necessary.

Important: Customs, DEA, the USPS, are all Federal agencies and Federal law therefore applies if they so choose to prosecute. A Federal agency may not transfer a concrete federal question jurisdiction to a state Court venue.

Key here: The authority to exempt individual importation, as enacted by the US Congress, doesn't even make a whisper about the need to have in actual physical possession a prescription when importing a drug, scheduled or otherwise.

It'd be seriously squandered scarce resources to put something so trivial to the test, however. I think, my opinion, is Foreign importation will only be brought to test in Court if someone with a Seizure letter or ten initiates the suit against the government. Ideally that person has a prescription for everything seized, just looks good.

Thus, possession is 9/10 of the law, absent a prescription once it's in your hands, which means State law enforcement, and much less severe penalties, fines, court costs and legal fees. Be smart, and if you're involved in narcotics transactions you more than probably deserve it.

Of course, It's never been put to the test on the federal level; Because, in my humble unqualified somewhat-informed opinion, the Feds will quite possibly lose most cases.

Disclaimer: unqualified well reasoned opinion not intended to be used in any legal sense, ever. Neither is this a provocation for Federal agencies lurking about to test. Let personal importers using necessary medications for necessary conditions be. Go after the violent Colombians, please.

The FDA / CBP are MOST worried about fake/counterfeit medications that are very potentially lethal or bunk.. Such as the bunk "breath mint" Modafinil I received from BasicMeds


This is a legal grey area
Like playing Poker for cash online
The Situations are VERY Analogous

This is all, assuming for arguments sake, that one in such a hypothetical legal quagmire has retained the best of counsel..

The 6th Amendment only provides "the assistance of Counsel".

Complex litigation demands "the best assistance",

And, moreover, the "secretary general" need only make known "... that individuals may know with the greatest practicable degree of certainty whether a particular importation for personal use will be permitted."

Where therein is the word "prescription"?

Cheers,

Another Analogy:

The DEA, a federal agency, raiding a California State Sanctioned and Approved Medical Marijuana facility.

California State law says it's legal, whilst

Federal law (ACT OF CONGRESS ENABLING THE DEA TO ENFORCE SAID ACT) classifies Marijuana as having no currently accepted medical use; thus raiding and arresting and federal court prosecuting.

These agencies, FDA/CBP/DEA are making law or shoddily enforcing vague Federal law, and it's just not yet been tested.

Whoever braves the test places their liberty at stake, outcome dependent. It'll happen one day.

Plain and simple.
I've got nothing more to say on the matter.

"Throughout the process, the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to: "Prove it!"" (Black, J., CD, Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970))

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0399_0078_ZX.html

In essence: Get counsel, shut up, and talk about the weather, sports, movies, big media topics, really bad things, and make the Citizen On Patrol (COP) know you're a good guy.

Avoid politics and don't breathe a word about the case.

For the uninitiated, it's best to shut up and say only "I need to talk with an attorney first", or "my attorney can answer all of your questions", or "my lawyer will be glad to answer that, here's his number" with minimal cooperation.. lots of "yes sir"'s "no sir"'s, let them think they're intimidating you by being humble. And really, be humble. A tear or two, hopefully real, works. REMEMBER EVERYTHING AND WRITE IT DOWN ASAP.

The 4th Amendment protects you in your person, house, papers and effects from unwarranted search and seizure, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, [first established by modicums of evidence], supported by oath or affidavit, specifically describing the person or place to be searched and the things to be seized.

The place to fight is in court. unqualified common sense. Stuntgoat, sarcasm denied. Ever hear of chain of custody of evidence, or suppression motions, or motions to dismiss, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or wait, did your neighbor place that order? Did you really pay for it? Was it really illegal? Did Feds deliver it intending to have STATE law enforcement pick-you-up, when they don't have the foggiest whether a valid prescription exists? [entrapment, reasonable suspicion invalidating the warrant on review]..

[unqualified advice, all aforementioned pertaining to IOPs]

If you read my string of posts here,
know a little bit about Law & Order,

and kinda have a grasp on IOP's,

There is so much vagueness here, that, in my humble unqualified opinion, for roughly 90 day quantities, no warrant shall ever issue.

Technically, even if a copy of an American prescription accompanies a drug containing parcel, that prescription isn't valid for whatever drug is in that parcel.

If the drug is authentic and you receive it via IOP, and are retaining a prescription you've never filled at a pharmacy, only your doctor has that record. That is called Doctor-Patient privilege.

How, also, are you to know that a specific medicine is appearing in your mailbox on any specific date given the circumstances at points-of-entry?

And if you have no prescription, it's the same as carrying a Tylenol around. No leafy green material stinking to high heaven.

You have to practically give yourself up, or be a [sometimes scumbag] drug trafficker caught in a sting.

Who else can create mere or reasonable suspicion under such constitutionally vague auspices?

Hopefully someone does get stung with a valid prescription, after multiple 90day supply orders, has medicine seized, is shot once or twice, ideally rubber bullets, while thrown into a severe panic/anxiety attack from being forced to assume the position, and moreover suffers excessive fines along with the cruel and unusual punishment for something perfectly legal, and wins millions in a Title 42 section 1983 action (federal civil rights violations).

There is nothing legal about ordering from IOPs period. Look at the initiative started by Interpol--there will be much more enforcement of the international traficking laws in 2009. Are you stating you believe it to be legal? A lot of people think so, but it is not, FYI. You need an importers license for any quantity of controlled drugs. Absent that, you need a written exception from the government. They usually don't issue them because of the quality issue that prompted the DEA/Interpol initiative and Pangea.

I'm just quoting the letter of the law in Chapter 21 allowing a blanket exemption for individuals on the importation of drugs or devices.

the US Code supersedes administrative regulations, if the administrative regulations are outside of the agency's ambit of authority.

Akin to the Tax Code and the way the IRS enforces it.. You just gotta know the Law better than the people charged with enforcing it.

I'm neither saying it's legal or illegal. I'm saying it's gray. Very gray.

I retained my packaging with a yellow sticker forwarded to CBP/DEA, opened, inspected, green taped shut, marked as Modafinil, Schedule IV containing, and notwithstanding forwarded to me as "as reasonable as practicable proof that I certainly believe such an importation to be an acceptable exception", pursuant to the Congressional exception in Chapter 9, supchapter 8, section 384 of USC Title 21. In fact I went out of my way to fully document and safeguard all of the information and packaging regarding that one purchase due to circumstance. I was on tilt until I realized "advantage me". And at that time I had no prescription.

I quote the information necessary for affirmation of exception: ... The Secretary must make known, in a listing or case-by-case basis ... [begin-quote](A), so that individuals may know with the greatest practicable degree of certainty whether a particular importation for personal use will be permitted.

And, oh yes, those with the Authority to Search & Seize at borders speak and act with the full Authority of the Secretary General [of whichever agency].

See Above, it's cited, naturally. Yes, I was scared. The ship-to address has nowhere to search, but yes, I was scared. I have a pure and squeaky clean record, despite a few sittings in the rear of police cruisers.

No Black No White, a very murky gray abyss.

Now, you mention Interpol and some new Pangea initiative:

That would be, more than likely, governed by the UN Convention on Pyschotropic Substances, 1971. It's been amended a few times, I believe the last was in or about 1990.

THAT is a little more comprehensive in listing substances but less stringent in penalty. That treaty regulates which substances must be classified as controlled by parties to the convention [nation-states].

There are countries which are neither a party to that treaty nor to other UN Finance and banking related treaties.

They're known as off-shore tax havens.

Similarities exist in extradition treaties, for example: Switzerland will not extradite a wanted person if the penalty that person will receive in the country requesting extradition is greater than the maximum penalty for the same offense under Swiss law. To name but one classic. That's when the CIA kidnaps if you're really wanted.

I know nothing about the pending enforcement of the law(s) you mention. And regardless, there's a little thing about ex-post-facto laws and bills of attainder, absolutely prohibited, in article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution.

If you can get it into the country, as an individual, no US Court of proper jurisdiction will ever be usurped by international law. That's what the 14th Amendment's all about. The US Constitution protects people, not places, houses and real property are the exception and cars to a much limited extent. International Law is what's reserved for guys like Milosevic at the Hague who've committed heinous crimes against humanity that have no appropriate remedy. Like the Nazis. Or maybe some Wallstreet bankers squandering that 700 billion.[pun]

International Law is what, for example, permits an 18yo on an American flight to Europe be able to sip a Martini 120 miles off-US shores. Or gamble on a cruise ship in international waters at 18.

Or have your package be seized under international treaty in international areas with potentially no notice ever sent to you.

If those wall-street high finance types selling complex-packaged mortgage securities to international investors aren't being taken to the Hague, who says you will be for those 200 diazepam's?

I'm trying to draw some analogies here. I'll think of something better while waiting for my dang Modafinil.
[unqualified opinion]

Searched Seized and Received

Department of Health and Human Resources:

FDA/CBP/DEA endorsed,

Affirmative Defense, on that case by case basis.

nothing frivolous.

That [e]stops a lot of federal prosecuting, especially with everything else I've got, and can prove, naturally.

In my case, had they wanted to assure me with the greatest reasonable certainty that this was utterly impermissible, that bottom option would have been checked. If it had been merely forwarded for lack of inspection, forwarded. Or refused entry and returned to sender.

Rather... anticipate the unexpected. Who knows, but it helps. Title 21, Chapter 9, Subchapter 8, sec 384 "waiver authority for importation by individuals"

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode21/usc_sec_21_00000384----000-.html

All Sarcasm Denied; arguably permits the entire class of imported goods, i.e. Schedule 4, as clearly indicated and endorsed by the FDA/CBP/DEA under the Department of Human Health and Services what-have-you.

[Something was nagging me about all you naysayers, so I needed to prove a little proof] Hell If i were a barrister and had [only] Modafinil seized, I'd use that as the primary evidence, screw my current rx.

The United States Code governs FEDERAL AGENCIES.

This is the word of the Law on the issue. Check out the legality.
1.)TITLE 21—FOOD AND DRUGS
2.)CHAPTER 9—FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT
3.)SUBCHAPTER VIII—IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
4.)§ 384. Importation of prescription drugs
5.)(j) Waiver authority for importation by individuals
(1) Declarations
Congress declares that in .. enforcing the Prohibition of importation of prescription drugs and devices .. [against Individuals]
the Secretary should-
(A) focus enforcement on cases in which the importation by an individual poses a significant threat to public health; and
(B) exercise discretion to permit individuals to make such importations in circumstances in which—
(i) the importation is clearly for personal use; and
(ii) the prescription drug or device imported does not appear to present an unreasonable risk to the individual.
(2) Waiver authority
(A) In general
The Secretary may grant to individuals, by regulation or on a case-by-case basis, a waiver of the prohibition of importation of a prescription drug or device or class of prescription drugs or devices, under such conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(B) Guidance on case-by-case waivers
The Secretary shall publish, and update as necessary, guidance that accurately describes circumstances in which the Secretary will consistently grant waivers on a case-by-case basis under subparagraph (A), so that individuals may know with the greatest practicable degree of certainty whether a particular importation for personal use will be permitted.


These agents act on behalf of the Secretary's preogatives. Respondeat-Superior, where the master tells the slave what to do [and against the master the slaves actions are legally actionable] SEIZURE or CARRIAGE is being decided with legality under United State's Law, at the whim of a Customs Agent.

This law has been valid since Jan 3. 2007, on Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute, which last updated Congress' word on 3. March 2009.(as of 8. March 2009)


Now, Congress is giving this power to the FDA, but CONGRESS declares in this power given to the FDA that reasonably authentic drugs for an unspecified requirement that "importation is clearly for personal use" -------- As well as that "the prescription drug or device imported does not present an unreasonable risk to the individual", satisfies the legality of the parcel's further carriage.

Unelected American bureaucrats, that is, no one voted for a Customs Agent decision, are deciding to do whatever they want which is often when they find it seize it [or pocket it].

------------

by contradictory FDA regulation, an American prescription is only valid for drugs dispensed at American pharmacies.

No clear and incontrovertible distinction on proper and improper seizures is codified, and it is the whim of the front line subordinates and underlings of the people we voted for in the first instance perpetrating this: THE WHIM OF A HOPEFULLY KIND CUSTOMS AGENT

So, if you have a prescription, which everyone is presumed to have, and is potentially unprovable either way, thus ought guarantee that everything but Schedule 1 gets through, as it satisfies Congress' test and express intent, if believed authentic.

That is the International Online Pharmacy Patients Constitution.

And needs a team of caliber minds and a brave soul.

now chill B. All of this cause I got a bad delivery and can't cover the lapse [with affordable medication].

so yeah, the US Code takes away the FDA's authority to enforce American Prescription = American Drugstore.

And The FDA hasn't been told that yet by a Federal Judge. [i do have standing for a dec motion..=/ not a f**in chance for a few years]