 |
 |
 |
 |
#186775 - 06/15/05 12:55 PM
Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
|
Administrator
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 6365
Loc: DrugBuyers.Com
|
This is the answer given by the DEA ( drug Ebforcement Agency) and the USDOJ... http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/illegal_internet.html Is It Illegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Internet? For a prescription to be valid under federal and state law, there must be a bona fide doctor patient relationship, which is defined by most state laws to require a physical examination. “Completing a questionnaire that is then reviewed by a doctor hired by the internet pharmacy could not be considered the basis for a doctor/patient relationship.” Vol. 66 Federal Register 82, PP 21181-21184 (April 27, 2001) Moreover, if the prescription drug is a controlled substance and the drug is being imported into the U.S. from a foreign country and being shipped to anyone other than a DEA-registered importer, such transaction is a felony in violation of Sections 957 and 960 of Title 21, United States Code. CITE- 21 USC Sec. 957 01/22/02 -EXPCITE- TITLE 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS CHAPTER 13 - drug ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL SUBCHAPTER II - IMPORT AND EXPORT -HEAD- Sec. 957. Persons required to register -STATUTE- (a) Coverage No person may - (1) import into the customs territory of the United States from any place outside thereof (but within the United States), or import into the United States from any place outside thereof, any controlled substance or list I chemical, or (2) export from the United States any controlled substance or list I chemical, unless there is in effect with respect to such person a registration issued by the Attorney General under section 958 of this title, or unless such person is exempt from registration under subsection (b) of this section. (b) Exemptions (1) The following persons shall not be required to register under the provisions of this section and may lawfully possess a controlled substance or list I chemical: (A) An agent or an employee of any importer or exporter registered under section 958 of this title if such agent or employee is acting in the usual course of his business or employment. (B) A common or contract carrier or warehouseman, or an employee thereof, whose possession of any controlled substance or list I chemical is in the usual course of his business or employment. (C) An ultimate user who possesses such substance for a purpose specified in section 802(25) (FOOTNOTE 1) of this title and in conformity with an exemption granted under section 956(a) of this title. (FOOTNOTE 1) See References in Text note below. (2) The Attorney General may, by regulation, waive the requirement for registration of certain importers and exporters if he finds it consistent with the public health and safety; and may authorize any such importer or exporter to possess controlled substances or list I chemicals for purposes of importation and exportation. -SOURCE- (Pub. L. 91-513, title III, Sec. 1007, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat.1288; Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 523, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2076; Pub. L. 103-200, Sec. 3(e), Dec. 17, 1993, 107 Stat. 2337.) -REFTEXT- REFERENCES IN TEXT Section 802(25) of this title, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(C), was redesignated section 802(26) of this title by Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 507(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2071, and was further redesignated section 802(27) of this title by Pub. L. 99-570, title I, Sec. 1003(b)(2), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207-6. -MISC2- AMENDMENTS 1993 - Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 103-200, Sec. 3(e)(1)(A), inserted ''or list I chemical'' after ''controlled substance''. Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 103-200, Sec. 3(e)(1)(B), substituted ''or list I chemical,'' for ''in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V,''. Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 103-200, Sec. 3(e)(2)(A), inserted ''or list I chemical'' after ''controlled substance'' in introductory provisions and subpar. (B). Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 103-200, Sec. 3(e)(2)(B), inserted ''or list I chemicals'' after ''controlled substances''. 1984 - Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 98-473 inserted reference to schedule V. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1993 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 103-200 effective on date that is 120 days after Dec. 17, 1993, see section 11 of Pub. L. 103-200, set out as a note under section 802 of this title. PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION Section 1104 of Pub. L. 91-513, as amended by Pub. L. 99-514, Sec. 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that: ''(a)(1) Any person - ''(A) who is engaged in importing or exporting any controlled substance on the day before the effective date of section 1007 (May 1, 1971), ''(B) who notifies the Attorney General that he is so engaged, and ''(C) who is registered on such day under section 510 of the Federal Food, drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 360 of this title) or under section 4722 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (formerly I.R.C. 1954, section 4722 of title 26), shall, with respect to each establishment for which such registration is in effect under any such section, be deemed to have a provisional registration under section 1008 (section 958 of this title) for the import or export (as the case may be) of controlled substances. ''(2) During the period his provisional registration is in effect under this section, the registration number assigned such person under such section 510 or under such section 4722 (as the case may be) shall be his registration number for purposes of part A of this title (this subchapter). ''(b) The provisions of section 304 (section 824 of this title), relating to suspension and revocation of registration, shall apply to a provisional registration under this section. ''(c) Unless sooner suspended or revoked under subsection (b), a provisional registration of a person under subsection (a)(1) of this section shall be in effect until - ''(1) the date on which such person has registered with the Attorney General under section 1008 (section 958 of this title) or has had his registration denied under such section, or ''(2) such date as may be prescribed by the Attorney General for registration of importers or exporters, as the case may be, whichever occurs first.'' CITE- 21 USC Sec. 960 01/22/02 -EXPCITE- TITLE 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS CHAPTER 13 - drug ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL SUBCHAPTER II - IMPORT AND EXPORT -HEAD- Sec. 960. Prohibited acts A -STATUTE- (a) Unlawful acts Any person who - (1) contrary to section 952, 953, or 957 of this title, knowingly or intentionally imports or exports a controlled substance, (2) contrary to section 955 of this title, knowingly or intentionally brings or possesses on board a vessel, aircraft, or vehicle a controlled substance, or (3) contrary to section 959 of this title, manufactures, possesses with intent to distribute, or distributes a controlled substance, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) Penalties (1) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving - (A) 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin; (B) 5 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of - (i) coca leaves, except coca leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of ecgonine or their salts have been removed; (ii) cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts or isomers; (iii) ecgonine, its derivatives, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or (iv) any compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of any of the substances referred to in clauses (i) through (iii); (C) 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance described in subparagraph (B) which contains cocaine base; (D) 100 grams or more of phencyclidine (PCP) or 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of phencyclidine (PCP); (E) 10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD); (F) 400 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of N-phenyl-N- ( 1- ( 2-phenylethyl )-4-piperidinyl ) propanamide or 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of any analogue of N-pheny propanamide; (G) 1000 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marihuana; or (H) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers or 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers. (FOOTNOTE 1) (FOOTNOTE 1) So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon. the person committing such violation shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years and not more than life and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 20 years and not more than life, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $4,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $10,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 20 years and not more than life imprisonment and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $8,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $20,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. Any sentence under this paragraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 5 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 10 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under this paragraph. No person sentenced under this paragraph shall be eligible for parole during the term of imprisonment imposed therein. (2) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving - (A) 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin; (B) 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of - (i) coca leaves, except coca leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of ecgonine or their salts have been removed; (ii) cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts or isomers; (iii) ecgonine, its derivatives, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or (iv) any compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of any of the substances referred to in clauses (i) through (iii); (C) 5 grams or more of a mixture or substance described in subparagraph (B) which contains cocaine base; (D) 10 grams or more of phencyclidine (PCP) or 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of phencyclidine (PCP); (E) 1 gram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD); (F) 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of N-phenyl-N- ( 1- ( 2-phenylethyl ) -4-piperidinyl ) propanamide or 10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of any analogue of N-pheny ropanamide; (G) 100 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marihuana; or (H) 5 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers or 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers. (FOOTNOTE 2) (FOOTNOTE 2) So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon. the person committing such violation shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years and not more than 40 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than twenty years and not more than life, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $2,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $5,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years and not more than life imprisonment and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $4,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $10,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. Any sentence imposed under this paragraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, include a term of supervised release of at least 4 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, include a term of supervised release of at least 8 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under this paragraph. No person sentenced under this paragraph shall be eligible for parole during the term of imprisonment imposed therein. (3) In the case of a violation under subsection (a) of this section involving a controlled substance in schedule I or II, gamma hydroxybutyric acid (including when scheduled as an approved drug product for purposes of section 3(a)(1)(B) of the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape drug Prohibition Act of 2000), or flunitrazepam, the person committing such violation shall, except as provided in paragraphs (1), (2), and (4), be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than twenty years and not more than life, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $1,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $5,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $2,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $10,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. Any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment under this paragraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 3 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 6 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding the prior sentence, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under the provisions of this paragraph which provide for a mandatory term of imprisonment if death or serious bodily injury results, nor shall a person so sentenced be eligible for parole during the term of such a sentence. (4) In the case of a violation under subsection (a) of this section with respect to less than 50 kilograms of marihuana, except in the case of 100 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight, less than 10 kilograms of hashish, less than one kilogram of hashish oil, or any quantity of a controlled substance in schedule III, IV, or V, (FOOTNOTE 3) (except a violation involving flunitrazepam and except a violation involving gamma hydroxybutyric acid) the person committing such violation shall be imprisoned not more than five years, or be fined not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $250,000 if the defendant is an individual or $1,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If a sentence under this paragraph provides for imprisonment, the sentence shall, in addition to such term of imprisonment, include (A) a term of supervised release of not less than two years if such controlled substance is in schedule I, II, III, or (B) a term of supervised release of not less than one year if such controlled substance is in schedule IV. (FOOTNOTE 3) So in original. (c) Repealed. Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 225, formerly Sec. 225(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2030, as amended by Pub. L. 99-570, title I, Sec. 1005(c), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207-6 (d) Penalty for importation or exportation A person who knowingly or intentionally - (1) imports or exports a listed chemical with intent to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of this subchapter or subchapter I of this chapter; (2) exports a listed chemical in violation of the laws of the country to which the chemical is exported or serves as a broker or trader for an international transaction involving a listed chemical, if the transaction is in violation of the laws of the country to which the chemical is exported; (3) imports or exports a listed chemical knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the chemical will be used to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of this subchapter or subchapter I of this chapter; (4) exports a listed chemical, or serves as a broker or trader for an international transaction involving a listed chemical, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the chemical will be used to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of the laws of the country to which the chemical is exported; (5) imports or exports a listed chemical, with the intent to evade the reporting or recordkeeping requirements of section 971 of this title applicable to such importation or exportation by falsely representing to the Attorney General that the importation or exportation qualifies for a waiver of the 15-day notification requirement granted pursuant to section 971(e)(2) or (3) of this title by misrepresenting the actual country of final destination of the listed chemical or the actual listed chemical being imported or exported; (6) imports or exports a listed chemical in violation of section 957 or 971 of this title; or (7) manufactures, possesses with intent to distribute, or distributes a listed chemical in violation of section 959 of this title. (FOOTNOTE 4) (FOOTNOTE 4) So in original. The period probably should be a comma. shall be fined in accordance with title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years in the case of a violation of paragraph (1) or (3) involving a list I chemical or not more than 10 years in the case of a violation of this subsection other than a violation of paragraph (1) or (3) involving a list I chemical, or both. -SOURCE- (Pub. L. 91-513, title III, Sec. 1010, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1290; Pub. L. 98-473, title II, Sec. 225, formerly Sec. 225(a), 504, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2030, 2070; Pub. L. 99-570, title I, Sec. 1004(a), 1005(c), 1302, 1866(e), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207-6, 3207-15, 3207-55; Pub. L. 100-690, title VI, Sec. 6053(c), 6475, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4315, 4380; Pub. L. 101-647, title XII, Sec. 1204, title XXXV, Sec. 3599J, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4830, 4932; Pub. L. 103-200, Sec. 4(b), 5(b), Dec. 17, 1993, 107 Stat. 2338, 2339; Pub. L. 103-322, title IX, Sec. 90105(a), title XXXIII, Sec. 330024(d)(2), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1987, 2151; Pub. L. 104-237, title I, Sec. 102(c), title III, Sec. 302(b), Oct. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 3100, 3105; Pub. L. 104-305, Sec. 2(b)(2)(B), (C), Oct. 13, 1996, 110 Stat. 3807; Pub. L. 105-277, div. E, Sec. 2(b), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-759; Pub. L. 106-172, Sec. 3(b)(2), Feb. 18, 2000, 114 Stat. 9.) -REFTEXT- REFERENCES IN TEXT Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V, referred to in subsec. (b), are set out in section 812(c) of this title. Section 3(a)(1)(B) of the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Prohibition Act of 2000, referred to in subsec. (b)(3), is section 3(a)(1)(B) of Pub. L. 106-172, which is set out in a note under section 812 of this title. -MISC2- AMENDMENTS 2000 - Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 106-172, Sec. 3(b)(2)(A), inserted ''gamma hydroxybutyric acid (including when scheduled as an approved drug product for purposes of section 3(a)(1)(B) of the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape drug Prohibition Act of 2000),'' after ''schedule I or II,'' in first sentence. Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 106-172, Sec. 3(b)(2)(B), substituted ''flunitrazepam and except a violation involving gamma hydroxybutyric acid)'' for ''flunitrazepam)''. 1998 - Subsec. (b)(1)(H). Pub. L. 105-277, Sec. 2(b)(1), substituted ''50 grams'' and ''500 grams'' for ''100 grams'' and ''1 kilogram'', respectively. Subsec. (b)(2)(H). Pub. L. 105-277, Sec. 2(b)(2), substituted ''5 grams'' and ''50 grams'' for ''10 grams'' and ''100 grams'', respectively. 1996 - Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 104-305, Sec. 2(b)(2)(B), inserted ''or flunitrazepam,'' after ''schedule I or II,''. Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 104-305, Sec. 2(b)(2)(C), inserted ''(except a violation involving flunitrazepam)'' after ''schedule III, IV, or V,''. Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 104-237, Sec. 302(b), in closing provisions, substituted ''not more than 20 years in the case of a violation of paragraph (1) or (3) involving a list I chemical or not more than 10 years in the case of a violation of this subsection other than a violation of paragraph (1) or (3) involving a list I chemical,'' for ''not more than 10 years,''. Subsec. (d)(7). Pub. L. 104-237, Sec. 102(c), added par. (7). 1994 - Subsec. (b)(1), (2). Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 90105(a), in sentence in concluding provisions beginning ''If any person commits'', substituted ''a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final'' for ''one or more prior convictions for an offense punishable under this subsection, or for a felony under any other provision of this subchapter or subchapter I of this chapter or other law of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, or depressant or stimulant substances, have become final''. Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 90105(a), in sentence beginning ''If any person commits'', substituted ''a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final'' for ''one or more prior convictions for an offense punishable under this subsection, or for a felony under any other provision of this subchapter or subchapter I of this chapter or other law of a State, the United States or a foreign country relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, or depressant or stimulant substances, have become final''. Subsec. (d)(5), (6). Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 330024(d)(2), amended directory language of Pub. L. 103-200, Sec. 5(b)(3). See 1993 Amendment note below. 1993 - Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103-200, Sec. 5(b), as amended by Pub. L. 103-322, Sec. 330024(d)(2), added pars. (5) and (6). Pub. L. 103-200, Sec. 4(b), amended subsec. (d) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (d) read as follows: ''Any person who knowingly or intentionally - ''(1) imports or exports a listed chemical with intent to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of this subchapter or, in the case of an exportation, in violation of the law of the country to which the chemical is exported; or ''(2) imports or exports a listed chemical knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the listed chemical will be used to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of this subchapter or, in the case of an exportation, in violation of the law of the country to which the chemical is exported; shall be fined in accordance with title 18, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'' 1990 - Subsec. (b)(1)(H). Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 1204(a), added subpar. (H). Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 3599J, substituted ''supervised'' for ''suspervised'' in two places in concluding provisions. Subsec. (b)(2)(H). Pub. L. 101-647, Sec. 1204(b), added subpar.(H). 1988 - Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 100-690, Sec. 6475, substituted ''manufactures, possesses with intent to distribute, or distributes a controlled substance'' for ''manufactures or distributes a controlled substance''. Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 100-690, Sec. 6053(c), added subsec. (d). 1986 - Pub. L. 99-570, Sec. 1005(c), amended Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 225. See 1984 Amendment note below. Subsec. (b)(1), (2). Pub. L. 99-570, Sec. 1302(a)(2), added pars. (1) and (2) and struck out former pars. (1) and (2) which read as follows: ''(1) In the case of a violation under subsection (a) of this section involving - ''(A) 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of a narcotic drug in schedule I or II other than a narcotic drug consisting of - ''(i) coca leaves; ''(ii) a compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, or preparation of coca leaves; or ''(iii) a substance chemically identical thereto; ''(B) a kilogram or more of any other narcotic drug in schedule I or II; ''(C) 500 grams or more of phencyclidine (PCP); ''(D) 5 grams or more of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD); the person committing such violation shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both. ''(2) In the case of a violation under subsection (a) of this section with respect to a controlled substance in schedule I or II, the person committing such violation shall, except as provided in paragraphs (1) and (3), be imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or fined not more than $125,000, or both. If a sentence under this paragraph provides for imprisonment, the sentence shall include a special parole term of not less than three years in addition to such term of imprisonment.'' Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 99-570, Sec. 1302(a)(2), added par. (3).Former par. (3) redesignated (4). Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 99-570, Sec. 1302(a)(1), (3), (b)(2), (3), redesignated former par. (3) as (4), inserted ''except in the case of 100 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight,'' and substituted ''fined not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $250,000 if the defendant is an individual or $1,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual'' for ''fined not more than $50,000''. Pub. L. 99-570, Sec. 1302(b)(1), 1866(e), made identical amendment striking out '', except as provided in paragraph (4)'' after ''such violation shall''. Pub. L. 99-570, Sec. 1004(a), substituted ''term of supervised release'' for ''special parole term'' in two places. Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99-570, Sec. 1004(a), substituted ''term of supervised release'' for ''special parole term'' wherever appearing, effective Nov. 1, 1987, the effective date of the repeal of subsec. (c) by Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 225. See 1984 Amendment note below. 1984 - Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 225(a), which directed amendment of this subsection effective Nov. 1, 1987 (see section 235(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98-473 set out as an Effective Date note under section 3551 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure) was omitted in the general amendment of section 225 of Pub. L. 98-473 by Pub. L. 99-570, Sec. 1005(c). Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 504(1), added par. (1). Former par. (1) redesignated (2). Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 504(1), (2), redesignated former par. (1) as (2), inserted provisions excepting pars. (1) and (3), and substituted reference to controlled substance for reference to narcotic drug, and ''$125,000'' for ''$25,000''. Former par. (2) redesignated (3). Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 504(1), (3), redesignated former par. (2) as (3) and substituted ''less than 50 kilograms of marihuana, less than 10 kilograms of hashish, less than one kilogram of hashish oil, or any quantity of a controlled substance in schedule III, IV, or V, the person committing such violation shall, except as provided in paragraph (4)'' for ''a controlled substance other than a narcotic drug in schedule I or II, the person committing such violation shall'', and ''$50,000'' for ''$15,000''. Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 98-473, Sec. 225, as amended by Pub. L. 99-570, Sec. 1005(c), struck out subsec. (c) which related to special parole terms imposed under this section or section 962 of this title. Notwithstanding directory language that the amendment be made to ''Section 1515 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960)'', the amendment was executed to this section as the probable intent of Congress. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1994 AMENDMENT Amendment by section 330024(d)(2) of Pub. L. 103-322 effective 120 days after Dec. 17, 1993, see section 330024(f) of Pub. L. 103-322, set out as a note under section 802 of this title. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1993 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 103-200 effective on date that is 120 days after Dec. 17, 1993, see section 11 of Pub. L. 103-200, set out as a note under section 802 of this title. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1988 AMENDMENT Amendment by section 6053(c) of Pub. L. 100-690 effective 120 days after Nov. 18, 1988, see section 6061 of Pub. L. 100-690, set out as a note under section 802 of this title. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1986 AMENDMENT Amendment by section 1004(a) of Pub. L. 99-570 effective on date of taking effect of section 3583 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Nov. 1, 1987), see section 1004(b) of Pub. L. 99-570 set out as a note under section 841 of this title. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1984 AMENDMENT Amendment by section 225 of Pub. L. 98-473 effective Nov. 1, 1987, and applicable only to offenses committed after the taking effect of such amendment, see section 235(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98-473, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3551 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure. -SECREF- SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in sections 848, 962, 1710 of this title; title 5 section 3113; title 18 sections 36, 3553, 3559, 5032; title 28 section 994; title 46 App. section 1903.
Edited by Administrator (05/29/08 09:46 AM)
Edit Reason: added section 957 and 960...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
#186780 - 06/16/05 10:36 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 11/24/04
Posts: 1327
|
Quote:
For a prescription to be valid under federal and state law, there must be a bona fide doctor patient relationship,
This is an issue of interpretation of the exact meaning and definition of "doctor-patient relationship" that has yet to be tested in a court of law to my knowledge.
Quote:
which is defined by most state laws to require a physical examination
I don't know where to find out what "most" states are referred to and the exact statutes, but that certainly is a vague statement. If taken to task, the DEA will have to prove that their interprtation of the relationship is in fact correct.
Besides, it does not state that the prescribing doctor has to conduct the physical examination. It's full of holes, and might be tested someday, but my opinion is that telemedicine is currently very popular, and the Big Pharma companies have highly paid lobbyists that will ensure their clients are able to sell MORE pills, not less, and will fight any legal battle with deep pockets. The ban on importing prescription drugs is because of their efforts.
If the DEA were to prosecute anybody, my guess would be the NROP owners and doctors, they have stated clearly on their site that they are not interested in prosecuting chronic pain patients. If you're importing or ordering mass quantities you might raise an eyebrow, otherwise don't worry.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186786 - 06/16/05 08:48 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
Old Hand
Registered: 06/10/05
Posts: 416
Loc: Southwestern area
|
As for my opinion, I am not a recreational user, however I don't have health insurance, and my doctor recently retired, so I know what I need, so I ordered overseas from a place called nexuspharmacy which imports from india, anyway I didn't know that it was such a big deal to order overseas, and alot of places go under, and it is on the hot list topic for the dea, I don't want to get arrested or have to deal with any of that, I just want my meds, that's why I was asking??
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186791 - 09/05/05 04:58 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
Veteran
Registered: 06/20/05
Posts: 506
Loc: Florida but always a New Yorke...
|
This has really become a serious matter, whether we like it or not. I don't think that there is room for different interpretation, although I am going to try and find if any case law exists on it. In the meantime there is an excellent site that I think was already mentioned but check this out: Message from the DEA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONSUMER ALERT! Buying controlled substances prescription drugs on-line may be illegal. Web sites offering to sell prescription controlled substances directly to consumers "without a prescription" or "without requiring a doctor visit" are operating outside the requirements of the federal Controlled Substances Act. It is illegal to purchase controlled substances, which include drugs such as narcotic pain relievers (e.g., OxyContin®, Vicodin®), sedatives (e.g., Valium®, Xanax®, Ambien®), stimulants or "diet drugs" (e.g., phentermine, phendimetrazine, Adderall®, Ritalin®), and anabolic steroids (e.g., Winstrol®, Equipoise®), unless you or your pharmacy has received a valid prescription from your doctor. A valid prescription requires a legitimate doctor-patient relationship, which in turn requires a valid medical examination, diagnosis and conclusion that the drugs prescribed are for a legitimate medical purpose. Responsible professional medical organizations, such as the American Medical Association and state boards of medicine and pharmacy, have all condemned the practice of "cyber doctors" issuing prescriptions on the basis of online questionnaires and consider it to be an unprofessional and unacceptable standard of care. The DEA and Food and drug Administration (FDA) have also concluded that obtaining prescription drugs, including controlled substances, by simply filling out a questionnaire or placing an order with a website offering such products for sale does not meet the legal requirements of a valid prescription. It is illegal for a consumer to import a controlled substance from a foreign country – and many sources of prescription drugs sold via the Internet are foreign even when not advertised as such. Agencies such as the DEA, the FDA, and many others at the state, federal and international levels, are working to eliminate these illegal web-based pharmacy operations. However, consumers must be aware that obtaining controlled substances in violation of the law places them at risk legally, and that drugs shipped from illegally operating sites which are found in domestic and international mail/transport facilities are subject to seizure. For more information, see the Federal Register Notice - "Guidance - Dispensing and Purchasing Controlled Substances Over the Internet" This site is really good for people to read because it gives a lot more information. http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/consumer_alert.htmAs much as I would like to be in denial about this it is illegal period. Florida also has a similar law. I hope I can find some caselaw or precedent on this and if I do I will post it. Peace, Alice
_________________________
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind. Bob Dylan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186794 - 09/05/05 06:56 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
Veteran
Registered: 06/20/05
Posts: 506
Loc: Florida but always a New Yorke...
|
This is posted on that website on the questions and answers page: Can an individual order drugs using the Internet without seeing a doctor? Federal law requires that "A prescription for a controlled substance to be effective must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice" (21 CFR 1306.04(a)). Every state separately imposes the same requirement under its laws. Under Federal and state law, for a doctor to be acting in the usual course of professional practice, there must be a bona fide doctor/ patient relationship. For purposes of state law, many state authorities, with the endorsement of medical societies, consider the existence of the following four elements as an indication that a legitimate doctor/patient relationship has been established: A patient has a medical complaint; A medical history has been taken; A physical examination has been performed; and Some logical connection exists between the medical complaint, the medical history, the physical examination and the drug prescribed. A patient completing a questionnaire that is then reviewed by a physician hired by or working on behalf of an Internet pharmacy does not establish a doctor/patient relationship. A consumer can more easily provide false information in a questionnaire than in a face-to-face meeting with the physician. It is illegal to receive a prescription for a controlled substance without the establishment of a legitimate doctor/patient relationship, and it is unlikely for such a relationship to be formed through Internet correspondence alone. However, this is not intended to limit the ability of practitioners to engage in telemedicine. For purposes of this guidance document, telemedicine refers to the provision of health care using telecommunication networks to transmit and receive information including voice communications, images and patient records. Some Internet sites recommend to the patient that they not take a new drug before they have a complete physical performed by a doctor. These sites then ask the patient to waive the requirement for a physical and to agree to have a physical before taking the drug they purchase via the Internet. An after the fact physical does not take the place of establishing a doctor/patient relationship. The physical exam should take place before the prescription is written. These types of activities by Internet pharmacies can subject the operators of the Internet site and any pharmacies or doctors who participate in the activity to criminal, civil, or administrative actions. For DEA registrants, administrative action may include the loss of their DEA registration. Additionally, providing false material information to obtain controlled substances could be considered obtaining a controlled substance by fraud and deceit, which is subject to Federal and State penalties. Peace, Alice
_________________________
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind. Bob Dylan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186795 - 09/05/05 07:56 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 04/02/02
Posts: 2111
Loc: Southwest U.S.
|
Quote:
... providing false material information to obtain controlled substances could be considered obtaining a controlled substance by fraud and deceit, which is subject to Federal and State penalties.
"Federal and State penalties"?
Yes, that's illegal in every state, but where is there any federal law on the fraud or deceit? Is it hidden away in some federal appeals court decision on the definition of federal misdemeanor illegal possession? An enquiring mind would like to know. Or maybe they just made that up.
Let me rephrase: exactly where in the CFR or USC does it say anything about it being illegal to use fraud or deceit to obtain controlled substances? A judge could say that it constitutes "illegal simple possession" but where does the law say that? With no priors and unless it's a drug in the Hilary Farias Act, simple possession is just a misdemeanor under federal law.
Edited by Trampy (09/06/05 05:21 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186797 - 09/06/05 09:33 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 04/02/02
Posts: 2111
Loc: Southwest U.S.
|
Quote:
I don't know where to find out what "most" states are referred to and the exact statutes, but that certainly is a vague statement. If taken to task, the DEA will have to prove that their interprtation of the relationship is in fact correct.
I agree that the statement you take issue with sounds way too vague to have been written by a competent lawyer. I do much better than that here and i'm just a researcher and writer who studies law as a hobby.
Anyone who cites as authority for their argument web sites with Q&As intended for the public instead of cases and codes is not much of a lawyer. Lets's see some legal citations that could be entered into a court pleading.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186800 - 10/08/05 11:59 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 03/25/04
Posts: 8800
Loc: Right Here
|
I really don't see that what ever nrop that are left have even shipped to anyone, sure people are ordering but who has actually received an order from one, and I have been reading that most of the nrop left (what few there are) are wanting ID and medical records, I just cannot see why anybody would use an nrop that wants records and ID when there cost a fortune, so instead of faxing records to an iffy nrop why not just fax them to a ROP and spend less money, and actually be able to count on getting your meds in a timely manner, with refills, a consult is nothing to be nervious or scared of, in fact these docs and PA's are very nice people.
And yes we have to advocate and sign everything we can get our names on to save the ROP's and be able to manage chronic pain, I truly do not feel like chronic pain or anxiety disorders are really recognized by the DEA or the Gov't. We all have to stand as one and write our legislaters and congressman, and the President to, and even the DEA and tell them how it feels to go through pain or anxiety everyday of their lives without any relief.
_________________________
Takes a Lickin' & Keeps on Tickin'
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186802 - 11/15/05 02:04 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
Stranger
Registered: 05/10/05
Posts: 11
|
Quote:
i think the dea should worry about all the cocaine/heroin that is flowing in more now then ever!! insted they pefer to pick on people with no health insurance and have no other option but to pay more and use these questionable pharmicist's are government is a JOKE!!
I'd have to agree. *sigh*
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186803 - 11/15/05 05:01 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
|
Banned: Kratom vendor in disguise
Registered: 07/12/05
Posts: 1275
Loc: on the Dark Side of the Moon
|
Quote:
This is the answer given by the DEA (drug Ebforcement Agency) and the USDOJ...
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/illegal_internet.html
Quote:
Is It Illegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Internet?
For a prescription to be valid under federal and state law, there must be a bona fide doctor patient relationship, which is defined by most state laws to require a physical examination. “Completing a questionnaire that is then reviewed by a doctor hired by the internet pharmacy could not be considered the basis for a doctor/patient relationship.” Vol. 66 Federal Register 82, PP 21181-21184 (April 27, 2001)
Moreover, if the prescription drug is a controlled substance and the drug is being imported into the U.S. from a foreign country and being shipped to anyone other than a DEA-registered importer, such transaction is a felony in violation of Sections 957 and 960 of Title 21, United States Code.
The administrator's have been doing their homework. Much of what they quoted above can be found in a website created by an attorney, Lawrence G. Walters, of Weston, Garrou, DeWitt, and Walters Law Firm. Links that further discuss the past present and future of online pharmacies can be found in Walter's website, who also lists Drugbuyer's as a link, in his site:
www.PillLaws.com
http://www.dea.gov/illegal_internet.html
http://www.pilllaws.com/articles/02_24_2004.htm
http://www.drugbuyers.com/members/drug_importation/
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1350635.htm
http://tie.telemed.org/articles/article.asp?path=articles&article=internetPharmacy_gw_tie02.xml
http://www.oncologynetguide.com/v5n5/feature_article1.htm
Many of this websites articles and references to the industry are dated anywhere from 2000-2004 and clear evidence that it was seen coming to this, as far back as then. Written and referenced by attorney Walters, I think he paints a clear picture, or prophetic prediction if you may, of the events that followed in 2005.
_________________________
"Admin edited out the Kratom sources I was trying to promote with my posts"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186804 - 12/16/05 03:46 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
|
Administrator
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 6365
Loc: DrugBuyers.Com
|
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/faq/internetpurch.htm#2b Quote:
DISPENSING AND PURCHASING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
OVER THE INTERNET
The following Questions and Answers are being published by the drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Office of Diversion Control as an educational/public awareness component relative to the use of the Internet for the purposes of purchasing, prescribing, dispensing and importing of controlled substances. The DEA recognizes that while some Internet sites facilitate legitimate prescribing and dispensing practices, other sites facilitate the illegal sale of controlled substances. These sites of illicit activity enable some consumers to illegally purchase controlled substances without realizing they are committing a crime. The DEA regards this as a critical issue and is taking steps to address it. This document is intended to serve as general guidance to prescribers, pharmacists, the regulatory and law enforcement communities, as well as the general public regarding the application of current laws and regulations to controlled substances transactions conducted via the Internet.
This document explains what constitutes legitimate controlled substances transactions via the Internet.
Questions for Patients/Consumers
Can an individual order drugs using the Internet without seeing a doctor?
What are the types of risks taken by individuals when ordering drugs via the Internet? How can those risks be minimized?
Can underage individuals acquire drugs on the Internet? How can this be prevented from happening?
General Information
What are the basic requirements for prescribing, dispensing, and importing controlled substances?
DEA Registrant Questions about Internet Pharmacies
Is it legal for Internet pharmacies to approach a physician to write prescriptions based on on-line consultations with customers/consumer?
Can an independent pharmacy purchase supplies on the Internet? What procedures must be followed?
Does the label on a prescription filled via the Internet indicate the Internet pharmacy or the registered location that filled the prescription?
Does being an Internet pharmacy change a pharmacy’s responsibilities under DEA regulations?
Is it possible for an Internet pharmacy to fill prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances?
Is it possible for an Internet pharmacy to fill prescriptions for Schedule III-V controlled substances?
Is it legal to buy controlled substances from foreign Internet sites and have them shipped to the U.S.?
Does it make a difference if an individual has a prescription from a U.S. doctor for controlled substances and buys from a foreign Internet site?
Are the Rules different for "life style" drugs?
What does the VIPPS Seal seen on some Internet pharmacy sites mean?
Where should complaints regarding an "Internet Pharmacy" site on the Internet that appears to be illegally selling drug be directed?
Back to Top
Questions for Patients/Consumers
Can an individual order drugs using the Internet without seeing a doctor?
Federal law requires that "A prescription for a controlled substance to be effective must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice" (21 CFR 1306.04(a)). Every state separately imposes the same requirement under its laws. Under Federal and state law, for a doctor to be acting in the usual course of professional practice, there must be a bona fide doctor/ patient relationship.
For purposes of state law, many state authorities, with the endorsement of medical societies, consider the existence of the following four elements as an indication that a legitimate doctor/patient relationship has been established:
A patient has a medical complaint;
A medical history has been taken;
A physical examination has been performed; and
Some logical connection exists between the medical complaint, the medical history, the physical examination and the drug prescribed.
A patient completing a questionnaire that is then reviewed by a physician hired by or working on behalf of an Internet pharmacy does not establish a doctor/patient relationship. A consumer can more easily provide false information in a questionnaire than in a face-to-face meeting with the physician. It is illegal to receive a prescription for a controlled substance without the establishment of a legitimate doctor/patient relationship, and it is unlikely for such a relationship to be formed through Internet correspondence alone. However, this is not intended to limit the ability of practitioners to engage in telemedicine. For purposes of this guidance document, telemedicine refers to the provision of health care using telecommunication networks to transmit and receive information including voice communications, images and patient records.
Some Internet sites recommend to the patient that they not take a new drug before they have a complete physical performed by a doctor. These sites then ask the patient to waive the requirement for a physical and to agree to have a physical before taking the drug they purchase via the Internet. An after the fact physical does not take the place of establishing a doctor/patient relationship. The physical exam should take place before the prescription is written. These types of activities by Internet pharmacies can subject the operators of the Internet site and any pharmacies or doctors who participate in the activity to criminal, civil, or administrative actions. For DEA registrants, administrative action may include the loss of their DEA registration. Additionally, providing false material information to obtain controlled substances could be considered obtaining a controlled substance by fraud and deceit, which is subject to Federal and State penalties.
What are the types of risks taken by individuals when ordering drugs via the Internet? How can those risks be minimized?
Persons considering purchasing drugs via an Internet pharmacy should exercise good common sense and scrutiny in selecting an Internet pharmacy. An "Internet pharmacy" site should provide a physical address for the pharmacy, in addition to the Internet address and a telephone number for the pharmacy. Some common indicators that the "Internet Pharmacy" site may not be legitimate and should not be used as a source for controlled substances include the following:
The site is not a participant in any insurance plan and requires that all payments be made with a credit card.
The site requires that you waive some rights before they send you the drugs.
The site advises you about the law and why it is permissible for you to obtain pharmaceutical controlled substances from foreign countries via the Internet.
The site does not ask the name, address, or phone number of your current physician.
The site advises you to have the drugs sent to post office boxes or other locations to avoid detection by U.S. authorities.
The site does not require that you provide a bona fide prescription issued by your personal physician or mid-level practitioner.
Can underage individuals acquire drugs on the Internet? How can this be prevented from happening?
Underage individuals can acquire drugs on the Internet in the same manner as an adult. The only way to prevent this is to restrict Internet access. In many instances, the young person will need a credit card to pay for the drugs. In these instances, parents can prevent drug purchases by withholding access to a credit card.
As previously stated, a prescription not issued in the usual course of professional practice or not for legitimate medical/research purposes is not considered valid. Both the practitioner and the pharmacy have a responsibility to ensure that only legitimate prescriptions are written and filled.
Back to Top
General Information
What are the basic requirements for prescribing, dispensing, and importing controlled substances?
Only practitioners acting in the usual course of their professional practice may prescribe controlled substances. These practitioners must be registered with DEA and licensed to prescribe controlled substances by the State(s) in which they operate. Pharmacies filling prescriptions for controlled substances must also be registered with DEA and licensed to dispense controlled substances by the State(s) in which they operate. A prescription not issued in the usual course of professional practice or not for legitimate and authorized research is not considered valid. Both the practitioner and the pharmacy have a responsibility to ensure that only legitimate prescriptions are written and filled.
Pharmacists must receive written and manually signed prescriptions for Schedule II substances. They may receive oral or faxed prescriptions for Schedule III-V substances provided they confirm the legitimacy of the prescription and the practitioner. Prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances may not be refilled. Prescriptions for Schedule III-V controlled substances may be authorized to be refilled five times, but no prescription may be filled or refilled more than six months after the date on which the prescription was issued. Only those people who are registered with DEA as importers and who are in compliance with DEA requirements may have controlled substances shipped into the customs territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. from a foreign country.
DEA regulations covering prescriptions can be found in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1306; Rules on importers are found in 21 CFR 1312.
Back to Top
DEA Registrant Questions about Internet Pharmacies
Is it legal for Internet pharmacies to approach a physician to write prescriptions based on on-line consultations with customers/consumer?
A physician may use the Internet to provide information and to communicate with the patient, but it cannot be the sole basis for authorizing prescriptions. If a doctor/patient relationship exists, a doctor can use the Internet to communicate with patients. Where a doctor/patient relationship exists, the doctor may use the Internet to receive requests for treatment. DEA cautions, however, that such requests for treatment should be logical based upon a doctor’s knowledge of the patient’s medical history and the medical complaint. The doctor may also use the Internet to receive requests for refills of prescriptions from patients.
Can an independent pharmacy purchase supplies on the Internet? What procedures must be followed?
Pharmacies can use the Internet to facilitate their purchases; however, the basic regulations regarding registration and recordkeeping apply. The pharmacy can only purchase from a registered supplier and the pharmacy must maintain complete and accurate records describing the name, address and registration number of the supplier, a description of the drugs purchased and the date the drugs are received. For Schedule II controlled substances, official DEA Order Forms must be used. Recordkeeping requirements for dispensers can be found in Section 1304 of the Code of Federal Regulations (see 21 CFR 1304.22(c) for continuing recordkeeping requirements). Recordkeeping requirements pertaining to the use of official Order Forms can be found in Section 1305 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Does the label on a prescription filled via the Internet indicate the Internet pharmacy or the registered location that filled the prescription?
The label must list the name and registered location of the pharmacy that dispensed the controlled substance.
Does being an Internet pharmacy change a pharmacy’s responsibilities under DEA regulations?
No, Internet pharmacies are still authorized to sell controlled substances only when there is a valid prescription from a DEA-registered practitioner who issued the prescription in the usual course of his or her professional practice.
Is it possible for an Internet pharmacy to fill prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances?
An Internet pharmacy may fill valid prescriptions for Schedule II substances if the patient or prescriber provides the pharmacy with the manually signed original prescriptions prior to dispensing. Practically, it is unlikely that most patients will want to wait the time required for such a transaction to be completed.
Is it possible for an Internet pharmacy to fill prescriptions for Schedule III-V controlled substances?
Internet pharmacies may receive an original signed prescription or a facsimile of the original signed prescription, or an oral prescription, where allowed, which must be verified and immediately reduced to writing. Internet pharmacies have the responsibility to ensure the legitimacy of the prescription and the prescriber. At this time, DEA does not permit a prescription received via the Internet to be filled. If prescription information is transmitted via the Internet, the receiving pharmacy must contact the prescriber via telephone and receive an oral prescription for the controlled substance, including the full name and address of the patient, the drug name, strength, dosage form, quantity prescribed, directions for use and the name, address and registration number of the practitioner (21 CFR 1306.05(a)). The pharmacy must immediately reduce this oral prescription to writing (21 CFR 1306.21(a)).
Back to Top
Is it legal to buy controlled substances from foreign Internet sites and have them shipped to the U.S.?
No, having controlled substances shipped to the U.S. is illegal unless the purchaser is registered with DEA as an importer and is in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953 and 954 and 21 CFR part 1312. Some foreign Internet sites claim they can legally sell these controlled substances; other sites, knowing that such shipments are illegal, advise consumers of ways to avoid having the packages seized by U.S. Customs. The Controlled Substances Act prohibits any person from importing into the customs territory of the U.S. any controlled substance or List I chemical (21 U.S.C 971) and (21 CFR part 1313) unless that person maintains a valid, current authorization to import such substances or chemicals (21 U.S.C. 957(a)).
Illegal importation of controlled substances is a felony that may result in imprisonment and fines (21 U.S.C. 960).
Does it make a difference if an individual has a prescription from a U.S. doctor for controlled substances and buys from a foreign Internet site?
No, the law remains the same. The only condition in which controlled substances may be shipped to a purchaser in the U.S. from another country is if the purchaser is registered with DEA as an importer and is in compliance with DEA's requirements.
Are the Rules different for "life style" drugs?
Some people have applied the phrase "life style drugs" to certain medications, such as Viagra®, weight control medications and tranquilizers. Many of the so-called life style drugs, such as Viagra®, are not controlled substances. If a "life style" drug is a controlled substance, however, it is still subject to all regulations for controlled substances. In order to have a prescription filled for a "life style" drug that is a controlled substance, DEA requires a prescription from a DEA registered prescriber and the prescription must be filled by a DEA registered pharmacy.
What does the VIPPS Seal seen on some Internet pharmacy sites mean?
The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) has developed a voluntary program called the Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Sites (VIPPS). The NABP issues a "seal of approval" to Internet pharmacies that meet standards regarding State licensing and DEA registration. To be VIPPS certified, a pharmacy must comply with the licensing and inspection requirements of their State and each State to which they dispense pharmaceuticals. In addition, pharmacies displaying the VIPPS seal have demonstrated to NABP compliance with VIPPS criteria including patient rights to privacy, authentication and security of prescription orders, adherence to a recognized quality assurance policy and provision of meaningful consultation between patients and pharmacists. The NABP also provides information on whether a pharmacy is licensed and in good standing (http://www.nabp.net).
Where should complaints regarding an "Internet Pharmacy" site on the Internet that appears to be illegally selling drug be directed?
If the complaint involves a pharmaceutical controlled substance, you may file a report on-line, or contact the DEA, Office of Diversion Control, drug Operations Section, Washington, DC 20537, telephone (202) 307-7194 or contact your local DEA office .
If the complaint involves any pharmaceutical drug other than a controlled substance, contact the U.S. Food and drug Administration, HFC-230, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, or file a report on the FDA's web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/buyonline/buyonlineform.htm.
If the complaint involves a pharmacist or a physician, the respective State Board of Pharmacy or the State Board of Medicine where the pharmacist or doctor is located should be contacted.
Persons wishing to file complaints may wish to view other sites on the Internet such as the NABP (http://www.nabp.net).
In the event further websites are identified which advertise the sale of controlled pharmaceutical substances, the nearest DEA Diversion Group office should be contacted and provided that information. A list of DEA offices and telephone numbers can be found at the DEA Office of Diversion website.
Back to Top
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186805 - 12/22/05 01:28 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
Member
Registered: 07/23/02
Posts: 172
|
Quote:
Taken by the DEA or sold to other sites.
I doubt the DEA would do anything with the names, other than file the list away, unless something really unusual stood out. The DEA is way too busy to go after people who merely possess quantities consistent with personal use. (In fact, it might not even be a federal crime.) For the most part, a "user" is only of interest to them if said user can identify a dealer, and in this hypothetical scenario, the "dealer" is already known.
And if it's an ROP, well, the DEA has for years ducked the question of whether that business model is legit, so I'm not too worried.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186807 - 01/13/06 06:01 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
Member
Registered: 01/05/02
Posts: 37
Loc: USA
|
Quote:
...How can a physician properly treat you via the telephone?
Yes, this is an old road, but as long as there are new people logging in to the site daily, I think it's good to rehash for their benefit and allow them to participate in the discussion. Sure, they can read the old posts, don't know about you but I learn better by discussion, not just reading. JMO, tho..
If many CP patients were being "properly treated" by their face to face physicians, they wouldn't have to turn to telemedicine.
Face to face doesn't equal proper treatment -- there are too many people getting substandard treatment. I realize that there are recreational users that make it tough for people with legitimate needs, but you must admit that certain federal agencies have made it very difficult for many decent doctors who are now afraid to properly prescribe. I can't see where I necessarily blame them, but there's where it often becomes necessary for us to walk that thin line (or, walk the plank... same thing!). People in severe pain are generally willing to do just about anything to stop it.
I'm suddenly reminded of my now-former dentist, who gave me a complex root canal and sent me home with instructions to take Advil.
Advil! For God's sake! 
As far as a doctor treating properly via the telephone, I believe 100% that there should be medical records involved. And more than a two-minute conversation should be taking place. He/she should be asking the right questions, and listening carefully to the answers. When I was using ROPs, there was a doctor who not only listened carefully, but also offered suggestions for alternative herbal remedies in addition to the medication. I found that to be refreshing... he was open for questions and didn't seem to be rushing to get me off the phone and on to the next consult.
_________________________
Carpe Dimension
Seize the Dell!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186809 - 02/13/06 08:35 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
|
Administrator
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 6365
Loc: DrugBuyers.Com
|
This link is also very good http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/consumer_alert.htm  Quote:
READ THIS BEFORE PURCHASING
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS OVER THE INTERNET !!!
DEA Warning--Buying drugs online may be illegal and dangerous!
Federal law prohibits buying controlled substances such as narcotic pain relievers (e.g., OxyContin®, Vicodin ®), sedatives (e.g., Valium®, Xanax®, Ambien®), stimulants (e.g., phentermine, phendimetrazine, Adderall®, Ritalin®) and anabolic steroids (e.g., Winstrol®, Equipoise®) without a valid prescription from your doctor. This means there must be a real doctor-patient relationship, which by most state laws requires a physical examination. Prescriptions written by "cyber doctors" relying on online questionnaires are not legitimate under the law.
Buying controlled substances online without a valid prescription may be punishable by imprisonment under Federal law. Often drugs ordered from rogue websites come from foreign countries. It is a felony to import drugs into the United States and ship to a non-DEA registrant.
Buying drugs online may not be only illegal, but dangerous. The American Medical Association and state boards of medicine and pharmacy have all condemned the practice of cyber doctors issuing online prescriptions as unacceptable medical care. Drugs delivered by rogue websites may be the wrong drugs, adulterated or expired, the wrong dosage strength, or have no dosage directions or warnings.
DEA is targeting rogue online pharmacies for prosecution and shutting down these illegal websites. See the results of one such investigation, Operation Cyber Chase, at www.DEA.gov/pressrel/pr042005.html.
How to spot a rogue pharmacy: www.DEAdiversion.usdoj.gov/faq/internetpurch.htm
To report illegal prescription drug sales and/or rogue pharmacies operating on the Internet call the anonymous Pharmaceutical drug Abuse Hotline: 1-877-RxAbuse (1-877-792-2873)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186811 - 02/14/06 02:03 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
Journeyman
Registered: 11/15/05
Posts: 73
|
Quote:
Well, here is a bona fide conundrum; I do have a real script for the meds I take, have a real doctor/patient relationship, but have occasional need for more than the doctor feels comfortable providing, so I order a modest amount and get it shipped from overseas. Anyone care to share their opinion on this? I guess I could ask my Dr. for records to keep at home just in case the DEA were to ask me why I am buying these meds, Schedule IV, by the way...
you really have no worries here -- DEA has no jurisdiction when it comes to americans ordering needed medications for their PERSONAL USE. DEA is concerned with suppliers only, and if you read every post on this site, you will not find anyone posting that any U.S. DEA agent asked why they were buying any meds.
you are good to go, and my opinion is that you sound like a caring individual who has found a decent solution to a problem many have right now wherein you sometimes need more meds than your doc prescribes, but you don't want to rock the boat so you are quietly taking care of business.
BTW, please remember, when you purchase needed medications from overseas in personal use quantities, you are simply exercising your LEGAL rights as an american citizen. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186812 - 02/14/06 02:42 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
Stranger
Registered: 01/26/06
Posts: 16
Loc: FL
|
Whether a person choses to take the risk of buying medication overseas that is up to them. But, they should know the law before making such an important decision.
Is it legal to buy controlled substances from foreign Internet sites and have them shipped to the U.S.?
No, having controlled substances shipped to the U.S. is illegal unless the purchaser is registered with DEA as an importer and is in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953 and 954 and 21 CFR part 1312. Some foreign Internet sites claim they can legally sell these controlled substances; other sites, knowing that such shipments are illegal, advise consumers of ways to avoid having the packages seized by U.S. Customs. The Controlled Substances Act prohibits any person from importing into the customs territory of the U.S. any controlled substance or List I chemical (21 U.S.C 971) and (21 CFR part 1313) unless that person maintains a valid, current authorization to import such substances or chemicals (21 U.S.C. 957(a)).
Illegal importation of controlled substances is a felony that may result in imprisonment and fines (21 U.S.C. 960).
Does it make a difference if an individual has a prescription from a U.S. doctor for controlled substances and buys from a foreign Internet site?
No, the law remains the same. The only condition in which controlled substances may be shipped to a purchaser in the U.S. from another country is if the purchaser is registered with DEA as an importer and is in compliance with DEA's requirements.
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/faq/internetpurch.htm
It is illegal, even if it is needed and even in the smallest quantity. It has to be a risk one is willing to take. Granted we never see any posts here about any run in's with LE, but, no one can say it can't happen.
Shayne
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186819 - 04/04/06 06:47 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
Journeyman
Registered: 06/17/02
Posts: 66
|
Quote:
It depends. "Telemedicine" is booming. My girlfriend is prescribed dexedrine for ADHD. Her doctor encourages her to use her insurance company - via the Internet - to buy her medication in a 3 month supply.
He writes her the prescription and she goes online, fills out some stuff, and mails off the script. A few weeks later, she gets 180 (!) Smith-Kline dextro-amphetamine sulfate spansule capsules delivered via DHL and her insurance company pays for it.
NROPs and ROPs seem to occupy a gray area of legality. IMHO, there's yet no definitive answer to your question.
If you use the Internet to order controlled substances from another country, then yeah, that's probably pretty cut and dried - assuming of course that Customs finds it. But even then, you'll likely only get a "love letter" from Customs telling you that's a no-no.
BS, you can't get refills on c-2 drugs, nor are they supossed to prescribe more than a month supply at 1 time. Ask anyone on Ritalin or oxycodone how much is sucks going to the dr every month to get more drugs. You can not get a 3 month supply of c-2 drugs, no exceptions. Also to the person that said the DEA should stick to looking for heroin and cocaine, you must not be to bright, or you are ignorant of our swollen prison population. The government has waged a war on drugs for over 30 years, and within those 30 years they went after drs, drug dealers, and anyone in between. I also hate to tell you this, but the [censored] drs. give out kills more people each year than any illegal drug combined. This only OP thing has been around for years and is really making the DEA look stupid, their are countless people getting prescriptions like clock work cause of OP, not most just some, and ask any dr about the whole idea of tele prescription and how ethical it is and they will usually say its pretty questionable. Whether or not any of you wanna believe it, most of these places are pill mills and bang out scripts everyday like clockwork. Prescribing hydrocodone after talking to you for less than 10 minutes is pretty questionable. I personally think the war on drugs is whack though, and people should be able to get whatever meds they want OTC. I think the WOD is unconstitutional, and if you look at it roots it was the religious nuts crying wolf for a buncha substances that are no more dangerous than alcohol, or tobacco. They just didn't have a voice. And as long as the illegal drug market is a over 100 billion dollar a year enterprise, drugs will flow thru the borders like water thru a river. Money buys politicians thru lobbying, and the drug lords are the last people that want to see drugs legal. Pharmacetical companies can be thanked for probally keeping both ephedrine and pseudoephedrine OTC, hydrocodone in preperation under 10 mg per dose unit (mixed with asa or apap) schedule 3, and even for keeping the OP market so low key, who knows. But I do know that a lot of those Drs. wrote a lot of schedule 3 and 4 medication and the fact that they didn't lose their DEA # is suspect. The fact that the DEA doesn't start pulling random a lot of the OPs DEA #s is suspect. The DEA doesn't like to look dumb (though its really hard considering how easy it is to get drugs now, whether online or off the street.) I really do think that the OP market has a lot of potential, but as it is now, I don't see it staying like this until some more controls are implimented, from a legal standpoint at least. I think we should be able to get hydrocodone, xanax, codeine, and all other drugs in a pharmacy OTC or at the most, behind the counter with proof of ID. Noone has the right to tell you what you can do to your body, noone.
Than again, I remeber geting pain meds from norcodirect thinking this will never last more than a year in 2001. Fast forward 5 years, and nothing is really different, except almost all the OPS require you to send your records in before the first fill now. *Points and laughs at DEA*
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186825 - 04/07/06 05:38 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
Journeyman
Registered: 06/17/02
Posts: 66
|
Its different in my state, it is illegal to give more than a 30 day supply here. I was under the impression that for scheduled drugs you can only give out a months supply at one time, this is not the case federally. c-2 can't be refilled, which is why in my state this is the case. It is also rare for dr.s to write scheduled medication for more than a month reguardlessly, but according to the DEA you can prescribe a 3 month supply of schedule 2 drugs, but even if its a week supply, you can't add refills. I was wrong, but it is a common misconception. I was wrong, but its was cause the law really doesn't make sense. I figured no refills, why the hell would you be able to prescribe someone a 3 month supply of meds. It also has to do with the fact that I've never seen a prescription for more than 1 month supply of a drug, the refills are usually for the next month. It is however as I said illegal in my state. I also think that you can't prescribe narcotices in this way. http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2005/fr0826.htm
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186826 - 04/07/06 06:03 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 08/12/05
Posts: 1769
Loc: Water Closet
|
Quote:
Its different in my state, it is illegal to give more than a 30 day supply here. I was under the impression that for scheduled drugs you can only give out a months supply at one time, this is not the case federally. c-2 can't be refilled, which is why in my state this is the case. It is also rare for dr.s to write scheduled medication for more than a month reguardlessly, but according to the DEA you can prescribe a 3 month supply of schedule 2 drugs, but even if its a week supply, you can't add refills. I was wrong, but it is a common misconception. I was wrong, but its was cause the law really doesn't make sense. I figured no refills, why the hell would you be able to prescribe someone a 3 month supply of meds. It also has to do with the fact that I've never seen a prescription for more than 1 month supply of a drug, the refills are usually for the next month. It is however as I said illegal in my state.
I also think that you can't prescribe narcotices in this way.
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2005/fr0826.htm
Or your doctor can write you 3 months worth of scripts meaning 3 different paper scripts in one visit. Man I sure do miss my old doctor, lol!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186833 - 08/07/06 12:38 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
Veteran
Registered: 02/21/06
Posts: 502
|
The names and medical records of the people at the telemed site and/or the pharmacy that goes down goes into DEA records where they do I do not know what with them. The reason that a doctor would encourage a patient to get their meds via the internet is in the case where the doctor writes the script and then the patient faxes it to the pharmacy (or the doctor). The doctor has seen and examined the patient. The DEA believes that buying any type of scheduled drug-from diet pills to Viagara to lortabs-is illegal. So what the patient has to decide is how much risk are you willing to take knowing the DEA believes that everybody using an ROP is a pusher or junkie (and they do) versus the convenience of not having to sit around being treated like a criminal in some doctor's office. There are I suspect literally millions of CP patients obtaining their meds using ROPs and therein lies the problem. Contrary to the DEA's beliefs we cannot all be junkies and addicts. If your state has a prescription monitoring program-and 26 do now-even your ROP script will be sent to the database where the info will be submitted along with-usually-your name, address, social security number and so forth. Any doctor or pharmacist will be able to access the database to see who is ordering from the web or who is getting pain meds or whatever from the internet. Some doctors drop patients just for using ROPs regardless of their area of practice i.e if you family doc found out you were ordering narcotics fromt the web he/she would likely drop you as a patient even though your pain meds have nothing to do with family practice- There is such a stigma attacked to the use of internet pharamcies that most non-ROP medical professionals caste a very jaundiced eye toward the practice. For what all of this is worth-
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186838 - 09/20/06 07:11 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
|
Journeyman
Registered: 10/24/05
Posts: 60
|
Here's a question... If one receives meds (hydro) via an ROP, and the bottle states "2 refills left", can the refills left be filled by a local pharmacy (i.e. cvs, walgreens, etc..), or transfered to a local pharmacy?? As long as the refill date is 30 days. I have had a hard time finding the right med that does not upset my stomach. Even though generic brands are suppose to be the same, I guess they use different "fillers". The only brand of meds that do not make me sick to my stomach or overly tired I cannot get via ROP (mallinckrodt). However, the local pharmacies seem to carry the brand. So, I am stuck w/taking meds that will help my pain, however, make me sick while doing so. I know there is a med that will not do that, but the ROP's I have tried all seem to carry norco/watson/vintage, which don't sit well with me. I'm trying to find a solution. Any help appreciated! Thanks!
Edited by denise2005 (09/20/06 12:32 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186840 - 01/13/07 05:40 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
|
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 12/01/04
Posts: 1255
|
Quote:
would anyone know if nubain(nalbuphine hydrochloride)is illegal to obtain online. it is not under a controlled substance and if so where in the us?
Welcome to the  board! Everyone will be as helpful as possible. You may even want to introduce yourself so we can get to know you.
On your question, do a search for nubain and you will find on here a lot of information. Please do a search before purchasing from a place you have never bought from before because their are a lot of scammers out there. When I did a search for you I came up with a lot of places that were scammers but it looked liked some people had luck but it was from email sources. Email sources are a very large gamble to say the least, just so you are warned! Any way here is one of the threads I found for you when I searched. I hope this helps! Remember, this is an email source, so please read the warnings concerning email sources on here before ordering! DrugBuyers.com does NOT endorse email sources and I do not think you can get it through a ROP. Good luck!
Nubain
Boston
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186842 - 05/28/07 01:28 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
|
Enthusiast
Registered: 05/17/07
Posts: 230
|
OK this is going to be a very quick and dumb question about the whole "personal suppy" issue which appears to be defined by orders for a 90 day or less supply of meds.
So to clear things up does this mean WITH a script, we are not allowed to order more than 90 days worth of meds from an IOP? OR, does that mean if we want more than a 90 day supply thats when we need a script only if its for more than for a personal supply? I'm speaking in regards to meds like valium or codeine.
The thing that confused me is if you HAVE A SCRIPT what the hell is the point of saying you can only import a 90 day supply with a REAL 100% legal script? Thats why (as stupid as it may be) Im thinking it is legal to order w/out a script meds from IOPS AS LONG as your not ordering more than 3 month supplies at a time.
Common sense is telling me you need a script for anything despite whether its for personal use or for a year supply. I just dont undertand why if youve seen a doc and have a script that your limited to importing for more than "persal use". I mean if you have the paperwork, whats the deal with the 90 day limit? It makes no sense to me, unless its that you only need a script for orders surpassing the 90 day period.
Another question I have. This is the age of technology, lets face it. When I go to see my shrink he NEVER touches me. We communicate in that law approved setting with our words, and his ability to see me right in front of him.
But in all seriousnes, we should start something where a doctor and patient use a webcam to hold thier appointments. Instead of being 2ft away from each other you communicate on a webcam which will accomplish 100% of exactly what happens when you meet a doc in real life.
(this may me a dumb idea) But we should petition for this to pass as an approved way that docs can script legal presriptions but at the same time can be done completely online. I mean what essential factors are being left out in this situation? NONE that I can think of.
He sees you on the webcam, you can talk to him on the phone and its the same thing as an inperson meeting. So instead of filling out illegal forms and people scripting meds through simple questionairres, why not have like a 10 minute webcam/audio telecast instead of questionairres? and docs can save and document them for records.
How can any possibly argue that this isnt a real doc/patient relationship. Because I hate to be bold, but when I got to see my shrink I sit down in chair, we exhange words for 10 brief mins and he legally scripts a med.
Of course this would require pateints get webcams but they are cheap and how can the law dispute that all the criteria are being met? Your seeing each other face to face (just cant touch each other which never happens anyway when I see my shrink. So I think IOP should develop a method like this, than no more wasting gas, more more wasting time. You just set an appointment online, turn your cams on, discuss your problem for 10 mins and BAM he writes you a script. Kind of like a simulated appointment that still meets all the requirements of the law.
Its just a random stupid idea I had. But it would be really cool if this became the new way to see your doctor. Make an online appointment, turn the cams on, get your script faxed to you from the doc, and your good to go.. or maybe Im just dreaming again. Just seemed like a good idea when I first thought of it, unless its happening already I have been completely blind to the fact.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186843 - 05/28/07 01:46 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
|
GOLDEN EAGLE 
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 01/29/06
Posts: 4562
|
Quote:
would anyone know if nubain(nalbuphine hydrochloride)is illegal to obtain online. it is not under a controlled substance and if so where in the us?
As the grand pooh bah, Buston PUP pointed you to a thread, it is required to get a script for what your looking for.
How to use Nubain :
Use Nubain as directed by your doctor. Check the label on the medicine for exact dosing instructions.
Nubain is sometimes used at home as an injection. Before using Nubain , a health care professional will provide detailed instructions for appropriate use of Nubain . Ask any questions that you may have about Nubain or giving injections. I haven't seen it on line though. 
good luck
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#186845 - 07/28/07 01:16 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
|
Banned
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 06/03/07
Posts: 1124
Loc: Northeast
|
Quote:
This is the answer given by the DEA (drug Ebforcement Agency) and the USDOJ...
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/illegal_internet.html
Quote:
Is It Illegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Internet?
For a prescription to be valid under federal and state law, there must be a bona fide doctor patient relationship, which is defined by most state laws to require a physical examination. “Completing a questionnaire that is then reviewed by a doctor hired by the internet pharmacy could not be considered the basis for a doctor/patient relationship.” Vol. 66 Federal Register 82, PP 21181-21184 (April 27, 2001)
Moreover, if the prescription drug is a controlled substance and the drug is being imported into the U.S. from a foreign country and being shipped to anyone other than a DEA-registered importer, such transaction is a felony in violation of Sections 957 and 960 of Title 21, United States Code.
HEY man, I wanted to ask you something, and I couldn't think of a better person to ask since you are the expert here man. In all of the requirements that ROP/OCS's use for you to get a script for a control, tell me if this is one of the requirements; I was told that is was and it makes sense, but it has lead to a disagreement with me and friend right now. Among some of the things that show in your records, for the meds that you are asking for; this particular med MUST be a medication that the Dr. in your records *HAS* given you in the past. So in your records, in the notes for scripts/meds given; lets say you are requesting "hydrocodone", then that must be a script that he/she's written in your chart, at least once, right?
Thanks,
Charles
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#597220 - 11/12/07 01:29 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: blackhawk]
|
Stranger
Registered: 02/27/07
Posts: 6
|
Hey, all,
I have been ordering hydrocodone from the net for about three years now.
I have just started methadone maintanence therapy for my addiction to hydrocodone and all I can say is good riddance to all these compaines that screw us over and take advantage of our pain and situations.
Is it illegal to order over the net? Well, it might be legal according to the letter of the law, but it sure does not seem ethical to me. Now, I'm not getting down on anyone who orders over the net, as I sure have done my share of it over the last three years. But, c'mon, I know and everyone else who uses these servies must know they really don't give a rat's butt about us. If they did, why would they be charging this exhorinant prices? And, then treating us bad if the system breaks down and they can't get the meds to us.
If is was ethical, why all the problems that keep going on? In my opinion, these companies are keeping one step ahead of the law by finding loopholes to keep on going.
Has anyone ever checked on some of these docs who are doing the online consulations? I have recently. No upstanding doctor is going to risk his or her license by precribing shecdule III and IV drugs to a person they have never seen. One can easily check out these docs histories at the DEA website. It made me sick to realize that the people I was entrusting my life to were doctors who had been suspended by hospitals and lost privalages for unethical practices. Oh, and then the few who had child molestation charges against them. And I have been putting money in their pockets! Think about it!!! Do you really think these companies and these doctors care???? No, they just feed on our pain and addictions and laugh all the way to the bank!
I am so thankful that I chose to address my issues and seek help somewhere else because it is obvious that the whole precarious internet pharmacy situation is about to come down. Some of you might get mad at me for speaking my mind. But I was a fool like everyone else and spent a ton of mony through these sites for several years. Ive very familiar with the anxiety of wondering when the doctor was going to call, if my refill was going to go through, if the company was even still around for that refill.
Oh, and why compain about "doctors not treating pain". The DEA has made it hard for most doctors to adequately treat pain; don't blame the doctors.
Wake up everybody! Quit letting these online consulation companies and online pharmacies rule your life and take your money.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#597226 - 11/12/07 01:47 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: mikeydog13]
|
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 07/20/05
Posts: 5324
Loc: Reality
|
Mikey, You are welcome to speak your mind of course. I am assuming that you are an adult, and as an adult you must know that YOU are responsible for your own actions. The OCS didn't twist your arm to use their service, or pay their prices...YOU DID IT OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL! I personally want to be the one responsible for my medical care, NOT the Nanny Government. If I feel that I have a problem then I'll seek treatment as you apparently have. "Think about it!!! Do you really think these companies and these doctors care???? No, they just feed on our pain and addictions and laugh all the way to the bank!" I have a question for you then: do you really think that the HMOS that so many of us get our medical care from "care" about us either? Medical Care in this country is run as a capitalist enterprise my friend, and "caring" doesn't have a thing to do with it; the bottom line, whether an ROP, or an HMO is the almighty dollar. The only person that should be "caring" about what medical treatment I get is me, IMHO.
_________________________
"Smoking, drinking, never thinking of tomorrow, nonchalant..Is that all you really want? No, sophisticated lady..The Duke"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#597304 - 11/12/07 04:31 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: mikeydog13]
|
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 07/20/05
Posts: 5324
Loc: Reality
|
Obiviously I am taking responsiblity for my own actions, or I would not have chosen to do something about it. I don't lay blame on others for what I have chosen to do. I just finally woke up to the insanity of what I have chosen to do for the last three years. Obviously I also struck a deep chord with tigersmom who would making such as immature statement as "the OCS didn't twist my arm to use there services". Tigersmom, deep down you must know what we are doing and what these companies are doing is wrong. If you want to let the OCS continue to take advantage of you, that is your choice. As usual when one speaks their mind on drugbuyers.com and makes an opinion that is not shared by the majority, there will always be those posting that immediately take offense and get their feelings hurt. Mikey who is the sensitive one, me or you...lol! You know what I feel "deep down" Mikey? I feel that I need to make my own decision on what is good or not good for me; so yes, I will continue to let my ROP "take advantage" of me until I don't need to or want to use their service, and should I stop using them, or need to go into rehab because I LOST CONTROL, I certainly won't come on a website called "DRUGBUYERS" to whine about how the evil OCS and their Doctor's don't care about me. Boo Hoo Mikey, that sound that you hear is the world's smallest violin.
_________________________
"Smoking, drinking, never thinking of tomorrow, nonchalant..Is that all you really want? No, sophisticated lady..The Duke"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#597371 - 11/12/07 06:53 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: tigersmom]
|
Stranger
Registered: 02/27/07
Posts: 6
|
Gee, tigersmom, Why in the world did you take my post so personally? I'm talking about my own experiences and my feelings as a consumer of OCS for the past three years. I'm talking about my perspective of them, etc. Out of all the people on drugbuyers.com, you alone chose to take my post personally and got angry about it. Sorry, but it makes me wonder what deep issue you must be dealing with about the comments I made. Everyone who posts on drugbuyers.com does not have to have a rose-colored view of OCS. I wish everyone on drugbuyers the best. Best of luck...it looks like the days of OCS and online pharmacies are numbered. Might want to start making alternative plans. I just canceled a refil with countymeds that I would have gotten if I had chosen to wait indefinately. That is, if I had gotten what I ordered. From what I understand, they have been sending darvocet in place of hydrocodone. And yes, we are letting these companies take advantage of our desperation. Some of us are mature enough to recognize when we have been had.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#597378 - 11/12/07 07:21 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: mikeydog13]
|
Veteran
Registered: 07/12/07
Posts: 567
Loc: Somewhere, But Not Here.
|
This is always an interesting topic, and it sounds like there might be a flame war brewing here. I think that those of us who have chosen to use OCS go in knowing a couple of things we can ALL agree on: 1. The internet pharmacy business runs on the fringe of legality and of ethics. I am not saying they are illegal, but the law is attempting to catch up with the fruits of the "information age." Any transaction on the internet has risk attached to it. 2. We have decided to take our health care and more importantly "pain management" into our own hands as we all have many and varied tales of how traditional health care delivery has kept us in the lurch or underserved 3. We agree to the stress, the uncertainty, and the high prices of our chosing OCS's. 4. The providers ( OCS) are filling a nitch in the market, and supply and demand Rules apply. We willingly comply as our choices are few. 5. We all tke the risk of dependence issues as the doctors rely on US to inform them of our needs. That is, we are big boys and girls, we want to be in charge, the doc's let us, and we need to live with the consequesnces. 6. The ethics of the doctors and OCS are their problem and issue, not ours. They enter the marketplace, licensed, and willing to provide what they advertise. Perhaps they are not the best of the best, but have you checked into WHO is driving your kid's school bus? You may be shocked to know. As consumers we must discern on our own, assess risk, and make informed choices. 7. There will always be some among us who abuse the system, whether doc's, providers or patients, making it tough on the legitimate users. This is obviously a short list. Feel free to add to it. We know the game and its Rules before or as we go in to it: "Let the buyer beware."
Edited by toolboy (11/12/07 07:25 PM)
Edit Reason: spelling
_________________________
..I'd sell my soul, my self-esteem, a dollar at a time; for one taste, one kiss, one taste of you my Magdalena...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#597430 - 11/12/07 09:30 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: toolboy]
|
Veteran
Registered: 11/09/02
Posts: 552
Loc: The boonies of Texas
|
Toolboy, that was the most well said summation that I was in such awe that I read it three times. I think some boys from CA have put much more thought into this than these girls in TX. That being said, I would add one more: 8. It utimately always has been the responsability (legality wise) of a) the doctor b) the pharmacy c) the OCS and d) the consumer in that order. I'm not saying that heaven forbid a sting take place, it's just that I feel that would be the order of indictments. After a, b, c, do you really think the thousands in section d need to do a lot of worrying as you have well stated that these people have the most legitamate need for this whole operation Just MHO gabie
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#597561 - 11/13/07 07:09 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: gabie]
|
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 07/20/05
Posts: 5324
Loc: Reality
|
Toolboy well done! Mikey, I don't give a ratt's patootie about you posting what you think, nor do I take it personally, I'm sorry that you construed me pointing out that you were a big boy when you ordered from these people as a personal attack; what really rubbed me the wrong way was your asseration that the OCS has some obligation to "care" about us. They run a business for profit and we all know this. I am truly sorry that YOU had a problem with them, however, DB is NOT a recovery forum. The bulk of the membership here hardly need reminding that one can get carried away with ordering from these places, so I hardly think that your post will change any minds on the subject (although I DO understand that you need to vent), but again, this is just my opinion, and is not meant to "flame". Just consider me a big fan of rational thinking.
_________________________
"Smoking, drinking, never thinking of tomorrow, nonchalant..Is that all you really want? No, sophisticated lady..The Duke"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#598135 - 11/13/07 07:39 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: tigersmom]
|
Stranger
Registered: 02/27/07
Posts: 6
|
Well, apparently, tigersmom, you gave a ratt's patootie about something concerning my posting or you would not have expended so much engergy ranting about my posting. FYI, Miss rationalality, I never stated nor implied that OCS had to care about us...again, you must have an unconsious issue you are dealing with. I'm still trying to figure out what made you so angry about my post. I guess you just felt like abusing someone today. I believe I have a right to post whatever I want regarding any issue I want on drugbuyers.com as I was a conusumer of OCS for several years. As well, I can share my experiences with others who might be considering ordering from OCS. Um, this is a forum for those looking for OCS, is it not?? Here's the bottom line. Perhaps as grand pooh-bah you have too much time on your hands and feel a need to police all the posts that are made on drugbuyers and chastise those that "rub you the wrong way". Guess what? You are a grand poh-bah because you had so much time on your hands to make such an astonomical amount of posts, not because anyone elected you to police this site. That's what the administrators are for. I can just imagine it - all those posts chastising people for not thinking like you do!!! As well, miss rationality, I am not a man! What made you assume I was? Mikey13???? Finally, I think it is hilarious that I have gotten you so riled up that the first thing you did early this morning was post a reply to me. You will be wasting your time with any further posts because I WILL NOT BE BACK ON DRUGBUYERS.COM!!!! The few times I have posted on this site I have gotten a backlash because I speak the truth, and it is hard for some people to acept the truth. Good day and good riddance.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#598143 - 11/13/07 07:52 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: mikeydog13]
|
Veteran
Registered: 07/12/07
Posts: 567
Loc: Somewhere, But Not Here.
|
Come now mikeydog, things are not that personal here. Tigersmon started to tone down the rhetoric, and there is no reason for you not to either. Not my battle to fight but we all want the same thing here.
There is a difference between the truth, and inflammatory words. Your dismissal of this site speaks volumes of how you expect people to treat each other.
I disagree with a lot of people on this board, and they disagree with me as well. I have never had to make it personal. I have not needed to get personal to make my point or be heard here and most here don't. I hope you find peace and your future is filled with joy. I mean that seriously. We are all human and will ultimately be judged on our ability to love and be compassionate.
And to Gabie: Go Texas, I love that State!
_________________________
..I'd sell my soul, my self-esteem, a dollar at a time; for one taste, one kiss, one taste of you my Magdalena...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#598389 - 11/14/07 08:30 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: toolboy]
|
Stranger
Registered: 02/27/07
Posts: 6
|
Thanks, toolboy, for your constructive criticism. If you go back to the beginning of tigersmom posts you can see how downright nasty and dirty they were - a very personal and, in my opinon, unjustified attack to my posting. So, yes, I got angry and nasty. Actually, I felt bad morning about the things I posted in reply to her tirade against me. But, c'mom, if my post "rubbed her the wrong way" I'm sure she could have posted her feelings in a more appropriate manner. There really was no reason to launch an all out attack on me because she did not agree with me. The thread of these posts is in regards to a question of the legality of buying meds online. My response was that I do not feel that it is legal, etc, and just posted my feelings as a long-time consumer of OCS. I do not feel that it was justified to have such ugly remarks made to me by tigersmom because she inferred certain things about my posting. It was like she was so offended about my objection to OCS that she jumped on me personally. I mean, c'mon , from the beginning she was extrmely ugly. To use this forum does not mean that one has to agree with everything on it. It is more than my right to post my experiences with OCS and to state how I really feel about them!! Now, as an expample, toolboy, I take no offense at your criticism of my postings. You are doing it in a very constructive, adult manner, not meant to put me on the defensive. Please refer to tigersmom reply to my initial post and you can plaining see how inappropriate her response to me was. Thanks for wishing me luck and I truly do believe that you mean it. I just really feel that I have the right to state what I feel about OCS so that someone considering using them for the first time can have an objective opinion of the downsides of them. I, nor anyone on this board, should have their views censored. Good luck to all!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#598403 - 11/14/07 09:11 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: tigersmom]
|
GRAND Pooh-Bah
Registered: 07/20/05
Posts: 5324
Loc: Reality
|
"If you go back to the beginning of tigersmom posts you can see how downright nasty and dirty they were - a very personal and, in my opinon, unjustified attack to my posting." Here is my inital post:Mikey, You are welcome to speak your mind of course. I am assuming that you are an adult, and as an adult you must know that YOU are responsible for your own actions. The OCS didn't twist your arm to use their service, or pay their prices...YOU DID IT OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL! I personally want to be the one responsible for my medical care, NOT the Nanny Government. If I feel that I have a problem then I'll seek treatment as you apparently have. "Think about it!!! Do you really think these companies and these doctors care???? No, they just feed on our pain and addictions and laugh all the way to the bank!" I have a question for you then: do you really think that the HMOS that so many of us get our medical care from "care" about us either? Medical Care in this country is run as a capitalist enterprise my friend, and "caring" doesn't have a thing to do with it; the bottom line, whether an ROP, or an HMO is the almighty dollar. The only person that should be "caring" about what medical treatment I get is me, IMHO. I challenge anyone here to tell me exactly how voicing my opinon of her post was inflamatory, and or ugly? This post set HER off, NOT the other way around. She made some statements about using the OCS that I felt were not quite true and i believe I answered her in a rational manner; we all know that she dosen't think so, but if anyone can point out anything I've written in this post as being too "personal" I'll certainly apologize.
_________________________
"Smoking, drinking, never thinking of tomorrow, nonchalant..Is that all you really want? No, sophisticated lady..The Duke"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#598473 - 11/14/07 11:11 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: chevi]
|
Veteran
Registered: 07/12/07
Posts: 567
Loc: Somewhere, But Not Here.
|
Hi to all ~ I usually post on the VIP sd. but it always seems to have more info here than there...anyway, can some 1 help me out w/finding a place for hydro's. I'm in severe chronic back pain/pain doc just up & left/have recrd's. but on ss dsblty. so that leaves me w/little incmn. I try to sit/type/read post's as long as possible but now I'm @ my wits end. Any help to point me in the right direction would be so appreciated. Thanks every 1!   Chevi: Not sure if you have records or not. If you have records I would recommend 2 sources from the US List: UltraWebMeds: They are new, and seem to be keeping people happy with FAST service. I have not used them. If I needed an ROP, I would use them. Consults Direct: I have used them and like them. You consult with them and they will send you a paper prescription (called a Direct Script) that comes from a Florida doc. Check with your local pharmacy to see if they will fill one, first. If you do not have records, your alternative is an off-shore IOP. Again, I have not used them, there is some risk, but if you read up on IOP's on this board, you will know what you are in for. Names that pop-up that people use are: feelfreedom.org, fillinghealthy.com, and drug-central.com. They sell hydro, not cheap, but others have deemed the product good. I cannot vouch for any of the IOP's, so good luck.
_________________________
..I'd sell my soul, my self-esteem, a dollar at a time; for one taste, one kiss, one taste of you my Magdalena...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#598687 - 11/14/07 04:41 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: tigersmom]
|
Journeyman
Registered: 10/19/07
Posts: 82
Loc: Washington
|
I have worked at medical clinics (I'm an Accountant) off and on for many years and I can tell you that even the Doctor's that you see at your Brick and Mortar Family Practice have issues I think each person has to be responsible for the monitoring and usage of any medical care and/or prescriptions. A Doctor is someone who takes the information you provide them with (history, previous medical records), does some tests and comes up with a theory based upon their own past experiences and education. You would be surprised at how different each Doctor's opinion could be if they were each presented the same case. It all boils down to the consumer educating themselves through research and what is best for them. Mikeydog, it is easy to point out what others are doing wrong when you no longer need the service. FYI, my sister has been on methadone for years, it is a HORRIBLE drug to get off of, some say you can never stop, be prepared. Cath 
_________________________
>If everyone just owned one cat the world would be a better place :-) <
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#695796 - 05/09/08 04:12 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: TwG]
|
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/08
Posts: 10
Loc: Georgia
|
It depends. "Telemedicine" is booming. My girlfriend is prescribed dexedrine for ADHD. Her doctor encourages her to use her insurance company - via the Internet - to buy her medication in a 3 month supply.
He writes her the prescription and she goes online, fills out some stuff, and mails off the script. A few weeks later, she gets 180 (!) Smith-Kline dextro-amphetamine sulfate spansule capsules delivered via DHL and her insurance company pays for it.
NROPs and ROPs seem to occupy a gray area of legality. IMHO, there's yet no definitive answer to your question.
If you use the Internet to order controlled substances from another country, then yeah, that's probably pretty cut and dried - assuming of course that Customs finds it. But even then, you'll likely only get a "love letter" from Customs telling you that's a no-no. BS, you can't get refills on c-2 drugs, nor are they supossed to prescribe more than a month supply at 1 time. Ask anyone on Ritalin or oxycodone how much is sucks going to the dr every month to get more drugs. You can not get a 3 month supply of c-2 drugs, no exceptions. Also to the person that said the DEA should stick to looking for heroin and cocaine, you must not be to bright, or you are ignorant of our swollen prison population. The government has waged a war on drugs for over 30 years, and within those 30 years they went after drs, drug dealers, and anyone in between. I also hate to tell you this, but the [censored] drs. give out kills more people each year than any illegal drug combined. This only OP thing has been around for years and is really making the DEA look stupid, their are countless people getting prescriptions like clock work cause of OP, not most just some, and ask any dr about the whole idea of tele prescription and how ethical it is and they will usually say its pretty questionable. Whether or not any of you wanna believe it, most of these places are pill mills and bang out scripts everyday like clockwork. Prescribing hydrocodone after talking to you for less than 10 minutes is pretty questionable. I personally think the war on drugs is whack though, and people should be able to get whatever meds they want OTC. I think the WOD is unconstitutional, and if you look at it roots it was the religious nuts crying wolf for a buncha substances that are no more dangerous than alcohol, or tobacco. They just didn't have a voice. And as long as the illegal drug market is a over 100 billion dollar a year enterprise, drugs will flow thru the borders like water thru a river. Money buys politicians thru lobbying, and the drug lords are the last people that want to see drugs legal. Pharmacetical companies can be thanked for probally keeping both ephedrine and pseudoephedrine OTC, hydrocodone in preperation under 10 mg per dose unit (mixed with asa or apap) schedule 3, and even for keeping the OP market so low key, who knows. But I do know that a lot of those Drs. wrote a lot of schedule 3 and 4 medication and the fact that they didn't lose their DEA # is suspect. The fact that the DEA doesn't start pulling random a lot of the OPs DEA #s is suspect. The DEA doesn't like to look dumb (though its really hard considering how easy it is to get drugs now, whether online or off the street.) I really do think that the OP market has a lot of potential, but as it is now, I don't see it staying like this until some more controls are implimented, from a legal standpoint at least. I think we should be able to get hydrocodone, xanax, codeine, and all other drugs in a pharmacy OTC or at the most, behind the counter with proof of ID. Noone has the right to tell you what you can do to your body, noone. Than again, I remeber geting pain meds from norcodirect thinking this will never last more than a year in 2001. Fast forward 5 years, and nothing is really different, except almost all the OPS require you to send your records in before the first fill now. *Points and laughs at DEA* Your claim that doctors cannot perscribe 3 month (and sometimes even over) supplies is simply innacurate . SWIM (someone who isn't me) is perscribed dexedrine for his ADHD. He cannot physically go to see his doctor more often than, say, 3 times a year, as he is rarely in town. Thus, his doctor simply perscribes him a higher (much higher) per day dosage so that his "1 month refill" will actually last him for 4. This guy that I know (who is not me) receives upwards of 270 dexedrines per visit... 90 for his "necessary 6 tablets a day" as an in-office written perscription, and 180 more through the mail-in procedure that the OP described. And yes, his insurance covers it. Understanding doctors can and will do this, as it is their decision what daily dosage is appropriate for their patient. Next time you're at your doctor getting a routine checkup for your 1 month supply schedule IIs, give him a legitimate excuse for why you cannot see him for a while (going oversees, going to college out of state, etc), and, if he is not an [censored] and trusts you to be responsible with them, he will help you.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#695801 - 05/09/08 04:33 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: TideDoc]
|
Stranger
Registered: 03/04/08
Posts: 10
Loc: Georgia
|
The names and medical records of the people at the telemed site and/or the pharmacy that goes down goes into DEA records where they do I do not know what with them. The reason that a doctor would encourage a patient to get their meds via the internet is in the case where the doctor writes the script and then the patient faxes it to the pharmacy (or the doctor). The doctor has seen and examined the patient. The DEA believes that buying any type of scheduled drug-from diet pills to Viagara to lortabs-is illegal. So what the patient has to decide is how much risk are you willing to take knowing the DEA believes that everybody using an ROP is a pusher or junkie (and they do) versus the convenience of not having to sit around being treated like a criminal in some doctor's office. There are I suspect literally millions of CP patients obtaining their meds using ROPs and therein lies the problem. Contrary to the DEA's beliefs we cannot all be junkies and addicts. If your state has a prescription monitoring program-and 26 do now-even your ROP script will be sent to the database where the info will be submitted along with-usually-your name, address, social security number and so forth. Any doctor or pharmacist will be able to access the database to see who is ordering from the web or who is getting pain meds or whatever from the internet. Some doctors drop patients just for using ROPs regardless of their area of practice i.e if you family doc found out you were ordering narcotics fromt the web he/she would likely drop you as a patient even though your pain meds have nothing to do with family practice- There is such a stigma attacked to the use of internet pharamcies that most non-ROP medical professionals caste a very jaundiced eye toward the practice. For what all of this is worth- I feel it is worthy to note that Viagra is, in fact, NOT a scheduled substance.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#695917 - 05/09/08 09:05 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: Niacin]
|
Journeyman
Registered: 09/08/07
Posts: 52
Loc: Outta Space (by way of) Las Ve...
|
BS, you can't get refills on c-2 drugs, nor are they supossed to prescribe more than a month supply at 1 time. Ask anyone on Ritalin or oxycodone how much is sucks going to the dr every month to get more drugs. You can not get a 3 month supply of c-2 drugs, no exceptions. Also to the person that said the DEA should stick to looking for heroin and cocaine, you must not be to bright, or you are ignorant of our swollen prison population. The government has waged a war on drugs for over 30 years, and within those 30 years they went after drs, drug dealers, and anyone in between. I also hate to tell you this, but the [censored] drs. give out kills more people each year than any illegal drug combined. This only OP thing has been around for years and is really making the DEA look stupid, their are countless people getting prescriptions like clock work cause of OP, not most just some, and ask any dr about the whole idea of tele prescription and how ethical it is and they will usually say its pretty questionable. Whether or not any of you wanna believe it, most of these places are pill mills and bang out scripts everyday like clockwork. Prescribing hydrocodone after talking to you for less than 10 minutes is pretty questionable. I personally think the war on drugs is whack though, and people should be able to get whatever meds they want OTC. I think the WOD is unconstitutional, and if you look at it roots it was the religious nuts crying wolf for a buncha substances that are no more dangerous than alcohol, or tobacco. They just didn't have a voice. And as long as the illegal drug market is a over 100 billion dollar a year enterprise, drugs will flow thru the borders like water thru a river. Money buys politicians thru lobbying, and the drug lords are the last people that want to see drugs legal. Pharmacetical companies can be thanked for probally keeping both ephedrine and pseudoephedrine OTC, hydrocodone in preperation under 10 mg per dose unit (mixed with asa or apap) schedule 3, and even for keeping the OP market so low key, who knows. But I do know that a lot of those Drs. wrote a lot of schedule 3 and 4 medication and the fact that they didn't lose their DEA # is suspect. The fact that the DEA doesn't start pulling random a lot of the OPs DEA #s is suspect. The DEA doesn't like to look dumb (though its really hard considering how easy it is to get drugs now, whether online or off the street.) I really do think that the OP market has a lot of potential, but as it is now, I don't see it staying like this until some more controls are implimented, from a legal standpoint at least. I think we should be able to get hydrocodone, xanax, codeine, and all other drugs in a pharmacy OTC or at the most, behind the counter with proof of ID. Noone has the right to tell you what you can do to your body, noone. Than again, I remeber geting pain meds from norcodirect thinking this will never last more than a year in 2001. Fast forward 5 years, and nothing is really different, except almost all the OPS require you to send your records in before the first fill now. *Points and laughs at DEA* -------------------------------------------------------------- For a long time it is/was legal for patients to receive a three-month supply of a C-II drug. Unless the Rules have been changed -- and certain drugs may be excluded, a doctor can write a prescription for a three-month supply of a C-II drug provided he/she writes the diagnosis across the face of the prescription. There may be restrictions that I'm not aware of or, as I mentioned, the Rules could have changed. In point of fact, very few doctors actually did/do this. Also, it would seem logical for chronic pain patients. Yet, I've never heard of a chronic pain patient being prescribed a three-month supply of OxyContin or Opana ER. So, perhaps the Rule really has changed. The statement that the DEA has waged war on doctors for a long time is incorrect. Prior to OxyContin, the DEA pretty much had a hands off approach when it came to doctors. The only way they got involved was when a state had suspended/revoked a doctor's license. In that case, the DEA would refuse to renew the doctor's DEA registration (number) until the doctor had worked thing out with the state. But the DEA never targeted doctors for prosecution until a few years after OxyContin came into existence. Such matters were left in the hands of individual states. I do not agree with the statement that implies that pharmaceutical companies are primarily responsible for keeping pseudoephedrine O-T-C. The sole reason for imposing restrictions on the sale of the drug is to try to curb illicit production of methamphetamine. It should be noted that, although illegal meth labs exist everywhere in the U.S.A., the vast predominance of them are in the Western part of the country. That's why most states in the Northeast didn't even have any restrictions on purchase at the time the federal regulations were imposed. Psedoephedrine is probably the best decongestant on the market. The requirement of forcing purchasers to sign for the drug (and restricting monthly purchase levels) is a genuine attempt to make it more difficult for individuals to obtain large quantities of the substance very easily. Pharma companies had little to do with it. It should be noted that the drug used in O-T-C drugs (phenylephrine) that has been used to replace pseudoephedrine can be combined with another easily obtainable substance to produce methamphetamine. I don't know why this wasn't taken into account. Perhaps it's not that widely known. Hydrocodone combination drugs have been produced with hydrocodone as high as 15 mg. per pill. Some doctors who wrote prescriptions for Scheduled drugs, including drugs in Schedule IV and Schedule III did, in fact, lose their licenses, and had to face some jail time. In the world of telemedicine, things are indeed quite different now than in 2001. There is a great deal more scrutiny now by the DEA than there was then. You are correct that many more NROP's existed at that time, which was a lot safer for patients. As you say, the majority of sites require people who wish to use them to fax medical records, and proof of identity, like licenses. When sending a fax, it is a good idea to increase the size of what you are sending (to make it more readable). When OCS's began requiring people to send medical records, I remember some people posting that this was a terrible idea from the standpoint of the patient. I agree. It has always been mentioned that telemedicine is a "gray" area. Whether I agree or disagree, I would say that since the proprietors of many such operations have been put out of business, I would suggest taking advantage of the fact that medical records and ID can be enlarged before faxing. Enlarging provides the opportunity for changing data on records/ID. If you think that's wrong or illegal, consider the fact that the drug Enforcement Agency considers the whole business illegal. It really doesn't matter whether, in principle, you believe what you are doing is fine because you have a legitimate condition. Practically speaking, I believe that if you deal with such companies, which really only ask for medical records to provide the pretense of legality (which the drug Enforcement Agency will find a way not to accept no matter what), then you should try to keep your medical records confidential. I agree that the restrictions on drugs should generally be lifted, and that most should be available without prescription. Even more strongly, I agree that what you do with your body, provided you do not physically hurt someone else, is your business, not the government's, nor anybody else's.
_________________________
Never let the fact that they are doing it wrong stop you from doing it right.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#706023 - 05/29/08 03:41 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net
[Re: CPTime]
|
Threadhead
Registered: 08/08/07
Posts: 804
|
I don't know if what I have to say really adds to this subject, but about 2-1/2 years ago I started going to a PM program. As I was in the back getting ready for my first epidural, the nurse received a call from someone saying they ran out of medicine early. The doctor told her to call in their cocktail of anti-withdrawal medicine until it's time for their appointment. I asked the nurse why everyone has to come in every month. The doctor piped in and said up until a couple of months before that, they didn't. He said patients were abusing the privilege so they made it so you have to go in every month. I assume, since this clinic prescribes mostly CIIs, that they were either writing a 3 month quantity on one script (360 instead of 120 for example) or either giving them 3 separate prescriptions (dated for the correct date) to be filled at the end of each month. My gut says they were prescribing for 360 at a time, since it's hard to abuse your medicine if you only get it once a month, yes? And from what I've read on here occasionally, there are doctors out there that still do this. But they are few and far between and the sheer amount of records these doctors keep are crazy. In a matter of 6 months my folder was 4 or 5" thick, I'd had MRI's, CAT scans, EMGs, EKGs, several eipidurals, cortisone shots, Radio Frequency Nerve Ablation, etc. etc. I believe they are all in a current "CYA" mode, and that's why you have to get your prescriptions every month. And in the pain contract it says if you miss one appointment they assume you must not be in pain if you don't need your medicine that month, and they drop you. It's a shame. Would have made life much easier not to drive 40 minutes each way to spend 5 minutes with the doctor to get my prescriptions, and the next 3 hours finding somewhere to fill them! Getting them written for 3 months would be great, but we all know we have days that are horrendously bad and I could see where you would take more than you needed, thinking "look, I have all these pills!" and then all of the sudden you have a week until your next appointment and no medicine. It did make me happy that my doctor never allowed those people who ran out early to suffer. He callled in enough anti-withdrawal medicine to cover the person until their next visit (nurse said it was bupe, catapress patches and 1mg Ativan 3x a day, although when I was getting sick off of OPANA, they gave me the stomach medicine Bentyl, catapress and Ativan instead of the bupe). I agree that some medicines should be OTC. We should still be able to get the Opium tincture we got for our kids when they had diaherra and were throwing up, we whould be able to get low dose codeine and low dose hydrocodone, perhaps with something like 500 mgs of tylenol to try to prevent abuse of the drug. I also think that stuff like the stomach upset medicine, starts with a P but can't remember what it's called, should be OTC. The one they give when someone is having trouble keeping down a new medicine.(I hate when I forget the name of something). So many days I've watched my kids with horrible stomach aches and sick and wished I could do something, since Pepto Bismol is a joke. I feel useless on those days. I do feel better that slowly but surely prescription medicines are becoming OTC (thank god for Zantac!) but we need anti-anxiety medicines, pain medicines, and medicines to help with sick stomachs also. We also need a better class of sleep aids on the market. Virtually all of them have the same active ingredient. What's the point of that??? Off my soap box now. But sometimes the US is in the dark ages and sliding further when it comes to stuff like this. We as a country seem like such prudes to other countries, when in reality if you asked a large majority of people they'd absolutely agree that some of those medicines need to be OTC. It's Congress and the HORepresentatives that seem to be the hold up. And maybe nude beaches wouldn't send stupid people running and screaming that it's just not right! Let's pass this Bill! and this Bill! and this Bill! Ugh. Europeans have been doing it forever without a thought, but oh no, take your top off on most of our beaches and see what you get! Other countries seem to trust their people to treat their minor to middle pain on their own, whereas we must run to the doctor and pay their fees and Rx fees to get something that other countries sell for $3 over the counter. We aren't stupid, but Congress sure thinks we are........
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#727822 - 07/14/08 12:08 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: Administrator]
|
Stranger
Registered: 07/10/08
Posts: 6
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#824289 - 01/04/09 02:05 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: singalongjonl]
|
Newbie
Registered: 12/26/08
Posts: 26
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#853318 - 03/04/09 01:07 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: Administrator]
|
Member
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 114
Loc: New England
|
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-.htmlTitle 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.
Edited by TheLitigator (03/04/09 01:37 PM)
Edit Reason: perfectionist
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#853372 - 03/04/09 02:27 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: TheLitigator]
|
Member
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 114
Loc: New England
|
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.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#854085 - 03/05/09 12:57 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: StuntGoat]
|
Member
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 114
Loc: New England
|
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
Edited by TheLitigator (03/05/09 01:26 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#855451 - 03/07/09 07:56 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: TheLitigator]
|
Member
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 114
Loc: New England
|
"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.htmlIn 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]
Edited by TheLitigator (03/07/09 08:23 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#855471 - 03/07/09 09:01 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: TheLitigator]
|
Member
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 114
Loc: New England
|
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).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#855589 - 03/08/09 07:48 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: TheLitigator]
|
Threadhead
Registered: 12/18/03
Posts: 863
Loc: Varies by time of year
|
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.
_________________________
A big man stands up for himself. A bigger man stands up for others
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#855639 - 03/08/09 10:40 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: dharma6666]
|
Member
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 114
Loc: New England
|
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.
Edited by TheLitigator (03/08/09 10:58 AM)
Edit Reason: clarification
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#855645 - 03/08/09 11:04 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: TheLitigator]
|
Member
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 114
Loc: New England
|
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]
Edited by TheLitigator (03/08/09 11:31 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#855673 - 03/08/09 01:11 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: TheLitigator]
|
Member
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 114
Loc: New England
|
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-.htmlAll 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.
Edited by TheLitigator (03/08/09 01:39 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#855704 - 03/08/09 02:17 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: TheLitigator]
|
Member
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 114
Loc: New England
|
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 DRUGS2.) CHAPTER 9—FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT3.) SUBCHAPTER VIII—IMPORTS AND EXPORTS4.) § 384. Importation of prescription drugs5.) (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 AGENTSo, 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.
Edited by TheLitigator (03/08/09 02:46 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#856505 - 03/09/09 11:47 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: dharma6666]
|
Member
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 114
Loc: New England
|
actually I'll put together a Memo of Law, I know Canadian imports are addressed somewhere else, whereas in 384 the intent of the Congress is, imo, blanket importation. the FDA regulates neither Canadian drugs nor overseas Pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, what's the difference? Specific legislative intent in subsection 384 (J) is blanket coverage of individual exemption for personal use, subsumed under a new Legislative intent. "[Congress Declares ...]" that in prohibiting individual importation of prescription drugs and devices, the secretary shall focus on cases in which: (1) clearly for personal use (2) prescription drug or device poses no unreasonable risk to the individual after satisfying the first prong of "not pos[ing] a significant threat to the public health".
The Legislative intent in that statement involves Pharmaceutical diversion and obvious counterfeits.I'll put together a full Memo of Law. (when I have time) I'll keep it simple, on point, and well cited. No deadlines, please. Then damn, maybe I will exercise an in forma pauperis motion for declaratory judgment. Think the UCLA will get onboard? I haven't passed the bar but I know a lil' bit. And Jeebus, F.R.C.P. 11 scares the hell out of me and my legal minds. MAYBE they'd ghostwrite and proofread, but even that can lead to sanctions if some judge thinks its frivolous or hath no legal merit and it's uncovered.A nd [censored], how am I going to survive a government's F.R.C.P. 12(b) motion to dismiss? The government will claim there is no controversy for which rights need be declared.. I think it's obvious but who the hell knows what a Federal Judge will believe. You know how high that could go? I'm quite familiar with Title 21. You help me on surviving the controversy necessary to beat the 12(b), I'll get the dec motion in, as a destitute studentumm.... I'm a pharmaceutical patent / intellectual property & copyright law (focus Europe Union - USA - India) [I speak German] Student. I'm not an attorney. State Court I'll brave, Federal Court scares me, a little. And There'd probably be some customs crackdown in my peaceful calm neighborhood 
Edited by TheLitigator (03/10/09 12:13 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#856513 - 03/10/09 12:18 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: dharma6666]
|
Member
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 114
Loc: New England
|
The chain of custody rule only applies to evidence collected after an arrest.....not BEFORE. Then challenge the validity of intent, argue constructive possession for all involved when your Client pleads ignorance, and naturally, there is no proof either way. Move to suppress [seized goods] based on no connection whatsoever to the client, as well as on its face it's more likely than not the client had no idea what the parcel contained. It all depends on what comes out in discovery after your client KEEPS HIS F***ING MOUTH SHUT and talks about being a PTA member, going to town-hall meetings, having good face in the community, the weather, sports and the like. Cops love Dirty Harry style movies... I'm not focusing on criminal law, that's just something I enjoy. Get me past FRCP 12(b) and you can proofread my Dec Motion. If I write a memorandum of law there's no reason not to at least have a judge tell me I'm right. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114494,00.html~3 years before the blanket importation exception for individuals came into effect. And, Kind sir, it might not even be worthwhile: This is pending legislation, as of Jan 9, 2009, to amend that section of Title 21, making importation by individuals NOT be blanket: again, Introduced in current Congress on Jan 9, 2009 to amend THAT AFOREMENTIONED SECTIONhttp://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s80/textThe law has only been on the books 2 years; not long enough to truly be challenged, and if this thing makes it through.. well, no more bullsh*t "up to the secretary to protect the general welfare from egregious cases", currently enforced as any and all at the whim of Individual Customs Agents, cause Congress' action will have codified guidelines. == "(h) Waiver Authority for Individuals- Section 804(j) of the Federal Food, drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 384(j)) is amended to read as follows:" go find it if you want
Edited by TheLitigator (03/10/09 12:48 AM)
Edit Reason: boo ya
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#856519 - 03/10/09 12:52 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: TheLitigator]
|
Member
Registered: 01/30/09
Posts: 114
Loc: New England
|
(h) Waiver Authority for Individuals- Section 804(j) of the Federal Food, drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 384(j)) is amended to read as follows:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink ‘(j) Importation by Individuals ‘(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the enactment of the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2009, the Secretary shall by regulation permit an individual to import a drug from a permitted country to the United States if the drug is- ‘(A) a qualifying drug; ‘(B) imported from a licensed pharmacy or qualifying Internet pharmacy; ‘(C) for personal use by an individual, or family member of the individual, not for resale; ‘(D) in a quantity that does not exceed a 90-day supply during any 90-day period; and ‘(E) accompanied by a copy of a prescription for the drug, which--
‘(i) is valid under applicable Federal and State laws; and
‘(ii) was issued by a practitioner who is authorized to administer prescription drugs.
‘(2) DRUGS DISPENSED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES- An individual may import a drug from a country that is not a permitted country if-- ‘(A) the drug was dispensed to the individual while the individual was in such country, and the drug was dispensed in accordance with the laws and regulations of such country; ‘(B) the individual is entering the United States and the drug accompanies the individual at the time of entry; ‘(C) the drug is approved for commercial distribution in the country in which the drug was obtained; ‘(D) the drug does not appear to be adulterated; and ‘(E) the quantity of the drug does not exceed a 14-day supply.’. (i) Repeal of Certain Provisions- Section 804 of the Federal Food, drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 384) is amended by striking subsections (l) and (m). THAT IS THE PROPOSED CHANGE
RIGHT NOW IT IS LEGAL, AND THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE A PRESCRIPTION EITHER WAY. That's why this new PROPOSED law specifically lists "importation by individuals must accompany a valid state or federal authorized practitioners prescription"..." where the hell is the requirement of a prescription specifically stated in current law? The American Prescription valid only at American Pharmacies is bullsh*t, plain and simple, since it is an unauthorized expansion of agency power clearly misaligned with the explicit wording of the agency's statutory authority as specifically granted and enumerated and devolved from the American Congress in 21 U.S.C. 384(J). someone challenge the FDA. Period. Or get me past FRCP 12(b) so that I only need file. Not stupid. Very Real. Very Factual.
Edited by TheLitigator (03/10/09 12:59 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#856819 - 03/10/09 01:56 PM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: TheLitigator]
|
Threadhead
Registered: 12/18/03
Posts: 863
Loc: Varies by time of year
|
(h) Waiver Authority for Individuals- Section 804(j) of the Federal Food, drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 384(j)) is amended to read as follows:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink ‘(j) Importation by Individuals ‘(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the enactment of the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2009, the Secretary shall by regulation permit an individual to import a drug from a permitted country to the United States if the drug is- ‘(A) a qualifying drug; ‘(B) imported from a licensed pharmacy or qualifying Internet pharmacy; ‘(C) for personal use by an individual, or family member of the individual, not for resale; ‘(D) in a quantity that does not exceed a 90-day supply during any 90-day period; and ‘(E) accompanied by a copy of a prescription for the drug, which--
‘(i) is valid under applicable Federal and State laws; and
‘(ii) was issued by a practitioner who is authorized to administer prescription drugs.
‘(2) DRUGS DISPENSED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES- An individual may import a drug from a country that is not a permitted country if-- ‘(A) the drug was dispensed to the individual while the individual was in such country, and the drug was dispensed in accordance with the laws and regulations of such country; ‘(B) the individual is entering the United States and the drug accompanies the individual at the time of entry; ‘(C) the drug is approved for commercial distribution in the country in which the drug was obtained; ‘(D) the drug does not appear to be adulterated; and ‘(E) the quantity of the drug does not exceed a 14-day supply.’. (i) Repeal of Certain Provisions- Section 804 of the Federal Food, drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 384) is amended by striking subsections (l) and (m). THAT IS THE PROPOSED CHANGE
RIGHT NOW IT IS LEGAL, AND THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE A PRESCRIPTION EITHER WAY. That's why this new PROPOSED law specifically lists "importation by individuals must accompany a valid state or federal authorized practitioners prescription"..." where the hell is the requirement of a prescription specifically stated in current law? The American Prescription valid only at American Pharmacies is bullsh*t, plain and simple, since it is an unauthorized expansion of agency power clearly misaligned with the explicit wording of the agency's statutory authority as specifically granted and enumerated and devolved from the American Congress in 21 U.S.C. 384(J). someone challenge the FDA. Period. Or get me past FRCP 12(b) so that I only need file. Not stupid. Very Real. Very Factual. Why don't you tell that to the OCS operators and doctors sitting behind bars? This issue has already been addressed by the courts, and pre- RHA busts have held up. Also, this is a moot point after the 180 days post enactment of the RHA. Look to the legislative intent of this writing....period.
_________________________
A big man stands up for himself. A bigger man stands up for others
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#909648 - 07/20/09 10:22 AM
Re: Is It Iegal to Obtain Controlled Substances From the Net?
[Re: Trampy]
|
Stranger
Registered: 05/30/09
Posts: 13
|
The DEA doesn't have to prove anything. Valid prescription from a US doctor and filled in a legitamite US pharmacy, no drugs can be dispensed without a prescription here, and they can't from a foreign country either. Different countries have different drugs (the US has the most inclusive list of drugs, but still, prescription needed, and although there doesn't always have to be a physical examination, unless it's a class two, it has to be your doctor). The DEA enforces law, the FDA will not allow any drugs outside the US to be imported to a consumer, even if the drug is made here, because it has to subject to their approval standards for use in the US. Recently, just in the last week or two, a law was passed that that americans can seek their prescriptions from Cananda, it was never legal before, and still doesn't include controlled substances, which cannot be shipped. Besides, Canada, and every other country has a different drug list than the US. But the DEA can and will put an end to any online pharmacies, and it can't be challenged. They shut down doctors and pharmacies in the US, when a lot of those cases are vague. But all these years of canadian pharmacy advertising, those pharmacies were in the US or offshore. Probably just a group of people that obtained controlled substances here and were trying to sell them, because come on, $3.80 for a valium? $6 for a vicodin? That would be like me sellig my medication online under the guise of a pharmacy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This subject is beat to death, I mean everything that is illegal is not necessarily morally wrong in every case anyway. There is post-conventional morality. If you feel like you are doing wrong, stop doing it. I believe 100% that the DEA, the FBI, the county boys and the FDA probably think it's wrong. I don't really care. The Dept. of Agriculture, maybe.
Previous Topic
Index