CVS Pays Largest Fine In History Of Controlled Substances Act

I saw this in the news. The funny part is that we were just at walmart and picked up two packs of pseudoephedrine right off the shelf. In the past few years its been a pain in the ass. You had to get a card from the rack and pick the pseudoephedrine up from behind the counter or pharmacy. You were limited to only one pack and had to show ID to get even that. I was rather surprised it was so readily available again.

Then this was on the news. I bet walmart pulls it from the shelves again.
 
I saw this in the news. The funny part is that we were just at walmart and picked up two packs of pseudoephedrine right off the shelf. In the past few years its been a pain in the ass. You had to get a card from the rack and pick the pseudoephedrine up from behind the counter or pharmacy. You were limited to only one pack and had to show ID to get even that. I was rather surprised it was so readily available again.

Then this was on the news. I bet walmart pulls it from the shelves again.

I used to stock pseudoephedrine at the store I worked out, before they started locking it up. I would stock it, and a few hours later the shelf would be empty.
 
How does CVS selling cold medicine make meth heads "victims?"

Besides, aren't you the crone who wants to make drugs legal to stop the violence in Mexico?

What do you think the DOJ is going to pot farms in California if Prop 19 passes?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
How does CVS selling cold medicine make meth heads "victims?"

Besides, aren't you the crone who wants to make drugs legal to stop the violence in Mexico?

What do you think the DOJ is going to pot farms in California if Prop 19 passes?

What a terrible loss to the field of brain surgery you are, Revere. If meth was legal (what a god awful idea) then it would be manufactured by the Eli Lily Co., not some freak next door to your college kid. There would be no need to buy pseudoephedrine at retail, and CVS would not have made the sales that landed it in hot water with the DOJ.

This thread is not about legalizing drugs; it is about a Big Business' immunity from suit by those harmed by its reckless and negligent conduct. You want to discuss pot, please start your own thread.
 
CVS to pay $77.6 million in meth case - Oct. 14, 2010

Actual victims of meth dealers apparently cannot touch this Big Business, but at least DOJ smacked it.

Your thoughts?

So the meth dealers forced these "victims" to take the drugs? And its bad that they can't sue the retailers which provide a legal product that the dealers then use as an ingredient?

Sounds like more of "sue the gun manufacturers" crapola.
 
CVS to pay $77.6 million in meth case - Oct. 14, 2010

Actual victims of meth dealers apparently cannot touch this Big Business, but at least DOJ smacked it.

Your thoughts?

So the meth dealers forced these "victims" to take the drugs? And its bad that they can't sue the retailers which provide a legal product that the dealers then use as an ingredient?

Sounds like more of "sue the gun manufacturers" crapola.

Meth cookers destroy homes, endanger the lives and property of neighbors and police and degrade neighborhoods all before any addict ever buys a -- pill, baggie, whatever. The victims are all the people harmed by CVS's negligence and greed -- you can include drug addicts or not in that group. Meh, they're not my first concern.

House owner 'shocked' over fatal meth lab blast

Explosion on Cleveland's West Side | Metro - cleveland.com - cleveland.com

Cleveland police bust meth lab on West Side, evacuate Marion Seltzer school | cleveland.com
 
So the problem is with meth is that there isn't more of it, and government doesn't provide it direct to addicts.

Wow.

What planet is this?

You are a fool.

reading%20for%20dummies.jpg
 
CVS to pay $77.6 million in meth case - Oct. 14, 2010

Actual victims of meth dealers apparently cannot touch this Big Business, but at least DOJ smacked it.

Your thoughts?

So the meth dealers forced these "victims" to take the drugs? And its bad that they can't sue the retailers which provide a legal product that the dealers then use as an ingredient?

Sounds like more of "sue the gun manufacturers" crapola.

Meth cookers destroy homes, endanger the lives and property of neighbors and police and degrade neighborhoods all before any addict ever buys a -- pill, baggie, whatever. The victims are all the people harmed by CVS's negligence and greed -- you can include drug addicts or not in that group. Meh, they're not my first concern.

House owner 'shocked' over fatal meth lab blast

Explosion on Cleveland's West Side | Metro - cleveland.com - cleveland.com

Cleveland police bust meth lab on West Side, evacuate Marion Seltzer school | cleveland.com

Sorry, I am not going to hold a retailer or manufacturer responsible for the intentional misuse of their product.

I agree with the restrictions on the sale of the product, and I agree that CVS should pay the fine for ignoring the law. But I draw the line at holding them responsible for the users and dealers breaking the law themselves.
 
Shouldnt we really blame the people who built the stores that let CVS sell their products. Oh and the electric company that allowed them to keep their lights on so they could sell these products. This is the stupidist thing I've ever heard. I bet CVS won't be hiring anyone soon. Gotta protect the retarded meth heads instead. Wow! The people who are really to blame must not have any money to steal.
 
CVS to pay $77.6 million in meth case - Oct. 14, 2010

Actual victims of meth dealers apparently cannot touch this Big Business, but at least DOJ smacked it.

Your thoughts?

So the meth dealers forced these "victims" to take the drugs? And its bad that they can't sue the retailers which provide a legal product that the dealers then use as an ingredient?

Sounds like more of "sue the gun manufacturers" crapola.

maybe she meant the people meth dealers rip off.
 
CVS to pay $77.6 million in meth case - Oct. 14, 2010

Actual victims of meth dealers apparently cannot touch this Big Business, but at least DOJ smacked it.

Your thoughts?

So the meth dealers forced these "victims" to take the drugs? And its bad that they can't sue the retailers which provide a legal product that the dealers then use as an ingredient?

Sounds like more of "sue the gun manufacturers" crapola.

maybe she meant the people meth dealers rip off.

So then why advocate the users being able to sue CVS?
 
were they letting people buy pallet loads of the stuff or what?

Most likely had it out for sale like regular products.

And since it was so widespread over a geographic area, likely it was a regional directive to do so, and not a single store going "oops".
 
So the meth dealers forced these "victims" to take the drugs? And its bad that they can't sue the retailers which provide a legal product that the dealers then use as an ingredient?

Sounds like more of "sue the gun manufacturers" crapola.

maybe she meant the people meth dealers rip off.

So then why advocate the users being able to sue CVS?

I don't know.

I do think if your family member is a meth head and they shoot at a police officer or attack a police officer, and they end up getting killed. You should not be able to sue the city. :lol:
One guy here shot at a policeman, hitting his dog instead, and the cop shot him. His family tried to sue the city after that. Total bullshit!
 
maybe she meant the people meth dealers rip off.

So then why advocate the users being able to sue CVS?

I don't know.

I do think if your family member is a meth head and they shoot at a police officer or attack a police officer, and they end up getting killed. You should not be able to sue the city. :lol:
One guy here shot at a policeman, hitting his dog instead, and the cop shot him. His family tried to sue the city after that. Total bullshit!

Yeah, I mean, c'mon.

It's a like a burglar suing a homeowner cause he tripped and sprained his ankle.
 

Forum List

Back
Top