CVS Pays Largest Fine In History Of Controlled Substances Act

[Revere]

Progressives are like drug addicts. They view legal businesses as there for them to rip off at will.

 

[syrenn]

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.

IF met was legal and IF drug companies were selling it. WHY would you think that meth cookers would stop making the drug and selling it?

They wont.

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

IF met was legal and IF drug companies were selling it. WHY would you think that meth cookers would stop making the drug and selling it?

They wont.

I don't want it legal.

Not sure if you thought I was advocating that?

 

[syrenn]

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.

IF met was legal and IF drug companies were selling it. WHY would you think that meth cookers would stop making the drug and selling it?

They wont.

I don't want it legal.

Not sure if you thought I was advocating that?

No, madeline mentioned drug compaines possibily makeing it If it was legal .

I don't want it legal either.

 

[Revere]

So the OP wants raw meth available to anyone who wants it, anytime.

It's the middlemen who are the problem

Not people who use it who destroy their lives and their families' lives.

 

[RadiomanATL]

So the OP wants raw meth available to anyone who wants it, anytime.

It's the middlemen who are the problem

Not people who use it who destroy their lives and their families' lives.

Um, no.

She does not want it legal either.

 

[ConHog]

Meth is a HORRIBLE drug. If yall could see some of the things I saw over my career you would want meth dealers and users shot.

But it's stupid to hold the manufacture or distributor of an otherwise harmless product that is used to produce meth responsible for the affects of meth. Do you realize that propane is used to make meth? do we go after the propane industry to? That would piss Hank Hill off.

Seriously, this country is just sue happy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

More stupidity from the government. Why am I not suprised that you support it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Reckless and negligent?

Selling a legal, safe, product is somehow reckless and dangerous? Can a business be sued because some buys a baseball bat from them and uses it to smash mailboxes? What about if they use it to bash someone who is homosexual? Why should a businmess be liable for someone misusing a product they sell? Why should they be liable even if they are the manufacturers of that product?

This thread is actually about the nanny state and the dangers it imposes on everyone, and about how you support the government trying to outlaw stupidity and protect us from idiots. The fact that this results in people who actually need this medication being arrested, and charged, as drug dealers is apparently irrelevant to you.

Wabash Valley woman didn?t realize second cold medicine purchase violated drug laws Local & Bistate News From Terre Haute, Indiana

 

[Madeline]

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.

I would agree with you except that when it explodes, cooking meth sets the air on fire and forms a toxic gas. Not even a diesel fuel and fertilizer bomb can do that. Given its potential for extreme destruction, I say the reckless and/or negligent sale of the product FORESEEABLY led to the death or injury of INNOCENT third parties, such as police, fire and neighbors who had nothing at all to do with making, buying or using any illegal drug.

Those victims -- NOT drug addicts or dealers -- I think should have free reign to sue CVS into the earth.

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

I would agree with you except that when it explodes, cooking meth sets the air on fire and forms a toxic gas. Not even a diesel fuel and fertilizer bomb can do that. Given its potential for extreme destruction, I say the reckless and/or negligent sale of the product FORESEEABLY led to the death or injury of INNOCENT third parties, such as police, fire and neighbors who had nothing at all to do with making, buying or using any illegal drug.

Those victims -- NOT drug addicts or dealers -- I think should have free reign to sue CVS into the earth.

Sorry, it's not CVS's fault that the purchaser intentionally misuses the product and creates a dangerous and illegal situation.

 

[Revere]

For selling cold medicine?

Gasoline burns faster and better.

 

[Madeline]

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.

Reckless and negligent?

Selling a legal, safe, product is somehow reckless and dangerous? Can a business be sued because some buys a baseball bat from them and uses it to smash mailboxes? What about if they use it to bash someone who is homosexual? Why should a businmess be liable for someone misusing a product they sell? Why should they be liable even if they are the manufacturers of that product?

This thread is actually about the nanny state and the dangers it imposes on everyone, and about how you support the government trying to outlaw stupidity and protect us from idiots. The fact that this results in people who actually need this medication being arrested, and charged, as drug dealers is apparently irrelevant to you.

Wabash Valley woman didn?t realize second cold medicine purchase violated drug laws Local & Bistate News From Terre Haute, Indiana

The sales were reckless or negligent, Quantum Windbag. CVS did not just agree to pay three quarters of a Billion dollars because it handled the product appropriately. The stores were supposed to record the names of buyers in a book and refuse to sell more than one or two packets at a time, and they did not. This failure led directly and foreseeably to a mushrooming of meth labs in the SoCal area.

In general, I agree the government goes too far in trying to "outlaw stupidity". But this product has the potential for extreme destruction of others, not merely the buyer. I'd say this is more like a law controlling the sale of TNT or assault weapons than one that urges parents not to buy toys with tiny parts for babies (choking hazard).

I wonder....would you support a repeal of the Controlled Substances Act altogether? That would eliminate the need for a script to obtain a Rx drug, as well as legalize all the street drugs.

However you see this law, it seems to me that CVS admitted wrongdoing and while the fine is great, it does not help innocent third parties injured by CVS's negligence. Why shouldn't they be allowed to sue?

 

[Jos]

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.

What is Desoxyn?(legal meth)
And what does Ritalin do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate

 

[Madeline]

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.

What is Desoxyn?(legal meth)

I never heard of it, Jos. I have to say I dun get why meth appeals to anyone. Speed I can understand, but meth?

Ugh.

 

[del]

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.

Reckless and negligent?

Selling a legal, safe, product is somehow reckless and dangerous? Can a business be sued because some buys a baseball bat from them and uses it to smash mailboxes? What about if they use it to bash someone who is homosexual? Why should a businmess be liable for someone misusing a product they sell? Why should they be liable even if they are the manufacturers of that product?

This thread is actually about the nanny state and the dangers it imposes on everyone, and about how you support the government trying to outlaw stupidity and protect us from idiots. The fact that this results in people who actually need this medication being arrested, and charged, as drug dealers is apparently irrelevant to you.

Wabash Valley woman didn?t realize second cold medicine purchase violated drug laws Local & Bistate News From Terre Haute, Indiana

The sales were reckless or negligent, Quantum Windbag. CVS did not just agree to pay three quarters of a Billion dollars because it handled the product appropriately. The stores were supposed to record the names of buyers in a book and refuse to sell more than one or two packets at a time, and they did not. This failure led directly and foreseeably to a mushrooming of meth labs in the SoCal area.

In general, I agree the government goes too far in trying to "outlaw stupidity". But this product has the potential for extreme destruction of others, not merely the buyer. I'd say this is more like a law controlling the sale of TNT or assault weapons than one that urges parents not to buy toys with tiny parts for babies (choking hazard).

I wonder....would you support a repeal of the Controlled Substances Act altogether? That would eliminate the need for a script to obtain a Rx drug, as well as legalize all the street drugs.

However you see this law, it seems to me that CVS admitted wrongdoing and while the fine is great, it does not help innocent third parties injured by CVS's negligence. Why shouldn't they be allowed to sue?

$75MM isn't 3/4 of a billion. they fucked up; they settled, they moved on.

you should do the same because this is just silly.

i doubt that it led to a *mushrooming* of meth use in the area. if you've got proof of that, show it.

there's also nothing in what you linked that says individuals can't sue CVS.

 

[Revere]

It was a shakedown they agreed to pay to avoid further harrassment.

How asinine.

 

[Richard-H]

Ya know how fast a few attitudes would change if it were one of their relatives that got shot by a Meth addict, don't ya?

Suggesting that the government not control the availability of the ingredients for making Meth is insane. Meth is a drug that causes the user to be prone to extreme violence - it's manufactured violent insanity.

The government's requirement that records be kept as to who is buying the ingredients to make meth is very reasonable. They are not stopping the purchase of any medicines by anyone, but are subjecting the buyers to traceability.

CVS screwed up royally by failing to comply with the law and deserves the fine.

My only question is:

Who in CVS is responsible for making the decision to sell it off the shelf? I'd find it hard to believe the the top executives would agree to that decision.

Probably a mid-level regional manager that was being paid off by the meth dealers. They should hang him by the gonads!

 

[Madeline]

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.

I would agree with you except that when it explodes, cooking meth sets the air on fire and forms a toxic gas. Not even a diesel fuel and fertilizer bomb can do that. Given its potential for extreme destruction, I say the reckless and/or negligent sale of the product FORESEEABLY led to the death or injury of INNOCENT third parties, such as police, fire and neighbors who had nothing at all to do with making, buying or using any illegal drug.

Those victims -- NOT drug addicts or dealers -- I think should have free reign to sue CVS into the earth.

Sorry, it's not CVS's fault that the purchaser intentionally misuses the product and creates a dangerous and illegal situation.

Your position just does not make sense to me, Radioman. If the law is reasonable enough to support a $77 Million fine, why wouldn't that same deviation from the company's legal duty support a lawsuit by a person injured by that breach of duty in a way any reasonable person could foresee?

Let's say your company sells propane, a highly volatile gas, in those little tanks. You are legally obligated to buy tanks that have a double safety release thingie, to prevent explosions. You instead buy cheaper tanks that lack this protection, sell 100's of them and one day, an explosion occurs as a result. The explosion kills not your customer, but his neighbor. Or it kills one of your employees during a delivery.

You feel the neighbor's or employees survivors should not be able to sue your company?

 

[Trajan]

I am trying to get my mind around the irony of cali trying to legalize pot for personal use (with little to nothing heard from the president), folks who want to pull the plug on the war on drugs and legalize them with this ‘outrage’….