CVS Pays Largest Fine In History Of Controlled Substances Act

[Jos]

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.[/QUOTE]
Desoxyn is one of the legal forms of Methamphetamine ( not to be perscribed to under 12's)
Methamphetamine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Revere]

Reasonable people don't make meth.

 

[Revere]

Madeline would like to see CVS sued if someone bought a case of insulin, which is controlled, and dropped it on someone's head from a rooftop, which, like the production of meth from cold medicine, has nothing to do with its intende use, killing someone on the street below.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

No, the sales were illegal. That did not make them either reckless, or dangerous. CVS paid a fine to avoid criminal charges which, combined with the court costs, would probably have been much higher. You want to know how I know this law is wrong, other than the example I already gave? Prosecutors talking in hyperbole is a strong indication that they know, somewhere inside, that they are full of shit.

"CVS knew it had a duty to prevent methamphetamine trafficking, but it failed to take steps to control the sale of a regulated drug used by methamphetamine cooks as an essential ingredient for their poisonous stew."

CVS accused of helping to fuel meth drug production, pays record $75-million fine - Los Angeles Times

Why does CVS, or anyone who is not a sworn law enforcement officer, have a duty to prevent anything? Does CVS also have a duty to prevent people from using bleach in a way that is harmful to the environment?

By the way, nothing I read anywhere says CVS admitting anything more than a lapse in its own policies. You're a lawyer, I am sure you understand how settlements work.

 

[Madeline]

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.

*Look of shame*

Yes, it just dawned on me that a Billion is 1,000 Million, not 100. I am in error.

Through failing to monitor these transactions, the pharmacy helped methamphetamine traffickers in Southern California and the area around Las Vegas to get their hands on "large amounts" of pseudophedrine, the prosecutors said in a statement - adding that the sales fueled a rise in methamphetamine production in California.

From the linked article in the Op.

 

[ConHog]

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.

That is because YOU are an idiot. It shows more and more everyday. ANY product can be misused. The manufacture of that product can not possibly be held responsible for every instance of misuse of their product.

Let me ask you, Should HP be held responsible if someone uses one of their cameras to produce kiddie porn?

 

[RadiomanATL]

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?

Except that the user of the propane was not mixing it with other chemicals to make an illegal substance. Your analogy is flawed.

Using your propane example, if the user was making bombs in order to firebomb schoolyards, then just too damn bad if the thing blew up in his face. The seller of the propane should be fined for selling a faulty product, but he is not responsible for the illegal acts that the purchaser was using the products for.

And saying that the users and police should be able to sue is flawed as well. You would have to prove, by a majority of evidence, that the manufacturer of the meth was only able to manufacturer this substance because of CVS's negligence. And that if CVS had not done this, then the manufacturer of the meth would not have been able to produce his product.

No way is this happening. Meth manufacturers aren't going to say "Well, I can't get the substance from CVS, so I guess I am out of business".

 

[Revere]

And there's no evidence any cold medicine CVS sold actually blew anyone up.