Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Police to track prescription drugs

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Police to track prescription drugs

    Next time you're purchasing a new gun and have to answer the drug use question, consider this:

    Washington Department of Health Announces plan to Let Cops and Others Track the Drugs You Take

    Snip: The Washington State Department of Health announced yesterday that it will soon begin a Prescription Drug Monitoring program that lets "health care providers, patients, law enforcement, and others" monitor records of drugs that have been prescribed to people. /SNIP

    But you're not addicted you say? Once they have access, how long before someone starts doing searches by dose/month and finds that (despite what your doctor believes) you have crossed an arbitrary line and are no longer qualified to purchase?

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    There must be some kind of HIPAA violation here, right? Why is it any of their business? If the pharmacy thinks your prescriptions are bad they will call your doctor for confirmation. If the prescriptions are fake, they can call the cops. This is just another unnecessary government intrusion.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  3. #3
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    I took a look at the link you posted for the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program and what you are suggesting is misleading at best to suggest they will be using this when buying a gun.

    Who can access information in the system?

    The following groups can access the information under PMP law and rule:

    • Persons authorized to prescribe or dispense controlled substances to provide medical or pharmaceutical care for their patients;
    • An individual who requests their own prescription monitoring information;
    • Health professional licensing, certification, or regulatory agency or entity;
    • Local, state, and federal law enforcement or prosecutorial officials engaged in an investigation involving a designated person;
    • Medical examiners and coroners for cause of death determination;
    • Authorized practitioners of the Department of Social and Health Services or the Health Care Authority regarding medicaid program recipients;
    • The director or director's designee within the Department of Labor and Industries for workers' compensation claimants;
    • The director or the director's designee within the Department of Corrections for offenders committed to the Department of Corrections;
    • Other entities under grand jury subpoena or court order; and
    • Personnel of the department for purposes of administration and enforcement of this rule or Chapter 69.50 RCW.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    I took a look at the link you posted for the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program and what you are suggesting is misleading at best to suggest they will be using this when buying a gun.
    I disagree. For a few reasons: There is no demand for a warrant in the law. There are only civil penalties for improper release of the information.

    My last sentence was: "Once they have access, how long before someone starts doing searches by dose/month and finds that (despite what your doctor believes) you have crossed an arbitrary line and are no longer qualified to purchase?"

    I did not say they're reviewing the data now. I asked how long before they actively do? Remember when seat belt or cell phone usage were not primary offenses?

    Do you really think that you can give police access to a database and not have some young patrolman with moderate computer skills and some ambition find a way to make a name for themselves?

    If it does not happen within one year I will buy you a coffee*.

    *Coffee: tall, no additional toppings, non-fat, not hot enough to scald, normal business hours, within 30 miles of Bellevue, WA.

  5. #5
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim675 View Post
    If it does not happen within one year I will buy you a coffee*.

    *Coffee: tall, no additional toppings, non-fat, not hot enough to scald, normal business hours, within 30 miles of Bellevue, WA.
    I will take you up on that coffee, and look at all those disclaimers! LOL, I think Starbucks offer prepaid LOL it is on my Google calendar to remind me
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Did you see that most states already do this? Absolutely no personal data is too personal to be used against you for your own good.

    Can't wait until I can conveniently order food (up to my daily caloric/fat/salt allowances) by swiping my ID card with my debit card.

    Its now one step closer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4LtYMNl4yw

  7. #7
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    ...'nuther good reason to switch one's prescriptions to OTC supplements (if possible, of course). At least they can't track those.

    Yes.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    ...'nuther good reason to switch one's prescriptions to OTC supplements (if possible, of course). At least they can't track those.

    Yes.
    That is unless it contains pseudoephedrine. Those are OTC and are also tracked. A grandmother ended up arrested when her and a couple family members got sick and she was caught going over the legal limit for pseudoephedrine purchases when she bought a multiple cold and flu packages a few days apart.

    http://tribstar.com/local/x46868452/...ated-drug-laws

  9. #9
    Regular Member fire suppressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kitsap County
    Posts
    872
    Something to keep a eye one it will be interesting to see how HIPPA and other privacy laws effect this. To me this would have the police playing the role of a therapist how would they be able to justify when your taking too much medicine, or how would they have enough medical knowledge to know how meds could effect you? I've taken a little pharmacology and it is amazing how much science and variables comes into play. Maybe we can all start calling the police station to discuss our feelings when our gold fish die
    "Fight like you train, train like you fight"

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayd1981 View Post
    That is unless it contains pseudoephedrine. Those are OTC and are also tracked. A grandmother ended up arrested when her and a couple family members got sick and she was caught going over the legal limit for pseudoephedrine purchases when she bought a multiple cold and flu packages a few days apart.

    http://tribstar.com/local/x46868452/...ated-drug-laws
    More proof of how this nation is becoming a god damned nanny state.

    Yes. I did mean "god damned" for those of you who didn't believe at first.
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by .45ACPaddy View Post
    More proof of how this nation is becoming a god damned nanny state.

    Yes. I did mean "god damned" for those of you who didn't believe at first.
    Forsaken, yes. Damned, no. At least, not yet.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, WA
    Posts
    1,001
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Forsaken, yes. Damned, no. At least, not yet.
    Only a matter of time...
    Quote Originally Posted by SayWhat View Post

    Shooters before hooters.

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Just like anything else, there are those that get paranoid at the drop of a hat.

    Read the provision for Law Enforcement:

    [quote]--Local, state, and federal law enforcement or prosecutorial officials engaged in an investigation involving a designated person;
    Unless you are under investigation I seriously doubt that the "government" cares what you take as long as you have a prescription and YOU are the one taking it (as opposed to selling it like some do).

    Just about anything we do that involves Government can be stretched if you really want to. Own a house and pay for sewer service? What's to stop the "Government" from collecting your feces as you flush and analyzing them for possible illegal drug use? Consumption of unhealthy saturated fat in excess of daily guidelines? They can already examine the contents of your garbage once you put it out for collection.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Why add one more law?
    What is the OVERWHELMING public need?
    Live Free or Die!

  15. #15
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Why add one more law?
    What is the OVERWHELMING public need?
    +1
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Why add one more law?
    What is the OVERWHELMING public need?
    The peasants must be controlled. For their own good.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    SNIP... Unless you are under investigation I seriously doubt that the "government" cares what you take SNIP
    Good point. It not like every single asset every given to law enforcement has been repeatedly abused. Luckily police are above the normal human motivations of the rest of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    SNIP... What's to stop the "Government" from collecting your feces as you flush and analyzing them for possible illegal drug use? Consumption of unhealthy saturated fat in excess of daily guidelines? They can already examine the contents of your garbage once you put it out for collection. SNIP
    That would require effort far beyond what I said above. Simply searching a database out of curiosity at first. And then realizing that some numbers seem really large. Asking your pharmacist neighbor what's "normal". Producing a report for the narc team. No-knock warrants follow. And now your dog's dead....

  18. #18
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    I took a look at the link you posted for the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program and what you are suggesting is misleading at best to suggest they will be using this when buying a gun.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim675 View Post
    I disagree. For a few reasons: There is no demand for a warrant in the law. There are only civil penalties for improper release of the information.

    My last sentence was: "Once they have access, how long before someone starts doing searches by dose/month and finds that (despite what your doctor believes) you have crossed an arbitrary line and are no longer qualified to purchase?"

    I did not say they're reviewing the data now. I asked how long before they actively do? Remember when seat belt or cell phone usage were not primary offenses?

    Do you really think that you can give police access to a database and not have some young patrolman with moderate computer skills and some ambition find a way to make a name for themselves?

    If it does not happen within one year I will buy you a coffee*.

    *Coffee: tall, no additional toppings, non-fat, not hot enough to scald, normal business hours, within 30 miles of Bellevue, WA.
    That year is up on 11/14 and nothing has happened Jim, I will be in the area 11/7 to 11/9
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  19. #19
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    [QUOTE=amlevin;1649417]Just like anything else, there are those that get paranoid at the drop of a hat.

    Read the provision for Law Enforcement:

    --Local, state, and federal law enforcement or prosecutorial officials engaged in an investigation involving a designated person;
    Unless you are under investigation I seriously doubt that the "government" cares what you take as long as you have a prescription and YOU are the one taking it (as opposed to selling it like some do).

    Just about anything we do that involves Government can be stretched if you really want to. Own a house and pay for sewer service? What's to stop the "Government" from collecting your feces as you flush and analyzing them for possible illegal drug use? Consumption of unhealthy saturated fat in excess of daily guidelines? They can already examine the contents of your garbage once you put it out for collection.
    not without a warrant in the State of Washington
    State v. Boland
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Y'all might want to research the abuses that have already occurred in other states with this type of law. Jim is not far off the mark.

    I've read where doctors and pharmacies are targeted for crossing the arbitrary line. At least one physician who cared for terminally ill people was heavily targeted because he "wrote too many prescriptions" for strong pain-killers. It was a nightmare for him and his patients. Actually, I think the physician might have been a women.

    If it is coming to your state, you might want to knock some holes in the law or have it re-written to provide lots of protections against abuses. This thing has been a nightmare in other states.

    Check Radley Balko and google for starters.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-01-2012 at 02:29 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    What do they say around here> Say it Cite it!
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  22. #22
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    What do they say around here> Say it Cite it!
    Here article I, section 7 provides greater protection from state action than does the Fourth Amendment. State v. Simpson, 95 Wn.2d 170, 178, 622 P.2d 1199 (1980). The analysis under article I, section 7 begins with a determination of whether the State has intruded into a person's private affairs. State v. Boland, 115 Wn.2d 571, 577, 800 P.2d 1112 (1990). Unlike the Fourth Amendment and its reasonability determination, article I, section 7 protections are not “confined to the subjective privacy expectations of modern citizens.” State v. Myrick, 102 Wn.2d 506, 511, 688 P.2d 151 (1984). Instead article I, section 7 protects “those privacy interests which citizens of this state have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from governmental trespass absent a warrant.” Id.

    The Washington Supreme Court repeatedly has held the privacy protected by article I, section 7 survived where the reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment was destroyed. For example in Boland, 115 Wn.2d at 578, the Washington Supreme Court found a warrantless search of an individual's garbage violated article I, section 7, even though “it may be true an expectation that [others] will not sift through one's garbage is unreasonable … .” By contrast, the United States Supreme Court previously held individuals had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their garbage, and therefore there was no protection under the Fourth Amendment. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 108 S. Ct. 1625, 100 L. Ed. 2d 30 (1988).

    The Washington Supreme Court held the same in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986). In Gunwall, id. at 55, the Washington Supreme Court considered whether the State could collect, without a warrant, phone numbers dialed by an individual. United States Supreme Court precedent holds an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is destroyed when he dials a phone number because he “had to convey that number to the telephone company … .” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44, 99 S. Ct. 2577, 61 L. Ed. 2d 220 (1979). But the Washington Supreme Court held the individual privacy interest, no matter how unreasonably held, survives the conveyance of the phone number to the phone company and, as such, article I, section 7 prohibits collecting these numbers without a warrant. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d at 69.

    The individual's privacy interest protected by article I, section 7 survives the exposure that occurs when it is intruded upon by a private actor. Unlike the reasonable expectation of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment, the individual's privacy interest is not extinguished simply because a private actor has actually intruded upon, or is likely to intrude upon, the interest. The private search does not work to destroy the article I, section 7 interest, unlike the Fourth Amendment's, because the Fourth Amendment's rationale does not apply to our state constitutional protections.

    State v. Eisfeldt, 163 Wn.2d 628, 636-638 (2008)

    In many respects, the constitutional protections by the Washington Constitution offer markedly greater protections than does the federal Bill of Rights when it comes to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures and protection of our privacy rights.
    Last edited by rapgood; 11-01-2012 at 04:11 PM. Reason: corrected typo
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  23. #23
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    rapgood you got to be bored but thanks for those cites but I was looking for Citizens supporting statement of "I've read where doctors and pharmacies are targeted for crossing the arbitrary line. At least one physician who cared for terminally ill people was heavily targeted because he "wrote too many prescriptions" for strong pain-killers. It was a nightmare for him and his patients. Actually, I think the physician might have been a women." and the bet was for one year, it is almost due.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    rapgood you got to be bored but thanks for those cites but I was looking for Citizens supporting statement of "I've read where doctors and pharmacies are targeted for crossing the arbitrary line. At least one physician who cared for terminally ill people was heavily targeted because he "wrote too many prescriptions" for strong pain-killers. It was a nightmare for him and his patients. Actually, I think the physician might have been a women." and the bet was for one year, it is almost due.
    Oh, come on Dave. I gave you a thread to pull if you were interested. Citing a source for law is a forum rule. Other stuff, not so much.

    But, just to help you out, here's a couple to start:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley...b_1240722.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTJPraJZwno
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Well well well guess what?

    http://www.wapmp.org/
    Washington State Prescription Monitoring Program

    The Prescription Monitoring Program (Prescription Review) is a patient safety tool. Practitioners will have access to the information before they prescribe or dispense drugs. The information provided allows a practitioner to look for duplicate prescribing, misuse, drug interactions, and other potential concerns. By having this information available before prescribing or dispensing, a practitioner can provide improved care to their patients.

    On October 7, 2011 dispensers began submitting data for the program on Schedules II, III, IV and V controlled substances dispensed to patients. The protected health information will be collected and stored securely.

    As of May 2012 all user groups outlined in our law and rules can request patient prescription information.

    For more information, browse this website or contact the PMP staff.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •