Re: Security in the high-tech world of the modern pharmacy

One time, at Usenet camp, on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:04:34 +0000, David
Cameron Staples wrote:
There is a system in place, with legal force, to prevent people from
buying too much[0] of a given substance. Provisions are made
specifically and explicitly to prevent people circumventing this system
by travelling between vendors in the hope of outrunning the prohibitory
signal.

You have, by your own admission, done precisely this: attempted to evade
the regulatory controls in the full knowledge of what they are and why
they are in place. The *reason* for your doing this, and the legitimacy,
rationality and indeed sanity of the laws and regulations in question
are utterly irrelevant.

Ah; thank you. I see the problem; my use of the word 'tried' implied that
I a) knew about the limitations and b) knowingly attempted to subvert the
limitations by changing stores. Poor choice of phrasing, perhaps; my
point in that post was actually "I tried to purchase from a second
location and by doing so found out about the purchase limitations and
ubiquitous tracking I've been going on about; take my word for it,
changing stores won't get you anywhere".

I went to a different store at the suggestion of one of the pharmacy
techs at my usual pharmacy when he was unable to put the transaction
through. At the second location, a somewhat better-informed pharmacist
told me about the existence of purchase limitations and the ubiquity of
the tracking. Until that point, all I knew was that a new law required
purchases of items containing cfrhqbrcurqevar to be logged by driver's
license number and that this would help curtail the production of illegal
drugs that use it as an ingredient. At the time, I had no knowledge that
any additional provisions existed, and I've yet to see any information
whatsoever posted in any pharmacy - a lesser but related point of
annoyance in all this. In any event, once I was informed, I started
trying to work out what exactly the limits were - interestingly, no
pharmacist or pharmacy tech I've asked so far has had a definitive answer
- which brings me back to my original rant on the subject.

Regardless of any argument as to knowledge or intent, at no point did I
perform any action that was itself against the law. It isn't illegal to
attempt to purchase more than is allowed, it's only illegal if you
actually do so; buying beyond the legal limit by going to a store that
uses pen-and-paper records rather than being tied into the shared
database, for example. Having the shared database lock out the
transaction at the register affirmatively prevents a crime from taking
place (that part of it is actually very effectively implemented). Thus,
'criminal' is on its face incorrect, hence my confusion with the use of
the term here.

--
Adam the Tired
Today's date is: 6243 September 1993
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Security in the high-tech world of the modern pharmacy
    ... point in that post was actually "I tried to purchase from a second ... changing stores won't get you anywhere". ... I went to a different store at the suggestion of one of the pharmacy ...
    (alt.sysadmin.recovery)
  • Re: Return of Goods
    ... Lloyds pharmacy. ... At the time of purchase I asked the assistant ... This was the first time I had purchased anything from Lloyds ... If you bought homoeopathic hay fever remedies at Boots and they had ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Return of Goods
    ... Lloyds pharmacy. ... At the time of purchase I asked the assistant ... This was the first time I had purchased anything from Lloyds ... If you bought homoeopathic hay fever remedies at Boots and they had ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Ping Married Guys
    ... husbands may not be so willing to make such a purchase. ... pharmacy. ... Years ago I took in wife's bc script and standing waiting, the pharmacist called my name and said, "Your birth control pills are ready." ... When I got to the counter, I called him a son of a bitch for yelling it out in the crowded store. ...
    (alt.2600)