Cops now need probably cause… not just an OPINION

Supreme Court: Cops can’t hold suspects to wait for drug-sniffing dog

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the Constitution forbids police from holding a suspect without probable cause, even for fewer than 10 extra minutes.

Writing on behalf of the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared that the constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure prevent police from extending an otherwise completed traffic stop to allow for a drug-sniffing dog to arrive.

“We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures,” she ruled.

The case, Rodriguez v. United States, was brought by a man who was pulled over for driving on the shoulder of a Nebraska highway. After the police pulled him over, checked his license and issued a warning for his erratic driving, the officer asked whether he could walk his drug-sniffing dog around the vehicle.

The driver, Dennys Rodriguez, refused. However, the officer nonetheless detained him for “seven or eight minutes” until a backup officer arrived. Then, the original officer retrieved his dog.

After sniffing around the car, the dog detected drugs, and Rodriguez was indicted for possessing methamphetamine. In all, the stop lasted less than 30 minutes.

According to the Supreme Court, though, that search of Rodriguez’s car was illegal, and the evidence gathered in it should not be used at trial. While officers may use a dog to sniff around a car during the course of a routine traffic stop, they cannot extend the length of the stop in order to carry it out.

“[T]he tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’ — to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop,” Ginsburg ruled. “Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are — or reasonably should have been — completed.”

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy disagreed with the ruling, arguing that police can reasonably detain people to investigate other possible violations of the law.

In his dissenting opinion, Thomas said that majority’s ruling makes “meaningless” the legal difference between “reasonable suspicion” — which does not authorize a search of someone’s property — and “probable cause,” which does.

“Had Officer Struble arrested, handcuffed, and taken Rodriguez to the police station for his traffic violation, he would have complied with the Fourth Amendment,” he wrote, using the majority’s argument.

“But because he made Rodriguez wait for seven or eight extra minutes until a dog arrived, he evidently committed a constitutional violation. Such a view of the Fourth Amendment makes little sense.”

I Live In Chronic Pain

https://youtu.be/f5LBmlwjiPc

 

regulatory board controlled by professionals is not immune from antitrust law

Court ruling sparks request to review Oklahoma boards

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/17/court-ruling-sparks-request-to-review-oklahoma-boa/

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) – Three consumer organizations have asked Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to review the composition of Oklahoma’s numerous licensing boards to determine whether board members are vulnerable to criminal and civil antitrust actions.

Letters were sent to Pruitt and the attorneys general of other states following a U.S. Supreme Court decision in February urging them to review state licensing boards that are comprised primarily of participants in the professions and trades the boards regulate to determine whether they may be at risk of violating antitrust laws, The Oklahoman reported Sunday (http://bit.ly/1Ad8R6J ).

The Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, Oklahoma Board of Dentistry, Oklahoma Board of Nursing and Oklahoma State Board of Pharmacy are among numerous state boards that could be affected.

The letters were written by representatives of Consumers Union, the Citizen Advocacy Center and the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. The groups contend states must change how they regulate and license professions and trades in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

“The new decision holds that a regulatory board controlled by professionals in the market regulated by that board is not immune from antitrust law unless an independent state entity reviews each of its decisions for anti-competitive effect,” the consumer groups said in a news release. “This puts the members of most state regulatory boards at risk of criminal charges and possible treble damages.”

A spokesman for Pruitt, Aaron Cooper, said the office is evaluating the request.

 State Rep. Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, believes the Supreme Court ruling could have major implications in Oklahoma. Morrissette recently conducted a Legislative inquiry into whether the Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision violated the due process rights of Tulsa orthopedic surgeon Steven Anagnost in an effort to discredit the doctor, who was a medical competitor.

Lyle Kelsey, executive director of the medical board, said the board feels “pretty comfortable” it’s complying with the intent of the ruling.

___

The price of Cocaine on the street… can you hear it dropping ?

Defying U.S., Colombia Halts Aerial Spraying of Crops Used to Make Cocaine

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/world/americas/colombia-halts-us-backed-spraying-of-illegal-coca-crops.html?_r=2

BOGOTÁ, Colombia — The government of Colombia on Thursday night rejected a major tool in the American-backed antidrug campaign — ordering a halt to the aerial spraying of the country’s vast illegal plantings of coca, the crop used to make cocaine, citing concerns that the spray causes cancer.

The decision ends a program that has continued for more than two decades, raising questions about the viability of long-accepted strategies in the war on drugs in the region.

Colombia is one of the closest allies of the United States in Latin America and its most stalwart partner on antidrug policy, but the change of strategy has the potential to add a new element of tension to the relationship.

Just last week, American officials warned that the amount of land used to grow coca in Colombia grew by 39 percent last year as aerial spraying to kill or stunt the crop, already a contentious issue here, declined.

“The folks who run counternarcotics never want to give up any of their tools, and there are pockets of discontent inside the U.S. government with this decision,” said Adam Isacson, a senior associate of the Washington Office on Latin America, a research group.

“Colombia and the United States have been in lock step on a hard-line approach” in how to fight drug trafficking, he added. “It’s the first time there’s been light between the two countries on what the strategy should be, in recent memory.”

The decision to halt the spraying, which was backed by President Juan Manuel Santos, came after an agency of the World Health Organization declared in March that the herbicide used here, a chemical called glyphosate, probably causes cancer in humans.

The chemical, the active ingredient in the popular weedkiller Roundup, is the most widely used herbicide in the world. Colombian officials have said that a previous Supreme Court ruling in their country called for an end to the spraying if health concerns involving the chemical were found.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency has determined that there is a “lack of convincing e vidence” to consider it a cancer risk to humans.

Before Thursday’s decision, the United States had pressed the Colombian government to continue the spraying program. The American ambassador in Bogotá, Kevin Whitaker, published an op-ed article in El Tiempo, one of the country’s main newspapers, over the weekend, defending the program.

But he has also stressed that Colombia’s decision would not harm diplomatic relations.

“This is their sovereign decision to make, and we will respect that and we will continue to use the tools that are available to us, as Colombia wishes us to do, to continue to be a partner with them in this fight,” Mr. Whitaker said in an interview a day before the decision was taken.

“We have lots of tools to help Colombia address the problem of transnational crime and narco-trafficking.”

He said that includes providing intelligence on drug traffickers, encouraging farmers to grow other crops, intercepting drug shipments, focusing on shutting down drug labs and supporting efforts to pull up and destroy coca plants by hand.

Thursday’s decision involved only the use of the herbicide in the coca spraying program. The government has not moved to ban use of the herbicide by farmers who grow legal crops and use it to kill weeds.

The spraying program was steeped in controversy even before the declaration was made in March by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Colombia is the only coca-producing country that uses airplanes to spray and kill the crop. The other major producers, Peru and Bolivia, have shunned spraying.

Critics of spraying in Colombia said that it was harmful to the health of rural residents and that it caused environmental damage.

The spraying also alienated the poor farmers who have often felt that they had little choice but to grow coca to feed their families.

But opponents of the spraying ban have argued that ending spraying could lead to a boom in cocaine production and favor traffickers and rebel groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, which depends on the drug trade for much of its financing and has advocated an end to spraying.

They have also pointed out that one alternative, eradicating plants by hand, is dangerous because it involves sending troops and workers into areas controlled by traffickers and guerrilla troops. Many eradication workers have been killed and wounded by land mines or in armed confrontations in drug-growing areas.

Spraying with glyphosate began in the 1990s on a small scale and by the early 2000s it was established as a crucial aspect of Plan Colombia, a multibillion dollar push by the United States to aid in fighting rebel groups and drug traffickers in the country.

It reached its peak in 2006, when more than 405,000 acres were sprayed, according to data compiled for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

But aerial spraying has fallen sharply over the last two years, even as coca plantings jumped. Last year, 137,000 acres were sprayed, while the amount of land planted with coca increased to 276,758 acres in Colombia, compared with 198,919 acres the previous year.

Daniel Mejía, the director of the Center for Security and Drug Studies, a research group in Bogotá, said that spraying was inefficient and counterproductive.

“I would recommend attacking the links in the chain of drug trafficking, the labs where cocaine is processed, the large shipments of chemicals, which is really where the hard drug trafficking is, where organized crime is,” Mr. Mejía said. “It has been shown that attacking the farmers doesn’t work.”

Rafael Nieto, a former vice-minister of justice, questioned the rationale behind halting spraying, saying that more eradication workers would be put at risk.

“If the spraying is stopped, the income of the drug traffickers, the criminal gangs and the guerrillas will go up substantially and so will the number of dead and wounded,” Mr. Nieto said. “Coca and cocaine production would also go up, and there would be more addicts and more people will die.”

The impact of the decision on the peace talks underway between the government and the FARC are uncertain. Some critics of the decision say that it removes a critical element of pressure on the group that could help push it toward a deal to lay down its arms.

The two sides have reached a preliminary deal on cooperating to fight drug trafficking, which would go into effect if an overall peace deal is reached. It calls for the government to work with rural communities to help them grow legal crops and increase government services in those areas. It says that spraying could be used only as a last resort.

 On Monday, the government said that the armed forces had raided 63 illegal mines operated by the FARC to extract gold and other minerals. It said shutting down the mines would take away millions of dollars in monthly income for the group.

Unintended consequences of misguided “morally good intentions”?

New DEA rule leaves patients in pain

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/241982-new-dea-rule-leaves-patients-in-pain

My Dad took the term “spring break” literally.

About a month ago, my 61-year-old father fell off a ladder while trimming some trees. After several long hours in the ER, he learned that his leg was severely injured and would require surgery. He was sent home with some painkillers and instructions to call the orthopedic surgeon first thing Monday morning.

After calling the surgeon, my parents learned that they would not see the doctor for almost a week. While the mental pain of waiting was tough, the physical pain was arguably worse. The painkillers given to my father at the hospital would not last that long. To obtain more, he was required to make a trip to the doctor’s office for a prescription. The problem is obvious—“getting to the office” is not an easy proposition when your house has stairs and one leg is nonfunctional.

Had this accident happened a year ago, his doctor could have called the prescription into the pharmacy, where my mother could have picked up the painkillers. This past October, however, the DEA decided to change a variety of painkillers from Schedule III to Schedule II drugs. This change, though seemingly small, requires, among other things, that patients be seen by a doctor before getting a prescription. Prescriptions for Schedule II medications cannot be called or faxed into a pharmacy, and doctors may only write prescriptions for a 30-day quantity.

The shift in scheduling was prompted by a sharp increase in the use and abuse of painkillers in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control, enough painkillers were prescribed in 2010 to medicate every adult in America for a straight month. Sales and deaths related to painkillers have increased markedly since 1999.

While these DEA rule changes may sound like a good idea, they result in serious unintended consequences. My father only required one trip to the doctor, but others are less fortunate. Thousands of Americans suffering from chronic pain rely on those drugs to function. The new regulations mean these individuals now face greater difficulties getting their needed medication. In a recent article, the Washington Post reported that the rule is taking a particularly difficult toll on veterans suffering from battlefield injuries like missing limbs and PTSD.

One may argue that having to go to the doctor’s office once a month for a refill is no big deal if it prevents drug abuse. Consider, however, that an average doctor visit costs about $69 out of pocket, assuming the patient has insurance. An individual who could have gone to the doctor twice a year for pain medication may now have to go every month. Assuming he’s charged the average cost of an office visit, he’d pay an extra $690 a year. This extra cost does not include the price of transportation, time taken off work, time spent waiting at the pharmacy, etc. When considering that many people regularly taking painkillers are veterans or other persons on fixed incomes, these costs can be a serious financial strain.

But those in search of pain medications aren’t the only ones who will bear the costs. Since doctors’ offices must now contend with more patients, more appointments, and more paperwork, these changes are likely to increase wait times for all patients.

The debate over drug use in the United States is ongoing. Since the war on drugs began in the 1970s, the U.S. government has played a unending game of “whack-a-mole,” restricting one drug, only to have another drug take its place. Those using prescription painkillers to get high will find other alternatives. The rest of us, however, are stuck with more time at the doctor’s office, higher medical costs, and more difficulty getting medications we need. Those who pay the highest price are the thousands of American men and women who, thanks to the new restrictions, will face an even greater struggle to manage their pain.

Person sues Walgreens over false arrest over forged Rx

corbettvswags   <<—- full *.pdf lawsuit

Person has wallet/purse stolen… someone uses her driver’s license to pass forged Rx for controlled substance… Walgreen’s Pharmacist has person on the driver’s license arrested… OPPS ?

Poor James… the victim of drug abuse ?

https://youtu.be/UN0QA1rnJps

Here is James video on youtube.com … part of the CDC program drawing attention to drug/substance abuse… IMO.. James believes that he is a VICTIM of the potentially addicting properties of controlled substances…  He started smoking MJ and drinking alcohol … “like everyone else did”… then graduated to “nerve pills”.. which graduated to “pain pills” and then graduated to being a “IV drug user”…

I am happy that James turned his life around…but when is the last time that you heard anyone talk about ALCOHOL being a gateway drug.. yes ALCOHOL is a drug.

IMO.. James is not a victim… he just made some bad choices… we all made some bad choices in our lives…  people chose to drive when drunk… people chose not to that their medication for their chronic conditions… some diabetics do not follow an appropriate diet and control their blood sugar.. Some people only eat one meal a day.. starting when they wake up and stop when they go to bed…

 

Counterfeits … they’re everywhere…. everywhere …

ABC News Investigation Into Counterfeit Prescription Drug Operations in the US

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/abc-news-investigation-counterfeit-prescription-drug-operations-us/story?id=31077758

ABC 20/20 had a full hour on counterfeit products … just about everything.. from medication… shoes.. clothing…

We know that people tried to forge Rxs… we know that people try to forge ID’s… we know that hackers have gotten into all kinds of databases… including large hospital systems and large health insurance companies…

YET… all to many people.. especially bureaucrats… put their faith that the various states’ PMP is exempt of being affected by all these fakes/forgeries

Yes the law states that the pt MUST PRESENT A LEGAL ID… it is going to be the exceptional Rx dept staff member that can tell a good forged ID from a legal ID.

It is totally unknown how many forged Rxs get past Pharmacists and gets filled… if they can’t figure out a forged Rx… what is the changes of catching a fake ID.

 

When you “play with snakes” don’t be surprised if you get bitten

FedEx stresses record of cooperating with feds in lawsuit

FedEx Corp. says government claims that it conspires with illegal online pharmacies don’t tell the whole story — especially the part about how the company helps to drive those websites out of business.

As a drug-trafficking and money-laundering case heads toward trial, with the potential for almost $1 billion in fines, the parcel-shipping service is trying to show it’s being punished for doing the right thing.

The company said as far back as 2002, 12 years before it was accused of scheming with “rogue” online drugstores to deliver controlled substances to dealers and addicts, it was assisting federal agencies with investigations of pill purveyors.

FedEx helped the government win convictions of the very companies the shipper is accused of conspiring with, defense lawyer Cris Arguedas said in court Thursday.

FedEx won a ruling Thursday compelling the federal government to hand over documents it says will show its “state of mind” and that it was acting in good faith. Such evidence may plant seeds of doubt in the minds of jurors or a judge, said Larry Cote, a former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration associate counsel.

“If there’s information that FedEx can get from the government, or that they have, to demonstrate that it was cooperating with the government to prosecute these bad actors, then it’s certainly going to undermine the government’s position that FedEx was in fact conspiring with these same bad actors,” Cote said.

FedEx failed Thursday to persuade U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco to dismiss the charges based on a federal law that the company claimed grants it an exemption from policing whether the 4 million packages it delivers daily contain contraband.

Prosecutors contended FedEx’s interpretation of the law would give carriers “carte blanche” to knowingly distribute illegal drugs.

The judge agreed.

“I just think that it’s not that it’s an uphill battle; it’s an impossible battle,” Breyer told FedEx’s lawyers while denying their request to dismiss the case. “I don’t want to deny you your moment of eloquence, but I just want to tell you that it’s not going to work.”

Breyer ordered the FBI and other agencies to turn over communications that FedEx says show it has long cooperated with the government’s crackdown on companies that are shipping drugs without proper prescriptions.

The government argued that the Food and Drug Administration is the only agency behind the criminal investigation and that FedEx’s demand for information from three other federal agencies and at least five states is an overreach.

Tim Crudo, a former federal prosecutor, called the case an “aggressive” prosecution in an interview before the hearing Thursday. Crudo, a defense lawyer not involved in the case, said the government may seek to show FedEx’s cooperation was “half-hearted” or that it was “cooperating with one hand and with the other hand going about business as usual.”

Abraham Simmons, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag in San Francisco, declined before the hearing to comment on the case.

FedEx and its alleged co-conspirators could be fined twice the gains from the illegal conduct, alleged to be at least $820 million. The Memphis-based company and individuals who ran the illicit pharmacies “knowingly and intentionally” schemed to launder more than $630,000 in shipping payments that were derived from drug sales, according to a revised indictment in August.

United Parcel Service Inc. agreed in 2013 to forfeit $40 million in payments from illicit online pharmacies under a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department. Walgreen Co. and CVS Caremark Corp. have paid a total of more than $150 million in civil fines over claims they sold medications knowing they weren’t for legitimate medical use.

FedEx has said “settlement is not an option” in the case. Cote said the company appears willing to fight the charges at trial, which is set for February.

The government said in the indictment that the shipping company knew it was delivering drugs to dealers and addicts, with couriers in Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia expressing concerns to managers that FedEx trucks were stopped on the road by online pharmacy customers demanding packages of pills. Some delivery addresses were parking lots or vacant homes, prosecutors said.

Looking back 100 years

1915-Rules-for-Teachers

Most of us were not around 100 years ago… but it is very interesting how things have changed in our country over the last 100 years …

100 years ago, our country was in what is now known as our “Prohibitionist Period ”

1913 was the first Federal Income Tax

1914 The Harrison Narcotic Act was passed and opiate addiction was determined to be a CRIME – creating a huge black market for opiates & MJ

1920 The 18th Amendment was passed that started alcohol prohibition – which created a huge black market for alcohol – which was repealed in 1933 with the 21st Amendment.

1920  The 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote

1929  The first modern group health insurance plan was formed.

100 years ago… the average life expectancy was in the mid-late 50’s.. there were no antibiotics… no vaccines… no Medicare…. no Medicaid

There is been much progress over the last 100 yrs in regards to the health and healthcare of those in our society… with seemingly the exception of those with mental health issues particularly those with addictive personalities… for those people.. our healthcare seems to still be working on the collective mindset of 100 yrs ago.. and of course… all those hundreds of millions of chronic pain pts that are being denied care because of our society’s early 20th century mindset about opiates..