Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

CVS fines for selling key ingredient for Meth, thoughts?

CVS Pharmacy Inc. has agreed to pay $75 million in fines for allowing repeated purchases of a key ingredient in the making of methamphetamine in at least five states that also led to a spike in Southern California drug trafficking, authorities said Thursday.

The nation's largest operator of retail pharmacies will pay what federal prosecutors said was the largest civil penalty ever assessed under the Controlled Substances Act.

The company also will forfeit about $2.6 million in profits earned from the sales of pseudoephedrine, which can often be found in cold medicine and is used to make meth.

Authorities said CVS didn't provide enough safeguards to monitor how much pseudoephedrine someone was buying, and the company violated federal drug regulations in Arizona, Georgia, California, Nevada, South Carolina and possibly 20 other states.

"CVS knew it had a duty to prevent methamphetamine trafficking," said U.S. Attorn

Answer Question
 
sweet-a-kins

Asked by sweet-a-kins at 3:28 PM on Oct. 14, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 34 (67,502 Credits)
Answers (20)
  • sweet-a-kins

    Comment by sweet-a-kins (original poster) at 3:29 PM on Oct. 14, 2010

  • IDK how the tracking works, but you have to swipe your ID when you buy it. I thought that was for federal auditing. I guess if they didn't have their database collecting the info and bouncing the transaction when it already had info that the buyers had already reached their limit then they deserve the fine.


    Pseudoephedrine is the only thing that will keep me from getting a sinus infection. I would hate to see it banned and done away with completely.

    QuinnMae

    Answer by QuinnMae at 3:33 PM on Oct. 14, 2010

  • Here's the thing, the ingredients in Meth are very very simple to get - chances are most people have them in their home already. Laws were put in to place which were meant to limit the sale of these things - for example in most states you are only permitted to sell up to 2 boxes of pseudoephedrine at a time... Now, what does this do? Well, it increases the likelihood that the criminals are just going to steal it, it doesn't actually increase the chances that people are not going to go make Meth. I think laws like this are simply stupid... I understand WHY they were put in place, but in practice they simply don't hold their water...
    SabrinaMBowen

    Answer by SabrinaMBowen at 3:35 PM on Oct. 14, 2010

  • They're already tracking purchases of pseudoephedrine. Shouldn't it be the DEA who flags people who purchase unusual amounts? This is putting an awful lot of responsibility on a drugstore's database administrators and IT personnel to make something work across thousands of stores.
    SWasson

    Answer by SWasson at 3:36 PM on Oct. 14, 2010

  • Pseudoephedrine is the only thing that will keep me from getting a sinus infection. I would hate to see it banned and done away with completely.


    I don't use it. But I don't understand why a legal item would be made illegal because some use it illegally...Shouldn't guns be banned then? Alcohol??

    sweet-a-kins

    Comment by sweet-a-kins (original poster) at 3:44 PM on Oct. 14, 2010

  • I thought privitization was the solution to everything.

    What's wrong with requiring private businesses contribute to the drug war too by policing the products they sell?
    UpSheRises

    Answer by UpSheRises at 3:47 PM on Oct. 14, 2010

  • I thought privitization was the solution to everything.

    What's wrong with requiring private businesses contribute to the drug war too by policing the products they sell?


    Good point! and then business owners could decide for themselves who to sell it too...yada yada yada.....


     

    sweet-a-kins

    Comment by sweet-a-kins (original poster) at 3:49 PM on Oct. 14, 2010

  • I don't use it. But I don't understand why a legal item would be made illegal because some use it illegally...Shouldn't guns be banned then? Alcohol??


    Not saying they would, but if it's up to the retailer to police the sale of it and they are liable they may opt to discontinue products that contain it.  Thankfully I don't have to use it often, but I usually prefer to take a few doses of cold meds that contain it rather than going a full round of antibiotics.  But that's just a personal preference.

    QuinnMae

    Answer by QuinnMae at 3:51 PM on Oct. 14, 2010

  • Not saying they would, but if it's up to the retailer to police the sale of it and they are liable they may opt to discontinue products that contain it.  Thankfully I don't have to use it often, but I usually prefer to take a few doses of cold meds that contain it rather than going a full round of antibiotics.  But that's just a personal preference.


    But it shouldn't be. I know it is, my younger sis worked in a pharmacy for a few years and they STEAL EVERYTHING LEFT AND RIGHT....

    sweet-a-kins

    Comment by sweet-a-kins (original poster) at 3:53 PM on Oct. 14, 2010

  • That's interesting. I've bought Mucinex D and regular Sudafed (not the phenylephrine) from CVS and I had to produce ID and sign something. I've picked up my father's narcotics from the pharmacy without so much as a blink of the eye. I guess it depends on the store.
    Izsarejman

    Answer by Izsarejman at 4:09 PM on Oct. 14, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Cafemom Join now to connect to other members! Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN