What a bass akward law......

[Achilleslastand]

So one of our Cocker Spaniels who is elderly started Phenobarb about 6 months ago for seizures. Im pretty sure not to long ago this used to be dispensed at your local vet but now has to be called into a CVS or pharmacy of your liking. Today the script ran out so CVS has to contact the vet to get a refill faxed over. The Vet then calls me and says it is state law that we need to see your dog again before we can write another script or risk being fined several hundreds of dollars.
My God what a pain in the keester.......

[Eddie1]

I'm a physician and this is not unreasonable to see you dog (as I would a human) every 6 months to see how the dog is responding, check for side effects and possibly check a random phenobarbital level, there is a method to our madness.

[Achilleslastand]

I'm a physician and this is not unreasonable to see you dog (as I would a human) every 6 months to see how the dog is responding, check for side effects and possibly check a random phenobarbital level, there is a method to our madness.

Well my problem isn't with the Vet nor their policies. It is with the state and their heavy handed intrusiveness.

[ljbab728]

Well my problem isn't with the Vet nor their policies. It is with the state and their heavy handed intrusiveness.

It seems reasonable to me. It is a barbiturate. In theory, without a law like this, someone could get a subscription for a dog who later dies and continue to get it to use for dangerous purposes.

[SoonerDave]

Well my problem isn't with the Vet nor their policies. It is with the state and their heavy handed intrusiveness.

Not nearly as annoying as having to produce a driver's license and sign an "I'm Not Building a Meth Lab" oath when buying pseudoephedrine. I know, I know, OK has the model law for slowing meth lab growth and all that crapola, but it's infuriating to have to go through the hoops when you just need some stuff to keep your kids' sinuses clear. No more presumption of innocence.

[bombermwc]

I'm with SoonerDave. It really pissed me off to no end before Allegra went over-the-counter. Talk about a waste of money in the medical industry. Having to make an appointment to get allergy medicine was just stupid. Not only did it cost me $60 to see the doctor (CDHP High Deductible insurance...don't get me started), but then I had to pay that much again to get a script. That also meant someone that needed to see him for a REAL problem, didn't get to and insurance was used (applied to deductible) for something that it shouldn't have been...it's just wasteful. That sort of thing seems reasonable to keep track of how often its been prescribed, and then renew it from a phone call. To the patient, it looks like a shaft of the patient to just get more money out of them. Like an eye prescription. I've always heard that if you change your glasses prescription too often, it tends to make your eyes reliant on the new prescription and can cause degradation of vision more quickly. Whether that's true or not, not being able to get a set of new glasses without a prescription is stupid....and making the prescription expire every 6 months, even more stupid. Now there's a plan of rotating the patient through the office for cash if I ever saw one. If I know the numbers, I should be able to get glasses off the same script as long as I feel like my vision is fine. No one is required to get an eye check. Otherwise we'd be seeing elderly drivers in the office every 6 months to ensure they're not falling fast...like we know they are/do.

Now for something stronger like mentioned above, I can see the logic in the need to see the patient (or dog) to ensure that they are still alive, that the medication isn't having unexpected effects, etc. It would probably be good to warn the patient of the coming necessary appointments BEFORE prescribing it though. When people aren't warned about fine print, it really makes them feel like something is trying to be put past them.

[Rover]

I recently sat on a jury pool for a meth case. Over half of all in the pool had direct experience as a user or had a close family member or close friend who is or was a user. The state is overrun with those who think they have the right to use whatever they want with no regard to public safety or other public costs. Others may be tired of paying for the costs of supporting cars with highways, but I am tired of paying the costs to save us from drug dealer and meth addicts. This idea that government should stay out of drug regulations, that it is "heavy handed" flies out the window as soon as there is one crime committed to support the habits. It is a social problem and needs dealt with. If it is "inconvenient" when getting a dog's prescription...well, so be it. Rather the dog be forced to see a vet than an innocent see the ER room when shot or knifed when being robbed.

[SoonerDave]

I recently sat on a jury pool for a meth case. Over half of all in the pool had direct experience as a user or had a close family member or close friend who is or was a user. The state is overrun with those who think they have the right to use whatever they want with no regard to public safety or other public costs. Others may be tired of paying for the costs of supporting cars with highways, but I am tired of paying the costs to save us from drug dealer and meth addicts. This idea that government should stay out of drug regulations, that it is "heavy handed" flies out the window as soon as there is one crime committed to support the habits. It is a social problem and needs dealt with. If it is "inconvenient" when getting a dog's prescription...well, so be it. Rather the dog be forced to see a vet than an innocent see the ER room when shot or knifed when being robbed.

I understand where you're coming from, Rover, I really do, but in essence you're simply saying the ends justify the means. Perhaps I'm too much of an idealist, but you could take the extreme end of any ghastly aspect of human behavior, work backwards to some innocuous starting point, and regulate it to death in an effort to stop that ghastly behavior. Where is the line that says this much prevention is, finally, too much?

I do not believe it should be incumbent upon me, as a private, innocent until proven guilty of ANYTHING, citizen, to sign an oath, present identification, etc. to purchase an otherwise legal, over-the-counter medication. You could extrapolate the meth scenario to, say, gasoline. Gasoline is pretty darned dangerous, but no one (yet) requires me to show an ID to buy more than, say, 15 gallons of it. Or maybe propane.

Like I said, I'm an idealist. I realize that regular, law-abiding folks are always the ones who end up paying the price for the criminals by virtue of reduced freedom. I may realize and understand that, but that doesn't mean that I concede that it is right.

[TheTravellers]

Reminds me of something I read yesterday, attributed to George Carlin (may be correctly attributed or not, I don't know for sure) - Inside every cynical person is a disappointed idealist.

And when those laws went into effect, I stopped buying the drugs that required me to give them my DL and information, I found alternatives. Just like I won't let Target scan my DL in order to buy canned air or Bic lighters.

[ylouder]

So one of our Cocker Spaniels who is elderly started Phenobarb about 6 months ago for seizures. Im pretty sure not to long ago this used to be dispensed at your local vet but now has to be called into a CVS or pharmacy of your liking. Today the script ran out so CVS has to contact the vet to get a refill faxed over. The Vet then calls me and says it is state law that we need to see your dog again before we can write another script or risk being fined several hundreds of dollars.
My God what a pain in the keester.......

Some drug addicts will hurt their animals and take them to the vet to get the pain pills for themselves.

I hate just as much as everyone else having to periodically check in with the dr or vet, but some real sick people out there who will stop at nothing to get drugs.

[Achilleslastand]

Some drug addicts will hurt their animals and take them to the vet to get the pain pills for themselves.

I hate just as much as everyone else having to periodically check in with the dr or vet, but some real sick people out there who will stop at nothing to get drugs.

That's sickening....
I cant imagine how many of these little pills{shes on a small dosage}one would have to take to get high.
Rant#2
Having to show my DL at Walmart whenever I buy canned air to clean out the PC.

[Bunty]

I recently sat on a jury pool for a meth case. Over half of all in the pool had direct experience as a user or had a close family member or close friend who is or was a user. The state is overrun with those who think they have the right to use whatever they want with no regard to public safety or other public costs. Others may be tired of paying for the costs of supporting cars with highways, but I am tired of paying the costs to save us from drug dealer and meth addicts. This idea that government should stay out of drug regulations, that it is "heavy handed" flies out the window as soon as there is one crime committed to support the habits. It is a social problem and needs dealt with. If it is "inconvenient" when getting a dog's prescription...well, so be it. Rather the dog be forced to see a vet than an innocent see the ER room when shot or knifed when being robbed.

Then do we have tax dollars required to put people in prison who insist upon using drugs in illegal ways?

[Rover]

We don't have the money to jail them all or to rehab them all, and apparently we have a public that doesn't want to be inconvenienced by simple laws that can have an effect. Easier to ignore and just do the least we can and call it freedom.