This is getting too Orwellian for me

[Creeker]

I've been on some strong stuff, before. But I don't remember being on any that didn't say "take every x hours or as needed for pain". How the hell do they expect to enforce people overmedicating based on that? It sounds more like potential evidenciary use in prosecutions of DUI, IMHO.

After 25 years, I recently had to provide my MD with my physical address rather than my P.O. Box, specificaly due to some freaking Federal database that just started up, to prevent Dr. shopping.

[Penta]

Count me in as another voice going "WTF?"

I can see how it might be useful to LEOs to know if I'm on meds, but...No.

I've discussed, here, a few of the episodes Ive had. I think it's easy to surmise I take meds; I'm not gonna post a list with dosages to the web, but yes.

If any LEOs ever have to come to my door (or otherwise deal with me), even if it's because they think I've done something like hurt myself (or am going to), which is when it'd be relevant, I want you guys to have to ask me about this stuff. Nicely, and explaining why you'd like to know. But no going digging. There are plenty of situations I'd never want people to know of my mental health issues, let alone how I'm treated for them...And so, no. If it's an officer safety thing, even then...No. I don't think officer safety trumps everything.

[retdetsgt]

I can see how it might be useful to LEOs to know if I'm on meds, but...No.

Not really. They want to fish for people who might be getting meds from different doctors and pharmacies.

The DEA is the one who issues licenses to doctors to prescribe controlled substances. I have no problem with them having a data base and keeping track. That's what they were established to do, among other things.

And I have to give the feds credit, they keep info pretty close to their chest. That can't be said for a lot of local LE and I'm saying that as someone who spent a huge chunk of their adult life in local LE. And especially when the head of that LE is a locally elected official, who's to say how that kind of personal info can be protected? At what point can this be considered public record?

I've never liked fishing expeditions. That's the trademark of an oppressive and paranoid government. If you have probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, that's something else. I've started a lot of investigations based on a tip, but to examine what people are doing just out of curiosity is an invasion, IMO. And it's certainly none of Deputy Do-Right's business if my doctor prescribes a pain killer to me.

This is opening a door that can lead to a lot more and that's what really scares me. I detest big brother government.

[MikeG]

Not really. They want to fish for people who might be getting meds from different doctors and pharmacies.

The DEA is the one who issues licenses to doctors to prescribe controlled substances. I have no problem with them having a data base and keeping track. That's what they were established to do, among other things.

I would hope they make the databases like they do firearms. Meaning, if they have a firearm, they can trace it to an individual, but they can't trace individuals to firearms.

I am more concerned that this is the first step to care rationing. The day is coming where the database won't track the prescription, it will BE the prescription. Pharmacies will fill based on orders entered in the fed database.

The other bad thing that will happen is it will be used for employment. Imagine someone who survives cancer and was prescribed very potent pain narcotics for a long period. Cancer disappears but that record is still out there. Does anyone think a police department will hire someone with a long record of legal, legitimate narcotic use that shows up on a report? HR and risk management might not think that is a great idea.

Personally, I don't really think of Dr. shopping as the problem. Theft, sale of drugs, DUI, insurance fraud, etc are the crimes. If someone's only crime is that they are Dr. shopping, let it go. it's no different than an alcoholic that doesn't commit any other crimes. Do we really want cops hanging around the liquor stores looking for the drunk person that tries to be more liquor when they are already intoxicated absent any other crime?

I do think that Dr's that are prescribing illegally should be investigated but that's not the same sort of database that tracks patients. If you catch someone with prescriptions from more than one Dr., forward it to the DEA and let them contact the Dr.

I don't really want the police deciding how many Dr.s are "too many" or how much pain medication is "too much." My Dr. is much better at those tasks. And it's privilged information just like conversations with priests and lawyers.

[retdetsgt]

Personally, I don't really think of Dr. shopping as the problem.

It is a problem, but not a local LE one. I'm all for a data base that can be accessed by pharmacists and doctors to see if someone is using the system and I have no problem with DEA administering it. But getting drugs that way is pretty amateur and can't be maintained for very long. Hard core drug addicts aren't going to be the problem in that. But it is a good way for medical professionals to address the problem and perhaps get help for someone.

Limbaugh was caught doing that when he got hooked after a surgery or something. And that's almost always the profile of someone who does doctor shopping, not the normal street drug addict. Now I'm no fan of Limbaugh, but the local DA who went after him was obviously politically motivated. Not a legitimate reason to prosecute someone.

As I said, I worked drugs for about 4 years and we did all sorts of cases, but these don't rise to the level that the average citizen's privacy needs to be compromised.

[Aussie George]

We hav a register for buying sudoefedren (sp?) products. When you buy anyhting with sudo in it they have to run your name through and you have to provide ID. If it comes back good, you get it, if not, you don't. This is to stop people going around buying massive amounts of sudo products and cooking it down to make amphets.

[retdetsgt]

We hav a register for buying sudoefedren (sp?) products. When you buy anyhting with sudo in it they have to run your name through and you have to provide ID. If it comes back good, you get it, if not, you don't. This is to stop people going around buying massive amounts of sudo products and cooking it down to make amphets.

We had that for a while, but it didn't work that well. Finally, the pharmacy board made ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine controlled substances. The OTC lobby bitched, but everyone survived it and it's working just fine.

[Creeker]

I would hope they make the databases like they do firearms. Meaning, if they have a firearm, they can trace it to an individual, but they can't trace individuals to firearms.

....

Not to change the subject, but I think you have media guided misinformation about how well that works out.

It used to be my job to send trace form information to the AT&F on every firearm turned into our evidence locker. Statistically, we received a response on about 1 in 5, and even most of the ones we knew were stolen and had the report in our hand most likely wouldn't come back.

Just because we got a response back didn't usually mean much of anything, it was just more paper to file to show it was done.

Granted some of this may have improved over the last 5-6 years, but this is the Federal Govt we are talking about, and I doubt those forms are even able to be filled out on-line yet.

[fatboyjim154]

I have no problem with that. That's their job, they also can check to see what physicians are writing the most script too. I have a problem with local LE being able to access my medical records on a curiosity basis.

Along with any dodgy copper or support staff member that may be willing to dip into records for insurance companies, defence lawyers, tabloids.
Over here they're talking about DNA tests that will show any pre-disposition to illnesses, so they can load the premium up just in case.