Sen Marsha Blackburn Asst Kim Cordell 07-25-2019.wav
audio file above
Filed under: General Problems | 7 Comments »
Around 25 countries have now removed criminal penalties for the personal possession of some or all drugs in a sign of the global shift toward decriminalization
Posted on July 30, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve
Why Malaysia’s New Proposal Could Change Southeast Asia’s Drugs Debate
Scientific reason broke through the dominant political rhetoric on drugs in Southeast Asia last month. Instead of the “war on drugs” narrative favored by the region’s populists, Malaysia’s government said it was time to put “science and public health before punishment and incarceration” as it proposed decriminalizing personal drug use.
The plan to remove criminal penalties for the possession and use of drugs in small quantities (as opposed to those involved in drug trafficking) is a bold move in a country that currently has some of the world’s most punitive drug laws.When it comes to knowing law and handling cases Tampa DUI lawyer has always great analysis as well as result.
“Malaysia is about to embark on a significant game-changer policy,” Health Minister Dzulkefly Ahmad said in a statement. “An addict shall be treated as a patient (not as a criminal), whose addiction is a disease we will like to cure.”
That the plan was jointly put forward by the health minister and the home affairs minister sent a powerful message of the government’s intent, said Professor Adeeba Kamarulzaman, dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur.“For decades people who use drugs, whether recreationally or those who have developed an addiction, have been placed within the criminal justice system,” said Kamarulzaman, known for pioneering a harm reduction program among injecting drug users during Malaysia’s HIV epidemic in the 2000s. It’s a “paradigm shift,” she says, to treat rather than punish addiction.
The announcement comes at a time experts are amplifying calls for Asia’s governments to radically rethink their approach to drugs. Data shows the so-called war on drugs has failed. A recent report from the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), reviewing the last decade of drug policies in Asia, said draconian laws and the misplaced pursuit of a “drug-free world” had failed to reduce the scale of the drug market. Instead drug usage had surged, with a devastating impact on people and communities. The greatest increases were observed, IDPC said, for amphetamine-type stimulants — in 2016 they were used by 17.45 million people in Asia, up from 8.74 million in 2011.
By contrast, the evidence that backs up the case for decriminalization seems to be growing stronger. Evidence from around the world suggests that treating problematic drug use as a health issue rather than a criminal one is a more successful model for keeping communities healthy and safe. To take one specific example, since Portugal decriminalized the possession of drugs for personal use in 2001, drug-related deaths have decreased. Analysis by the Transform Drug Policy Foundation also suggests that removing the criminal penalties did not cause an increase in levels of drug use, as had been feared by some.
Malaysia’s proposed decriminalization would move the nation in the direction endorsed by the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and multiple health, legal, and rights experts. Around 25 countries have now removed criminal penalties for the personal possession of some or all drugs in a sign of the global shift toward decriminalization.
Portugal’s success holds important lessons for Malaysia, says Professor Kamarulzaman, pointing to the country’s investment in treatment and support alongside the legal change. “It’s equally if not more important than the actual decriminalization,” she said, adding that Malaysia will “have to train a whole cadre of health professionals and support staff to cope with the demands of different drug users.”
Waiting on the Details
There are several important questions about the shape Malaysia’s proposed reforms would take. It’s still unclear, for instance, what impact changes to the law would have on those presently incarcerated for the personal use of drugs. Disproportionate punishments have led to massively overcrowded prisons in the region. People jailed for drug crimes, many for nonviolent behavior such as drug use and possession, form the majority of prison populations in many Asian countries.
Another major concern surrounds the use of compulsory “rehabilitation” in detention centers, says Gloria Lai, IDPC’s Asia director, who is waiting for more detail on what Malaysia’s reforms would mean for those forcibly detained.
“While we really welcome moves to take a health-based approach to drugs we want to emphasize that this shouldn’t lead to forced rehabilitation,” Lai said. The IDPC estimates that over 450,000 people in Asia are detained in such centers including in Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, the Philippines, and China.
Much is still being discussed, according to close observers, about the nature of the proposed reforms. Malaysia is already treading carefully given the sensitivities that can surround decriminalization. The coalition government, which came to power last year on a reform agenda, is particularly taking great pains to emphasize that decriminalization is not legalization. It knows the importance of keeping the broadly conservative public informed on an issue that has the potential for political opponents to launch attacks.
Other Southeast Asian nations have also taken steps toward changing their drug policies in recent years. Thailand, which is still debating decriminalization, has made important health-based reforms. And Myanmar has also moved toward decriminalization for drug use, but still retains prison penalties for possession.
The region at large, however, persists with some of the world’s most draconian drug policies. Nowhere has this been more evident in recent years than in the Philippines. Activists say that at least 27,000 people have been killed since President Rodrigo Duterte took office in 2016 on a platform of crushing drugs. The violent campaign has had reverberations across the region. Neighboring Indonesia is thought to have borrowed Duterte’s language to refuel its own drug wars while rights groups have also observed subsequent emboldened anti-drugs campaigns in Cambodia.
In this landscape, Malaysia chartering a health-oriented path could offer a breakthrough of sorts in the regional discourse surrounding drugs. The fact its ministers are talking about the evidence “instead of resorting to the usual scaremongering about drugs” is significant, said Lai, the regional IDPC director. “It definitely helps to open conversations about alternative approaches to drug use.”
Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »
CALL to action to contact specific Federal Representatives
Posted on July 29, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve
Representatives Bill Foster ( 11th district IL) & Mike Kelly (16th district PA) has introduced an amendment to HR 2470 (Amendment 20) that will require a “unique number” to all pts getting controlled substances. Don’t we already have a unique number called Social Security, some of us have a unique number as in DRIVER LICENSE… some of us have a unique number as in MEDICARE NUMBER.
It has been shown time and again that our unique number has been stolen, duplicated, forged to use our identity for illicit reasons.
We have three unique identifiers that can’t be stolen, duplicated or forged… it is called facial digital recognition, retina scan, digital finger print.
Here is a system that the FAA/TSA is using for IDing people to help them expedite their getting thru the TSA system and to their plane. https://www.clearme.com/
What if our healthcare system adopted such a system to register people within our healthcare system. First encounter with a healthcare provider. The pt is registered with the system and the unique number is shared with the healthcare system EMR (Electronic Medical Record) system. The pt is not provided the unique number, but each time a pt goes to a healthcare provider for service.. they use the same type of kiosk to register at the facility.
When the pt registers at the facility, if there is a PMP record on the pt, a report for the previous 12 months would automatically sent to the provider.
No matter who the pt tells the system that they are on the first encounter.. they will ALWAYS be that person in our healthcare system.. no matter what healthcare provider they go to see.
This is probably what Reps Foster & Kelly have in mind.. they are just don’t know what they really want or need…
Federal Reps will only accept correspondence from people in their district… if you are .. or know someone who is in their district… they need to reach out to convince them that they may have a good idea… just that their implementation is probably won’t work..
Filed under: General Problems | 9 Comments »
Senior Moment ?
Posted on July 29, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve
An elderly Florida lady did her shopping and, upon returning to her car, found four males in the act of leaving with her vehicle.
She dropped her shopping bags and drew her handgun, proceeding to scream at the top of her lungs, “I have a gun, and I know how to use it! Get out of the car!”. The four men didn’t wait for a second threat. They got out and ran like mad.
The lady, somewhat shaken, then proceeded to load her shopping bags into the back of the car and got into the driver’s seat. She was so shaken that she could not get her key into the ignition.
She tried and tried, and then she realized why. It was for the same reason she had wondered why there was a football, a Frisbee and two 12-packs of beer in the front seat. A few minutes later, she found her own car parked four or five spaces farther down.
She loaded her bags into the car and drove to the police station to report her mistake.
The sergeant to whom she told the story couldn’t stop laughing. He pointed to the other end of the counter, where four pale men were reporting a car jacking by a mad, elderly woman described as white, less than five feet tall, glasses, curly white hair, and carrying a large handgun.
No charges were filed.
The moral of the story?
If you’re going to have a senior moment… make it memorable.
Share this with all your friends to give them a good laugh 😁😁
Filed under: General Problems | 2 Comments »
Pacific Legal Foundation is a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans’ liberties
Posted on July 29, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve
https://pacificlegal.org/about/
About Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Legal Foundation is a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans’ liberties when threatened by government overreach and abuse. We sue the government when it violates Americans’ constitutional rights—and win!
Each year, PLF represents hundreds of Americans, free of charge, who seek to improve their lives but are stymied by government. We give them their day in court to vindicate their rights and set a lasting precedent to protect everyone else
Filed under: General Problems | 11 Comments »
There are rumors that Facebook is going to implement some sort of censorship
Posted on July 29, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve
Facebook’s Implementing New Rules and Processes to Stop the Spread of Harmful Content
Some of my followers/readers have expressed concerns about this and not seeing what I post.. .or what I post get censored/deleted by FB.
Apparently no everyone realizes that what shows up under my name or FB or twitter originally appears on my blog ( www.pharmaciststeve.com) and is automatically copied to FB and twitter.
My WordPress blog has a place on the front page, right column to receive a email when a new post appears on my blog… by simply entering your email address in the appropriate input block.
Also by going to my blog and looking at the left hand column and there is list and links to the recent comments, recent posts, and top posts.
I will have no control over what FB or twitter will do with my posts, but my BLOG is MY BLOG and totally under my control.
Everyone is capable of copying the hyperlink of any single post and share it to where ever they wish to
“liking” a post on FB or twitter only lets FB or twitter to collect more information about your mindset/personality… SHARING – or retweeting – is what makes a idea/concept potentially go viral and make others aware of what is going on or happening.
Filed under: General Problems | 3 Comments »
Patient Abandonment Cases: What You Need To Know
Posted on July 28, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve
Patient Abandonment Cases: What You Need To Know
www.theexpertinstitute.com/patient-abandonment-cases-what-you-need-to-know/
Patient abandonment is a serious, yet often overlooked, form of medical malpractice. Generally, patient abandonment occurs when a physician terminates medical treatment without a justifiable excuse or reasonable notice so that the patient can find a replacement physician. Most studies on medical malpractice claims in the United States do not specifically isolate instances of patient abandonment, so there is little concrete data on this phenomenon. A study conducted on the rates of medical malpractice lawsuits in the United States between 1992 and 2014 found that misdiagnosis, surgical errors, and treatment-related mistakes are the most common types of claims, respectively. However, how exactly patient abandonment fits within these claims is not stated.
Unlike the more common medical malpractice claims, which involve a specific action taken by a physician, patient abandonment occurs more by the omission of proper conduct. This does not mean that a physician is susceptible to a patient abandonment claim each time a doctor-patient relationship is terminated. However, a clear understanding of its definition and legal implications can help form a medical malpractice claim or defense.
What Constitutes Patient Abandonment (And What Doesn’t)
Patient abandonment cases are very fact-specific and the exact legal definition varies state-to-state. The general elements of patient abandonment claims are:
- 1) There was an established doctor-patient relationship
- 2) The physician abandoned the patient while medical attention was needed
- 3) The abandonment occurred abruptly, preventing the patient from finding a replacement physician
- 4) The patient suffered an injury as a direct result of the abandonment
In order to effectively evaluate a potential patient abandonment claim, the first question one must ask is whether there existed a doctor-patient relationship. While this element might seem intuitive, there is more to this question than meets the eye. A doctor-patient relationship is typically created when “professional services of a physician are rendered to, and accepted by, another person for the purposes of medical or surgical treatment.” See Cygan v. Kaleida Health, 51 A.D.3d 1373, 1375 (2008). However, the law also recognizes circumstances in which the existence of a physician-patient relationship is implied by circumstances. “An implied physician-patient relationship can arise when a physician gives advice to a patient, even if the advice is communicated through another health care professional.” See Thomas v. Hermoso, 110 A.D.3d 984, 985 (2013); See Pizzo-Juliano v. Southside Hosp., 129 A.D.3d 695, 697 (2015) (held that a doctor-patient relationship existed between plaintiff and the hospital’s on-call plastic surgeon, who was unavailable to treat the patient and decided on the phone that the injuries could be treated by a physician’s assistant).
There are instances, however, that can circumscribe the relationship from a legal perspective. Some physicians may provide a written statement to their patient during an initial visit that states the visit is only for evaluation purposes and does not guarantee entry into the physician’s practice. Likewise, in limited examination contexts, such as volunteering at health fairs or providing informal medical advice on websites, a disclaimer may be provided which states that the examination or offered information does not constitute an ongoing doctor-patient relationship. Learn more about exipure healthy benefits.
Once a formal relationship between the physician and patient has been established, whether the termination was appropriately handled must be examined. Importantly, termination of the doctor-patient relationship can be a completely unilateral decision on the part of the doctor. Physicians are not obligated to treat each and every patient in perpetuity. However, physicians cannot terminate the relationship during a time when medical treatment is necessary and/or the patient cannot be immediately transitioned to another doctor. For example, in an emergency, a doctor cannot deny treatment to a patient on the grounds of an outstanding medical bill. Likewise, a physician cannot be unreasonably unresponsive to a patient. Even if a physician does not intend to terminate the relationship, it is still considered abandonment if the physician makes themselves unavailable for a prolonged period of time. Depending on the particular circumstance, a physician may be found to have abandoned their patient by taking a vacation without notifying their patients or arranging for emergency coverage; being unresponsive to a patient’s questions in email or other correspondence; failing to follow up with a patient after surgery or prescribing a new medication; or failing to provide treatment to the patient by a specified time.
The patient’s necessity for medical treatment also goes hand-in-hand with whether reasonable notice was given to provide the patient with the opportunity to find replacement care. For example, a doctor cannot abruptly shut down their medical practice without making arrangements to ensure that her patients have alternative care. However, doctors are under no obligation to personally find their patients replacement physicians. It may be difficult to find physicians that practice in the same sub-specialties within the same area. Also, some doctors may not be keen on recommending a patient that was particularly discourteous or troublesome to their colleagues. All a physician is required to do is to give adequate notice to the patient (30 days in most states) to the patient and support the transition to alternative care, which may include providing records or engaging in a discussion with the new doctor.
There are numerous reasons that a physician may terminate their relationship with a patient that do not constitute patient abandonment. If a doctor knows that he does not possess the requisite skill or knowledge to handle a patient’s particular issues, they are under no requirement (nor is it preferable) to continue treatment. If a patient does not follow the doctor’s orders, which includes being chronically late to appointments or not taking the necessary prescribed medications, termination may be warranted. As long as the termination is done in an appropriate manner, such action does not constitute abandonment.
What Do The Experts Say?
Like any other medical malpractice action, patient abandonment cases require the use of a medical expert to establish the standard of care and deviation of that standard by the defendant. Experts may also be required prior to filing suit. Rule 3012-a of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules requires that all medical, pediatric, and dental malpractice complaints be accompanied by a certificate of merit stating that the plaintiff’s attorney has consulted with at least one physician and has concluded that there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of the action. Medical expert affidavits are also typically used throughout motion practice. However, there are occasions in the cases of patient abandonment in which an expert affidavit is not necessary. “Common sense and ordinary experience and knowledge, such as is possessed by laymen, without the aid of medical expert evidence, might properly suggest that the condition of the plaintiff at the time that he was abandoned by the defendants was not compatible with skillful treatment.” See Mevorah v. King, 303 A.D.2d 657, 657–58, 756 N.Y.S.2d 794, 795 (2003).
That being said, medical experts are typically needed to set forth the consequences of the physician’s abandonment within the context of the patient’s specific facts and circumstances and to establish whether the alleged abandonment represented a departure from the acceptable medical practice. The status of a patient’s condition is necessary to determine whether a physician effectively terminated the relationship. For example, a patient who had undergone heart surgery and requires a multitude of follow-up appointments is vastly different from a patient who visited a doctor once to treat a cold. Thus, a medical expert in the particular field as the defendant doctor is important to establish whether the termination occurred during a time when medical treatment was necessary and if, under the circumstances, the timing and notice was unreasonable.
Filed under: General Problems | 5 Comments »
The opioid crisis: Part 1 — The roots of addiction | FACES OF POLICY
Posted on July 28, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve
The opioid crisis: Part 2 — The worst pain you can imagine | FACES OF POLICY
The opioid crisis: Part 3 — A purpose in life | FACES OF POLICY
Filed under: General Problems | 3 Comments »
How the government can steal your stuff: 6 questions about civil asset forfeiture answered
Posted on July 28, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve
How the government can steal your stuff: 6 questions about civil asset forfeiture answered
Editor’s note: Should someone wearing a badge have the power to relieve a suspected drug dealer of his Maserati on the spot without giving him an opportunity to flee or liquidate and launder his assets? Known as civil asset forfeiture, this practice might sound like a wise policy.
But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress and the states are challenging the Trump administration’s embrace of the arrangement, which strips billions of dollars a year from Americans – who often have not been charged with a crime. Law professor and criminal justice expert Nora V. Demleitner explains how this procedure works and why it irks conservatives and progressives alike.
1. What is civil asset forfeiture?
Civil asset forfeiture laws let authorities, such as federal marshals or local sheriffs, seize property – cash, a house, a car, a cellphone – that they suspect is involved in criminal activity. Seizures run the gamut from 12 cans of peas to multi-million-dollar yachts.
The federal government confiscated assets worth a total of about US$28 billion during the decade ending in 2016, Justice Department data indicate.
In contrast to criminal forfeiture, which requires that the property owner be convicted of a crime beforehand, the civil variety doesn’t require that the suspect be charged with breaking the law.
Three Justice Department agencies – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – do most of this confiscating. Most states also permit local prosecutors to take personal property from people who haven’t been charged with a crime. However, some states have begun to limit that practice.
Even when there are restrictions on when and how local and state authorities can seize property, they can circumvent those limits if the federal government “adopts” the impounded assets.
For a federal agency to do so requires the alleged misconduct to violate federal law. Local agencies get up to 80% of the shared proceeds back, with the federal agency keeping the rest. The divvying-up is known officially as “equitable sharing.” Crime victims may also get a cut from the proceeds of civil forfeiture.
2. Can people get their stuff back?
Technically, the government must demonstrate that the property has something to do with a crime. In reality, property owners in most states must prove that they legally acquired their confiscated belongings to get them returned. This means the burden is on the owners to dispute these seizures in court. Court challenges tend to arise only when something of great value, like a house, is at stake.
Unless an owner challenges a seizure and effectively proves his innocence in court, the agency that took the property is free to keep the proceeds once the assets are liquidated.
Many low-income people don’t use bank accounts or credit cards. They carry cash instead. If they lose their life savings at a traffic stop, they can’t afford to hire a lawyer to dispute the seizure, the Center for American Progress – a liberal think tank – has observed.
And disputing civil forfeitures is hard everywhere. Some states require a cash bond; others add a penalty payment should the owner lose. The process is expensive, time-consuming and lengthy, deterring even innocent owners.
There’s no comprehensive data regarding how many people get their stuff back. But over the 10 years ending in September 2016, about 8% of all property owners who had cash seized from them by the DEA had it returned, according to a report from the Justice Department’s inspector general.
3. Who opposes the practice?
Many conservatives and progressives dislike civil asset forfeiture. Politicians on the left and right have voiced concerns about the incentives this practice gives law enforcement to abuse its authority.
Critics across the political spectrum also question whether different aspects of civil asset forfeiture violate the Fifth Amendment, which says the government can’t deprive anyone of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or is unconstitutional for other reasons.
Until now, the Supreme Court and lower courts, however, have consistently upheld civil asset forfeitures when ruling on challenges launched under the Fifth Amendment. The same goes for challenges under the Eighth Amendment, which bars “excessive fines” and “cruel and unusual punishments,” and the 14th Amendment, which forbids depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
In 2019, the Supreme Court unanimously found for the first time that these constitutional protections against excessive fines apply not just to the federal authorities but to the states as well.
Some concerns resonate more strongly for different ideological camps. Conservatives object mostly about how this impounding undermines property rights.
Liberals are outraged that the poor and communities of color tend to be disproportionately targeted, often causing great hardship to people accused of minor wrongdoing.
Another common critique: The practice encourages overpolicing intended to pad police budgets or accommodate tax cuts. Revenue from civil asset forfeitures can amount to a substantial percentage of local police budgets, according to a Drug Policy Alliance study of this practice in California. This kind of policing can undermine police-community relations.
The Justice Department‘s guidelines state that forfeitures “punish and deter criminal activity by depriving criminals of property used in or acquired through illegal activities.”
However, the Inspector General’s office noted “without evaluating data more systemically, it is impossible for the Department to determine … whether seizures benefit law enforcement efforts, such as advancing criminal investigations and deterring future criminal activity.”
4. What is the scale of this confiscation?
The federal revenue raised through this practice, which emerged in the 1970s, mushroomed from $94 million in 1986 to a high of $4.5 billion in 2014, according to the Justice Department.
The Justice Department says it returned more than $4 billion in forfeited funds to crime victims between 2000 and 2016, while handing state and local law enforcement entities at least $6 billion through “equitable sharing.”
The scale of seizures on the state and local level is less clear.
5. What happened during the Obama and Trump administrations?
Under the leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder, the Obama-era Justice Department determined that civil asset forfeiture was more about making money than public safety. It then changed the guidelines for asset adoption.
Beginning in 2015, joint state-federal task forces could continue to share forfeiture proceeds but state agencies were no longer permitted to ask the federal government to forfeit property they had taken on their own.
“I love that program,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in 2017. “We had so much fun doing that, taking drug dealers’ money and passing it out to people trying to put drug dealers in jail. What’s wrong with that?”
Attorney General William Barr, Sessions’ successor in the Trump administration, has also defended this policy.
6. Congress and the states
When Sessions changed the policy, legislative changes seemed possible. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley sent Sessions a memo about how the federal funds obtained from seizures were wasted and misused. In some cases, Grassley wrote, the government provided “misleading details about some of these expenditures.”
The House of Representatives voted in 2017 for an amendment that would restrict civil asset forfeiture adoption.
The House also approved a bipartisan measure restricting civil forfeiture on June 20, 2019. This one goes further though and would substantially curtail the federal government’s powers.
State governments have also tried to discourage this kind of confiscation. New Mexico, Nebraska and North Carolina have banned civil forfeiture. Michigan has made it easier to challenge these seizures. California limited equitable sharing, and other states have increased the burden of proof the government must meet. But in many states, investigative reporting has shown that innocent owners continue to lose their property.
In a Georgia Law Review article, I gave examples of other ways to keep police departments and municipalities funded, such as increasing fines and fees.
Unless the police pursue some alternatives, funding woes will continue to contribute to abusive policing practices that fall most heavily on those who can the least afford them: the poor and communities of color.
Filed under: General Problems | Leave a Comment »
Request for Information: Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement
Posted on July 28, 2019 by Pharmaciststeve
Request for Information: Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement
This Request for Information (RFI) seeks comment on ensuring Start Printed Page 36112legitimate access to controlled substances, including opioids, while also preventing diversion and abuse, as well as how federal, state, local, and tribal entities can collaborate to address these issues.
DATES:
Comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on August 26, 2019.
Filed under: General Problems | 3 Comments »