Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would argue that they are indeed unreasonable in that case if they are handing out prescription meds. The
test isreasonable person, not sorority sister, lol. Hopefully no one has a reaction, or as you note they could be
sued. Worst case might be an involuntary manslaughter charge if someone actually died from the pill/pills being
handed out.
Actually pretty far apart ... as I wrote: ... the act of dispensing a prescription-only medication with advice for use without a license is criminally prosecutable. Easily. In such as case as was described it is extremely unlikely any prosecutor would bother -- unless he/she had a bone to pick with the provider for some other reason. But the hubric denial of the cop's post is incorrect. The cop certainly could arrest, and a prosecutor would be within his/her powers to criminally prosecute.
The link I provided in previous post contains a number of applicable statutes ... take your pick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
I think you will swiftly find there is a large gap between allowing a friend to take a pill from you and practicing medicine or pharmacology. How about non-prescription drugs? How about drugs from a different environ. Having been a skipper on private sail boats at sea i would tell you no one could sail long distance if what you said was true. Every mother in the US would end up a criminal.
Yeah. If a prosecutor wants to charge you with practicing medicine without a license for providing a friend a pill, they will.
And yeah, tell me all about handing out non-prescription motion sickness pills at sea. (I live on a boat part of each year ... yeah my boat ... and have crossed oceans through typhoons.) Especially tell me if you are talking about off-shore where maritime law runs, not California state law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
Again the question was a simple one to a particular set of circumstances. I am sure I could manufacture a set that would turn the giver into the local drug dealer. But we were not working that question.
What "we" were "working" was a broad discussion of possibilities ... that went beyond just the original set of circumstances. You engaged in broad generalizations when you denigrated the cop's experience. In courtroom parlance, that is referred to as "opening the door".
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
Nonsense if you gave a whacked out drunk a snickers you could well get sued and lose. And if you happen to inflict food poisoning on your guests you may well end liable even if you did nothing identifiable to cause the illness. You do not have to actually screw up to lose a suit. The preponderance of the evidence in the minds of a jury is sufficient.
You have just manufactured a set of circumstances to try and worm your way back out of your hubris. I didn't describe giving a drunk a Snickers. I said " a friend" and nothing more. Regardless, no you wouldn't be liable for your drunk friend choking to death unless a jury determined that you somehow acted with careless or willful disregard for the friend's condition and could have foreseen the possibilities, etc etc etc ... which would require a hell of a lot more scenario "manufacturing" for the court than you just gave us to read here.
You don't know what you are talking about and you are obnoxiously aggressive in your errors.
The link I provided in previous post contains a number of applicable statutes ... take your pick.
Yeah. If a prosecutor wants to charge you with practicing medicine without a license for providing a friend a pill, they will.
And yeah, tell me all about handing out non-prescription motion sickness pills at sea. (I live on a boat part of each year ... yeah my boat ... and have crossed oceans through typhoons.) Especially tell me if you are talking about off-shore where maritime law runs, not California state law.
What "we" were "working" was a broad discussion of possibilities ... that went beyond just the original set of circumstances. You engaged in broad generalizations when you denigrated the cop's experience. In courtroom parlance, that is referred to as "opening the door".
You have just manufactured a set of circumstances to try and worm your way back out of your hubris. I didn't describe giving a drunk a Snickers. I said " a friend" and nothing more. Regardless, no you wouldn't be liable for your drunk friend choking to death unless a jury determined that you somehow acted with careless or willful disregard for the friend's condition and could have foreseen the possibilities, etc etc etc ... which would require a hell of a lot more scenario "manufacturing" for the court than you just gave us to read here.
You don't know what you are talking about and you are obnoxiously aggressive in your errors.
"Sixth Edition: 2010
Guide to the
Laws Governing the
Practice of Medicine
by Physicians and Surgeons"
You have some inside knowledge that OP is a Physician or Surgeon?
It was your Snickers bar. I added the drunk.
When ever losing an internet argument you then attack the opponent...."Hubris" That is better than many.
"Sixth Edition: 2010
Guide to the
Laws Governing the
Practice of Medicine
by Physicians and Surgeons"
You have some inside knowledge that OP is a Physician or Surgeon?
It was your Snickers bar. I added the drunk.
When ever losing an internet argument you then attack the opponent...."Hubris" That is better than many.
Your retort makes pretty much no sense.
The OP is clearly not a doctor ... but that makes no difference one way or the other ... the technical bottom line, that any prosecutor could use if desired, is no one is legally allowed to advise and dispense prescription medication without medical / pharmacological license. Emphasis on no one. See?
The question, in this case, isn't whether it happens all the time without repercussion, the question is: what is the LAW? Internet forum nitpicking is sport. For some it is license to get nasty. That's what caught my eye in your response to the cop. So now I'm playing. You lose.
Yes. My Snickers bar. Your drunk added. Exactly my point. You said anyone could [re]manufacture a scenario ... and I point out that's exactly what you did to change the equation ... but, even there, you were wrong again.
Yeah, hubris. I got a great vocabulary. Stick around for more if you'd like.
Your retort makes pretty much no sense.
The OP is clearly not a doctor ... but that makes no difference one way or the other ... the technical bottom line, that any prosecutor could use if desired, is no one is legally allowed to advise and dispense prescription medication without medical / pharmacological license. Emphasis on no one. See?
The question, in this case, isn't whether it happens all the time without repercussion, the question is: what is the LAW? Internet forum nitpicking is sport. For some it is license to get nasty. That's what caught my eye in your response to the cop. So now I'm playing. You lose.
Yes. My Snickers bar. Your drunk added. Exactly my point. You said anyone could [re]manufacture a scenario ... and I point out that's exactly what you did to change the equation ... but, even there, you were wrong again.
Yeah, hubris. I got a great vocabulary. Stick around for more if you'd like.
Cite the specific statute. Simple. Piece of cake for a person with a great vocabulary.
Cite the specific statute. Simple. Piece of cake for a person with a great vocabulary.
Today's vocabulary lesson ... a vernacular: noodge
When you are done looking that up, here are a few statutes you can browse ... there are many more that any slightly competent prosecutor / attorney could apply ... I have already provided links to the state manual ... but, since you are too lazy and /or incompetent, here's a couple:
Quote:
California Business and Professions Code Section 2052
Legal Research Home > California Laws > Business and Professions Code > California Business and Professions Code Section 20522052. (a) Notwithstanding Section 146, any person who practices or attempts to practice, or who advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing, any system or mode of treating the sick or afflicted in this state, or who diagnoses, treats, operates for, or prescribes for any ailment, blemish, deformity, disease, disfigurement, disorder, injury, or other physical or mental condition of any person, without having at the time of so doing a valid, unrevoked, or unsuspended certificate as provided in this chapter or without being authorized to perform the act pursuant to a certificate obtained in accordance with some other provision of law is guilty of a public offense, punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine and either imprisonment. (b) Any person who conspires with or aids or abets another to commit any act described in subdivision (a) is guilty of a public offense, subject to the punishment described in that subdivision. (c) The remedy provided in this section shall not preclude any other remedy provided by law.
Quote:
California Business and Professions Code Section 2053.5
Legal Research Home > California Laws > Business and Professions Code > California Business and Professions Code Section 2053.5
2053.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who complies with the requirements of Section 2053.6 shall not be in violation of Section 2051 or 2052 unless that person does any of the following: (1) Conducts surgery or any other procedure on another person that punctures the skin or harmfully invades the body. (2) Administers or prescribes X-ray radiation to another person. (3) Prescribes or administers legend drugs or controlled substances to another person. (4) Recommends the discontinuance of legend drugs or controlled substances prescribed by an appropriately licensed practitioner. (5) Willfully diagnoses and treats a physical or mental condition of any person under circumstances or conditions that cause or create a risk of great bodily harm, serious physical or mental illness, or death. (6) Sets fractures. (7) Treats lacerations or abrasions through electrotherapy. (8) Holds out, states, indicates, advertises, or implies to a client or prospective client that he or she is a physician, a surgeon, or a physician and surgeon. (b) A person who advertises any services that are not unlawful under Section 2051 or 2052 pursuant to subdivision (a) shall disclose in the advertisement that he or she is not licensed by the state as a healing arts practitioner.
I guess you can now claim administer but that does not appear to fit any better
What you are obviously attempting to do is apply the statutes that deal with practicing medicine to a situation that is no where near that.
Again cite the statute that makes transferring a pill from one to another a crime.
Note that it is easy to find statutes the covers transferring a controlled substance. So obviously they do know how to write such a law. But it does not exist in CA. A message there that you simply refuse to hear.
I guess you can now claim administer but that does not appear to fit any better
What you are obviously attempting to do is apply the statutes that deal with practicing medicine to a situation that is no where near that.
Again cite the statute that makes transferring a pill from one to another a crime.
Note that it is easy to find statutes the covers transferring a controlled substance. So obviously they do know how to write such a law. But it does not exist in CA. A message there that you simply refuse to hear.
A friend, responding to a medical complaint by another friend -- ["here, take this, it'll do wonders for you" etc] -- and giving that friend a pill, which pill is only available by prescription, which prescription was prescribed to another, can easily be charged as "prescribing without a license" ... especially chargeable in that no warning information regarding possible side effects and remediation was also conveyed as is required by other statutes dealing with pharmacological dispensing of medicines -- uh, yes: absolutely chargeable as prescribing / practicing without a medical license.
The very specific intent of the phrase you quoted:
Quote:
"To provide clear, explicit, and authoritative direction or guidance to those who are supposed to follow it."
is to set an absolutely clear legal guideline that prescription medications may not, under ANY circumstances, be provided to non-subscribed individuals without exhaustively detailed warning information of dangers ... Especially by unlicensed individuals.
It's right there ... in your face ... repeatedly in the links and statutes and news link I have provided. You are flailing ... overboard without a life preserver ... and no one here is throwing you one.
Quote:
What you are obviously attempting to do is apply the statutes that deal with practicing medicine to a situation that is no where near that.
Think not? Ask your local prosecuting attorney.
Quote:
Again cite the statute that makes transferring a pill from one to another a crime.
I just did. Several times over. Read it again if necessary.
A friend, responding to a medical complaint by another friend -- ["here, take this, it'll do wonders for you" etc] -- and giving that friend a pill, which pill is only available by prescription, which prescription was prescribed to another, can easily be charged as "prescribing without a license" ... especially chargeable in that no warning information regarding possible side effects and remediation was also conveyed as is required by other statutes dealing with pharmacological dispensing of medicines -- uh, yes: absolutely chargeable as prescribing / practicing without a medical license.
The very specific intent of the phrase you quoted: is to set an absolutely clear legal guideline that prescription medications may not, under ANY circumstances, be provided to non-subscribed individuals without exhaustively detailed warning information of dangers ... Especially by unlicensed individuals.
It's right there ... in your face ... repeatedly in the links and statutes and news link I have provided. You are flailing ... overboard without a life preserver ... and no one here is throwing you one.
Think not? Ask your local prosecuting attorney.
I just did. Several times over. Read it again if necessary.
You're fun. Next.
Again as has oft been pointed out a DA can indict a ham sandwich.
That of course in no way states that a law has actually been violated. See Nifong.
All you need do is show a statute that applies to the person to person transfer of a pill. You provide many words and no statutes. Because there aren't any?
I think you are cute too. In an immature sort of way. Brighter than the cop anyway. Though that is true of the ham sandwich - so don't let it go to your head.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
