CVS Refuses to Selling Morning After Pill to Man

Penguin wrote:

Quote :

Because ignoring a person's intentions to get high may lead to their injury or death?*

You can do that off of alcohol, and we all saw how well Prohibition worked.

Because outside of Prohibitions there have never been any restrictions on the purchase of alcohol outside of how much you can afford, amirite?

You can debate all you want about which products should be restricted and how and why, but I cannot agree that everyone shoud be able to buy whatever they want all the time.

Outside of the military, I have never run into alcohol sales as restrictive as those ridiculous cough syrup rules.

Haha, ok, I am not saying they do not need to be fixed at all.

They don't need to exist at all.

Sakurelf wrote:

And addict's problem is everyone around's problem. If I was a pharmacist, I would care about my own health and safety. Dispensing drugs to someone you have tracked and know is consuming much higher quantities than recommended is now my problem. I sell products that are, in high quantities, poisonous. To ignore it is to allow another person to potentially harm themselves or harm others through intoxicated behaviour.

Oh well. Knowing someone has a problem does not make it your problem.

Quote :

We may have these foundational notions about rights and freedoms, but in the real world, common sense, professional expertise and judgement count for something. This is why we require bartenders to have a license and follow the law.

And these laws don't really have any appreciable impact on alcohol-related problems.

Quote :

This is also why, although alcohol is sold, we put limits on it.

Since when?

Quote :

We cut people off at bars,

Bartender's discretion, not a law.

Quote :

and we only sell it to adults.

With debatable impact on society.

Quote :

We pull people over if we suspect they have been drinking.

There is a difference between being intoxicated, and being intoxicated and controlling a two-ton killing machine on public roads.

Quote :

Cough syrup doesn't have those same restrictions, so it is up to the "bartender" aka pharmacist to decide when people are cut off and don't need more than the recommended dosage.

Except it's not determined by pharmacists, it's determined by lawyers, either to set corporate policy or to legislate.

Penguin wrote:

Quote :

We cut people off at bars,

Bartender's discretion, not a law.

IDK about where you live, but where I live bars are liable for injuries sustained/ inflicted on others by their customers as a result of their intoxication. A bar that does not cut people off is courting legal trouble, even if they are not breaking a law.

Also, you know... bartending licenses, state owned liquor stores, restriction on days and hours alcohol can be sold, ABV caps either on certain types of beverages (especially in states making the distinction between hard liquors and beer/wine) or overall, dry counties, 'public drunkeness' being a real crime you can get arrested for, restrictions on what kind of container alcohol can be in (open? closed? glass?) in public spaces, restrictions on issuing drinks as 'prizes', oh and in some states there is actually a limit on how much hootch you can buy at one time!! Crazy!

Unless you live in Nevada there are legal restrictions on your booze.* And even Nevada has an age restriction.

*yes I am only counting the US in this generalization, feel free to tell me all about booze laws in other countries.

Quote :

Quote :

We pull people over if we suspect they have been drinking.

There is a difference between being intoxicated, and being intoxicated and controlling a two-ton killing machine on public roads.

But you just said that it's not your or anyone else's problem. So it is not the bartender's problem if a person who's smashed asks to drive and they hand them over their keys, no questions asked?

What about someone who chugs an entire bottle (or two, or three or whatever they feel makes a good high) of cough syrup and then gets behind the wheel? What's the difference if the level of intoxication / impairment occuring is the same?

We control alcohol because it is a "known" substance, and we've carefully watched its effects for thousands of years. A substance like cough syrup, also considered medicine (therefore safe, and friendly) hasn't been under the same scrutiny until very recently. Alcohol is known by society to be "bad". We watch news stories of teens who have died from drunk drivers. It's been drilled into our heads. But we don't attach those same feelings to other substances even when they are equally imparing, equally addictive and equally subject to recreation and abuse.

Now, I agree that laws directly influencing sales are probably not able to cover everything, and may in fact limit someone's ability to sate their cough. But that's why I feel it should be a pharmacist's discretion to judge. human beings who are trained in the field should be able to know if someone is coming in every three days and buying four bottles at a time and ask questions or refuse sale.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Quote :

We cut people off at bars,

Bartender's discretion, not a law.

IDK about where you live, but where I live bars are liable for injuries sustained/ inflicted on others by their customers as a result of their intoxication. A bar that does not cut people off is courting legal trouble, even if they are not breaking a law.

Yup. I can attest to that, since my dad's bar was found liable when the bartender DID cut someone off, but didn't pull the drink out of their hand... and forty minutes later they shot someone at their house. Liable for about a half a million dollars.

Sakurelf wrote:

Quote :

Quote :

We pull people over if we suspect they have been drinking.

There is a difference between being intoxicated, and being intoxicated and controlling a two-ton killing machine on public roads.

But you just said that it's not your or anyone else's problem. So it is not the bartender's problem if a person who's smashed asks to drive and they hand them over their keys, no questions asked?

Sakurelf, I understand where you're coming from even if I don't agree with you, but could you please at least not use fallacious arguments like this?

[quote=Sakurelf]What about someone who chugs an entire bottle (or two, or three or whatever they feel makes a good high) of cough syrup and then gets behind the wheel? What's the difference if the level of intoxication / impairment occuring is the same?[/quote]

Also, what does this have to do with anything? In any event I'm pretty sure Penguin already adequately answered this question upthread: there's a difference between getting high in your own time, in the privacy of your home (or your friend's home, or whatever), and someone getting high and then driving on public roads. But like I said, this has literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand, so I'm not really sure why you brought it up.

[quote="Sakurelf]But we don't attach those same feelings to other substances even when they are equally imparing, equally addictive and equally subject to recreation and abuse.[/quote]

Given that controls on cough syrup are more restrictive than controls on alcohol (in the 'States, anyway), it's actually the other way 'round.

Quote :

Sakurelf, I understand where you're coming from even if I don't agree with you, but could you please at least not use fallacious arguments like this?

I'm not trying to be stubborn, but I fail to see how my argument is fallacious.

These scenarios have to do with the discretion of the person dispensing the substance. The real-world precident is to hold a bartender accountable for cutting people off of alcohol, and punishing them if they let a person get too intoxicated or cause an accident.

Therefore, in my opinion, it is a pharmacist's right, if not responsibility to control the dispensal of a similar intoxicating substance.

Quote :

there's a difference between getting high in your own time, in the privacy of your home (or your friend's home, or whatever), and someone getting high and then driving on public roads. But like I said, this has literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand, so I'm not really sure why you brought it up.

You are assuming that these people are getting high in the comfort of their homes and not on the streets. Which would be well and good, except that the type of kids that like to huff paint are usually homeless or in poverty. I am bringing it up because who is to say that people only get high on cough syrup when they are not a danger to themselves or others? I feel like it is relevant because an intoxicated person is an intoxicated person, no matter where they are, or what they are intoxicated by.

Sakurelf wrote:

You are assuming that these people are getting high in the comfort of their homes and not on the streets. Which would be well and good, except that the type of kids that like to huff paint are usually homeless or in poverty. I am bringing it up because who is to say that people only get high on cough syrup when they are not a danger to themselves or others? I feel like it is relevant because an intoxicated person is an intoxicated person, no matter where they are, or what they are intoxicated by.

Actually, where does matter. If you drink six beers at home and don't go out and drive or operate other dangerous machinery, you're not hurting anybody. If you take a sleeping pill and then get into the car and start driving, you run a high risk of harming yourself and others. Yes, where does matter.

Lady Anne wrote:

Sakurelf wrote:

You are assuming that these people are getting high in the comfort of their homes and not on the streets. Which would be well and good, except that the type of kids that like to huff paint are usually homeless or in poverty. I am bringing it up because who is to say that people only get high on cough syrup when they are not a danger to themselves or others? I feel like it is relevant because an intoxicated person is an intoxicated person, no matter where they are, or what they are intoxicated by.

Actually, where does matter. If you drink six beers at home and don't go out and drive or operate other dangerous machinery, you're not hurting anybody. If you take a sleeping pill and then get into the car and start driving, you run a high risk of harming yourself and others. Yes, where does matter.

Similarly, what matters at well. If you're intoxicated because you had three glasses of wine for dinner and go dancing afterwards, I wouldn't call you a danger to society. Three XTC for dinner and then going to a rave in an abandoned airport hangar, however, could end a mite more badly.