Online prescription question

You're not in P&CE, folks.

Reziac said:

Los Angeles County D.A. office has a 96% conviction rate (which I understand is actually a little low; I've read it's 97% for Federal courts). Do you really think 96% of people who are prosecuted are in fact guilty? Such laws make a plea bargain an easy win for the D.A.'s office, thus no need to test the law before a possibly-skeptical jury.

Click to expand...

Actually, I do.

Most prosecutors are very aware and very concerned about their conviction rate. They are hesitant to prosecute the case unless they are positive they can win it. Sometimes, if it's a high-profile case or a particularly bad individual they can be pressured into trying for conviction even if there are some problems with the case, but in general, any case with problems is dismissed out of hand.

From my own experience, there are far more cases where the prosecution and the cops absolutely know, beyond doubt, that the person is guilty but the case nonetheless never comes to trial than there are cases of innocent people being convicted.

Sometimes it's because because some of the knowledge they have is inadmissible in court, sometimes witnesses vanish, sometimes evidence is improperly handled, etc.

In general, the cops want to have every case tried where there's a possibility for a conviction; prosecutors are far more cautious. And thus, the conviction rates are very high – because they only deal with slamdunk cases – a stacked deck as it were.

Convictions don't necessarily equate to guilt, tho. But high conviction rates DO equate to a D.A. getting re-elected.

And on that note, this is interesting:
http://apublicdefender.com/2015/03/19/bail-me-out-bro/

I think this is getting a wee bit off-topic. Rein it in, or we'll have an enforced break from the discussion.

Well then, back to the nominal topic, here's what the FDA has to say about it:

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm115214.htm

The current policy permits the exercise of enforcement discretion to allow entry of an unapproved prescription drug if:

-- the product is for personal use (a 90-day supply or less, and not for resale);

-- the intended use is for a serious condition for which effective treatment may not be available domestically (and, therefore, the policy does not permit inspectors to allow foreign versions of U.S.-approved drugs into the U.S.);

-- there is no known commercialization or promotion to U.S. residents by those involved in the distribution of the product;

-- the product is considered not to represent an unreasonable risk; and

-- the individual seeking to import the product affirms in writing that it is for the patient's own use and provides the name and address of the U.S. licensed doctor responsible for his or her treatment with the product or provides evidence that the product is for the continuation of a treatment begun in a foreign country.

Click to expand...

Note that these conditions on importation are "and", not "or". All five must apply, and it must be a drug that is not yet FDA-approved. Note also that approval is at the discretion of the agent, and is not assured.

Another article:

http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/features/letter-and-spirit-of-drug-import-laws

My brain hurts. (Can I get an Rx for that??)

Reziac said:

Well then, back to the nominal topic, here's what the FDA has to say about it:

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm115214.htm



Note that these conditions on importation are "and", not "or". All five must apply, and it must be a drug that is not yet FDA-approved. Note also that approval is at the discretion of the agent, and is not assured.

Another article:

http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/features/letter-and-spirit-of-drug-import-laws

My brain hurts. (Can I get an Rx for that??)

Click to expand...

Or it's illegal only if they decide to prosecute you.