Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Wrong. The people of Mass brought this before the board, who then interpreted the regulation the way it was written, and then ordered Walmart to comply. Big government had nothing to do with it. 603100[/snapback] Which people of Massachussets? ALL of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Hooray for intrusive government! YAY! 603084[/snapback] Clarify something for me: Do you disagree with state regulation of pharmecuticals on principle, or do you just disagree with state regulation of Wal-Mart's pharmacies in this specific instance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Clarify something for me: Do you disagree with state regulation of pharmecuticals on principle, or do you just disagree with state regulation of Wal-Mart's pharmacies in this specific instance? 603211[/snapback] I specifically dislake a law which forces a pharmacist to carry ANYTHING the pharmacist doesn't want to carry. That, to me, is unnecessarily intrusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I specifically dislake a law which forces a pharmacist to carry ANYTHING the pharmacist doesn't want to carry. That, to me, is unnecessarily intrusive. 603249[/snapback] Technically, that's nothing more that requiring a licensed pharmacist to live up to the responsibility of their license. Don't forget, you don't just hang a shingle and start giving out pills. A pharmacist is someone the state specifically licenses to dispense controlled substances in a controlled fashion (hence, "controlled substances"). Part and parcel with the rights that license grants is the responsibility inherent in the license: that the licensed pharmacist dispense medications as prescribed, unless doing so in their professional opinion would cause harm to the patient. So basically, what you're saying is that your against licensing pharmacists, since the requirement that a pharmacist dispense as prescribed regardless of their moral stance is inherent in the license itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Technically, that's nothing more that requiring a licensed pharmacist to live up to the responsibility of their license. Don't forget, you don't just hang a shingle and start giving out pills. A pharmacist is someone the state specifically licenses to dispense controlled substances in a controlled fashion (hence, "controlled substances"). Part and parcel with the rights that license grants is the responsibility inherent in the license: that the licensed pharmacist dispense medications as prescribed, unless doing so in their professional opinion would cause harm to the patient. So basically, what you're saying is that your against licensing pharmacists, since the requirement that a pharmacist dispense as prescribed regardless of their moral stance is inherent in the license itself. 603275[/snapback] "Badges, I don't need no stinkin badges" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 So basically, what you're saying is that your against licensing pharmacists, since the requirement that a pharmacist dispense as prescribed regardless of their moral stance is inherent in the license itself. 603275[/snapback] Not quite. All I'm saying is that a pharmacist should not be forced to sell a drug that for whatever reason he doesn't wish to. Perhaps the licensing rules need to change in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 It's NEVER wise to root for the interests of big government over big business. At least big business adds something to the economy. 603095[/snapback] I'm not rooting for one over the other. I'm saying the government, people we elect, are our only check against corporations running roughshod on anyone/thing in the way. Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of the solutions that our world is going to require -- particularly the drive toward sustainability -- are going to be driven by corporations. And we need to encourage not just profit-driven solutions, but solutions that imply the same responsibility we (should) expect of our citizens. But corporations, as you well know, are not built for human interest or environmental interest -- they are built to make money. If one coincides with the other, great. Unfortunately, conservatives have been duped into thinking that an unintrusive government is synonymous with no government, and that NO government is preferable to efficient government that defends its people when necessary. Also funny that the government is responsible for defending us when it comes to any military / national security matters. When it comes to defending patients, or defending the environment that is going to be the context for human well-being when we are all long gone, it's "intrusive." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Not quite. All I'm saying is that a pharmacist should not be forced to sell a drug that for whatever reason he doesn't wish to. Perhaps the licensing rules need to change in that regard. 603644[/snapback] Don't agree. I totally subscribe to the free market theory but do agree when the government intervenes to help the health and security of its people. Also to a certain extent, support for upcoming technologies is good as corporations would not risk shareholder wrath for putting money towards a new technology that can pay off in 10 years as opposed to the next year (e.g. biofuels, alternative energy sources) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Also funny that the government is responsible for defending us when it comes to any military / national security matters. When it comes to defending patients, or defending the environment that is going to be the context for human well-being when we are all long gone, it's "intrusive." 603719[/snapback] The feds have a constitutional madate to defend us. They have no such mandate to provide open pharmaceutical access or clean up toxic waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 The feds have a constitutional madate to defend us. They have no such mandate to provide open pharmaceutical access or clean up toxic waste. 603849[/snapback] But I'm damn glad that they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts