I'd like to see a list of pharmacists that have lost their licence for filling a valid prescription. What would make me happier, is to see a list of pharmacists that have interfered with filling a valid prescription, due to their own assumptions, and the patient committed suicide due to not having their required medication. I think if you want to be a doctor, then be a doctor. You are not doctors.. Don't act like it.
By the way, I have many professional licenses.. if I felt the need to be the police, I would have been a cop. People do things they aren't supposed to do all the time, like taking too many of their pills, or interfering with someone else's medication, just because they feel the need to gain control over someone or something. Stop being ridiculous. Preventing someone from filling a valid script a week early IS NOT going to put your license on the line. You are being as ignorant as the addicts of which you speak.
Here's your answer as that's not a rhetorical question to practicing pharmacists:
http://graphics.latimes.com/prescription-drugs-part-three/
Er, I'd be surprised if you practiced in the US, and I don't care how many "licences" you have, my licenses are "mine own" (in both the professional and personal contexts) to act in the appropriate ways that I am licensed in (including being the problem if I have to be to do the right thing). Actually, pharmacists are held professionally responsible in propria persona both at the state and the federal levels for both the accountability for the controlled substances supply chain (as in, variances above a certain level are revocable, and extreme variances are prosecuted) and whether a prescription is valid or not at the time of fill (not just at the time of written). There's a good deal of discretion allocated to pharmacists on that matter (and I would say that there is no honest RPh on this forum in US practice who has not doubted themselves on this matter before), but filling egregiously without consideration will result in a revocation. It's actually quite normal for the Pharmacist Board to defend pharmacists before the Board of Medical Examiners when conflicts happen on a physician that is trying to force a dispense against a refusing pharmacist, and almost always, the DEA will advocate in the pharmacist's favor the right not to dispense even for a legally written and valid prescription (the DEA and the DOJ have always taken the position that even with dishonest doubt, the pharmacist has discretion to deny for no reason whatsoever since the Harrison Act).
So, there's still a debate whether a pharmacist has the right to deny dispensing on moral or religious grounds (birth control, euthanasia, intentional execution). However, for controlled substances, denying even valid cases to prevent drug control matters have always overrode patient care considerations even though it is heartless. Companies don't like excessive denial, but even the least ethical of companies do not want the DoJ finding an excuse to investigate the situation as with them, you are pretty much guilty until proven innocent.
Yeah, there are some pharmacists who get off on the power of controlling the drug supply, I don't care and I hate those people too. But no physician or other prescriber is going to dictate to me what is or what isn't a valid prescription if I'm the one in the position to dispense. If prescribers really feel like punching the matter, they can administer the drugs themselves (and face the consequences of record keeping and liability), I'm not stopping them, and more power to them if they know the situation better than me. However, there's a reason why pain control physicians do not themselves dispense in a usual practice. They'd be red-flagged by the PDMPs and the DEA quota lists and be put out of business through scrutiny such that if you are going to have a successful practice, you need some sort of secondary check on the prescribing.
