Walgreens in AZ refusing to xfer CIV before first fill?

[Lnsean]

No.
You need to learn to read.

You were talking about the issue, and Owle posted a quote from the DEA's response to the issue.

He brought up an entirely different document, and you didn't read, so you thought he was referencing the same document you were.

Learn to read.

Actually, no. Me and owl had the same argument weeks ago on the first page of the thread. I know exactly what he is talking about and it does not claim what he is claiming.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Actually, no. Me and owl had the same argument weeks ago on the first page of the thread. I know exactly what he is talking about and it does not claim what he is claiming.

You need to learn to read.

He went to a document from the DEA.
He pressed CTRL and C on his keyboard, and then he pressed CTRL+V.

 

[Lnsean]

Sorry, only corporate lawyers can meet with them to figure this stuff out. Us pretend internet lawyers have to settle for reading their website

I was thinking you're more of a ballerina because of all the mental gymnastics you did.

 

[Lnsean]

You need to learn to read.

He went to a document from the DEA.
He pressed CTRL and C on his keyboard, and then he pressed CTRL+V.

NO WAYYY. I did the same thing! I even bolded, underlined, and italicized it....and CAPS too. You think it got thru to him dough?

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

NO WAYYY. I did the same thing!

Ok.

I'll simplify this.

The thing you read is from before.
The thing owl quoted is from after that in 2010.
A company asked, "hey this looks like it's illegal."
The DEA says, "no, it's not"

Even later, Walmart tells its pharmacists

"Hey we read that thing from way before and that's ILLEGAL. We're either ignoring or didn't read the DEA's Crystal clear response from 2010."

After that, the DEA said "lol we already answered it so now we're gonna be vague."


Now you not only need to learn to read, you need to learn how time works

 

[Lnsean]

Ok.

I'll simplify this.

The thing you read is from before.
The thing owl quoted is from after that in 2010.
A company asked, "hey this looks like it's illegal."
The DEA says, "no, it's not"

Even later, Walmart tells its pharmacists

"Hey we read that thing from way before and that's ILLEGAL. We're either ignoring or didn't read the DEA's Crystal clear response from 2010."

After that, the DEA said "lol we already answered it so now we're gonna be vague."


Now you not only need to learn to read, you need to learn how time works

I have already quoted word for word from the DEA regulations and the DEA website. What walmart has a problem with is none of my business. Walgreens has an issue with the wording with the current regulation. So your story of whatever happened at Walmart...she said he said...no one cares. What everyone cares about now is that it is industry practice to not transfer these scripts. So, you and owl can continue to do so...like all the controls scripts you transferred in NY...and hope you don't get caught. For everyone, else...we should follow our corporate policies until the DEA clarifies it.

If you do get caught...just tell them that the law is stupid...nobody enforces it anyways... and they'll let you go.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I have already quoted word for word from the DEA regulations and the DEA website. What walmart has a problem with is none of my business. Walgreens has an issue with the wording with the current regulation. So your story of whatever happened at Walmart...she said he said...no one cares. What everyone cares about now is that it is industry practice to not transfer these scripts. So, you and owl can continue to do so...like all the controls scripts you transferred in NY...and hope you don't get caught. For everyone, else...we should follow our corporate policies until the DEA clarifies it. If you do get caught...just tell them that the law is stupid and they'll let you go.

Thanks for clarifying once again that you have no interest in analysis or critical thinking.

I'm happy to hear that you're just a corporate pleb that wants to be told what to do.

I'm a professional that think for myself.


Again, learn to read.

I said that I knew for a fact I'd transferred a prescription from a New York pharmacy to my pharmacy in Texas.

 

[Lnsean]

Thanks for clarifying once again that you have no interest in analysis or critical thinking.

I'm happy to hear that you're just a corporate pleb that wants to be told what to do.

I'm a professional that think for myself.


Again, learn to read.

I said that I knew for a fact I'd transferred a prescription from a New York pharmacy to my pharmacy in Texas.

Analysis? this is mental gymnastics. I'm no ballerina...maybe you should talk this over with owl. You two will have a blast. I dunno...maybe transfer a few unfilled controlled scripts between your stores to see if you guys get caught. Prove them wrong kinda attitude...ya'll know.???

 

[owlegrad]

My name is owle.

And I do appreciate being called a ballerina but I am not coordinated or petite enough for that.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Analysis? this is mental gymnastics. I'm no ballerina...maybe you should talk this over with owl. You two will have a blast. I dunno...maybe transfer a few unfilled controlled scripts between your stores to see if you guys get caught. Prove them wrong kinda attitude...ya'll know.???

So you're saying you never transferred any unfilled controlled prescriptions prior to this new interpretation?

Are you saying no one else did either, and that they're not liable for those transfers?



Are you one of the many pharmacists saying it's a "new law"

 

[Lnsean]

So you're saying you never transferred any unfilled controlled prescriptions prior to this new interpretation?

Are you one of the many pharmacists saying it's a "new law"

I have...but it was industry practice to do so. Now, it is not...so I will not. Pretty simple. The DEA has refused to clarify it..so you have to assume the stricter interpretation.

And yes...to your sill analogies...if a dying mom comes to me at 9:45PM on a Christmas Eve and I am the only pharmacy that is open and her child needs that benzo to survive through the night...the dad is also dying...as is the doctor...literally the whole world is dying and I am the only pharmacist on duty...yes....I'll break the law to save a life.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I have...but it was industry practice to do so. Now, it is not...so I will not. Pretty simple. The DEA has refused to clarify it..so you have to assume the stricter interpretation.

What changed?

What, specifically, happened?

 

[owlegrad]

What changed?

What, specifically, happened?

Let me answer your question with a question. Why won't the DEA clarify this? Why didn't they issue a policy position in the federal register? Why didn't they respond to questions about this hypothetical policy position? Why didn't they respond to MORE questions about this policy position? Why, hypothetically, when each time they respond do they cloud the issue by using words like "forward" and "permit" and "information"????

 

[Lnsean]

What changed?

What, specifically, happened?

I am paraphrasing here. In the memo, Walgreens said they were made aware of many inquisitions to the DEA regarding this matter...they reached out for clarification...and did not get any I supposed. Nothing about the law has changed, but its interpretation has..and all the DEA has to do is come out and clarify this..but they have not and this scares a lot of people. It almost seems like the DEA wants to reserve some vagueness in order to have some power of prosecution if it comes down to that and the lawyers are afraid of that....AND SO SHOULD YOU and EVERYONE HERE.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I am paraphrasing here. In the memo, Walgreens said they were made aware of many inquisitions to the DEA regarding this matter...they reached out for clarification...and did not get any I supposed. Nothing about the law has changed, but its interpretation has..and all the DEA has to do is come out and clarify this..but they have not and this scares a lot of people. It almost seems like the DEA wants to reserve some vagueness in order to have some power of prosecution if it comes down to that.

Who did this new interpretation if not the DEA?

 

[Lnsean]

Who did this new interpretation if not the DEA?

I'm not a ballerina nor a detective. I can only tell you what it is not why it is. I don't think anyone here can.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Let me answer your question with a question. Why won't the DEA clarify this? Why didn't they issue a policy position in the federal register? Why didn't they respond to questions about this hypothetical policy position? Why didn't they respond to MORE questions about this policy position? Why, hypothetically, when each time they respond do they cloud the issue by using words like "forward" and "permit" and "information"????

The problems with the DEA are mirrored with many problems with the ATF.

They once famously ruled that a 13" length of string was legally a machine gun.

 

[Lnsean]

The problems with the DEA are mirrored with many problems with the ATF.

They once famously ruled that a 13" length of string was legally a machine gun.

and who are you to say it's not? You're just a worker bee. lol.

 

[Lnsean]

Let me answer your question with a question. Why won't the DEA clarify this? Why didn't they issue a policy position in the federal register? Why didn't they respond to questions about this hypothetical policy position? Why didn't they respond to MORE questions about this policy position? Why, hypothetically, when each time they respond do they cloud the issue by using words like "forward" and "permit" and "information"????

Easy...I'll answer this for you. There is power in vagueness. They want to reserve this vagueness in order to have prosecution power when and if it comes down to that. That's why the lawyers are scared.

"Ah, technically it's not illegal to dispense so many narcotics, but we see that you've been doing illegal transfers of unfilled scripts....how do you explain that?"
"that law is stupid"
"is it now...is it...?"

 

[owlegrad]

The problems with the DEA are mirrored with many problems with the ATF.

They once famously ruled that a 13" length of string was legally a machine gun.

LOL if I was slightly more interested I would google that

Also you said the infamous email was available via google but I have used variations of "Debbie" "Walmart" "Controls" and "Email" without success. I am afraid too many more google searches and I will end up on a list.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

LOL if I was slightly more interested I would google that

Also you said the infamous email was available via google but I have used variations of "Debbie" "Walmart" "Controls" and "Email" without success. I am afraid too many more google searches and I will end up on a list.

 

[owlegrad]

.

You are too kind.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

LOL if I was slightly more interested I would google that

Also you said the infamous email was available via google but I have used variations of "Debbie" "Walmart" "Controls" and "Email" without success. I am afraid too many more google searches and I will end up on a list.

Oh, i meant her email address in the context of asking

"Why did this happen?"

 

[owlegrad]

It was 14' not 13'.

LEARN TO READ.

Also I asked for the Walmart email from Debbie.

LEARN TO READ.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

You are too kind.

They then realized they turned the CEO of Payless shoes into the biggest dealer of illegal machine guns in the country, so they reversed their ruling:

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ATF-shoestring-machine-gun-2007.jpg

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

It was 14' not 13'.

LEARN TO READ.

Also I asked for the Walmart email from Debbie.

LEARN TO READ.

Hey I'm not a jazz pianist ballerina

If Walgreens says a string in my company approved bathroom break diaper is a machine gun, who am i to argue?

 

[wagrxm2000]

Just read the 2010 comments section. It does specifically state you can transfer an unfilled prescription so all the chains are wrong.

Oh well, I'll just do as I'm told.

 

[owlegrad]

Just read the 2010 comments section. It does specifically state you can transfer an unfilled prescription so all the chains are wrong.

Oh well, I'll just do as I'm told.

Noooooo, you are performing mental gymnastics and I am tricking you into getting fired!!!!

 

[owlegrad]

Is it illegal to speed or to litter on the street? It sure is. Does the fact that it's rarely enforced mean that you will not get a ticket or fined for it? No. Your analogies are really poor and weak.

I have...but it was industry practice to do so. Now, it is not...so I will not. Pretty simple.

More of my "mental gymnastics". It used to be ok to transfer unfilled controls because it was "industry practice" (AKA: everyone was doing it) and now it is not ok because it is not "industry practice" (although nothing in the laws have changed) but the analogy to doing something widespread was poor AND weak (double combo). Interesting.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I've got to say, it was super interesting leading lnsean with breadcrumbs to find out where the cognitive dissonance kicks in for him.

 

[Lnsean]

More of my "mental gymnastics". It used to be ok to transfer unfilled controls because it was "industry practice" (AKA: everyone was doing it) and now it is not ok because it is not "industry practice" (although nothing in the laws have changed) but the analogy to doing something widespread was poor AND weak (double combo). Interesting.

I mean...I don't think you fully understand what is happening here. So, let me explain to you and the other guy. It was okay before because noone/few people had questioned it and everyone was on the same page regarding the law. There were some people that were confused and they asked the DEA to clarify. No biggie right? Walgreens (CVS, Walmart, RiteAid) is not afraid of some clarification.

This is where I think you guys are not grasping the seriousness of it: What is interesting and almost appalling is that when Walgreens and everyone else ASKED THE DEA FOR CLARIFICATION...they did not provide one. This has a lot of implications which none of you here are qualified to assess. The only logical thing to do when a figure of authority refuses to tell you exactly what you can't and cannot do is to err on the side of caution and use the stricter interpretation. This is what's happening right now. IT IS NOT THAT THE LAW HAS CHANGED, IT'S THE FACT THAT THE DEA HAS REFUSED TO CLARIFY IT. You'd would think that a whole industry changing its interpretation of a law would actually call into question the why of it, but instead you just just try to dismiss it away by calling it stupid.

That is the equivalent of you asking your mom, "mommy can I stay up past midnight," and then your mom replies "well it depends..."..."depends on what, mommy"..."I dunno...you tell me."

So what do you do? You get home before midnight.

 

[Lnsean]

I've got to say, it was super interesting leading lnsean with breadcrumbs to find out where the cognitive dissonance kicks in for him.

I think personal attacks are the last embers of someone's losing argument. There is no place for that in debates.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I think personal attacks are the last embers of someone's losing argument. There is no place for that in debates.

We were discussing chronological events and agreeing, then when I asked for a detail that made you uncomfortable, you broke away from the train of thought and brought up a ballerina.

How am I attacking you in that post. I figure the 3 dozens times I asked you to learn to read are a bit more abrasive than that

EDIT: Please accept my apology and one free voucher for some Budrouxs butt paste

 

[owlegrad]

I think personal attacks are the last embers of someone's losing argument. There is no place for that in debates.

That is so rich. You called me a ballerina, asked if I know how to read, called me something like a pretend lawyer, and made other disparaging remarks. NOW there is no place for that in debate?

 

[Lnsean]

We were discussing chronological events and agreeing, then when I asked for a detail that made you uncomfortable, you broke away from the train of thought and brought up a ballerina.

How am I attacking you in that post. I figure the 3 dozens times I asked you to learn to read are a bit more abrasive than that

Let's agree to disagree. I think you've lost a lot of credibility with the last post. If i wanted to sling personal attacks, I'd go on a different thread on SDN.

 

[Lnsean]

That is so rich. You called me a ballerina, asked if I know how to read, called me something like a pretend lawyer, and made other disparaging remarks. NOW there is no place for that in debate?

metaphors for your arguments. not you. well, are you a lawyer? maybe you scored very low on the verbal section on the SATs? That's a personal attack.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

metaphors for your arguments. not you. well, are you a lawyer? maybe you scored very low on the verbal section in the SATs? That's a personal attack.

Hahahahah, so "metaphors for your arguments" are OK, but using the term "cognitive dissonance" is not.

This is amazing.

Can I start a petition to change your name to Lnsosoo?

 

[Lnsean]

Hahahahah, so "metaphors for your arguments" are OK, but using the term "cognitive dissonance" is not.

This is amazing.

Can I start a petition to change your name to Lnsosoo?

I was attacking the argument not the person. You attacked the person. Very simple distinction.

 

[owlegrad]

metaphors for your arguments. not you. well, are you a lawyer? maybe you scored very low on the verbal section on the SATs? That's a personal attack.

That’s some mental gymnastics there.

I am not a lawyer. I never represented myself as a lawyer. But I guess I can see how calling me a pretend Internet lawyer is attacking my argument not me.

 

[Lnsean]

That’s some mental gymnastics there.

I am not a lawyer. I never represented myself as a lawyer. But I guess I can see how calling me a pretend Internet lawyer is attacking my argument not me.

Of course it is. If you are not a lawyer, you are not qualified to make such interpretations on DEA regulations, especially on something that is vague. You weren't just quoting these regulations, you were making inferences and extrapolating. It's important that people know.

 

[owlegrad]

Of course it is. If you are not a lawyer, you are not qualified to make such interpretations on DEA regulations, especially on something that is vague. You weren't just quoting these regulations, you were making inferences and extrapolating. It's important that people know.

It’s important that people know I’m not a lawyer? Ok, consider people warned. Is it important people know I’m a ballerina?

 

[Lnsean]

It’s important that people know I’m not a lawyer? Ok, consider people warned. Is it important people know I’m a ballerina?

Clearly, I said that of your mental gymnastics...like literally it was followed one directly after the other. I mean if reading comprehension is that hard, I can't help you. Also, people will not mistake you for a ballerina...but they will mistake your advice as good advice and fuk themselves over.

 

[owlegrad]

Clearly, I said that of your mental gymnastics...like literally it was followed one directly after the other. I mean if reading comprehension is that hard, I can't help you.

Lol, yeah, I can see how this is a comment on my argument, not on my person.

 

[Lnsean]

Lol, yeah, I can see how this is a comment on my argument, not on my person.

of course. the main point is no one here will mistake you for a ballerina...they might, however, mistake your poor advice as good advice and fuk themselves over...like your friend here...ceitialphafive... who's been illegally transfering controlled scripts in NY without ever being caught.

 

[owlegrad]

of course. the main point is no one here will mistake you for a ballerina...they might, however, mistake your poor advice as good advice and fuk themselves over...like your friend here...ceitialphafive... who's been illegally transfering controlled scripts in NY without ever being caught.

I have given two pieces of advice. One piece of advice is to follow your corporate policy to keep your job. On this we agree so it’s boring to discuss, I guess. It seems to me that you ignore the fact that I have always maintained following corporate policy but regardless I haven’t advised anyone to break policy.

My other piece of advice is for people to read the Federal Register and read the DEA’s response to comments and decide for themselves what the DEA policy is in regard to transfers and controls. I guess if you consider ‘think for yourself’ bad advice you could argue that I’m giving poor advice.

 

[owlegrad]

He actually transferred a prescription out of New York meaning he was likely in compliance with his own state laws. As he said, he wasn’t in New York. Many people don’t understand that you’re not obligated to follow the laws of other states when doing transfers only your own.

Just some free advice from your neighborhood pretend Internet lawyer.

 

[Lnsean]

My other piece of advice is for people to read the Federal Register and read the DEA’s response to comments and decide for themselves what the DEA policy is in regard to transfers and controls. I guess if you consider ‘think for yourself’ bad advice you could argue that I’m giving poor advice.

Thinking for yourself is never bad. It's good. It's when you think too much that you feel you're infallible. It's okay to admit that you're wrong. There is a sense of trying to be right and that's all I sense from you...which is not the point of this thread. You should not be spreading misinformation that could potentially get someone fired. "Forward" is not the same as "transfer" as written in that commentary. It just isn't..and you're not qualified to make that interpretation. That's all I'm going to say about that. That's what bothered me and I will call people out every time i see it.

 

[Lnsean]

He actually transferred a prescription out of New York meaning he was likely in compliance with his own state laws. As he said, he wasn’t in New York. Many people don’t understand that you’re not obligated to follow the laws of other states when doing transfers only your own.

Just some free advice from your neighborhood pretend Internet lawyer.

Lmao..yea okay...whatever he says okay? Like everyone here is 5 or something

"OH noes...did i say that? I meant I was not in NY at all. I was actually in TX. And nope....definitely not me."

 

[owlegrad]

Thanks for calling me out for trying to get people fired. You caught me, I just can’t admit when I am wrong. I think everyone will sleep a little better knowing you are looking out for them.

Literally the only information I have spread is quoting the Federal Register and the DEA response to comments. In my dozens of posts I may have gone on to expand on my own interpritations but the core of my messages has been a direct quotation.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

of course. the main point is no one here will mistake you for a ballerina...they might, however, mistake your poor advice as good advice and fuk themselves over...like your friend here...ceitialphafive... who's been illegally transfering controlled scripts in NY without ever being caught.

LMAO, so if the speed limit in New York is 65mph and I drive 70mph in Texas a DPS trooper will give me a ticket?

of course. the main point is no one here will mistake you for a ballerina...they might, however, mistake your poor advice as good advice and fuk themselves over...like your friend here...ceitialphafive... who's been illegally transfering controlled scripts in NY without ever being caught.

Really?

I know for a fact I've transferred controls out of there before.

Probably even an unfilled one. Lol

I wonder if people who try to misrepresent things do that because they forget the posts are still there.