Jailed For Trying To Fill A Prescription
In yet another sick casualty of the absurd War on Drugs, a Dallas woman, Annie Lenhart, was thrown in jail when she went to the drug store for more painkillers -- painkillers for which she had a legal prescription after shattering her kneecap falling down a cliff on vacation. Susy Solis writes for DFW's CBSlocal.com:
With the help of several men, Lenhart climbed out of the area and after a 3 1/2 hour trip to the nearest hospital in Port-Au-Prince, she underwent reconstructive surgery with no general anesthesia.A week later she was flown back to the U.S., still in deep pain, and admitted into Baylor Medical Center in Dallas.
"They gave me a pretty high, heavy duty narcotic, Norco, as a painkiller going forward and I had used that up. It had been a month and I had called for my refill," Lenhart said.
The pharmacy called Lenhart to ask her exactly what time she would be in pick up her prescription. She thought it was odd, but told the pharmacy what time she would be there.
Still on crutches and unable to drive, a friend of Lenhart's, drove her to a CVS Pharmacy in Oak Cliff.
She wasn't able to pick up her prescription because a police officer arrived to pick her up.
"He was like 'we need to go outside,'" she said. "I was on crutches and I had a permanent IV line in my arm. I had a big leg brace. I asked him if it was necessary and he said yes and he rather policingly escorted me out the front door and into the back of a waiting patrol car."
Lenhart was so stunned, she didn't think to ask the officer questions. The officer explained to her what was going on.
"He said, 'Well we believe that you have forged your pain pill prescription and we are calling your doctor now. But I've worked with this pharmacist a number of times and he's never made a mistake," Lenhart said.
The officer then took her the Dallas County jail, where she remained overnight. After she was released on bond, she was charged with obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, a felony.
She eventually things straightened out, but consider this: An injured woman had her freedom taken from her because of the drug war. Yet another woman, yet another person, among so many people.
But...but...but we can't legalize drugs, or we'll all become pasty-faced burnouts who need professional help! We'll all be robbing each other blind for our fixes!
(Do I really have to go on with all the sarcastic f*cking bullsh*t? I really hate these people.)
mpetrie98 at May 7, 2012 12:11 AM
Well, hate me, then.
But no one, and I mean no one, has explained just how industry will be provided objective means testing for abuse for their drug of choice. Apparently, they just want to get high; screw other people.
Again: if you legalize a drug, you must provide employers objective standards of impairment!
Right now, the illegality of a substance is the threshold level for "for cause" testing in dozens of critical positions.
It's a simple question: what concentration of the drug involved constitutes impairment, such that an employer may engage in disciplinary action?
That is a critical question for "legalization". This will affect YOU. You are not about to tell me you want to hear the bus company say, "We know he was using {drug}, but we couldn't fire him because it's legal and there is no lawful impairment standard. No "sobriety" test."
Meanwhile, mistakes by or misbehavior of police is NOT a valid argument for "legalizing drugs" (in quotes because it seems to mean different things to different people) any more than criminal use of guns, or accidental shootings by police, is a reason to take them from the law-abiding citizen.
The case cited seems to have legs, in that a suit looks possible. But that mistake argues for better prescription controls of the increasingly potent drugs available legally, some of which are obviously dangerous, not for the ridiculous idea that abuse will end if everybody can get whatever.
Radwaste at May 7, 2012 2:30 AM
Again: if you legalize a drug, you must provide employers objective standards of impairment!
We have that for alcohol now, don't we? How hard could it be for other drugs?
Oh, and what about 'legal' drugs? Do we have standards on how many prescription painkillers or mood stabilizers or whatever is acceptable before you go to work?
Prohibition of alcohol did not work, neither is prohibition of other (less harmful, less addictive) drugs.
DrCos at May 7, 2012 3:41 AM
No one is saying that drug abuse will end. But take a look at things as they are happening. We have all these resources aimed at curbing drug use, and yet none of it has made a freaking difference. We've been at the "War on Drugs" for decades, yet every year the amount of drugs entering the US goes up. Casual drug use goes up. Hard core drug use goes up. Most people in jail are there for drug offenses. It's absurd. A complete and total waste of effort, money and manpower. How long do we have to bang our heads against a stone wall to figure out 1) it hurts and 2) it's not putting a dent in the wall? Let's throw our treasure at something that might make a difference, instead of pissing it away on things that have proven to NOT WORK. It's like driving to work in a pirate!
Jim Armstrong at May 7, 2012 5:30 AM
What kind of professional standard is that pharmacist held to that his first call is to the police rather than the doctor on the prescription he believes is a fraud? A call to the doctor first would've cleared things up, as it did, but better for the pharmacist to deputize himself against his clients rather than ask questions. Even the clients on crutches and in a leg brace. Because TEH DRUGS!
Tony at May 7, 2012 5:43 AM
>>Again: if you legalize a drug, you must provide employers objective standards of impairment!
We already have this. Otherwise I could drive a bus load of kids to school daily while high on my oxycontin prescription.
>>Meanwhile, mistakes by or misbehavior of police is NOT a valid argument for "legalizing drugs"
Consistent abuse of a law, by law enforcement personel, is an excellent reason to repeal that law. In fact, it is the best reason to repeal a law.
Assholio at May 7, 2012 6:44 AM
>> any more than criminal use of guns, or accidental shootings by police, is a reason to take them from the law-abiding citizen.
I will take this moment to point out that by this argument, there is no valid reason to make any drug illegal.
assholio at May 7, 2012 6:49 AM
I hope that woman sues the living hell out of the pharmacist, the pharmacy, and the police department. A good outcome of all this would be the bankrupting of the pharmacy, the police involved being fired, and the pharmacist living in a cardboard box.
alittlesense at May 7, 2012 7:10 AM
Just because a thing is legal does not mean an employer must allow it on the job. There is no need for a standard or "objective" level of use.
Employers may refuse to hire smokers. In the same vein they would not be required to hire anyone who used certain drugs. The same drug screen tests we use today at my company could continue.
Jay at May 7, 2012 7:19 AM
Why am I not surprised that CVS is involved? This is another case of a company that has lousy service that thinks it can grow through acquisition of other poorly managed companies.
BarSinister at May 7, 2012 7:34 AM
The pharmacy ratted her out because of the power of the federal government to put them out of business if they didn't.
Read descriptions of living under Nazi or Communist rule, of living through the Cultural Revolution; the similarities are startling.
Does anyone else remember the campaign from a few years back encouraging children to turn in their parents? I do and it's still happening.
There's lots of complaining about gay marriage destroying families, yet federal government fascism and divorce law is doing far more real damage.
Joe at May 7, 2012 7:36 AM
Apparently, they just want to get high; screw other people.
Yeah, but then it's Monday morning again and you have to shower off all the pussy and get back to work.
Steve Daniels at May 7, 2012 8:42 AM
She eventually things straightened out
No, she hasn't had things straightened out until CVS and the pharmacist cuts her a large settlement check.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 7, 2012 9:26 AM
There will be no legal action against CVS, the pharmacist, or law enforcement. They all have immunity protection from crminal and civil liability unless you can prove they willfully planned/intended to violate that person's rights.
nuzltr2 at May 7, 2012 11:10 AM
That is a critical question for "legalization". This will affect YOU. You are not about to tell me you want to hear the bus company say, "We know he was using {drug}, but we couldn't fire him because it's legal and there is no lawful impairment standard. No "sobriety" test."
Bullshit. BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT !!!!
The legal threshold for alcohol is .08 in AZ and they are looking to drop it to .06. But you could be at .05 and the bus company could fire you for improper conduct regardless of the fact that you are under the "lawful impairment standard"
lujlp at May 7, 2012 2:05 PM
Does anyone else remember the campaign from a few years back encouraging children to turn in their parents?
I remember this very well. My youngest daughter came home from kindergarten with the DARE coloring book. She insisted that she had to call 9-1-1. She then showed me the center pages of this coloring book, at the stapled - you know easy for a 5 year old to find, and lo and behold the message was if your parents smoke, drink or use pills then the child should call 9-1-1 immediately. This message was illustrated quite clearly - wine glass with a red circle and slash through it, a cigarette with the same red circle and slash and pills depicted the same way. I knew my 5th grader was doing the DARE program at the time, but the police department distributed these coloring books as an added bonus to children who weren't old enough to discerne the difference of what was acceptable. In her mind, everything we did was bad and she had to call and report us. We were successful in de-programming her. The school on the other hand, wasn't happy with me the next day when I pulled my 5th grader out of the DARE week program and informed them that any more handouts sent home with my 5 year old would be met with swift action.
sara at May 7, 2012 2:38 PM
Ahh, the dare program. Its funny when in the mostly liberal state capital I live in, I see a pickup with a bumper sticker, "My kid graduated Dare program". People say that stuff doesn't work but yeah it does on young kids. It did me to some extent. Just imagine what else they're teaching kids, just not with a big coloring book etc..
Joe, you're right but its worse with CVS...
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/jan/05/did_cvs_buy_its_way_out_meth_ind
As in, CVS has been co-opted to be narc cops to avoid their own criminal charges. All for sudafed, cold medicine. In a state on the border with Mexico, where meth flows freely.
"CVS, the largest operator of pharmacies in the United States, confessed back in October that it knowingly allowed crystal meth manufacturers to illegally buy large amounts of pseudoephedrine (PSE), an active ingredient used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. To avoid criminal prosecution, CVS officials agreed to pay the federal government a $75 million fine for narcotics violations, the largest cash money penalty in the 40-year history of the Controlled Substances Act."
Radwaste, go talk to some commercial truck drivers. A family member is one and he's got to watch things carefully. Speeding ticket in personal car? Could lose your license. Let alone a DUI for booze or pot. Most of those laws are already in place. Christ we have child services/cops/hospitals taking kids away from mothers hours after being born because a drug test of the mom showed she had opiates in her system. Aka she'd eaten a poppy seed muffin not shot up some black tar heroin.
Sio at May 7, 2012 3:10 PM
I am so freaking sick of people and their, "but employers need standards of impairment..."
No, they really, really don't. If you don't, can't, or won't perform the job you are hired for safely, efficiently, and effectively, then the employer should fire you.
The employer shouldn't care if you are stoned or drunk as long as your work is not impaired and you are not putting yourself, co-workers, or customers at risk. If you do something that is a safety violation, impaired or not, the employer should have the right to fire you without having to have a burden of proof.
And our laws should protect those employers decisions.
The gray part is workers' compensation responsibility to pay for a stoned jerk hurting himself. And in my opinion, you should if it was an honest accident and no safety regulation were broken (ex. your hand was accidentally sliced open by another employee...as it is now, if they find marijuana in your system, work comp. doesn't have to pay for the cost of the stitches)
Cat at May 7, 2012 4:03 PM
One of the things going through my mind as I read the article was "You know, when the cop sees someone on crutches, brace on leg and AN IV IN HER ARM, you'd think it would occur that "Hmmm, maybe she DOES need the meds,and we need to check this further." But that would require actually thinking and making a decision instead of just making an arrest because you can."
I swear, they're training the ability to effing THINK out of far too many cops.
Firehand at May 7, 2012 4:59 PM
" Why am I not surprised that CVS is involved? This is another case of a company that has lousy service that thinks it can grow through acquisition of other poorly managed companies."
The CVS in my neighborhood only finally came into the mall it's in when they were given a lease of something like 20 years, with a right of refusal for ALL other leases in the same mall. They used said refusal to block the re-upping of the nearby liquor store that had been there for a couple decades already... all because they don't want any competition with anything they sell (alcohol being a big seller of course). So the rest of the mall is essentially dying now.
To the topic at hand: I'm all for making drugs legal. As long as we also hold people responsible for their own damn choices and don't essentially continue to try to "take care" of everyone that decides to ruin their life and use taxpayer money for repeated drug rehab trips and stuff. I really think that most people would be ok with making most drugs legal, but the big divide is whether to let people hit rock bottom and live with the consequences vs revolving doors at rehabs and such.
Miguelitosd at May 7, 2012 6:00 PM
"The employer shouldn't care if you are stoned or drunk as long as your work is not impaired and you are not putting yourself, co-workers, or customers at risk."
Name one situation in which this could happen. One situation in which someone could be high at work yet NOT impair their work or imperil others. Independent artist, maybe? But then, there would BE no employer to care about drug use.
I imagine at most any company you can find, any level of alcohol in your blood would mean you were fired If they found out. You, of course, would have to do something to MAKE them see the need to find out.
I know of people who say they pop a vicodin before any meeting with the particular person they find stressful at work. How and where they get the vicodin has not been made clear to me. I go to the Dr for a c-section and I'm offered advil. DH can go for a pimple and get morphine. Not fair.
Anyway, I hope this woman sues the shit out of CVS and wins big.
momof4 at May 7, 2012 7:34 PM
The answer is when they can't do their jobs.
You have the automatic prejudice that drug use = impairment. That is not true. There are many people out there that have been seriously injured that the therapeutic level of drugs are way above the mg/dl the "impairment" standards for the state. Many states have programs that test people using Opiates for competency to drive, and allow it. I know it is a small percentage, but it happens.
The other is that I know several people who have been charged with DUI for blowing around .03 but they failed the roadside gymnastics because of bad knees, bad backs, etc.
Now I have some homework questions for you all:
I look forward to your answers with eager anticipation.
Jim P. at May 7, 2012 8:26 PM
Jim, if they've used long enough they're habituated, then they aren't high. Of course, they had to get to that point. Were they working while they got there? I can pop 2 10/500 vicodins and go on with life-but it's not going to be to the standard that unmedicated me could fulfill. The first time I had to take it? Not so much. I could not have worked, nor watched my kids, and fortunately did not have to.
momof4 at May 7, 2012 9:18 PM
Until the employee is allowed to leave the workplace impaired, has an accident on the way home, and sues the employer.
Conan the Grammarian at May 8, 2012 3:21 PM
I'm not disagreeing that there may have been debilitating habituation.
But did you do any research on my questions?
Jim P. at May 8, 2012 8:01 PM
"You think? You self-important jerk, come see me when you're SURE. Did you maybe miss the crutches and IV, Einstein?"
There is a time to be polite, and a time for withering disregard.
mojo at May 14, 2012 8:43 AM
I'm sorry I missed this.
"I am so freaking sick of people and their, "but employers need standards of impairment..."
No, they really, really don't. If you don't, can't, or won't perform the job you are hired for safely, efficiently, and effectively, then the employer should fire you."
Cat, you know nothing whatsoever about industrial safety.
Sorry, but firing someone doesn't bring back the dead, un-maim anyone, put the radioactive contamination back in the waste tank.
Further, just what do propose an employer measure to determine "safely, efficiently and effectively"?
Yes, employers DO need objective standards, because if they are not provided, they cannot take disciplinary action!
Radwaste at May 14, 2012 6:12 PM
Leave a comment