It’s summer and for whatever reason, readership tends to go down in the summer. People are busy with vacations and vacation planning. After work hours and weekends are dedicated to family and outdoor fun. That’s the way it should be.
I do have some specific essays that I want to write this summer but I intend to be a little less regular until the end of August when I will return to my weekly publishing schedule. I may also post one or two essays this summer that are not directly related to my normal subject matter. Call it summer recreational thinking/writing. Watch for those and let me know what you think about them.
According to Politico, “The word emerged late Sunday night from congressional staffers working on the package who said a last-minute compromise effort failed to win the support of stakeholders, and a decision had been made to drop it — for now.”
It’s hard to imagine why people would actually prefer to buy drugs from internet websites that are obviously not licensed legitimate pharmacies. That is, those that do not require proof of a valid prescription from a legitimate prescriber, and/or do not carry an online pharmacy certification (especially from the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, NAPB, VIIPS program). In an earlier essay I said this about people who would buy drugs from these illegitimate sources:
“Most of the criminal activity has moved out of the legitimate supply chain, mostly onto the internet. You know, the internet, where criminals can sell drugs directly to the few consumers who are dumb enough to think that someone will sell them legitimate prescription drugs, but do so illegally by not requiring a prescription. That is, they think that some faceless company would be willing to knowingly break one law, but could then be trusted to provide real pharmaceuticals at below market prices. In the age of the internet, how do you protect people who are that gullible?”
In this time of potential Congressional legislative action on drug track and trace I think it is time to take a closer look at the specific provisions contained in the current California pedigree law regarding Federal preemption. As I recall, this language was added in the most recent update of the law, the same update that pushed it out to 2015 – 2017. It is an invitation to the federal government to create their own national pedigree regulation and, if that happens, would cause the California pedigree law to become “inoperative”, thus preempted.
…a comprehensive exploration of the intersection between healthcare supply chains, track and trace technology, standards and global regulatory compliance
DISCLAIMER: RxTrace contains some of the personal thoughts, ideas and opinions of Dirk Rodgers. The material contained in RxTrace is not legal advice. Dirk Rodgers is not a lawyer. The reader must make their own decisions about the accuracy of the opinions expressed in RxTrace. Readers are encouraged to consult their own legal counsel and trading partners before taking any actions based on information found in RxTrace. RxTrace is not a vehicle for communicating the positions of any company, organization or individual other than Dirk Rodgers.