Quote :

"Sheriffs Want Lists of Patients Using Painkillers News & Observer, 9-8-2010 Sheriffs in North Carolina want access to state computer records identifying anyone with prescriptions for powerful painkillers and other controlled substances. The state sheriff's association pushed the idea Tuesday, saying the move would help them make drug arrests and curb a growing problem of prescription drug abuse. But patient advocates say opening up people's medicine cabinets to law enforcement would deal a devastating blow to privacy rights. The ACLU opposed a bill in 2007 that would have opened the list to law enforcement officials, said ACLU lobbyist Sarah Preston. The organization would likely object to the new proposal. "What really did concern us is the privacy aspect," she said. Opening the record to more users could deter someone from getting necessary medicine because of the fear that others would find out, she said, "particularly in small towns where everybody knows everybody." "

Hey..if you're not doing anything illegal, why should you worry about your privacy? This mind-set will lead us into an Orwellian Nightmare. Our country was once a sea of Liberty with small islands of gov't intrusion. Now it is becoming more a sea of Gov't control with little islands of Liberty.

Sure we will be easier to control and investigate if we are stripped naked of our privacy. The Master must be able to inspect his slaves whenever he wishes...right?

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/08/669723/lists-of-pain-pillpatients-sought.html

9/10/2010 12:51:10 AM

seriously, I can't see this being even remotely legal. If the gov't can't tell a woman she can't have an abortion because of "privacy," then clearly this would be covered by medical privacy.

9/10/2010 1:52:46 AM

This should not happen. But some will probably say something along the lines of "ANYTHING THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT WANTS IS GOOD AND THEREFORE RIGHT!"

9/10/2010 2:05:42 AM

Here's another discussion I've seen of people complaining about this recently if anyone just wants to read more discussion (its a national lgbt blog, but its based in NC so it covers local/state politics sometimes, and they seem to be against this):
http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/17287/nc-law-enforcement-wants-warrantless-access-to-your-prescription-records

Quote :

"The ACLU opposed a bill in 2007 that would have opened the list to law enforcement officials, said ACLU lobbyist Sarah Preston. The organization would likely object to the new proposal."

I'm glad for that.

Quote :

"The state sheriff's association pushed the idea Tuesday"

The head of the organization pushing for this is a Republican (not surprising considering sheriffs are generally elected by and represent more rural populations).

Quote :

"For years, sheriffs have been trying to convince legislators that the state's prescription records should be open to them. "We can better go after those who are abusing the system," said Lee County Sheriff Tracy L. Carter."

Looked up the guy advocating for it in the article, also a Republican.

A comment from the site I linked:

Quote :

"I don't know how they would manage to get this past the laws governing medical confidentiality. HIPAA imposed some pretty harsh penalties for disclosing medical information. And that's federal, which trumps state"

Anyone know enough about HIPAA to comment on that statements accuracy?

9/10/2010 3:02:42 AM

Horrible idea. How would that information even help them? I mean, would they stake out people to make sure they weren't selling their meds? WTF?


It would be cool for them to at least know how much of the stuff is getting legally doled out in their area, I guess.

9/10/2010 3:14:13 AM

I don't give a shit as long as it's just painkillers. They're no fun. Now I will be worried when they put muscle relaxers on there.

9/10/2010 3:22:21 AM

I'm not behind this at all; that being said, it is my understanding that a select few at the SBI and some federal agencies already have access to this information. To access the information, a request has to be made and justification given.

9/10/2010 6:24:54 AM

Quote :

"Anyone know enough about HIPAA to comment on that statements accuracy?"

Eh, HIPAA is all about disclosure without consent, so this would be fairly easy to work around. Change the Medicaid laws to state that use of Medicaid services is implied consent and then change state insurance law so that insurance operators must get consent from customers to be allowed to operate in the state.

9/10/2010 7:58:56 AM

^^ which I can almost get behind, because it's not a blanket access to everything. They must have an actual reason for it. Kind of like getting a warrant or something...

9/10/2010 8:33:40 AM

Supplanter, I'm sorry but this isn't a Republican idea. The bulk of Sheriffs in North Carolina aren't Republican, they are Democrats. Just goes to show how far up your ass your head is.

As for the reasoning behind the Sheriffs wanting access, they are the highest Constitutionally elected official in each county and in many cases when you get into the farthest reaches of the State there aren't SBI agents around to provide said access to this information.

If passed, the law would designate one person in the department to have the authority to access this information.

As to HIPPA complaints, HIPPA already has has exceptions in it for items like this.

And people, why don't you look at the language of the legislation before you get up in arms about it.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/Bills/Senate/PDF/S4v2.pdf

[Edited on September 10, 2010 at 9:30 AM. Reason : .]

9/10/2010 9:19:01 AM

Not only is this a bad idea, it is unconstitutional.

The government has no right to gather private information about citizens, except when allowed so by a warrant.

9/10/2010 9:31:40 AM

The list already exists cochise. This list isn't new. It merely adds 100 people to those who are legally allowed to look at the list.

Some of you wouldn't know Constitutional or Unconstitutional if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.

9/10/2010 9:41:10 AM

and do those people need a reason to look at the list? A justifiable reason? I'm genuinely asking here...

9/10/2010 9:43:28 AM

Yes

9/10/2010 9:43:57 AM

where does it say so in that law?

9/10/2010 9:45:53 AM

Land of the free, lol

9/10/2010 9:59:40 AM

^^ still waiting on an answer to that.

[Edited on September 10, 2010 at 10:11 AM. Reason : ]

9/10/2010 10:11:42 AM

Quote :

"aaronburro Suspended 33502 Posts user info edit post and do those people need a reason to look at the list? A justifiable reason? I'm genuinely asking here... 9/10/2010 9:43:28 AM nutsmackr All American 46382 Posts user info edit post Yes 9/10/2010 9:43:57 AM aaronburro Suspended 33502 Posts user info edit post where does it say so in that law? 9/10/2010 9:45:53 AM"

it doesn't.

Quote :

"GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2007 S 2 SENATE BILL 4 Second Edition Engrossed 3/15/07 Short Title: Sheriffs Access Rx Info. (Public) Sponsors: Senators Snow; Apodaca, Goodall, and Jenkins. Referred to: Judiciary ll (Criminal). February 12, 2007 1 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED 2 AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE SHERIFFS TO INSPECT PRESCRIPTION PROFILES 3 AND STOCKS OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES. 4 The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: 5 SECTION 1. G.S. 90-107 reads as rewritten: 6 "§ 90-107. Prescriptions, stocks, etc., open to inspection by officials. 7 Prescriptions, order forms and records, required by this Article, and stocks of 8 controlled substances included in Schedules I through VI of this Article shall be open 9 for inspection only to federal and State officers, whose duty it is to enforce the laws of 10 this State or of the United States relating to controlled substances included in Schedules 11 I through VI of this Article, to constitutionally elected or appointed sheriffs, and to 12 authorized employees of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. 13 No officer having knowledge by virtue of his office of any such prescription, order, or 14 record shall divulge such knowledge other than to other law-enforcement officials or 15 agencies, except in connection with a prosecution or proceeding in court or before a 16 licensing board or officer to which prosecution or proceeding the person to whom such 17 prescriptions, orders, or records relate is a party." 18 SECTION 2. This act is effective when it becomes law."

This also doesn't specify a number. Sure we'd have at least 100 more people authorized to check the list, but what is keeping those sheriffs from showing that list to others? or giving his credentials to a deputy to look after the list?

Also, there's not a damn word in there about needing a REASON to access the list. By virtue of being the sheriff they can read the list anytime for any reason, and share that info without being checked.

I hope this doesn't get passed.

9/10/2010 10:15:24 AM

Chapter 10A and 12 of North Carolina Administrative Rules.

Quote :

"This also doesn't specify a number. Sure we'd have at least 100 more people authorized to check the list, but what is keeping those sheriffs from showing that list to others? or giving his credentials to a deputy to look after the list? "

Because it clearly says Constitutionally elected or Appointed Sheriff.

As for showing the information to others, that's the point of the list. Someone asks that information be looked up. After said information is looked up it is passed along to the investigating officer.

Under the current system, the local police, or sheriff department would have to call an SBI agent to look up the information which would mean the SBI agent would have to travel to the area where they are calling from.

[Edited on September 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

9/10/2010 10:21:35 AM

Quote :

"Sure we'd have at least 100 more people authorized to check the list, but what is keeping those sheriffs from showing that list to others?"

to be fair, the law does state that the sherriff couldn't divulge his knowledge to someone else on a whim, you know...

^ Care to narrow that down a bit? That's over 100 chapters of stuff to look through.

9/10/2010 10:24:30 AM

I don't have the time to go through every chapter to parse through everything to pull out every applicable rule for inspecting perscription records but here goes:
10A NCAC 26E .0503
(c) All inspections shall be conducted in accordance with applicable provisions of the Constitution of the United States and the State of North Carolina.

And of course there is a litany of court cases concerning the recovery of information through databases such as this, but I don't have the time to go through the Green Book.

[Edited on September 10, 2010 at 10:32 AM. Reason : ,]

9/10/2010 10:30:50 AM

well, I mean you are the one saying they need a valid reason. I'm just asking you to back it up with fact, given that the given law, itself, doesn't say such a thing.

9/10/2010 10:34:17 AM

There are rules governing access by DHHS and the SBI for this information.

http://reports.oah.state.nc.us/ncac.asp?folderName=\Title%2012%20-%20Justice\Chapter%2004%20-%20Division%20of%20Criminal%20Information

9/10/2010 10:51:53 AM

OK Let's look at the argument of the folks who think this further invasion of privacy is fine...

Quote :

"the law would designate one person in the department to have the authority to access this information."

One person may have the authority..but the Sheriff's deputies, secretary's and the janitor will get access to your medical records if one person can. Information leaks in gov't, especially local governments, are all too common.

Quote :

"and do those people need a reason to look at the list? "

I read the law. There's nothing in it that says the Sheriff or someone from the NC Dept of Health needs a reason to peruse your records.

Quote :

"Under the current system, the local police, or sheriff department would have to call an SBI agent to look up the information which would mean the SBI agent would have to travel to the area where they are calling from."

So much extra hassle for the police isn't it? You know, I kind like the idea that it's hard for the gov't to know your stuff. I like warrants, and red-tape and paperwork, and judges to get in between the cops and my life. The Founding Fathers liked it too.

We should fear all attempts by the gov't to roll over our lives in the interest of expediency.

9/10/2010 10:57:01 AM

agree and signed.

9/10/2010 2:53:31 PM

well if you aren't doing anything illegal...

9/10/2010 3:12:29 PM

If you aren't doing anything illegal, you should have no worries, true. However, you should also have the expectation of privacy, and opening up prescription databases so that NC cops can see everyone's prescription without warrant or cause is extremely disturbing. The ends do not justify the means in this case. I think there are other solutions to the probelm that would be more effective.

Also, if they implement this, what is there to stop people from getting their presciptions out of state (and out of view from the law)?

9/11/2010 10:01:07 AM

Anyone that is ok with this law needs to get the fuck out of the country as you simply aren't a true American.

9/11/2010 10:12:48 AM

You ungrateful infidel. The government graciously permits you the great blessing of medicine, as long as you pay the associated syndicate first. If they throw a dog a bone, they don't give a shit how it tastes.

[Edited on September 12, 2010 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

9/12/2010 10:00:41 PM

Seemed related enough to go here instead of its own thread:

http://www.americanindependent.com/nc-wake-county-sheriff-laments-probable-cause-requirement-for-pulling-over-motorists//#dsq-form-area

Quote :

"NC: Wake County sheriff laments probable cause requirement for pulling over motorists In interview with House candidate, says requiring suspicion of probable cause is 'sort of burden on us' RALEIGH — Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison says the constitutional protection against unjustified searches and seizures inhibits law enforcement and it would be better if police could pull over motorists without probable cause. Harrison, a Republican seeking election to a third four-year term in November, makes his comments in a video interview on the YouTube channel of Tom Murry, a Morrisville councilman running for the state House in the 41st District, which includes parts of Raleigh, Apex, Cary and Morrisville. In the video, Murry asks, “Is the state making it easier for you to do your job or making it more difficult?” Harrison, a former North Carolina Highway Patrol trooper, responds, “The biggest thing I see is the way we interpret laws. Back when I was a young trooper, we could stop a car anytime we wanted to to see if they had a driver’s license. Now you can’t do it. You have to have suspicion of probable cause. So, to me, it’s sort of burden on us.” Harrison goes on to describe a scenario in which he is a police officer in the market for a new car who sees a vehicle he likes and stops the driver to ask where he bought it. “I walk up to car,” Harrison says, “You have not violated any law — and I’d have to testify to that in court — but I look into your back seat and there you are loaded down with marijuana, cocaine, white liquor or whatever it might be, do you think you’re going to be found guilty in court? No, because I didn’t have reason to stop you and they’ll toss it out in court. Is that right? To me, no.” State Rep. Chris Heagarty, the Democrat being challenged by Murry, says he watched the video and was “a little bit shocked” by Harrison’s attitude toward the constitutional protection against unjustified searches and seizures. “It goes to the Fourth Amendment, which he is sworn to uphold,” says Heagarty, who received a law degree from N.C. Central University last spring. “I understand he wants to fight crime, but you don’t do that by giving a blank check to law enforcement.”"

9/13/2010 4:03:18 PM

Quote :

"he is a police officer in the market for a new car who sees a vehicle he likes and stops the driver to ask where he bought it. "

Quote :

"he is a police officer in the market for a new car who sees a vehicle he likes and stops the driver to ask where he bought it. "

Quote :

"he is a police officer in the market for a new car who sees a vehicle he likes and stops the driver to ask where he bought it. "

Quote :

"he is a police officer in the market for a new car who sees a vehicle he likes and stops the driver to ask where he bought it. "

Quote :

"he is a police officer in the market for a new car who sees a vehicle he likes and stops the driver to ask where he bought it. "

[Edited on September 13, 2010 at 4:30 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2010 4:30:03 PM

Harrison definitely won't be getting my vote.

Quote :

"The list already exists cochise. This list isn't new. It merely adds 100 people to those who are legally allowed to look at the list. Some of you wouldn't know Constitutional or Unconstitutional if it jumped up and bit you in the ass."

doesn't matter, it's still unconstitutional. NO ONE in the government should be able to access such information without first obtaining a legally obtained warrant. Really, there is no reason this list should even exist, so no one should be looking at it. if the government needs to find out what meds I'm on, then they should have to get a warrant then search my property or obtain this information through the medical field.

Privacy is privacy and we are losing it quickly. A little here, a little there and in the end, it's gone. just look at gun rights. you libbies like to claim no one is taking guns away, but what's happened? a little restriction there, a little more here, on and on and on.

slippery slope people.

9/13/2010 4:48:58 PM

^^^FACE PALM, this is what gives LEOs a bad name. Not only do they sound moronic, they don't even know the fucking law. Only RS is need for a stop not PC. Turning on your blue lights to stop a car is a seizure, you would be an idiot if you were in the market for a car.

[Edited on September 13, 2010 at 4:55 PM. Reason : ...]

9/13/2010 4:50:34 PM

^^agreed.


As far as Harrison getting my vote, I'll have to see what his opponent(s) is(are) saying.

voting for elected officials is typically voting for the lessor of 2 evils.

9/13/2010 6:59:15 PM

I'm surprised they still allow us vote for sheriff at all.

9/13/2010 7:03:56 PM

The Fuhrer would be proud.

9/15/2010 9:18:39 AM

What's Harrison bitching about? There's a billion traffic laws that we're all violating at any given time. All a cop has to do is bother to know those laws, and they can pull us with cause whenever they please. He's just like, "Man, it's so hard to learn all these traffic laws. I just wanna be lazy and pull people for the fuck of it."

9/15/2010 9:55:47 AM

Quote :

"So, to me, it’s sort of burden on us.”"

Yes that 'freedom' can get to be a burden for Big Brother.

9/15/2010 10:13:46 AM

I had a trip to Norfolk one time and for the sake of convience I put my 2 perscription pills along with some IBUProfen and multivitamin in a old pill container I had, instead of carrying 4 individual bottles. Part of this trip included boarding a boat to cruise around the harbor after dinner. Boarding the boat the asshole sheriff's department required a mandatory pat-down (I suppose looking for airplane bottles). When he felt my pill bottle, I pulled it out and the asshole literally started talking shit and accusing me of having illegal drugs. Somethign to the nature of...

"What we have here punk looks like you got some illegal narcotics"

I had to explain to officer hard-ass the deal and after consulting with his buddy for 10 minutes he let me go.

9/15/2010 1:42:22 PM

That was nice of him. You're supposed to have your prescription papers on you at all times, you know that. Be more careful next time, comrade.

9/15/2010 7:54:54 PM

A little perspective on this...

Patients routinely come into Emergency Rooms asking for pain mediciation. Provider's see that many of those patients have seen over 30 providers in under a year through a database that all provider's have access to (suppose to help them determine who is doctor shopping). Most providers simply give up, prescribe them a narcotic, and get them out of the door. The providers have no recourse to report these obvious crimes/abuses to the authorities. One story I know of is a family that comes to local ERs with prepared stories. They all get prescriptions for narcotics, and then sell them out the door. I have heard it described from providers in certain ERs that patients seeking narcotics is over half the visits they see in a day. Most they consider to be bogus and are either addicts or using the prescriptions for resale.

While I don't want the government to have access to my health records, doctor shopping for narcotics is one of the obvious abuses of the system that ends up costing all of us.

[Edited on September 16, 2010 at 9:33 AM. Reason : .]

9/16/2010 9:31:58 AM

^ My friends worthless sister actually did this shit. Faked an emergency room issue (btw she is unemployed, no health insurance, and receives gov't disability ), in order to get painkillers.

Quote :

"Privacy is privacy and we are losing it quickly. A little here, a little there and in the end, it's gone. just look at gun rights. you libbies like to claim no one is taking guns away, but what's happened? a little restriction there, a little more here, on and on and on. "

Conservativse are just as guilty. This sounds more of a right-wing WAR ON DRUGS attitude to get those evil druggies from abusing prescription medicine.

9/16/2010 9:57:43 AM

I don't really care if people abuse perscription drugs. This should be priority 0 on law-enforcement's to-do. I consider drivers in the rain without their headlights on a higher priority.

9/16/2010 10:05:06 AM

Quote :

"I don't really care if people abuse perscription drugs. This should be priority 0 on law-enforcement's to-do. I consider drivers in the rain without their headlights on a higher priority. "

Pretty much my opinion. If they then go out and rob houses to make mroe money or get caught breaking into the pharmacy than it is a completely different issue and there are laws for this....

9/16/2010 11:48:48 AM

^ Well, then you both shouldnt be complaining when you are at the Emergency Room having to wait a long time to be treated because you have 30 crackheads ahead of you waiting to get their 5th prescription of Percocet of the week.

And along those lines, you shouldnt be upset that your doctors visit is more expensive because those drug seekers don't pay their ER bills (if they go to state hospitals). Or because Medicaid patients are using their coverage to get high (happens all the time) [ends up costing the government, then you]

You also shouldnt be upset when you get a doctor that doesnt want to prescribe you a necessary narcotic because they have become so distrusting for people's need for them, that they'd rather prescribe you Advil.

It affects all of us. I'd be fine with the police getting a list of those people that meet a fairly high threshhold for narcotic prescriptions. It wont affect those getting a Vicodin script 2 times a year, but those people that get 10, they might get a call to find out why.

[Edited on September 16, 2010 at 3:38 PM. Reason : .]

9/16/2010 3:36:19 PM

Quote :

"It affects all of us. I'd be fine with the police getting a list of those people that meet a fairly high threshhold for narcotic prescriptions. It wont affect those getting a Vicodin script 2 times a year, but those people that get 10, they might get a call to find out why"

I am fine with this but I am worried about the slippery slope. If 10 prescriptions is set to flag law enforcement attention than someone can argue why not 9! Next thing you know the Sheriff's department will have a list of everyone taking even a Schedule IV drug like the modafinil I take.

9/16/2010 5:30:36 PM

Quote :

"The providers have no recourse to report these obvious crimes/abuses to the authorities. "

This is the real problem. The doctors and the pharmacists know who the abusers are, if the cops want to know, there needs to be a better line a communication for providers and the cops, not a list of everyone with a percocet prescription.

9/16/2010 9:46:41 PM

Or the cops could you know, do some freakin detective work.

9/17/2010 9:07:01 AM

^^^^Increased wait-time, increased expenses, lack-of-access....these things are already happening DUE TO the regluations

9/17/2010 11:03:45 AM

Quote :

"Conservativse are just as guilty. This sounds more of a right-wing WAR ON DRUGS attitude to get those evil druggies from abusing prescription medicine."

I wasn't making a left/right argument. I was simply stating this is a slippery slope and gave an example of another. This prescription drug list is obviously a product of the right. If you were to read my posts you would see that I oppose any measure/person/group attempting to deny, remove or change our constitutional freedoms, left or right.

9/17/2010 3:00:59 PM