
FedEx Charged With Shipping Drugs For Illegal Online Pharmacies - sizzle
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/17/332400444/fedex-charged-with-shipping-drugs-for-illegal-online-pharmacies?sc=tw
======
thaumaturgy
This is stupid.

I've had severe asthma since I was a small child. It's hospitalized me a
couple of times. I'm fairly healthy now, but I still try to keep a rescue
inhaler within 20 minutes' reach all the time, because something might still
trigger an asthma attack and it can get deadly really fast.

Those stupid inhalers have only gotten more expensive and more difficult to
get over the years. Sans insurance, a few years ago I used OTC Primatine,
which wasn't great, but mostly did the job. Then those were all banned in the
U.S. because of the accelerant they used and nothing showed up to take their
place. (Oh, except for homeopathic rescue inhalers, now sold on shelves at
major drugstores throughout the U.S. -- so just to bruise this dead horse a
little bit more, in the U.S. real emergency medication for a common medical
condition is hard to get, but magic water for the same thing is available
everywhere.)

After paying a visit to a doctor and going through the whole 20 minute
interview and all that nonsense, I can be given a prescription for a $70
inhaler.

 _Or_ , knowing exactly what I need, I could order it from a Canadian pharmacy
where the cost of exactly the same inhaler _is less than the cost of
shipping_.

$70 and a doctor's visit isn't a big deal for me anymore. But a few years ago
it was, and it still is for an awful lot of people.

~~~
maccard
Asthamtic here; I feel ya. However, I can also walk into a pharmacy here
(Ireland) and explain to them that I'm an asthmatic, and need a releiver
inhaler. They will give an "emergency" inhaler, (same inhaler, no questions
asked) over the counter and ask me nicely to go to the doctor for the next
one.

You're probably an edge case. The vast majority of people who are ordering
from online pharmacies are doing so because they think they know what they're
doing, and because they feel X or Y, they should take Z. This isn't really a
problem with inhalers per se, because the amount of them you are required to
ingest is actually pretty damn high before you are in any danger, but for
stuff like prescription painkillers, people are self medicating and avoiding
doctors visits for issues that they should be seeing a professional for.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I tried the pharmacy counter approach once at several pharmacies, they
wouldn't do anything without a prescription from a doctor. In the U.S., asthma
inhalers are used by a few silly teenagers to get "high" (for those without
asthma: effective rescue inhalers are corticosteroids that as a side effect
also accelerate your heart rate). The reaction in the U.S. of course has been
to make the rescue inhalers difficult to get for the ~25 million people in the
country with the condition.

I would want to see some estimates on how many people are actually abusing
online pharmacies to harm themselves or others vs. people using them
legitimately to get medication that's otherwise unavailable or too expensive
locally. I know at least a couple of women that use them for birth control,
because there's a product available that way that isn't available in the U.S.,
that has less of a hormonal impact than the usual stuff. (I don't know the
name of the product or anything else about it, though.)

As far as abuse goes, I suspect that abuse of ADHD drugs might be somewhat
common, and I'd bet there are at least a few on HN doing that (because it's
been discussed before), and honestly I find it difficult to care at all about
that kind of abuse.

I don't think that further removing access to affordable medication is the
right way to get people to see a doctor.

------
absherwin
From an internal memo about more stringent credit policies for internet
pharmacies: "Many of these companies operate outside of federal and state
regulations over the sale of controlled drugs, which require diagnosis and
prescription by a licensed physician. Drugs purchased from these sites may be
diluted or counterfeit."

To believe that FedEx lacked knowledge of illegal activity, one must believe
that they assumed some of these pharmacies were genuine and that while it was
feasible to create special policies to ensure FedEx was paid, policies to
verify the organizations legitimacy (which would also increase the chance of
them being paid), were impractical. However, that will be difficult because
one executive told another that: "...these types of accounts will _always_
result in a loss at some point. They have a very short lifespan and will
eventually be shut down by the DEA." (emphasis added)

They certainly can't argue, as many others in this thread have, that the
companies weren't identifiable: They were doing it to enforce this policy. The
credit department maintained a list of pharmacies that, at one time, had 600
entries on it.

~~~
nitrogen
Based solely on your quotations, I would use the following analogy:

Suppose you like to buy and sell bags full of chocolate eggs. You know from
past experience that roughly 10% of the foil-wrapped eggs are spoiled, but the
only way of knowing _which_ 10% of the foil-wrapped eggs is to cut them all
open, which would be uneconomical _and_ destroy the entire value of the
product.

So maybe FedEx knew that P(illegal|pharmacy) was greater than P(illegal), but
that P(illegal|pharmacy) was still too low compared to P(pharmacy) to justify
shutting down all pharmacies.

~~~
absherwin
Always is an odd characterization of something that occurs 10% of the time.

Edit to respond to comment: The context is a an executive talking about
whether accounts that FedEx classifies as internet pharmacies should be
counted towards sales goals used for bonuses. That means they could classify
new accounts as belonging to this group or not. It's worth noting that their
definition is likely not synonymous with the plain meaning of internet
pharmacy. Rather it means that subset that they expect the DEA will put out of
business. I'm sure Caremark isn't excluded from normal sales metrics and
subjected to extraordinary credit requirements.

~~~
nitrogen
"Always" could be referring to the x% subset. Does the context of the quote
say which interpretation is correct?

------
zaroth
The DEA wants to be able to inspect these packages, under the guise of
catching drugs. They ask FedEx, let us just come in and open what we want, and
they said fuck off.

So now the theory is, just prosecute FedEx for not being law enforcement.
FedEx has two choices; fight a costly battle and possibly lose, or settle the
charges in exchange for letting the DEA run hog wild.

Putting on the squeeze.

~~~
hawleyal
And everyone starts using another carrier.

~~~
zaroth
It seems like all the major carriers cooperate to some degree. This is an
interesting article from back in 2012, with many good quotes from
UPS/DHL/FedEx:
[http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/11/16/183045/99/crimenews...](http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/11/16/183045/99/crimenews/DEA-
vs-Fedex-and-UPS-Why-a-Criminal-Probe-)

The parts about opening up direct database access to law enforcement was
disappointing but not surprising.

USPS in theory actually provides better protection because US mail has
stronger legal protections than handing your package off to a private entity.

------
robobro
It'd be one thing if people were mailing stinky weed and FedEx were turning a
blind eye, but how are they supposed to check every package for substances /
make sure every recipient has a prescription for controlled ones?

~~~
click170
The part about setting up special credit policies for these pharmacies so that
FedEx wouldn't lose money when said pharmacies were shut down is pretty clear
that they knew there was something wrong, but they turned a blind eye anyway.

~~~
goldenkey
That's actually pretty standard when dealing with _any_ small business. So I
wouldn't say that argument has any weight.

~~~
pyre
If FedEx is signing up these businesses under special terms like this (even if
they are the same ones used for legitimate businesses), it would seem (from
the outside) like they were looking closely enough at the business to
recognize that something was fishy.

This is different than if FedEx was just accepting packages regularly from
someone that kept dropping by at the local FedEx b&m store.

I don't have the full story, so I'll I can do is say that it raises the
likelihood (even just a little bit) that FedEx could have known. I guess one
of the relevant questions to ask would be: "Is it standard for FedEx to be so
hands-off when signing these businesses up that they have no clue what the
business even does?"

~~~
nitrogen
_" Is it standard for FedEx to be so hands-off when signing these businesses
up that they have no clue what the business even does?"_

As far as I'm concerned it certainly should be. Is it next going to be illegal
to sell snack foods to someone with munchies? Let the police be the police.

~~~
pyre
I'm not saying how anything _should_ be. These types of deals are risk-
management for FedEx. It seems highly unlikely that FedEx did no homework on
businesses that it was entering into risk-management deals with.

> Is it next going to be illegal to sell snack foods to someone with munchies?

Why do you feel the need to trot out strawmen already?

I was just saying that FedEx entering into such agreements just increases the
_likelihood_ that they knew _something_. I didn't even say by how much. I
definitely said nothing about whether they should be criminally or civilly
liable for anything. The question that you posted wasn't even meant to be
rhetorical. I was actually raising the question because it's relevant
information.

I'm basically siding with no one here, and just making passing observations.
It would be nice to not be attacked for it.

[Edit: I guess I should add that the 'something' they might have known need
not have been actionable information, or even information that makes them
liable for anything. I'm just stating that it makes them more involved with
said companies than, say, me if I ship a package from a FedEx store. FedEx,
for example, probably knows about their revenue and shipping logistics to be
able to evaluate their risk-management formulas...]

~~~
nitrogen
I didn't intend my comment as a personal attack, or even a direct reply. So I
apologize that my wording gave that impression.

However, I stand by my position that it shouldn't matter what FedEx knows or
"could/should have known." FedEx is not the police. I also stand by my
slippery slope straw man, because history has already shown that this type of
expansion of civilian liability and law enforcement powers doesn't have an end
goal. There is no "enough."

------
increment_i
While I understand this is a (unsolvable?) problem, a bunch of cowboys from
the DEA throwing their weight around is a terrible outcome. The last thing
anyone needs right now is more regulation around core economic activities like
shipping and e-commerce.

~~~
rhizome
This is one way that the government forces businesses into law enforcement.
Look for a settlement that has FedEx reducing anonymity, snooping in packages,
and snitch...er, disclosing evidence to proper LEOs.

------
sillysaurus3
It's frustrating that there's no link to the actual indictment. I want to form
my own opinion, not have it formed by a news article.

~~~
rb2e
Here you go:
[https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/fedex-i...](https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/fedex-
indictment-july-17-2014.pdf) [1]

[1] [http://consumerist.com/2014/07/17/fedex-indicted-for-
shippin...](http://consumerist.com/2014/07/17/fedex-indicted-for-shipping-
drugs-for-illegal-pharmacies-denies-allegations/)

------
nyar
Federal Highway Administration shares some responsibility in this, as well.

~~~
Zancarius
This made me chuckle, because now I'm imagining that all taxpayers could also
be considered partially responsible. We send money that is used on road
improvements and projects and therefore critical to the transportation of
controlled substances!

------
te_platt
A couple of days ago one of my kids asked me I could give an example of
something that was illegal but not immoral. We had a nice conversation working
through the difference between the two. It was interesting to break things
down into categories of:

1\. Immoral and should be illegal.

2\. Immoral but shouldn't be illegal.

3\. Moral but should be illegal.

4\. Moral and shouldn't be illegal.

Stories like this seem to me to be category 4 but I can understand how some
people may see it as a 1.

~~~
thaumasiotes
I'd be interested to hear more about category 3.

~~~
djur
The two examples most familiar to me are the Jean Valjean scenario (stealing
for survival) and the Jack Bauer scenario (coercion or torture to save lives).

In both cases, there's an argument that the underlying activity (theft,
torture) should remain illegal. It would be difficult or impossible to codify
all the permissible extenuating circumstances, and leaving the question open-
ended and letting it be decided in court would be a disaster, much worse than
existing carve-outs like self defense as an excuse for homicide (which is
itself kind of a mess, legally).

Certain dour strains of penal theory would argue that the 'virtuous criminal'
still requires equal punishment (Chinese legalism, for example), but I think
the more popular stance in the modern day is that judges and state executives
(governors, presidents) should have the option of leniency. This takes the
fate of Jean Valjean outside the sphere of law and exposes it to popular
opinion -- an unreasonable act of clemency would be faced with blowback (just
ask Mike Huckabee).

~~~
nitrogen
_...the Jack Bauer scenario..._

I find 24 to be much more interesting when I view Bauer as a second villain,
rather than the unquestionable hero as it seems he's portrayed.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Indeed, the series is far more enjoyable if you picture Bauer as the pawn of
an elusive cryptoregime furthering its dark agenda. Lots of things work better
that way. I kept waiting for the character in the video game "Splinter Cell"
to figure out that he was being played by global corporatist puppetmasters,
but unfortunately the plot never got there.

~~~
contingencies
_I kept waiting for the character in the video game "Splinter Cell" to figure
out that he was being played by global corporatist puppetmasters, but
unfortunately the plot never got there._

Brilliant idea for a community remake or mod!

------
ctdonath
Surely some form of "common carrier" applies. Otherwise innocent service has
no reason/obligation/expectation to evaluate what they're transporting (be it
data or products), and short of the gratuitously obvious/heinous has no
responsibility for anything other than successful delivery.

~~~
tokenadult
_Surely some form of "common carrier" applies._

I'm not sure what you mean by that. (I'm not sure if you are writing as a
lawyer, or as a member of the general public.) I remember attending a trial in
the late 1980s in which a UPS driver testified that he discovered an illegal
drug shipment because he thought the shipment looked funny and he opened up
the package. Further testimony at that trial disclosed what we should all know
if we read the fine print of our contracts with common carriers like UPS or
FedEx: the carrier has the right to open any package for any reason or no
reason at all (in the interest of the safety of the carrier's employees,
safety both from actual physical danger and safety from legal liability). The
person who delivers packages to your door through the service of one of those
companies can do a lot by way of inspecting those packages before delivering
them to you, unless something very radical has changed about those contracts
in the years since I heard that trial. (Does anyone here on HN have a full
standard form contract of carriage from FedEx to post here for us to check the
current wording?)

AFTER EDIT: Of course I found this myself with a very easy Google search.
FedEx's standard terms and conditions include:

"9\. Right to inspect. FedEx may inspect the shipment at any time and may
permit government authorities to carry out such inspections as they may
consider appropriate. FedEx, in addition, may reject or suspend the carriage
of any prohibited items or one that contains materials that damage or may
damage other shipments or that may constitute a risk to FedEx equipment or
employees or to those of its service providers."

[http://www.fedex.com/mx_english/services/nacional_terms.html](http://www.fedex.com/mx_english/services/nacional_terms.html)

~~~
sillysaurus3
FedEx may have the right to open a package, but do they have the obligation?

I think the government's stronger case is that FedEx maintained a special
credit policy specifically for online drug pharmacies who were at risk of
being shut down by the DEA.

One important question that I don't know the answer to: Are any online
pharmacies legal in the US? If they're unilaterally illegal in the US, and
FedEx had a special credit policy for online drug pharmacies, then it would
seem to be straightforward to prove they were knowingly shipping controlled
substances. If some online pharmacies are legal, and FedEx was maintaining
special relationships with online pharmacies, then was FedEx required to
verify that those weren't conducting illegal activity?

I don't like that the government is forcing its citizens who are running
private businesses to be concerned with whether their business is being used
as an accessory by drug dealers. The government should go after the source:
the dealers. But in this case, FedEx was making a lot of money (enough to
noticeably affect revenue) by knowingly acting as a conduit.

~~~
ac29
Shipping prescription drugs via mail is legal in the US, though it obviously
isnt legal to sell them without a prescription. Not sure how the law applies
if the pharmacy is in a foreign country, or if the drugs are scheduled,
though.

~~~
stan_rogers
And, in case anyone missed it, there are things that are OTC here in Canada
that are Schedule III in the US. My personal favourite is what is variously
called AC&C or 222, a tablet containing 375mg ASA, 15mg caffeine and 8mg
codeine phosphate — perhaps the best safe combination for occasional migraine-
type headaches. (You need to register and sign for them in Quebec, a measure
that's intended to prevent bulk purchases, but you're on your own say-so
elsewhere; you merely need to ask at the pharmacy counter and they'll give you
the safety drill if you're a first-timer.) Useful damned things to have around
if you're susceptible. But totally illegal to have without a scrip in the
States.

------
joewallin
This is insane. We need to end the drug war.

~~~
abruzzi
This isn't even the drug war. It's middle aged men buying Viagra from
pharmacies in India. I'm probably a minority, but I would prefer to sign a
waiver and then buy my own drugs. Rather than have to pay a doctor to
prescribe me something I already know I need. I'm insulin dependent, and
monitor my blood sugar regularly, and will continue to do so for the rest of
my life. I know far more about how my body reacts to insulin than the doctors
do. I should be able to buy it without a prescription. True story: 8 years ago
I was hospitalized for several months due to a bad motorcycle accident. The
doctors kept prescribing me insulin that I told them was too much, and badly
timed for me, but the did anyway. After a week it compounded, until my blood
sugar was in the high 20s (coma territory.) of course because I was bedridden
and doped up on Demerol I couldn't feel the signs of hypoglycemia. After that
they relented and told the nurses to (within a wide range) administer the
amount I asked for.

~~~
arjie
They didn't check your blood sugar while busy giving you this? Jesus, which
country was this?

------
jijji
Shoot the messenger much

