but that hasnt been proven to stop bank robberies, many on Long Island have been in the news for being successful by just passing a note to the teller demanding money, same can be done in pharmacies.

The problem is that the criminals know that no matter the passive countermeasures in place, they can walk out with the drugs. Locking up the drugs or putting employees behind glass only puts the customers in danger. With the average police response time in the high single digits, they have plenty of time to grab a few customers and start executing them while the pharmacist refuses to hand over the drugs.
A safe is only as strong as the guy with the combination.
You need to arm at least two pharmacy employees per shift. If dying becomes a real possibility, the criminals will stick to attempting to break in at night. For that matter, why can't I be armed? Make the death of the criminal at the hands of the intended victims a real possibility and you solve the crime problem. As long as they know there are easy targets, the criminality will continue. They deal in violence; play on their level; it's the only thing they understand.

this is the only way that our pharmacy will be safe from being shot at etc. What a shame that we have to do this??

You do not seem to understand my point Mike. My point is bullet proof glass has not stopped the robberies in banks, nor will it stop the pharmacy robberies. I was not trying to clarify the process of why tellers say yes to a robber.

I worked for specialists in Orthopedics and there was no offer to give a patient pain medication. If the patient asks for the pain killer the doctors know if they are legitimate.
Not all doctors are like what you say. I know !! Been there !!

We are all in this together. Everyone has a hand in solving this menace to society.
That said Lloyd, if the authorities knew of your real life experiennce with your doctor, maybe the information would help our community as a whole.
Make an anonymous phone call- do your part; if not, don't complain!

By the way Lloyd, what is the name of your doctor who dispenses Oxycondon so freely?
That is a good start. You'll feel better in the morning- without the doctor's misprescribed opiate.

Chris-------What is your address- I know a couple "crazed animals" who would love to stop over for a little talk this morning.

Bruce, There would be liability issues as well as issues regarding where a pharmacist is authorized to be in a precinct. And doesn't that raise a cost factor. Who would pay the pharmacist on duty at a precinct? Or are you suggesting pharmacists travel to the precinct which could then add risks of being robbed en route.
Is living in a bullet proof world the answer or should we look at addiction as a medical problem that needs to be addressed? The jails are filled with addicts. The addict that robbed Charlie's was out of jail a few months despite spending half his life in jail. Jail didn't cure his addiction and apparently his addiction was still enough to drive him to rob a pharmacy.

@ Kristen.

Addicts that commit crimes go to jail. Where else do you think they should go?. A detox center in Hawaii? how about a six month retreat to the Himalayas?

We're dealing with a billion dollar drug running operation run by doctors, pharmacists, and complicit drug companies. When pharmaceutical companies are developing purer and more powerful forms of oxycodone, who is their target? It's not the poor soul who's in pain; it's for the addicts that pay $20 a pill to snort oxy.

I say it's high time to make Doctors, Pharmacists, and drug companies utlimately responsible, and Liable, for the prescription and dispensing of drugs like they ought to; with stiffer penalties for breaking the law.

AND Bruce is not far off. A local distribution using police is useless, but a national one, run by the FDA/DEA is not: This is a national problem that should be addressed by the US government.

Pharmacies should no longer carry the drug and have the FDA/DEA dispense the drug. I like to see an addict rob a federal facility.

Tom,
I don't disagree with you about following the money to see who benefits from a drug epidemic. I read about a new task force being formed to inform us about a drug epidemic. Really?
Why is it ok to scream about more jail time, more laws, and more police, which have not solved this so far, but people don't want to learn more about addiction and how to prevent it or ways to increase the success rate for recovery?
I don't claim to have the answers but I do know that what we've done so far hasn't been very successful. As far as the business model goes, I'd hire the drug pushers before the law enforcement and legislators. Or maybe, again, its time we ask ourselves why our government agency would be in the process of regulating an even more highly addictive drug and then tell us there is a prescription pain killer problem. Some numbers put the painkiller OD at a higher rate than heroin. Just something to think about.

Kristen,

We agree more than you think, the "War on Drugs" has been an abject failure, it bleeds the Treasury, funds needless Government Agencies, funds private jails, incarcerates people that are guilty of what? Drug Addiction.......

Ever wonder wht the FDA approves these type of drugs that have the same addiction rates as Heroin?????

"FOLLOW THE MONEY"

Who is causing this "Crime Wave" and "Pharmaceutical Addiction Epidemic".....

The very Government that everyone wants to solve the problem they created!!!

"Stupid is as Stupid does" Forest Gump

Fred,
It is the person going through the withdrawals, deep in the throes of addiction who will commit the crime. Does anyone think jail time is a threat to those people? At that point they are not in their right mind thinking of consequences. They are only thinking of getting their high.

Tim,
You should consider looking at statistics of states with the death penalty. Not only is it not a deterrent to crime, many of those states have higher murder rates. And again, an addict committing a crime, even murder, is not thinking of any consequence. It isn't an answer to the drug epidemic.

The death penalty is not meant to save financial costs. Another thing you should consider is the cost of keeping someone on death row. It is a tremendous financial burden and not very cost effective.
If we're looking to cut costs, maybe we should just send death squads into the jails sporadically. Or we can seriously look at an epidemic and figure out a way to address it and not automatically assume that someone who thinks differently than you do is a bleeding heart liberal or that they don't care about families of victims. You make a tremendous jump in judgment.
While you think electrocution would be effective, I wonder again why the states with the death penalty do not have lower crime rates or addiction rates.

Death penalty is the ultimate punishment. It is no way shape or form just to be used as a preventiive measure and those arguments are worthless. If they were true we would not jail anyone anymore because jail does nothing to deter crime. Its time we stop coddling these addicts and define them for what they are - complete losers in life. We are better off getting rid of them rather than letting tem be a drain on society.

The cost of keeping someone on death row may be more expensive than keeping them in prison for life, according to different studies done over the years. Here's a website that provides a fact sheet about the death penalty (note that it is a website that opposes the practice, although it provides plenty of resources to back up its facts):
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

Addiction for each person is as unique as the individual and there is no one size fits all solution to the problem. It matters not whether the person is addicted to a "Legal" or "Illegal" substance the path is always the same. It starts with free will and one never starts taking a substance with the intention to become addicted, it just sneaks up on them and they become slaves to their addiction. The answer lies in the individual and when they hit their "Bottom" and realize that their lives have become unmanageable and hopefully at that point they seek help. In some cases it is done thru free will, in others its thru family or employer intervention and in others its thru incarceration and some unfortunately never see the light. There are no easy answers and the answer cannot be legislated "PERIOD".... As for Capital Punishment might I suggest you go to a local open AA or NA meeting and then come back and tell me what a good idea it is to condemn people who have an addiction, you will be surprised and the number,depth, diversity and intellegence of the people in the rooms........

Rob,
In some countries punishment for stealing is having your hand chopped off, adulterers get stoned (ok, women) and many basic rights are absent. Is that what you want? The Rockefeller Laws did not reduce the drug problem or cure addiction.

Kristen, If the law for stealing was to have your hand chopped off, how many of the thiefs would not do it? I am not saying go to those extreams, but probation, community service, etc. they do not care. If there were real consiquences for their actions, maybe they would think twice.

Ben,
I see "liberal" thrown out there again as if that wins the argument. Could it be just that people are allowed to have different opinions? I'm curious who you think it is that pays for the jails. Who pays the salaries of the corrections officers and for all of the upkeep for a jail and all of the programs in a jail.
What do you propose we do to eliminate crime? As I said in my earlier comment, the Rockefeller Laws had mandatory sentencing. It did nothing to stop crime or addiction.
I'm also curious when you use the word vast. Just how many people does vast encompass?

AMEN Ben!

@ Kristen.

What can you say about drug use? it's been around since the dawn of time. People are going to use drugs to get high and pay any price for it, with morally corrupt people willing to take that money to supply the drugs even if society is against it.

Take the Opium Wars. China banned opium because it was "A poison, undermining our good customs and morality" (source Qing decree 1799). The East India Company, having a monopoly on Indian opium, pushed export of opium into China, creating a stranglehold on the economy and accelerated the moral decay of South China. China was unable to stop smuggling due to a porous border (sounds familiar no?). To boot, the drug network in China was proffering Chinese Silver, which the East India Company was willing to do anything to gain.

in 1799, imports of opium was about 15 tons annually. By the 1820s China was importing 900 tons of opium annually.

As you can see, the parallels of the Chinese dilemma to our current society is remarkable.

We too are unable to stop the shipment of drugs into this country due to a porous border(s). We too are facing nations with cartels wiling to do anything to ship drugs to our country to gain US greenbacks.

What to do?

1. Close our borders
2. End all trade with drug-economy nations
3. Institute extreme penalties to drug suppliers and distributors

BTW, the Rockefeller laws were draconian to the recreational user only. Pushers and Dealers deserve hard time.

and frank knocked it out!

ACTUALLY, in prisons and jails you might as well be living in a free apartment with roomates. the jail systems in the US are a joke. plus the prisoners have just as easy accesss to drugs as they do out on the street. it's your basic supply and demand. so i would rather my money go to something that WORKS.

Yeah like more drugs to milk off of other drugs like methadone... Yeah that works (can you feel the sarcasm).

aww frank, did i say feed them more drugs? oh no i didnt. what i said was that prisons dont work because they still get drugs into the prison and distribute them as the dealer in the prison see's fit. with that being said that means that sending druggies into prison does not work. stop reading to far into what i say Frank. it's not healthy.

@ Bleep. if you read my blogs, I said the Rockefeller laws are extreme (draconian in fact) for the recreational drug user. So try reading instead of skimming like you did in high school.

@ FRANK (because you seem to make people targets).
instead of reading between the non existant lines of what i wrote instead of taking a slight compliment. read what the bloody hell im writting.
AGAIN i'll repeat this.
Sending people to prisons dont work because
a. they're able to get the drugs because people get these drugs inside the prisons and they get highly paid for it. (and guess what your guards are one of the many that get it within the prisons. not saying all do it but there are enough).
b. when they get out; they aren't always clean, they learn more criminal activities inside prison then they would elsewhere.so when they get arrested again put them under repeat offender list.
c. i read your post, AND ITS IRRELEVANT TO WHAT MY POINT IS. hence why i didnt comment about it. stop acting like a highschool student yourself. your retiring soon correct?
d. your still reading to far into what im saying. again it's not healthy.

Lloyd, does it really sound like we are saying to give people who commit murder a free pass? Or does it really sound like we're saying to look at the drug issue in different way since, obviously, what we've been doing has not been working?
If you think the electric chair is the solution to addiction or addiction related crime, I hope you're prepared to pay an extraordinary amount in taxes to cover the financial burden of death row. And what of those addicts who aren't committing crimes? I'm still waiting for an answer on how to deal with that? Should would electrocute them too?

@ Kristen.

1. closing the borders will stop the multi-billion dollar cocaine, crack, heroin, and marijuana trade.

2. Most pain killer meds are derived from opiates. Addicts crave opiates. Pharmaceutical companies making pain killers are seeing their values skyrocket. Just like the british wanted chinese silver, the pharma companies want money and their shareholders demand a return on investment.

The new cartel in the US is the pharma companies. Why on earth would they make a more powerful version of the current pain killer (see article link below)? Because addicts can readily crush the pill to snort it and get a much more intense high!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57348477-10391704/painkiller-10-times-stronger-than-vicodin-worries-addiction-experts/

Revisited and Edited:

People are going to use drugs to get high and pay any price for it, with morally corrupt people (or pharmaceutical corporations) willing to take that money to supply the drugs even if society is against it.

And for our own government fueling the drug epidemic, what are you implying?

Frank,
Is closing the borders a realistic possibility? As a business model, the pharmaceutical companies are very successful. They put out a product that people will kill and die for and the government allows it all under the name of regulating products. I question again, the next one coming out, Zohydro. If we are aware that the pain killers addiction is an epidemic, why would the pharmaceutical companies create a stronger one and why would the government allow it? The same government, btw, that talks about fighting the drug wars. Why not start with the pharmaceutical companies? If the CDC puts prescription od at a higher rate than heroin, there seems to be a disconnect. Or is that just me that doesn't get it?
There are claims that the newer pain pill is not crushable but if an addict can figure out how to twirl cough syrup in a pillow case to get high, I'm sure they'll figure out new ways to use this new pill.
Frank, I don't claim to have all the answers. I only try to look at it from another perspective and say what we are doing doesn't work. Drugs have been around for a long time and they aren't going anywhere. We agree on that. But when there is no cure for addiction and no great success rate, isn't it time we look at that?
As far as any implication about the government fueling the problem. I'm not implying. I'm stating. The FDA is a government agency. They are allowing a higher potency pill to come out. It is on their hands.

@ Kristen: "why would the pharmaceutical companies create a stronger one and why would the government allow it?"

ONE; MONEY. There are more addicts than people in pain. Simple math.

TWO: the government allows it because pain killers are still considered MEDICINE with a legitimate application, so it is still legal to manufacture and sell.

Is it the government's fault that addicts want the drug? Come on. Stop blaming the government. Addicts, Dealers, and Suppliers are the problem, not Uncle Sam.

What needs to be done is to further restrict its distribution to the general populace. Prescription opiates of any kind should be banned from local pharmacies.

and Mark Reyes is right. Why keep huge inventories of pain killers?

Stop blaming the government.

But even if you restrict pain killer trade, You'll see brazen brigands plunder tractor-trailers carrying the drug from place to place (BTW, this is exactly what is happening to pharma drugs in Europe. it's like the wild west). As long a dollar can be made, people are willing to die for it.

closing the borders will help with a lot of social and economic issues in this country.

Take Australia - they'll shoot you before entering their country illegally. China won't let one citizen go unless they have a family member as collateral.

But the US must keep a porous border at all costs?

Stop the Liberal chant and look at reality; we need to tighten things up at home and fix our problems.

Just say No wasn't a great success. Despite Nancy Reagan doing the talk show circuit and even appearing on popular sitcoms, we still have an epidemic how many years later.

@ Kristen. what do you propose? Legalize drugs for everyone? Make the government the dealer and supplier? Go the route of the Netherlands? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

even with legalization, you still got a social issue to contend with.

What is your grand scheme?

Fred,
It is a medical problem. Not one of us has suggested giving anyone a free pass. It also benefits the rest of society when such a tremendous problem that is a drain in so many ways is alleviated. Imagine if we could get a handle on addiction, how many crimes can be prevented and how many lives can be saved.

Simba,
More people need to contact their local officials about issues like this. I receive emails from my officials about various programs and new bills designed at "raising penalties." I wrote back. I wrote several times. The last thought on an addict's mind is how much jail time they're going to get. It isn't in their thought process.
I don't have hopes that the government will solve this problem. For all their talk, they are in the process of releasing a more potent drug. Why? Again, the money talks the loudest. If people would get up in arms over that and not just comment on here and instead write letters and make phone calls, maybe we'd see some action.

And Simba,
Another reason I say the government is because there was news recently about spending money to send pamplets to every home so people can track their prescriptions. How many people will use that pamphlet? Does anyone think that is the solution or even helpful? A pamphlet? It doesn't even begin to address the dysfunction that goes on in some homes or the problems behind the addiction.
The person who would hang that pamphlet and mark it is most likely careful about monitoring their prescription. The people that leave them lying around or doctor shop are certainly not hanging that pamphlet in their medicine cabinet.
So far, that has been my local official's best idea.

Concerned,
I will never forget Eddie Byrne getting murdered by drug dealers at the height of the crack epidemic. There were all sorts of promises by the politicians that drugs would be eradicated. You are right that it needs to be a combined effort. Of course people committing crimes deserve to be punished, but we need more education as well as early interventions.

Fred,
It isn't treated as a medical problem. When are we going to see that filling the jails is not ridding us of drugs?
The US will never end the war on drugs. There's too much money in it. Instead there will be some story that really hits people hard, the elected officials will all show up and give speeches, people will scream about the drug dealers and addicts, and then everyone will go back to their everyday life. At least, that's how its been to date.

Tom,
That article made a lot of sense. Its a shame that more people don't see the points made. Thanks for sharing it.

Strug Lynn, your point is valid. Long before pharmacies were getting robbed, gas stations, banks, and liquor stores were targets. The bottom line though is that the tax payers will always be paying in some way whether it is through jails, programs in jails, detox units, and rehabs, or even task forces created by law makers and other diversion programs. That is why I suggest that none of that so far is working. We have not won this war on drugs and all it has done is cost money and lives.
Wanting to work on ways to cure addiction or alleviate it is not the same as wanting to fund drug habits or give a free pass. This drug problem is affecting all of us. We don't have to be the addict to have this epidemic touch our lives in some way.

well that will kill off right about everybody then. be careful if you have kids they might be smoking a lil weed and end up being executed too!
please think reasonably. and that one is not reasonable weather its a "war on drugs" or not.

Such lovely thoughts, Tommy Moore. Maybe you should consider heading some extremist group in a country where death squads are acceptable. I hope that if you have kids that they never get caught up in anything. I'm sure you never made a mistake in your life so its perfectly natural that you would assume every person who ever struggled with addiction is an animal.
Why not take your idea to the Supreme Court. Have the Constitution amended and allow death squads to take out anyone who struggles with addiction? Its truly wonderful having such an intelligent discussion on an important issue with people like you.

Mr. Moore,

No Sir, it is you that is completely misguided and uninformed, this is not a WAR on anything, that’s just a straw man argument, this is nothing more than a MONEY LAUNDERING operation from the top on down and its being played upon the backs of the weak and addicted....

Take a look at the number of people in our Country that are addicted to either alcohol, drugs legal or not and tobacco....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/sep/6/20030906-120039-1281r/

Still standing by your word........

You can watch how much MONEY is wasted by the second at the top of the page.........

http://actionamerica.org/drugs/wodclock.shtml

Here's some history on the War on Drugs, if you take the time you will see what an absolute waste of time and resources it has been......

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/tp/War-on-Drugs-History-Timeline.htm

btw: Tell me one good reason why Oxycodone is dispensed locally?

Did anyone catch the latest pharmacy robbery on the news? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/nyregion/robber-killed-after-east-harlem-drugstore-holdup-police-say.html

just goes to show you how desperate people are to get high and how brazen enablers are to get and supply those narcotics.

I say:

1. Treat the addicts as best as possible. Push for broader intervention and greater familial say. Addicts cannot be forced to go for treatment unless they are court ordered. That has to change; A parent, sibling, and child, for that matter, should be given more sway in that decision. An addict is not in the right state of mind to begin with.

2. Continue to incarcerate those that commit felonies and other crimes against society. Addict or not, if you break the law, you must be punished.

3. Severely punish dealers and distributors. They are abusing a weak and vulnerable human condition for sheer profit. That is evil and they should be dealt with in kind.

i am not proposing to execute addicts; but I think executing dealers and distributors is not far from the realm of possibility. In China, they execute dealers. http://rt.com/news/china-to-execute-more-african-drug-dealers/

And China is not the only country where this practice is common.

Dave,
The Rockefeller laws did not reduce crime nor did they act as a deterrent. It did not reduce crime nor did it put a dent in addiction. It was repealed because as our then Governor stated, "I can't think of a criminal justice strategy that has been more unsuccessful than the Rockefeller Drug Laws."
Do you really think that someone in the throes of addiction considers the consequences of his actions? An addict would lose his family for his drug. Do you really believe that sending them to jail cures that or solves that?
And please, before you tell me that I'm giving a pass to criminals, I'm not. And yes, I do know people who have become addicts and alcoholics. They are not all animals as some people claim here. I'm sure you know and love a few too. You just may not realize it.

Hi Dave,
Bitter? not really. But reality is that the legal system sucks and that's my opinion due to things i've learned along the way.
Now your 2nd line is borderline rude. don't make assumptions about people over the internet.

Dave, those are all perfect reasons for us to try to look at addiction. In the end we pay whether through programs or treatment. What's so wrong with wanting to work on the addiction end with the idea that we'd need less jails, and social programs? I'm kind of curious as to why you ignore that aspect of it. After all, there are a lot of addicts who aren't committing crimes but they're still costing you money. You're only looking at it from a punitive aspect. What of the many who don't require punitive action?