Husband Gave Tramadol to a Coworker

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

No, it doesn't make a lick of difference. It's the same crime.

You furnish a drug to somebody when you give it to them, whether or not you receive anything in exchange.

---

Oddly enough, the attorney I spoke with mentioned that it made a HUGE difference that it was not sold. With all due respect, I am going to listen to the opinion of the police officer and the attorney.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

That link is not a decision by a court, but by the Board of Pharmacy in a decision against a pharmacist. Not necessarily legally binding.

As i said, it is not listed in either the B&P or the H&S and under no case law that I can find. It might very well BE covered under the B&P, but it is not easy to determine and, as such, might not be prosecuted.

- - - Updated - - -


And then there is a definition of a "dangerous drug":

4022. "Dangerous drug" or "dangerous device" means any drug or
device unsafe for self-use in humans or animals, and includes the
following:
(a) Any drug that bears the legend: "Caution: federal law
prohibits dispensing without prescription," "Rx only," or words of
similar import.
(b) Any device that bears the statement: "Caution: federal law
restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a ____," "Rx
only," or words of similar import, the blank to be filled in with the
designation of the practitioner licensed to use or order use of the
device.
(c) Any other drug or device that by federal or state law can be
lawfully dispensed only on prescription or furnished pursuant to
Section 4006.

Are the prescriptions required to be labeled as above?

I cannot find any state law that REQUIRES it be dispensed solely by prescription. If there is a federal law that covers it, great ... where?

Again, I'm not saying that it is NOT a "dangerous drug" only that it is not clear under state law, and it is not mentioned in any state resources or DRE protocols which would make an arrest and prosecution for distribution difficult.

---

Also, if it matters, the bottle says nothing about Federal Law on it. Anywhere. I have a bottle of Diazepam that I take before dental surgery that was filled at the same pharmacy. On that bottle it says that it is against federal law to give the drug to anyone other than who it was prescribed to. This is not on the bottle of the Tramadol.

It does make a huge difference in terms of the likelihood that your husband would be criminally charged for the crime he committed. It does not change the fact that your husband committed a crime. You can plug your ears and hum all you want, but that's a fact.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

got it:



http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/script...roprietaryName

[TABLE="class: fixme, width: 2570"]
[TR]
[TD="class: ui-widget-content"]6

to check, use the site to look up a known over the counter drug like ibuprofen:

Note in the second column for the tramadol it states "prescription". For the ibuprofen, it states "OTC"

---

Ok...but not all prescriptions are controlled substances. All this shows is that it was a prescription. I said that in my initial post. This says nothing about it being a controlled substance. And, in the DEA line, there is nothing. I looked up the Diazepam I have, that IS labeled as a controlled substance, and in the DEA section of this, it has CIV...which means it is a DEA restricted drug, Schedule 4. So if Tramadol is a controlled drug why is that section blank? Hydrocodone has a 3 in that area. And, if you look up my allergy medication, Allegra, it is listed as both prescription and OTC, and none of them, both the prescription and the OTC section have anything in the DEA area.

So, to clarify...you found a chart that shows the Tramadol was prescription, which we already knew, and showed that there was no Federal or DEA schedule on it. So, we already knew this....

The fact that your husband committed a crime has been thoroughly documented in this thread. It's not likely that he's going to be charged with the crime he committed, so you should be able to accept reality without the drama.

Quote:

---

Quoting thebunny

---

Oddly enough, the attorney I spoke with mentioned that it made a HUGE difference that it was not sold. With all due respect, I am going to listen to the opinion of the police officer and the attorney.

---

Giving or selling would both be distribution (sales, trafficking, etc.). It makes no difference - it'd be the same offense.

The issue here is not whether or not he was engaged in trafficking (he was), but whether or not Tramadol is covered under the B&P. There seems to be some evidence that it is, but it's not completely clear and unless pursued by a narcotics task force or experienced narco officer, it's not likely to result in a prosecution. But, as I mentioned, the odds go up if someone is harmed by his distribution.

Bottom line, he needs to STOP handing out his meds.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Giving or selling would both be distribution (sales, trafficking, etc.). It makes no difference - it'd be the same offense.

The issue here is not whether or not he was engaged in trafficking (he was), but whether or not Tramadol is covered under the B&P. There seems to be some evidence that it is, but it's not completely clear and unless pursued by a narcotics task force or experienced narco officer, it's not likely to result in a prosecution. But, as I mentioned, the odds go up if someone is harmed by his distribution.

Bottom line, he needs to STOP handing out his meds.

---

Agreed. He made a bad decision. And he knows it. It never occurred to him that it could be an offense if it was one pill to help a coworker. He gets it now. In fact, he started leaving the pills at home as he said he doesn't even want to take the chance of having them on him.

At this point, he gave the coworker the pill on Thursday. The coworker was at work on Friday and was there today...with no issues or reactions to the drug. In your opinion as a police officer:

1. As he gave one pill to one person 5 days ago, is it likely the legal situation and possible issues is pretty much over? And if not, how would he be arrested for trafficking or the coworker for possession? Is it enough that it happened in the past, or would one of the people (my husband or the coworker) have to go to the police? Or do they have to be caught? I have no idea here...my only frame of reference is speeding where someone has to catch you in order for you to be given a ticket...as that is the closest I have ever come to court or a crime before this in my life.

2. As far as I understand it, if it is an illegal substance (or in this case a "dangerous drug"), my husband and the coworker would both be arrested...for possession on the coworkers part and trafficking for my husband. So it is pretty unlikely that my husband or coworker will call the police themselves. And you answered previously that even if the office coworkers called the police, it is unlikely that anything would happen.

3. So, at this point, what is your best guess what will happen?

4. Do you think he can he put it behind him and learn from the close call this mistake was? (I realize you have no way of knowing for sure, but your best guess?)

Thanks again....

Quote:

---

Quoting thebunny

---

1. As he gave one pill to one person 5 days ago, is it likely the legal situation and possible issues is pretty much over? And if not, how would he be arrested for trafficking or the coworker for possession? Is it enough that it happened in the past, or would one of the people (my husband or the coworker) have to go to the police? Or do they have to be caught? I have no idea here...my only frame of reference is speeding where someone has to catch you in order for you to be given a ticket...as that is the closest I have ever come to court or a crime before this in my life.

---

Absent some proof that there was a transfer of an unlawful prescription, no prosecution is likely. In THIS situation, he is likely out of the wood.

Quote:

---

2. As far as I understand it, if it is an illegal substance (or in this case a "dangerous drug"), my husband and the coworker would both be arrested...for possession on the coworkers part and trafficking for my husband. So it is pretty unlikely that my husband or coworker will call the police themselves. And you answered previously that even if the office coworkers called the police, it is unlikely that anything would happen.

---

If he were to go to the hospital, the inquiry would be in earnest. Possession is less likely to be charged and is generally subject to diversion. Sales/trafficking is not as it is a more serious offense.

Quote:

---

3. So, at this point, what is your best guess what will happen?

---

Absent further transfers, nothing.

Quote:

---

4. Do you think he can he put it behind him and learn from the close call this mistake was? (I realize you have no way of knowing for sure, but your best guess?)

---

Yes.

Carl, I showed you where the FDA states it is a prescription aka legend drug. That does make it a crime do distribute without a scrip.

- - - Updated - - -

And in the people v Williams link it involved a criminal case.

Sorry for beating this dead horse, but a few questions about your response:

#1, what would be proof of a transfer? The prescription is legal. I am 100% positive on that

#2 After the amount of time that has passed, even if the coworker ended up in the hospital, it would be tough to prove it was due to the Tramadol, right? I guess I am worried...what if the guy gets another pill from someone else and reacts to that (I can't imagine taking a pill from someone as I would not know what it was, so not sure if someone will do it once that they would not do it over and over..what if the guy does it again and blames my husband?)...there would have to be proof it was a reaction to the pill my husband gave him, correct?

#3 and #4 Thank goodness. I do think he has learned...I probably went farther than necessary talking to an attorney, but I wanted to make SURE I was correct taking this as seriously as I was and wanted my husband to know this was a BIG DEAL.

Thanks again. I know I am a pain with all the questions...I am just super freaked out by this whole situation!

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Carl, I showed you where the FDA states it is a prescription aka legend drug. That does make it a crime do distribute without a scrip.

---

I noted that later on - after my other post. But, the fact remains that it is still an obscure reference, is not referenced in ANY CA codes, and is not contained in any of the DRE literature. As such, arresting, filing or prosecuting such a case is unlikely absent some egregious transfer as the one in the cited case (which, by the way, is an unpublished decision).

A single pill would be unlikely to undergo such scrutiny when the status of the substance is not readily available. Unlike TV, officers on the street do not have unfettered access to state and federal case law or databases while in the field, and if a search for Tramadol or other brand names do not pop up, the defendant will likely walk. Again, absent some egregious act like the sale of large quantities which might give cause for greater scrutiny.

I'm DRE trained and based upon what I know and have access to, I probably would not have arrested or charged for this offense since I would be unable to show that a crime had occurred.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting thebunny

---

Sorry for beating this dead horse, but a few questions about your response:

#1, what would be proof of a transfer? The prescription is legal. I am 100% positive on that

---

GIVING it to someone else. The other guy's statement that he got it from your hubby would be enough - even the statement of a witness.

Quote:

---

#2 After the amount of time that has passed, even if the coworker ended up in the hospital, it would be tough to prove it was due to the Tramadol, right?

---

Probably. But, we will never know.

And since he's never going to do it again, this is not an issue, right?

By all the questions, it seems that he DOES intend to sell or transfer his prescription again ... if not, then it's a moot point.

Quote:

---

Try again and read the case. On everyone of the charges in which the Ultram/Tramadol is mentioned, it is with another one of the drugs. The vicodin or trazadone. At no point in it is the Ultram mentioned alone and in all of the counts, the ultram is mentioned with another controlled substance and is not charged as a count of its own.

---

That's a good point, and the decision is unpublished so not necessarily binding.

But, if the feds require it to be provided only by a prescription it IS a "dangerous drug" per 4022.