Husband Gave Tramadol to a Coworker

My question involves criminal law for the state of: California

I have also posted this in a forum where I was only able to get the take of one person on it, so I am also posting here as I am worried)

My husband was trying to be nice to a coworker who had been suffering with a headache and gave him one of his prescription Tramadol. I have done some research and the drug is not on the Federal or State listings of Controlled Substances. As such, it is my understanding that he did nothing criminal by giving the person the medication. And that possession of the drug even without a prescription is not illegal in CA. (Don't get me started on whether or not it was stupid). The person ended up going to the doctor the next day where he did tell the doctor about the Tramadol...but the doctor saw no ill effects from the drug. In fact, the person was told to cut back on sodium.

As it is not a controlled substance, I just wanted to verify that there will be no legal repercussions for him giving the coworker the pill.

Also, if there are any repercussions (or even possible ones) here is the rest of the pertinent info:
1. My husband has a current and legal prescription for the drug
2. My husband has a completely clean criminal record
3. The total amount given to the coworker was 1 (one) 50mg pill
4. Mu husband did not ask for or receive any money for the pill.

Can someone please put my mind at ease on the likelihood of him getting in trouble for this? (Other than by me?)

Actually, you folks in CA seem to have little respect for distribution laws. He violated Federal drug laws, by giving away a prescription medication.

It is a violation of Federal law to give ANYONE ANY prescription medication that was not prescribed for that person.

Sorry, I can't put your mind at ease. It was a prescription drug. Your husband gave it to someone for whom it had not been prescribed. Therefore, he CAN get in trouble for it. Whether he WILL or not, I don't know.

If that is the case, why is it listed as unscheduled and why is the federal warning missing from the side of the prescription bottle. According to the federal government and state of CA, the drug is unscheduled. So, if the drug is not mentioned in the federal or state law, how it is illegal? I am not saying it is not, I am just trying to figure it out...

While not specifically a criminal offense in CA, he adopts some very serious civil liability for providing someone else HIS prescription medication. Plus, it is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that he could be arrested for providing this to someone else ... at least until it gets sorted out.

Best bet: Do NOT provide this to someone else as your husband does NOT know that person's medical condition and it could have dire consequences. If the friend wants it, he can go buy it himself.

Quote:

---

Quoting thebunny

---

If that is the case, why is it listed as unscheduled and why is the federal warning missing from the side of the prescription bottle. According to the federal government and state of CA, the drug is unscheduled. So, if the drug is not mentioned in the federal or state law, how it is illegal? I am not saying it is not, I am just trying to figure it out...

---

Because he could give someone a few antibiotics - not scheduled, just prescribed - and that would fall under the same umbrella.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

While not specifically a criminal offense in CA, he adopts some very serious civil liability for providing someone else HIS prescription medication. Plus, it is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that he could be arrested for providing this to someone else ... at least until it gets sorted out.

Best bet: Do NOT provide this to someone else as your husband does NOT know that person's medical condition and it could have dire consequences. If the friend wants it, he can go buy it himself.

---

Completely agree.

Thanks for the answer. I was more worried at this point about the criminal possibilities. And by not beyond the realm of possibility, do you mean it is still possible he will be arrested, if it comes to that, and the charges dropped once it is sorted out that it is not a controlled substance? And, as it was one pill, what are the chances of that even happening? I am not trying to minimize it, it was wrong, but I want to know the realities.

He really did not understand why it was such a big deal. Not an excuse, but he spent most of his life without insurance so he sort of grew up getting antibiotics, etc through friends. I told him that he now has insurance and lives a different life...and not to do it.

Thanks for your time.

Yes, it is possible that he could be arrested. All the officer might know is that there is a pill and a prescription involved and that can be enough to support an arrest. After further investigation, he'd likely be released, but he could be detained or even booked for a while before it's sorted out.

Best bet, do NOT give medication to anyone!

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Yes, it is possible that he could be arrested. All the officer might know is that there is a pill and a prescription involved and that can be enough to support an arrest. After further investigation, he'd likely be released, but he could be detained or even booked for a while before it's sorted out.

Best bet, do NOT give medication to anyone!

---

I completely agree with you. And have told him so. In my research, I found the DEA page on the drug stating that it is not scheduled in CA or Federally, and the bottle also lacks the warning that sharing it violates Federal Law. Would it be a good idea for him to have that with him just in case?

Also, so I know, how common is it that a person in a situation like my husband is actually arrested for something like this, with this set of circumstances? And, what would be required in order for there to be an actual arrest? My husband has the pills and a valid prescription. The coworker has already taken the pill. So, and I am not trying to be difficult I am genuinely curious, what would have to happen in order for either of them to get into trouble/arrested/ the police called and actually respond? Could a coworker call and say "Last Thursday, Bob gave Jim a prescription pill and I saw it" Would that be enough?

Also, let's recall, if the boss catches wind of this type of thing one or two of the involved employees could find themselves reclassified as former employees.

I already made a point about this too...and the company drug policy states merely that it is a violation to be "carry, consume, or abuse an illegal controlled substance" so by virtue of luck and wording, they are in the clear there...or as much as they can be for an at-will employment situation.

OP has apparently spoken with an attorney who eased her mind.

Between the first post and now.

An attorney online as well as a poster on here who is a police officer.

And, out of curiosity, why are you posting that like it is a bad thing? Should I have come here, listened to just what the people said and moved on? if I had done that, I would have listened to the first poster, and HR rep, who said it was always illegal and not the police officer from CA who was able to tell me that there was nothing criminal in CA.

As it is a legal issue, I was not looking for just one opinion but rather a few of them, from different people with different experiences. Gives me an idea as the law is never a "one answer fits all" scenario.

As for knowing if it is a controlled substance, that was easy to figure out on my own. A simple Google search sends you to the DEA listing of controlled substances and another simple search tells you that all the laws in CA mention "controlled substances"...

Quote:

---

Quoting thebunny

---

I completely agree with you. And have told him so. In my research, I found the DEA page on the drug stating that it is not scheduled in CA or Federally, and the bottle also lacks the warning that sharing it violates Federal Law. Would it be a good idea for him to have that with him just in case?

---

Best not to give it away at all. Having the bottle doesn't mean that the contents are what was supposed to be in the bottle or that the officer will know that Tramadol is NOT a controlled substance as defined under CA law.

Quote:

---

Also, so I know, how common is it that a person in a situation like my husband is actually arrested for something like this, with this set of circumstances?

---

I can't say. I do know of arrests that have been made in similar situations. If he simply possessed the pills in the bottle, he'd probably be okay. If he passes it to someone else, he increases the chance he gets arrested if the police get involved for some reason. And, if someone he gives the pill has a problem that requires medical attention the odds of thge police getting involved increases.

Quote:

---

Could a coworker call and say "Last Thursday, Bob gave Jim a prescription pill and I saw it" Would that be enough?

---

Not likely, no.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Best not to give it away at all. Having the bottle doesn't mean that the contents are what was supposed to be in the bottle or that the officer will know that Tramadol is NOT a controlled substance as defined under CA law.

Quote:

---

Ok, we will not bring that up if and until there is some sort of action.

---

I can't say. I do know of arrests that have been made in similar situations. If he simply possessed the pills in the bottle, he'd probably be okay. If he passes it to someone else, he increases the chance he gets arrested if the police get involved for some reason. And, if someone he gives the pill has a problem that requires medical attention the odds of thge police getting involved increases.

Quote:

---

He only gave the one pill to the one coworker. He has not given any others to anyone else. The coworker he gave the pill to is fine, went to the doctor the next day to get the issue diagnosed because the headache came back after the Tramadol wore off and was told it was caffeine, sodium, and too many Advil. Nothing to do with the single tramadol. Luckily.

---

Quote:

---

And I apologize, but this is the closest I have ever been to any sort of "legal" issue that is not a traffic ticket. Never even seen a jail cell in person...or the inside of a police station for that matter. So, while I admit this is naive, how in the world would the police get involved? What sort of circumstances would cause that?

---

Not likely, no.

Quote:

---

That is good to know. The pill, as we have more than covered, was prescribed. It was taken by the coworker on Thursday. It was not an illegal substance, so I am not sure what the coworkers could do...and as it is not an illegal pill, I am guessing my husband and the person who accepted it would not get very far...he can't turn himself or the coworker in for doing nothing, neither can the coworker....

---

---

Thanks again for your time. I apologize for being so naive on how this all works...

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Best not to give it away at all. Having the bottle doesn't mean that the contents are what was supposed to be in the bottle or that the officer will know that Tramadol is NOT a controlled substance as defined under CA law.


I can't say. I do know of arrests that have been made in similar situations. If he simply possessed the pills in the bottle, he'd probably be okay. If he passes it to someone else, he increases the chance he gets arrested if the police get involved for some reason. And, if someone he gives the pill has a problem that requires medical attention the odds of thge police getting involved increases.


Not likely, no.

---

Oh, and thanks, totally never occurred to me there would be a question that the pill bottle that says "Tramadol" would actually have Tramadol in it...good point.

The easy answer here remains the same: DO NOT give others your prescription medication. If that simple rule is adhered to, then no trouble should ensue.

Going through the entire realm of possible scenarios would take days. While police involvement is slim, if a co-worker, friend, or stranger who he provided HIS medication to suffers an adverse reaction, the possibility of police involvement goes up exponentially. If he does NOT give away his medication, then there will be no problem. He should be able to adhere to this rule quite easily.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting thebunny

---

Oh, and thanks, totally never occurred to me there would be a question that the pill bottle that says "Tramadol" would actually have Tramadol in it...good point.

---

Most officers are not going to know what Tramadol looks like. They'd have to use a PDR, run it by an online reference, or bring it to a hospital or pharmacy to determine what it is. People put other drugs in pill bottles all the time. If it merely in his possession, it might not be an issue. But, since people tend to sell or pass on controlled substances to others if hubbie insists on doing that, then the bottle is not likely to protect him. Especially since in most officers' minds, "prescription" equals "controlled substance" and providing a controlled substance to another can be a criminal act so he could be arrested pending further investigation.

Refer back to the primary rule: DO NOT give away (transfer, sell, pass along, etc.) your medication and avoid the trouble.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

The easy answer here remains the same: DO NOT give others your prescription medication. If that simple rule is adhered to, then no trouble should ensue.

Going through the entire realm of possible scenarios would take days. While police involvement is slim, if a co-worker, friend, or stranger who he provided HIS medication to suffers an adverse reaction, the possibility of police involvement goes up exponentially. If he does NOT give away his medication, then there will be no problem. He should be able to adhere to this rule quite easily.

---

I have stressed this to the point of him not speaking to me. It is a difference in how we were brought up, and I get that, but illegal is illegal and opening yourself up to things involving the police that could easily be avoided is just dumb.

I told him he got lucky this time, the coworker is fine with no issues and no adverse reaction, and it is time to put this behind us, count himself lucky this lesson was learned with a non-controlled substance and NOT DO IT AGAIN

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Most officers are not going to know what Tramadol looks like. They'd have to use a PDR, run it by an online reference, or bring it to a hospital or pharmacy to determine what it is. People put other drugs in pill bottles all the time. If it merely in his possession, it might not be an issue. But, since people tend to sell or pass on controlled substances to others if hubbie insists on doing that, then the bottle is not likely to protect him. Especially since in most officers' minds, "prescription" equals "controlled substance" and providing a controlled substance to another can be a criminal act so he could be arrested pending further investigation.

Refer back to the primary rule: DO NOT give away (transfer, sell, pass along, etc.) your medication and avoid the trouble.

---

Agreed. He has the medication in the bottle, it is what he says it is (at least to my knowledge and frankly that is a can of worms I am not opening as I do believe him)

And what do you mean by if it is merely in his possession it might not be an issue? Are you referring to a situation that arises from the police being called about the issue? Sorry, that part sort of lost me.

Quote:

---

Quoting thebunny

---

And what do you mean by if it is merely in his possession it might not be an issue? Are you referring to a situation that arises from the police being called about the issue? Sorry, that part sort of lost me.

---

If he is stopped by the police and, for some reason, searched and they find the bottle with pills in it, they are not likely to question what it is. However, if he was reported to them for providing medication to someone else, they may doubt that the medication is what the bottle says it is.

Unless he gives the meds to someone else, removes them from the bottle, or mixes pills in the bottle, he is unlikely to be bother about it by the police, anyway. But, giving meds to co-workers is a good way to get fired or even sued.

Thanks again. As I mentioned, the company policy is only for controlled substances, so I am hoping that saves his stupid behind. I think he learned his lesson. This happened on Thursday, nothing was said Friday so I am thinking another couple of days and he SHOULD be good from the work angle as they are good at saying things to people the minute they find out. And if his work does take issue. there is nothing that he can do about it, as he gave the pill to the coworker and if they are going to have a problem, well, he can't unring the bell, so to speak.

Thanks again for your help and sharing your knowledge.

as you were told but want to ignore:

while it is not a scheduled drug, it is available by prescription only per the FDA. While it is not illegal to possess it under the controlled substances laws, it is illegal to distribute the drug without a prescription and obviously only a licensed person can write such a prescription. Additionally, only a licensed pharmacist can dispense said prescription.

Quote:

---

Bus and Prof code:4051. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it is
unlawful for any person to manufacture, compound, furnish, sell, or
dispense any dangerous drug or dangerous device, or to dispense or
compound any prescription pursuant to Section 4040 of a prescriber
unless he or she is a pharmacist under this chapter.

---

Unfortunately, it seems Tramadol neither fits the definition of a "controlled substance" or a "dangerous drug" under the B&P.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Unfortunately, it seems Tramadol neither fits the definition of a "controlled substance" or a "dangerous drug" under the B&P.

---

How does Tramadol not fit the definition of a dangerous drug?

Quote:

---

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.

---

http://www.pharmacy.ca.gov/enforceme...s/ac124379.pdf

Quote:

---

12. Tramadol is a dangerous drug pursuant to Code section 4022.

---

additionally, it is a legend drug. That means it is illegal to distribute it without a prescription and only those licensed to distribute the med cannot do so legally. While it is not a schedule drug, it is absolutely illegal to give one of your Tramadol to anybody else.

Tramadol is a "dangerous drug" under B&P Code Sec. 4022(c).

Quote:

---

Quoting California Bus. and Prof. Code, Sec. 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.

---

In People v. Williams, No. D060619, (Cal. App. 4th Dist 2013), the defendant was convicted, among other charges, of "furnishing a drug without a prescription (Bus. and Prof. Code, § 4059)" for selling Tramadol to an undercover officer.

But, Tramadol IS NOT a drug that CAN ONLY be dispensed by prescription under CA law ... unless this was done recently. As far as I can find, the required notice is not required under federal law. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I cannot find it any of my DRE notes or the statutes. And if there is some federal requirement, I am unaware of it. But, then, we state and local cops don't always have ready access to the voluminous tomes of federal drug regulations.

EDIT: On further reading I find notes here and there that indicate that it is available by prescription only, but I doubt I'd make an arrest on it since I can't seem to find the definitive answer as to whether it is required to be distributed by prescription and thus in violation of 4022.

It's not listed in the B&P OR the H&S. I don't know that the Board of Pharmacy has the weight of the law to make it a crime when it does not meet the definitions under the B&P.

This is the problem with many of the brand name "designer" drugs. They can be difficult to enforce, hence the reason I advised the OP that her husband could be arrested pending further investigation. Because it is not all that easy to sort out on the side of the road he could be booked pending further investigation. Hence the advice: Don't give it out.

Quote:

---

cdwjava;711462]But, Tramadol IS NOT a drug that CAN ONLY be dispensed by prescription

---

I cannot find a list of drugs the FDA requires to be by prescription only. All I can find is this generic opening statement of an FDA website:

Quote:

---

Prescription drugs are:

• Prescribed by a doctor
  
• Bought at a pharmacy
  
• Prescribed for and intended to be used by one person
  
• Regulated by FDA through the New Drug Application (NDA) process. This is the formal step a drug sponsor takes to ask that the FDA consider approving a new drug for marketing in the United States. An NDA includes all animal and human data and analyses of the data, as well as information about how the drug behaves in the body and how it is manufactured. For more information on the NDA process, please see "The FDA's Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective."

---

so, can you get Tramadol without a scrip?

do you happen to know where one can find an FDA list of drugs and their position on prescriptions?

Quote:

---

It's not listed in the B&P OR the H&S. I don't know that the Board of Pharmacy has the weight of the law to make it a crime when it does not meet the definitions under the B&P.

---

I gave you a link that shows California does consider it to be considered a dangerous drug. It does not say it can be considered,. It matter of fact stated it does fall under 4022. That was in regards to a criminal prosecution.

My two cents:

- If it is in a prescription bottle - do not share it, period.

- While a lot of places sell small pill containers or sorters....if you have to carry the med with you, keep it in the original Rx container. Say you have 2 Xanax on you and are pulled over and searched - you need to prove it is YOUR prescription.

got it:



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

6 Quote: 8405-380

HUMAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG

Theratramadol-60

TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE, GABA

KIT

05-20-2011

UNAPPROVED DRUG OTHER

Physician Therapeutics LLC

68405-380-26

1 KIT in 1 KIT (68405-380-26) * 60 TABLET in 1 BOTTLE (52959-688-60) * 60 CAPSULE in 1 BOTTLE

68405-038

HUMAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG

Theratramadol-90

TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE, .GAMMA.-AMINOBUTYRIC ACID

KIT

02-04-2011

UNAPPROVED DRUG OTHER

Physician Therapeutics LLC

68405-038-36

1 KIT in 1 KIT (68405-038-36) * 60 TABLET in 1 BOTTLE (52959-688-60) * 90 CAPSULE in 1 BOTTLE

16590-893

HUMAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG

Tramadol ER

Tramadol ER

TABLET, EXTENDED RELEASE

ORAL

10-27-2009

ANDA

ANDA078783

Stat Rx USA

TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE

200 mg/1

Full Opioid Agonists [MoA],Opioid Agonist [EPC]

16590-893-30

30 TABLET, EXTENDED RELEASE in 1 BOTTLE (16590-893-30)

16590-893

HUMAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG

Tramadol ER

Tramadol ER

TABLET, EXTENDED RELEASE

ORAL

10-27-2009

ANDA

ANDA078783

Stat Rx USA

TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE

200 mg/1

Full Opioid Agonists [MoA],Opioid Agonist [EPC]

16590-893-60

60 TABLET, EXTENDED RELEASE in 1 BOTTLE (16590-893-60)

16590-893

HUMAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG

Tramadol ER

Tramadol ER

TABLET, EXTENDED RELEASE

ORAL

10-27-2009

ANDA

ANDA078783

Stat Rx USA

TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE

200 mg/1

Full Opioid Agonists [MoA],Opioid Agonist [EPC]

16590-893-90

90 TABLET, EXTENDED RELEASE in 1 BOTTLE (16590-893-90)

49349-541

HUMAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG

Tramadol Hydrchloride

Tramadol Hydrochloride

TABLET

ORAL

09-28-2011

ANDA

ANDA076003

REMEDYREPACK INC.

TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE

50 mg/1

Full Opioid Agonists [MoA],Opioid Agonist [EPC]

49349-541-31

500 TABLET in 1 CANISTER (49349-541-31)

49349-077

HUMAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG

TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE

TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE

TABLET

ORAL

11-17-2010

ANDA

ANDA076003

REMEDYREPACK INC.

TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE

50 mg/1

Full Opioid Agonists [MoA],Opioid Agonist [EPC]

49349-077-02

30 TABLET in 1 BLISTER PACK (49349-077-02)

67046-730

HUMAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG

Tramadol Hydrochloride

Tramadol Hydrochloride

TABLET

ORAL

02-26-2010

ANDA

ANDA076003

Contract Pharmacy Services-PA

TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE

50 mg/1

Full Opioid Agonists [MoA],Opioid Agonist [EPC]

67046-730-30

30 TABLET in 1 BLISTER PACK (67046-730-30)

67046-730

HUMAN PRESCRIPTION DRUG

Tramadol Hydrochloride

Tramadol Hydrochloride

TABLET

Quote:

---

---

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

Quote:

---

51334-897

HUMAN OTC DRUG

babies r us ibuprofen

Ibuprofen

SUSPENSION

ORAL

12-01-2010

ANDA

ANDA074937

Toys"R"Us, Inc.

IBUPROFEN

100 mg/5mL

51334-897-26

1 BOTTLE in 1 CARTON (51334-897-26) > 120 mL in 1 BOTTLE

51334-255

HUMAN OTC DRUG

babies r us infants ibuprofen

Ibuprofen

SUSPENSION/ DROPS

ORAL

12-01-2010

ANDA

ANDA075217

Toys"R"Us, Inc.

IBUPROFEN

50 mg/1.25mL

51334-255-10

1 BOTTLE in 1 CARTON (51334-255-10) > 30 mL in 1 BOTTLE

46994-897

HUMAN OTC DRUG

being well ibuprofen

Ibuprofen

SUSPENSION

ORAL

02-25-2006

ANDA

ANDA074937

Save-A-Lot Food Stores Ltd

IBUPROFEN

100 mg/5mL

46994-897-26

1 BOTTLE in 1 CARTON (46994-897-26) > 120 mL in 1 BOTTLE

68391-517

HUMAN OTC DRUG

berkley and jensen ibuprofen

Ibuprofen

TABLET, FILM COATED

ORAL

01-15-2009

ANDA

ANDA077349

BJWC

IBUPROFEN

200 mg/1

68391-517-59

750 TABLET, FILM COATED in 1 BOTTLE (68391-517-59)

68391-604

HUMAN OTC DRUG

Berkley and Jensen Ibuprofen

Ibuprofen

TABLET

ORAL

06-20-2007

ANDA

ANDA072096

BJWC

IBUPROFEN

200 mg/1

68391-604-62

1 BOTTLE in 1 CARTON (68391-604-62) > 24 TABLET in 1 BOTTLE

68391-604

HUMAN OTC DRUG

Berkley and Jensen Ibuprofen

Ibuprofen

TABLET

---

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

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I cannot find a list of drugs the FDA requires to be by prescription only. All I can find is this generic opening statement of an FDA website:




so, can you get Tramadol without a scrip?

do you happen to know where one can find an FDA list of drugs and their position on prescriptions?



I gave you a link that shows California does consider it to be considered a dangerous drug. It does not say it can be considered,. It matter of fact stated it does fall under 4022. That was in regards to a criminal prosecution.

---

But it was in regard to a criminal prosecution in which the person SOLD the drug. Which I have been told makes a MAJOR difference. Giving the drug to the person is one thing. SELLING it is something else.

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

Quote:

---

Quoting California Bus. and Prof. Code, Sec. 4059(a).

---

(a) A person may not furnish any dangerous drug, except upon the prescription of a physician, dentist, podiatrist, optometrist, veterinarian, or naturopathic doctor pursuant to Section 3640.7. A person may not furnish any dangerous device, except upon the prescription of a physician, dentist, podiatrist, optometrist, veterinarian, or naturopathic doctor pursuant to Section 3640.7.

---

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

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I gave you a link that shows California does consider it to be considered a dangerous drug. It does not say it can be considered,. It matter of fact stated it does fall under 4022. That was in regards to a criminal prosecution.

---

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 - - -

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.

---

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.

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.