Caught giving a friend prescription medication

Pro Hoc Vice

drkpower wrote: »

Thats correct, fair point.

Although, it is incredibly unlikley that a prosectutioin would be pursued in the hypothetical scenario presented by the OP. Where 'sharing' of prescribed drugs is so commonplace in Ireland, and where no prosecution has yet been taken in these circumstances, the OPs hypothetical case doesnt strike me as the most attractive one to bring. Of course, any prosecution would be made less attractive by the fatc that the 'supplier' needs to know (or have reasonable grounds to know) that Xanax is a controlled drug (although obviously thats a matter for evidence ultimately).

There is no need to know its a controlled drug. Ignorance of the law is no defence. Also the DC's up and down the country have had cases involving possession of prescription drugs, not sure if any involved zanax but I have been aware of such cases.

chopper6

Dont turn up for your "interview" and dont bother with legal advice.

If they didnt arrest you or caution you you have no case to answer.

Pro Hoc Vice

chopper6 wrote: »

Dont turn up for your "interview" and dont bother with legal advice.

If they didnt arrest you or caution you you have no case to answer.

Lol wrong. So wrong.

If a crime has been committed, AGS have the evidence and all they have to do is issue a summons. Many many summary crimes have no power of arrest and so a summons issues.

pudzey101

I can't not turn up I need me medication back and just want to clear up what happened as I don't want to hear anymore about it in the future as it will come back to bite me when I least expect it

geeky

pudzey101 wrote: »

I can't not turn up I need me medication back and just want to clear up what happened as I don't want to hear anymore about it in the future as it will come back to bite me when I least expect it

Pudzey, amidst all the criticism there's solid advice.

- Go in with your prescription and/or any letter you may have from your doctor confirming that you've been prescribed the medication.
- Speak to a solicitor about the fact that you supplied them to a friend. Don't downplay it (or mention giving them to your mum). Presenting it as a daft mistake that you made when you were trying to be helpful is your best bet for a slap on the wrist or warning. The fact that no money changed hands is also in your favour.

pudzey101

Cheers geeky , have my form/script here with my latest 3 monthly on it . Thanks again il take this advice and mentione it to my solicitor before going In

brencork

Hi Pudzey, I think the advice of bringing your prescription to the Garda station and being honest is probably best.

Just out of interest though, why did the Garda stop you in the first place, and why did he search you?

drkpower

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

There is no need to know its a controlled drug. Ignorance of the law is no defence. Also the DC's up and down the country have had cases involving possession of prescription drugs, not sure if any involved zanax but I have been aware of such cases.

'Ignorance of the law' is a specific defence in this case (or more specifically, not knowing (or having reasonable grounds to know) that it was a controlled drug is a defence).

I suspect the 'possession of prescription drugs' cases you are aware of are somewhat different to the hypothetical that the OP presents ('I gave a couple of xanax to my friend'). The reality is that a sizeable proportion of the population engage in such 'illegal' (assuming it is illegal) activity every day. That is not a good thing, but it is a reality that would clearly influence prosecution policy.

pudzey101

I was stopped because the guy I picked up was well known , just out now said il prob face a 200 fine and a conviction

Paulw

pudzey101 wrote: »

just out now said il prob face a 200 fine and a conviction

That conviction, more than likely, will prohibit you from travelling to the US and some other countries that require a visa.

It may be a very harsh lesson for you.

Pro Hoc Vice

drkpower wrote: »

'Ignorance of the law' is a specific defence in this case (or more specifically, not knowing (or having reasonable grounds to know) that it was a controlled drug is a defence).

I suspect the 'possession of prescription drugs' cases you are aware of are somewhat different to the hypothetical that the OP presents ('I gave a couple of xanax to my friend'). The reality is that a sizeable proportion of the population engage in such 'illegal' (assuming it is illegal) activity every day. That is not a good thing, but it is a reality that would clearly influence prosecution policy.

It would be interesting to hear such a defence run, I don't see it going anywhere. Hundreds of drugs are controlled by the original Act and SI's under the 77 Act and even more are controlled under Regulations, I would doubt other than well know drugs even people in the business could say a particular substance is controlled or not with out looking it up, otherwise someone could say I never knew x y or z drug was controlled. In any event the OP has now been told by AGS that he faces a conviction and fine, so my original view seems to be backed up by AGS. Even though I still cant find the penalty provisions that over Regualtion 4 of the 1988 Regs.

Pro Hoc Vice

pudzey101 wrote: »

I was stopped because the guy I picked up was well known , just out now said il prob face a 200 fine and a conviction

Did you talk to a solicitor.

chopper6

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Lol wrong. So wrong.

If a crime has been committed, AGS have the evidence and all they have to do is issue a summons. Many many summary crimes have no power of arrest and so a summons issues.

Well they certainly have lots more evidence now that the OP has probably incriminated himself.

A summons can take six months to come through and thats assuming the DPP reccomends that the case is brought to court.

This idea that people have that if they tell the cops everything they'll be nice a bout it and let them go is nonsense...without a statement the cops have almost nothing...thats why they asked the OP to come in for an "interview".

Having said that supplying tablets to a "well known" individual in a public place was a bit stupid to put it mildly.

chopper6

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Did you talk to a solicitor.

Why?

So they can spin you a web of bullshiit and charge you for it??


My advice is this...WAIT til the summons is issued (IF) it gets issued.

If you are entitled to legal aid it will be apointed at the prelimenary hearing..if it isn't you'll have to pay for a solicitor.

Scrape together a few bob for the court poorbox and try at all cost to avoid a conviction...if you have no previous you should be okay.

Pro Hoc Vice

chopper6 wrote: »

Well they certainly have lots more evidence now that the OP has probably incriminated himself.

A summons can take six months to come through and thats assuming the DPP reccomends that the case is brought to court.

This idea that people have that if they tell the cops everything they'll be nice a bout it and let them go is nonsense...without a statement the cops have almost nothing...thats why they asked the OP to come in for an "interview".

Having said that supplying tablets to a "well known" individual in a public place was a bit stupid to put it mildly.

Just to clarify a few things a summons can be requested in a summary matter within 6 months, can be served whenever, the longest i saw was just over 8 years.

In most summary only matters the DPP has no involvement, and the decision is taken at local level by AGS.

It funny how the OP has now stated that 8 zanax tablets given to a "well known" person, interesting that.

Pro Hoc Vice

chopper6 wrote: »

Why?

So they can spin you a web of bullshiit and charge you for it??


My advice is this...WAIT til the summons is issued (IF) it gets issued.

If you are entitled to legal aid it will be apointed at the prelimenary hearing..if it isn't you'll have to pay for a solicitor.

Scrape together a few bob for the court poorbox and try at all cost to avoid a conviction...if you have no previous you should be okay.

Because the person has now made admissions, has now I assume said, "I supplied 8 tablets that are a controlled drug, to a "well know person".

What bull****, a Solicitor could tell you the exact crime if any, the right to silence and what to expect from the local DJ. So if you call that bullsit I call it advice from someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

You have a habit of giving advice which at its best is as you call it bull****.

digzy

Why do I get the feeling that op has a medical card......

drkpower

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

It would be interesting to hear such a defence run, I don't see it going anywhere. Hundreds of drugs are controlled by the original Act and SI's under the 77 Act and even more are controlled under Regulations, I would doubt other than well know drugs even people in the business could say a particular substance is controlled or not with out looking it up, otherwise someone could say I never knew x y or z drug was controlled. .

The defence is there, and it is quite clear in its terms. I'd say it would have a decent shot in a hypothetical case involving xanax, which is a relatively mild benzo, very often prescribed as a 'relaxant' or 'sleeping tablet'. The idea that the tablet your GP gave you to get a couple of hours sleep on a transatlantic flight is a 'controlled drug' might be a very big surprise to most normal people. Im a doctor and a lawyer, and to be honest, i didnt realise it was a controlled drug......

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

In any event the OP has now been told by AGS that he faces a conviction and fine, so my original view seems to be backed up by AGS. Even though I still cant find the penalty provisions that over Regualtion 4 of the 1988 Regs.

I wouldnt use what the OP says to back up much to be honest.

The reality is that the problem of people sharing prescription drugs is rife (i think a recent survey found that about 25% of students in Cork routinely did it). The prospects of someone being convicted for innocently sharing the likes of a few xanax is fanciful. At least i hope so, becasue otherwise, I and most of my family will be in trouble....

Pro Hoc Vice

drkpower wrote: »

The defence is there, and it is quite clear in its terms. I'd say it would have a decent shot in a hypothetical case involving xanax, which is a relatively mild benzo, very often prescribed as a 'relaxant' or 'sleeping tablet'. The idea that the tablet your GP gave you to get a couple of hours sleep on a transatlantic flight is a 'controlled drug' might be a very big surprise to most normal people. Im a doctor and a lawyer, and to be honest, i didnt realise it was a controlled drug......



I wouldnt use what the OP says to back up much to be honest.

The reality is that the problem of people sharing prescription drugs is rife (i think a recent survey found that about 25% of students in Cork routinely did it). The prospects of someone being convicted for innocently sharing the likes of xanax is fanciful. At least i hope so, becasue otherwise, I and most of my family will be in trouble....

Seriously you are a doctor and did not know the problems with Benzo, http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/inquest-into-docs-fitness-to-practice-adjourned-428383.html I sat through that case and can tell you such issues are taken very seriously by the Medical Council.

I am a lawyer and I can say with certainty that defence wont work. It is a 4 year ban for intoxicated driving after taking codein, http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/driver-banned-after-codeine-dose-178962.html that excuse I did not know thats a issue, I know of no doctor who advices of that issue, even though I advice all doctors I know to do so. I am personally aware of a number of such convictions.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/hse-to-develop-policy-to-tackle-benzodiazepines-overuse-152398.html

BTW the everyone is doing it excuse is not a goodone either, for the person caught, in any case in this OP the poster admits to supplying 8 tablets to a "well known" person. Not really a family member giving a tablet to a brother. BTW I think that anyone who does so is wrong and I will never take such medication from another person.

BTW if the OP's statements don't back up much why are we discussing the issue. I know for a fact and have seen people convicted of possession of prescribed drugs, I have seen issues with the Medical Council in relation to Benzo prescribing.

drkpower

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Seriously you are a doctor and did not know the problems with Benzo, http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/inquest-into-docs-fitness-to-practice-adjourned-428383.html I sat through that case and can tell you such issues are taken very seriously by the Medical Council.

I am a lawyer and I can say with certainty that defence wont work. It is a 4 year ban for intoxicated driving after taking codein, http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/driver-banned-after-codeine-dose-178962.html that excuse I did not know thats a issue, I know of no doctor who advices of that issue, even though I advice all doctors I know to do so. I am personally aware of a number of such convictions.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/hse-to-develop-policy-to-tackle-benzodiazepines-overuse-152398.html

BTW the everyone is doing it excuse is not a goodone either, for the person caught, in any case in this OP the poster admits to supplying 8 tablets to a "well known" person. Not really a family member giving a tablet to a brother. BTW I think that anyone who does so is wrong and I will never take such medication from another person.

BTW if the OP's statements don't back up much why are we discussing the issue. I know for a fact and have seen people convicted of possession of prescribed drugs, I have seen issues with the Medical Council in relation to Benzo prescribing.

Jeez, settle down there.

When did I say "I did not know the problems with Benzo"?:rolleyes: I stopped reading there. The rest seems to be mainly ranting.

chopper6

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Seriously you are a doctor and did not know the problems with Benzo, http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/inquest-into-docs-fitness-to-practice-adjourned-428383.html I sat through that case and can tell you such issues are taken very seriously by the Medical Council.

I am a lawyer and I can say with certainty that defence wont work. It is a 4 year ban for intoxicated driving after taking codein, http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/driver-banned-after-codeine-dose-178962.html that excuse I did not know thats a issue, I know of no doctor who advices of that issue, even though I advice all doctors I know to do so. I am personally aware of a number of such convictions.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/hse-to-develop-policy-to-tackle-benzodiazepines-overuse-152398.html

BTW the everyone is doing it excuse is not a goodone either, for the person caught, in any case in this OP the poster admits to supplying 8 tablets to a "well known" person. Not really a family member giving a tablet to a brother. BTW I think that anyone who does so is wrong and I will never take such medication from another person.

BTW if the OP's statements don't back up much why are we discussing the issue. I know for a fact and have seen people convicted of possession of prescribed drugs, I have seen issues with the Medical Council in relation to Benzo prescribing.

As part of Operation Spire..the gardai arrested 227 people and managed to get THREE convictions.

You seem to be scaremongering for some reason...the Medical Council are NOT going top take action against somebody for supplying 8 tablets of xanex..and in all likelehood the OP will not be convicted under the MDA either unless he's very unlucky or has a ton of previous convictions.

Pro Hoc Vice

chopper6 wrote: »

As part of Operation Spire..the gardai arrested 227 people and managed to get THREE convictions.

You seem to be scaremongering for some reason...the Medical Council are NOT going top take action against somebody for supplying 8 tablets of xanex..and in all likelehood the OP will not be convicted under the MDA either unless he's very unlucky or has a ton of previous convictions.

Where have I scaremongered I actually said at the very start the most likely outcome was a slap on the wrist. I assumed a don't do that again warning. I also pointed out the facts as I could find them in relation to the law. As you said 3 people convicted that's 3 people with drugs conviction know is it not best that people are aware of the risks no matter how small.

BTW if you read my post you would see you will see I never said the Medical Council would have any interest in the OP's matter, they on the other hand do have interest in the prescription of these drugs and have taken action against doctors they feel are not correctly dealing with such drugs.

Pro Hoc Vice

drkpower wrote: »

Jeez, settle down there.

When did I say "I did not know the problems with Benzo"?:rolleyes: I stopped reading there. The rest seems to be mainly ranting.

Not much good engaging in constructive discussion if people wont even read what you say. I can see anything in my post that's a rant, if you want to point out what seems like ranting (how you can tell after not even reading it) I will happily amend to remove the offending ranting.

brencork

Ah lads no need for the ad hominems. Getting a bit off topic really here.

pudzey101

Worst part now is I went to collect my monthly prescription and the chemist said they can't hand Them out due to guards being involved day can't get any worse !!

Pro Hoc Vice

pudzey101 wrote: »

Worst part now is I went to collect my monthly prescription and the chemist said they can't hand Them out due to guards being involved day can't get any worse !!

Your Doctor and Pharmacy will more than likely put you on a weekly or even daily script from now on. Contrary to what some people think this can be a serious issue for you. What did your solicitor say to you?

pudzey101

Solicitor just said I was unfortunate to be in wrong place the wrong time , I threw my friend a blister and told him take 2 or 3 of them for yourself . Solicitor also said it's my first real offense and I might not recieve a conviction if I contribute to the court poor box . A weekly script or daily would suit me fine iv certainly learned my lesson here

Pro Hoc Vice

pudzey101 wrote: »

Solicitor just said I was unfortunate to be in wrong place the wrong time , I threw my friend a blister and told him take 2 or 3 of them for yourself . Solicitor also said it's my first real offense and I might not recieve a conviction if I contribute to the court poor box . A weekly script or daily would suit me fine iv certainly learned my lesson here

A non conviction should if your solicitor says be a real possibility. Probation of offenders Act, or just a don't do that again. You may need to speak to your doctor about getting your script sorted.

fineso.mom

pudzey101 wrote: »

Worst part now is I went to collect my monthly prescription and the chemist said they can't hand Them out due to guards being involved day can't get any worse !!

If you still had 31 xanax yesterday how would you be due a month's supply today?

geeky

pudzey101 wrote: »

Solicitor just said I was unfortunate to be in wrong place the wrong time , I threw my friend a blister and told him take 2 or 3 of them for yourself . Solicitor also said it's my first real offense and I might not recieve a conviction if I contribute to the court poor box . A weekly script or daily would suit me fine iv certainly learned my lesson here

Seems like you've been unfortunate alright - would second the advice about being ready to make a contribution to the poor box, being contrite, making it clear that you didn't really get the seriousness of what you did at the time but do now. Best of luck.