CVS Pharmacy, accused of helping to fuel ? trade, will pay $75 million to settle
Options
northside7
Members Posts: 25,739 ✭✭✭✭✭
By Andrew Blankstein | Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
CVS/Pharmacy will pay $75 million to settle a case brought by federal prosecutors involving the sale of a key ingredient for the making of methamphetamine at its stores.
A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office confirmed the civil settlement, which would close a long-term investigation officials brought under the Controlled Substances Act.
In agreeing to the settlement, CVS denied any wrongdoing.
According to prosecutors, CVS didn't provide proper safeguards for the sale of cold medication that contained pseudoephedrine, an ingredient used in the making of ? . Prosecutors alleged this oversight helped to fuel the ? trade in California and other states.
The settlement involved California and several statements.
[Updated at 10:55 p.m.: In a statement, the U.S. Attorney's office described the case as the largest civil penalty ever paid under the controlled substances case.
"This case shows what happens when companies fail to follow their ethical and legal responsibilities," said United States Attorney André Birotte Jr. said in a statement. "CVS knew it had a duty to prevent methamphetamine trafficking, but it failed to take steps to control the sale of a regulated drug used by methamphetamine cooks as an essential ingredient for their poisonous stew."
Authorities claims thet found "thousands of violations of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which, among other things, limits the amount of pseudoephedrine that a customer can purchase in one day." The violation were found in L.A. County, Orange County and Clark County, Nev.
"This historic settlement underscores DEA's commitment to protect the public's health and safety against the scourge of methamphetamine," said Michele M. Leonhart, the Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration said in the statement. "CVS's flagrant violation of the law resulted in the company becoming a direct link in the methamphetamine supply chain. DEA will continue to work with its state and local counterparts to disrupt the supply of methamphetamine, including inhibiting access to chemicals, such as pseudoephedrine, used to produce methamphetamine."
CVS/Pharmacy will pay $75 million to settle a case brought by federal prosecutors involving the sale of a key ingredient for the making of methamphetamine at its stores.
A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office confirmed the civil settlement, which would close a long-term investigation officials brought under the Controlled Substances Act.
In agreeing to the settlement, CVS denied any wrongdoing.
According to prosecutors, CVS didn't provide proper safeguards for the sale of cold medication that contained pseudoephedrine, an ingredient used in the making of ? . Prosecutors alleged this oversight helped to fuel the ? trade in California and other states.
The settlement involved California and several statements.
[Updated at 10:55 p.m.: In a statement, the U.S. Attorney's office described the case as the largest civil penalty ever paid under the controlled substances case.
"This case shows what happens when companies fail to follow their ethical and legal responsibilities," said United States Attorney André Birotte Jr. said in a statement. "CVS knew it had a duty to prevent methamphetamine trafficking, but it failed to take steps to control the sale of a regulated drug used by methamphetamine cooks as an essential ingredient for their poisonous stew."
Authorities claims thet found "thousands of violations of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which, among other things, limits the amount of pseudoephedrine that a customer can purchase in one day." The violation were found in L.A. County, Orange County and Clark County, Nev.
"This historic settlement underscores DEA's commitment to protect the public's health and safety against the scourge of methamphetamine," said Michele M. Leonhart, the Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration said in the statement. "CVS's flagrant violation of the law resulted in the company becoming a direct link in the methamphetamine supply chain. DEA will continue to work with its state and local counterparts to disrupt the supply of methamphetamine, including inhibiting access to chemicals, such as pseudoephedrine, used to produce methamphetamine."
Comments
-
So they sold a product people used in making ? and their in trouble?
Shouldn't anywhere that sales lighter then get in trouble for smoking ? , using heroin, and smoking weed?
Shouldn't everwhere be in trouble for selling paint that people huff, toilet bowl cleaners they cook with Ecstasy, and so on and so on. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »So they sold a product people used in making ? and their in trouble?
Shouldn't anywhere that sales lighter then get in trouble for smoking ? , using heroin, and smoking weed?
Shouldn't everwhere be in trouble for selling paint that people huff, toilet bowl cleaners they cook with Ecstasy, and so on and so on.
Cosign that, I don't see em prosecuting farmers for not securing their anhydrous ammonia... Especially considering the folks getting ingredients from the drug store are some low bottom manufacturers... -
it's not that they sold the product, it's that they didn't properly sell the product:ThaChozenWun wrote: »So they sold a product people used in making ? and their in trouble?CVS Pharmacy to pay $75 million civil fine for problem in sale of ? ingredient
LOS ANGELES (AP) — For more than a year, CVS Pharmacy Inc. was more than a neighborhood drug store in Southern California and at least four other states. Federal authorities say it was the place of choice for would-be criminals known as "smurfers" to buy a key ingredient used to cook batches of the highly addictive drug methamphetamine. On Thursday, the nation's largest operator of retail pharmacies announced it had agreed to pay $75 million in fines for allowing repeated purchases of pseudoephedrine that led to a spike in Southern California drug trafficking. CVS will pay what federal prosecutors said was the largest civil penalty ever assessed under the Controlled Substances Act. The company also will forfeit about $2.6 million in profits earned from the sales of pseudoephedrine, which can often be found in cold medicine and is used to make ? .
Authorities said CVS didn't provide enough safeguards to monitor how much pseudoephedrine a customer was buying, and the company violated federal drug regulations in Arizona, Georgia, California, Nevada, South Carolina and possibly 20 other states. "CVS knew it had a duty to prevent methamphetamine trafficking," said U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. "But it failed to take steps to control the sale of a regulated drug used by methamphetamine cooks as an essential ingredient for their poisonous stew." The company was expected to pay the $75 million fine by Friday. The remaining forfeiture is due within 30 days.
Thomas Ryan, chairman and CEO of parent company CVS Caremark, said the company unacceptably breached its policies and has worked to fix the problem. "To make certain this kind of lapse never takes place again, we have strengthened our internal controls and compliance measures and made substantial investments to improve our handling and monitoring of (pseudoephedrine) by implementing enhanced technology and making other improvements in our stores and distribution centers," Ryan said.
Federal agents began investigating CVS in 2008 after the arrest of several people in Southern California for unlawful possession of pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture ? . They said those people had bought large amounts of the ingredient from CVS stores in the region. Investigators learned CVS had committed thousands of violations of a federal law limiting the amount of pseudoephedrine a customer can buy in a day. Although the pharmacy chain created an automated system known as ? Tracker to record individual sales, it didn't prevent multiple purchases by someone on the same day, authorities said. As a result, federal authorities in Southern California saw an increase in ? production. In Los Angeles and Orange counties, so-called "smurfers," who traveled from store to store picking up pseudoephedrine, inundated CVS locations. In some locations, buyers would clear store shelves of cough and cold medicines. "Smurfers" knew to frequent CVS and not other pharmacies because of the company's oversight issues, authorities said, noting customers could buy a bottle of cold medicine for $10 and sell it to ? manufacturers for $25. Between September 2007 and November 2008, CVS became one of the largest suppliers of pseudoephedrine to ? providers in Southern California, authorities said.
"CVS did not set out to be part of the ? trafficking trade but they made a poor decision," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Shana Mintz. "Rather than choosing to over-comply like their competitors did, they knowingly under-complied with the law." CVS employees and store managers notified management about the large amount of pseudoephedrine purchased in California and Nevada, but prosecutors said the company failed to promptly investigate. CVS spokeswoman Carolyn Castel declined comment on that issue. Over a 10-month period in 2008, sales of products containing pseudoephedrine increased more than 150 percent in Los Angeles County, compared with the same period in 2007, authorities said. "We know those sales were not your general customer who had a cold," Mintz said. "Some people were making 10 purchases at a time. Suppliers couldn't keep up with the demand." The company eventually changed its sales practices but only after it became aware of the investigation, prosecutors said.
By agreeing to pay the fine, CVS will not face potential criminal charges and the company will implement a compliance and ethics program over the next three years. CVS has more than 7,100 stores in the U.S. -
it's not that they sold the product, it's that they didn't properly sell the product:
Ohhhh, I don't know how I missed where it says they sold more than the limit allowed to a person per day. -
i think some versions of the article are a little truncatedThaChozenWun wrote: »Ohhhh, I don't know how I missed where it says they sold more than the limit allowed to a person per day. -
i think some versions of the article are a little truncated
Yea I'm losin it today, obviously the reason I missed it is because it isn't in the OP neither is a link.
Props on the link and whole story, I thought the story was off for some reason. -
Lol 2012 and his conspiracy theories.
It does not say that they were allowed to sell as many as possible and to keep selling until you have enough to rat someone out, -
its over: 2012! wrote: »shut up and own your cowardice to address issues, like your cowardice displays in my threads.
go back, re-read the excerpt that was posted, it clearly shows that there is no volume limit but a 24-hour interval-limit for buying it before you're then tracked re: your purchase activity. Learn to read, more carefully.
Yea, they track it to make sure the store is doing it's job and following the rules. -
here's what makes this statement ironic:its over: 2012! wrote: »you need to read more carefully-
from the article:its over: 2012! wrote: »There was no limit on how many could be bought so they sold it properly, they just didn't properly tell who was buying it...so wise up
"Investigators learned CVS had committed thousands of violations of a federal law limiting the amount of pseudoephedrine a customer can buy in a day."
so yes, that would mean that the amount they sold was in violation of the law, and would mean they did not sell it properly. this also means that maybe you yourself should have read the article more carefully before you got all worked up and started to talk ? .
no... this OP has actual content. i don't know how much simpler i can make this, because you don't seem to be able to understand it even as multiple posters try to hold your hand through the process.its over: 2012! wrote: »all elements, that would got my thread closed by janklow, no doubt...lol...covet is a terrible terrible disease
