Don't be surprised if it eventually happens. We're already expected to check id before allowing someone to sign for a wine shipment.Specifically the paragraph regarding couriers not being able to obtain prescriptions for all the pills that we deliver because that's absurd.
Also the fact that couriers are delivering the packages in the ordinary course of business which is allowed under the controlled substance act.
Don't be surprised if it eventually happens. We're already expected to check id before allowing someone to sign for a wine shipment.
Reminds me of an old Mitch Hedberg joke "my fedex guy is a drug dealer, he just doesn't know it."
I don't think anyone is contesting that Fedex delivers prescription drugs on behalf of pharmacies. The government believes that the sales reps and by extension the higher ups were supposed to know better than to do business with shippers who were getting shut down left and right by the DEA.
That has some merit, but I think ultimately the government which gave these shippers licenses to sell prescription meds over the internet (without bothering to check on how they verify who is allowed to order what) should ultimately be responsible for said meds getting in the hands of people who don't have prescriptions.
So either the pharmacies or the government is supposed to show Fedex who has what prescriptions and tell us the contents of every box (and violate HIPPA in the process) or it's none of our business and they need to sort it out amongst themselves.
The indictment states that some of the sales reps responsible for those accounts were complaining about losing their account retention bonuses due to the 'volatile market' and seeking exemptions from those particular accounts hitting their retention goals. Not exactly a smoking gun which is probably why our legal team is going to fight it.
From what I remember when reading it, it said we started charging them more to ship once fedex got wind the dea was looking at them. Didn't sound good, sounded like fedex to me.The indictment states that some of the sales reps responsible for those accounts were complaining about losing their account retention bonuses due to the 'volatile market' and seeking exemptions from those particular accounts hitting their retention goals. Not exactly a smoking gun which is probably why our legal team is going to fight it.
From what I remember when reading it, it said we started charging them more to ship once fedex got wind the dea was looking at them. Didn't sound good, sounded like fedex to me.The indictment states that some of the sales reps responsible for those accounts were complaining about losing their account retention bonuses due to the 'volatile market' and seeking exemptions from those particular accounts hitting their retention goals. Not exactly a smoking gun which is probably why our legal team is going to fight it.
From what I remember when reading it, it said we started charging them more to ship once fedex got wind the dea was looking at them. Didn't sound good, sounded like fedex to me.