from the uh,-secondary-liability? dept
UPS put out a statement that doesn't sound even remotely forced upon it by DOJ people holding guns.
"We believe we have an obligation and responsibility to help curb the sale and shipment of drugs sold through illegal Internet pharmacies," said Susan Rosenberg, a UPS spokeswoman.Of course, what is an "illegal internet pharmacy"? There's a bit of an issue there because the DOJ thinks that an illegal internet pharmacy includes that Canadian pharmacy that is much cheaper, but which is making perfectly legitimate drugs and then shipping them -- gray market style -- into the US. That's a very different picture than the "illegal internet pharmacy" selling sugar pills or worse. But, here's the thing about all that: for all the talk of the risks and dangerous of illegal internet pharmacies there are amazingly few stories of any actual harm. And, in fact, various random tests of the drugs coming from "illegal internet pharmacies" suggest that, for the most part, they're safe (and frequently appear to actually be what they say on the box). So what is the DOJ protecting us from here? The scourge of more affordable legal drugs?
The bigger issue, however, is the question of secondary liability. I don't want UPS going through my packages to make sure they're not illegal drugs. Perhaps the government showed direct plans and strategies by UPS to attract illegal pharmacies, but from the outside, given the information that's been revealed, it looks like the real problem is why is the DOJ even bothering? If UPS and Fedex are going to have to start checking what's inside packages to avoid getting itself fined again, that's a really bad and dangerous precedent.