April 17, 2012
Calls for Tough Penalties for Pharmacy Thieves
It’s pretty much a daily occurrence in the United States. Someone — usually an addict — walks into a pharmacy brandishing a weapon and threatens to hurt someone if they are not given prescription painkillers. Sometimes people get hurt and even killed in these criminal acts. In one occurrence last year, a man in the process of robbing pain pills from a pharmacy on Long Island killed four people.
Another case in New York City last week, in which one of two robbers was killed in a shootout, has led to calls for the Senate to pass the Safe Doses Act. The legislation, if written into law, would impose harsher penalties for robbing drugstores including jail terms of up to three years for thefts of products valued at less than $5,000 and up to 20 years for amounts above that. Thieves can also be sued in civil court for up to $1 million.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Discussion Questions: Will harsher penalties reduce the number of armed robberies of pharmacies? What can be done to make pharmacies safer places to work and shop?
Poll
Of course harsher penalties will do little — if anything — to reduce pharmacy thefts. People desperate enough to rob a pharmacy to feed their addiction aren’t, as a rule, overly concerned with the consequences of their behavior.
Willie Sutton is apocryphally supposed to have said he robbed banks because that’s where they keep the money. It’s kind of the same reason junkies rob pharmacies — because that’s where they keep the drugs. One could make pharmacies safer by enclosing them in bulletproof glass ala banks and inner city supermarkets, but it might not send the right message to the more law abiding customers.
One could also hire real security guards as opposed to retirees or folks that couldn’t get in at McDonald’s, but that costs money.
Or, one could work in their community to cut the head off the snake — making treatment programs more affordable on the one hand and bringing the full weight of the law down on dealers from the streets to the boardrooms.
Drugs are a big, big, recession-proof business in America and until we get better at taking the profits out of trafficking and sales, we better start ordering that plexiglass.
Tranquilizer guns might be better. Pass a law allowing pharmacists to administer the drug.
If robbers are after the product, a stronger penalty for getting caught is not likely to be a greater deterrent. The risk may be higher but if robbery is the method of obtaining the product, then the higher risk is just part of the process.
Ryan’s take is on target. It may be politically profitable for some to make a show of heightened penalties for common thieves, but I doubt this will result in behavioral change.
A close look at the language of the bill, however, reveals another intent on the part of its authors. It would appear that this bill targets theft, fraud, falsification, re-labeling, gray marketing, etc. of pharmaceuticals. In other words, acts committed by organized criminals.
So maybe SAFE DOSES is really a bill designed to protect the interests of “big pharma,” wrapped in the aura of law and order to make it seem necessary to the public.
The spectre of violent pharmacy robberies are in many ways more galvanizing than expired drugs re-labeled and sold on the gray market.
Agree with Ryan. Someone on drugs isn’t thinking about the consequences of their actions, they are thinking — if at all — about the fix they are going to get when they get the drugs. Stronger penalties will make those that pass the legislation feel good because they believe they have done something to address the problem, but I doubt it will deter anyone from robbing a pharmacy to get the drugs they want.
Answer to the first question, will harsher penalties reduce armed robberies? NO. I have no answer to the second question, unless we are willing to start cutting off hands.
To Jim’s comments… “falsification, re-labeling, gray marketing, etc. of pharmaceuticals.” Isn’t that what Big Pharma does?
As a former police officer I view any specialized legislation with skepticism. To modify criminal behavior you have to set a standard that any armed robbery is clearly going to set you back, regardless of if it is a pharmacy or a Kool Aid Stand. Keep it simple, keep it consistent, and keep it swift. If you do A, then B happens. Period, end of story. More laws and variables only add to the confusion and provide reason for appeal.
Harsh penalties will do little to deter an addict in need of a fix. The only thing the addict is concerned with is eliminating the pain. He/she couldn’t care less about the penalty if caught.
Executing armed robbers like they do in other countries would go a long way in deterring theft. Ever heard of a drug store robbery in Saudi Arabia?
I’m with Dan Raftery.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
Of course harsher penalties will do little — if anything — to reduce pharmacy thefts. People desperate enough to rob a pharmacy to feed their addiction aren’t, as a rule, overly concerned with the consequences of their behavior.
Willie Sutton is apocryphally supposed to have said he robbed banks because that’s where they keep the money. It’s kind of the same reason junkies rob pharmacies — because that’s where they keep the drugs. One could make pharmacies safer by enclosing them in bulletproof glass ala banks and inner city supermarkets, but it might not send the right message to the more law abiding customers.
One could also hire real security guards as opposed to retirees or folks that couldn’t get in at McDonald’s, but that costs money.
Or, one could work in their community to cut the head off the snake — making treatment programs more affordable on the one hand and bringing the full weight of the law down on dealers from the streets to the boardrooms.
Drugs are a big, big, recession-proof business in America and until we get better at taking the profits out of trafficking and sales, we better start ordering that plexiglass.
Tranquilizer guns might be better. Pass a law allowing pharmacists to administer the drug.
If robbers are after the product, a stronger penalty for getting caught is not likely to be a greater deterrent. The risk may be higher but if robbery is the method of obtaining the product, then the higher risk is just part of the process.
Ryan’s take is on target. It may be politically profitable for some to make a show of heightened penalties for common thieves, but I doubt this will result in behavioral change.
A close look at the language of the bill, however, reveals another intent on the part of its authors. It would appear that this bill targets theft, fraud, falsification, re-labeling, gray marketing, etc. of pharmaceuticals. In other words, acts committed by organized criminals.
So maybe SAFE DOSES is really a bill designed to protect the interests of “big pharma,” wrapped in the aura of law and order to make it seem necessary to the public.
The spectre of violent pharmacy robberies are in many ways more galvanizing than expired drugs re-labeled and sold on the gray market.
Agree with Ryan. Someone on drugs isn’t thinking about the consequences of their actions, they are thinking — if at all — about the fix they are going to get when they get the drugs. Stronger penalties will make those that pass the legislation feel good because they believe they have done something to address the problem, but I doubt it will deter anyone from robbing a pharmacy to get the drugs they want.
Answer to the first question, will harsher penalties reduce armed robberies? NO. I have no answer to the second question, unless we are willing to start cutting off hands.
To Jim’s comments… “falsification, re-labeling, gray marketing, etc. of pharmaceuticals.” Isn’t that what Big Pharma does?
As a former police officer I view any specialized legislation with skepticism. To modify criminal behavior you have to set a standard that any armed robbery is clearly going to set you back, regardless of if it is a pharmacy or a Kool Aid Stand. Keep it simple, keep it consistent, and keep it swift. If you do A, then B happens. Period, end of story. More laws and variables only add to the confusion and provide reason for appeal.
Harsh penalties will do little to deter an addict in need of a fix. The only thing the addict is concerned with is eliminating the pain. He/she couldn’t care less about the penalty if caught.
Executing armed robbers like they do in other countries would go a long way in deterring theft. Ever heard of a drug store robbery in Saudi Arabia?
I’m with Dan Raftery.