Photographer Fined for Refusing Gay Business
Albuquerque photographer Elaine Huguenin, who refused to take pictures of a gay couple's “commitment ceremony” because of her religious beliefs, violated New Mexico discrimination law, a human rights panel ruled. The ruling said Huguenin should pay $6,637 for the couple's attorney's fees and costs.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian organization that defends religious liberty, plans to appeal to state district court. ADF's senior counsel, Jordan Lorence, said:
"The fact she is a commercial business does not mean she loses her constititutional protection. ... The constitution prevents the government from forcing people to choose between their faith and their livelihood.”
What do you think? Should Huguenin be free to discriminate on what business she takes, based on her religious convictions?
Does the ADF have a good change of getting this ruling reversed?
Comments
Seems as simple as "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone without shirts or shoes."
It's not like there weren't other photographers in Albuquerque.
Keep us posted.
In Georgia, as I understand it, one can refuse to serve anyone for any reason. The response to an overtly discriminatory act would be to have protests and boycotts, but I don't think that the law would intervene.
On a personal level, I'm torn between libertarian principles and social ethics. I could make a strong argument that a business should have the right to refuse any customer it pleases. (It's generally a bad business move to turn away money, but if someone really wants to...) On the other hand, this brings to mind images of segregated lunch counters and "whites only" businesses. It's ethically wrong for a business to discriminate, but I'm not sure that they should be prohibited by law from doing so.
The legal issue of permitting businesses and their employees to alter how they treat customers based on personal religious reasons brings up some disturbing possibilities. For example, would we be willing to say that a pharmacist could refuse to fill prescriptions for antiretrovirals because he believed that AIDS is a punishment from God? Medical and business law are not synonymous, but they do overlap. There was the very interesting case of a fundamentalist Christian doctor who refused to treat a 3-year old's ear infection because her mother had tattoos.
But let's leave out medical practice. What of a mechanic who refused to tow a woman from a dangerous area because of religious laws on gender? Is this his religious right? If you order a barbecue sandwich at a restaurant, can I refuse to bring it to you because I won't touch pork? If the manager fired me for doing so, would this be religious discrimination? How far do we take this?
1 Someone's Sexual practices - they choose
2. Blacks, Whites, Indians, Hispanics, etc - They don't choose their color of their skin.
These two are not even in the same group.
Those who are offended because they want to force someone to photograph them are the rude obnoxious ones here. They do not have an entitlement to not be offended. They have two choices, they either choose to be offended, or they choose to not be offended. Since their offended....So What???
This is just another prime example of the agenda being forced upon us.
We have a right and entitlement in this country to not have peoples agendas forced upon me. This is not a socialist country and to all of those who are wanting a socialist, or lets call it by it's real name...Communist country, then I suggest they move to a communist country and quit trying to make the United States a Communist country.
I say it's bad practice to take money instead of following your own morals.
Yeah, I rest of your argument and some I thought were right and some I thought were far out there.
What about the people who are trying to force their will on others? Is that a good thing?
That sounds like a sure fire way to get people to quit owning their own business. That helps the economy how?
second, the rule should be if it isn't, We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The only way this does not apply is based on religion, race, and creed. I'm with Humbled on this one. gay is not a race, its a behavior.
third, and I think this is where I differ most with you, I don't think liberty and ethics oppose each other. Without the ethics there would be no liberty but what you could force others to tolerate. a civilization requires ethics in order to allow liberty which creates a responsibility to be ethical.
Since we're leaving out health care, I think we also need to leave out the tow truck based on the fact that his service qualifies as emergency work.
4 Religion interfering with performance of duties of an employee. The employer and employee need to come to terms before the contract is signed for employment. It is not for the employee to cry foul after seeking and taking a job where their beliefs would interfere with the performance of their duties.
5. As an employer/business owner they can make those calls, otherwise it comes down to the agreement as to what services will be performed.
Agreed. But that doesn't change the ethical value or the legality of this photographer's actions. Whether one person does something or a hundred makes no difference in whether that something is right or wrong, legal or illegal. I think we'd agree on that.
second, the rule should be if it isn't, We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The only way this does not apply is based on religion, race, and creed. I'm with Humbled on this one. gay is not a race, its a behavior.
But then why include religion or creed? If I wear a kippah or Magen David in public, I do so with the full knowledge that a lot of people hate Jews - and that they hate Jews for religious reasons. Religion is absolutely a choice. It's a behavior as much as any sexual relationship. Anyone who doesn't like being on the receiving end of religious discrimination has the option to convert to something else.
(Off topic, I find a special irony in this case that the photographer chooses to discriminate in the name of Jesus. He won't associate with "sinners" like these gay people - but he's doing that in the name of a man who was known for his associations with the sinners and outcasts of society.)
third, and I think this is where I differ most with you, I don't think liberty and ethics oppose each other. Without the ethics there would be no liberty but what you could force others to tolerate. a civilization requires ethics in order to allow liberty which creates a responsibility to be ethical.
Justice and mercy are good things, but are often at odds. The same goes for freedom and ethics. Ethics create laws, which restrict freedom. In doing so, they create a better society.
But ethics can turn very ugly. We can easily develop a very warped and sick ethic, and believe firmly that we are doing what is right. The great evils of our last millennium have almost universally been perpetuated by those guided by conscience. The Klan does not carry crosses because they're anti-Christian. The burning cross for them is a statement of faith. The people who flew the planes into the towers on 9/11 did so because they believed that they were doing a moral good. They operated on faith. So did Baruch Goldstein when he walked into a mosque and began firing.
In this country, we force people to tolerate those whom they don't like or approve of all the time. To a certain extent, our law demands that we treat each other as equals whether we like it or not. It doesn't demand that we approve of - or even get along with one another. It only demands that we don't impose that view on others through discriminatory action.
As an employer/business owner they can make those calls, otherwise it comes down to the agreement as to what services will be performed.
Wouldn't this then be the business owner's right do discriminate in hiring based on religion and creed?
I guess the question is what are the sexual discrimination laws in that particular country and if it is deemed contrary to their laws, then expect to be challenged if you discriminated based on sexual orientation.
Personally if it was me in the situation of the gay couple, I think I would just be happy to move on in this case, only to avoid the headache and drama of the court case. However in some instances a stand must be made, I am just not sure I would be willing to make a stand in this case. I wouldn't want someone taking photos of my special occasion if the photographer had a problem with my special day - it would just ruin it.
As for the medical side of things, I am a pharmacist and there are actually pharmacists who refuse to supply the oral contraception pill due to their religious beliefs. In some cases the OC isn't even for prevention of pregnancy, it is for other medical reasons. In Australia our ethical body has told these pharmacists that if you wish to go down that path then that is fine, but just be aware they may get sued by a client if they client is not happy. It isn't such an issue in the city, but it could be an issue in a one pharmacy country town.
Agreed. There's really a lot of douchebaggery on all sides in this case. I can understand where both are coming from, but on both sides, the behavior is a bit ridiculous.
I am a pharmacist and there are actually pharmacists who refuse to supply the oral contraception pill due to their religious beliefs.
Yep. We get that here too. We also get doctors who refuse to provide non-emergency treatment for religious reasons. In cases like that - and even of this photographer - I wonder if one should really work with the public. If your religious beliefs are such that they would interfere with your ability to perform your job with certain clients, maybe it's best to work only for certain churches, rather than with the public at large.
In Australia our ethical body has told these pharmacists that if you wish to go down that path then that is fine, but just be aware they may get sued by a client if they client is not happy.
I'm not sure that that has yet been litigated in the US. Our legal system has a conflict much like the one that I have - between religious freedom and personal autonomy of the business owner and the protection of others from discriminatory conduct. It would be an interesting case.
Because this nation was built on the premise of religious freedom and liberty. Now, this behavior is neither beneficial to those who practice it nor the country that normalizes and legitimizes it. Hopefully, you can agree that Religious oppression is one of the forces that drove the founders to create this great nation. And that the founders designed the country to depend on the influence of religion to inculcate values and integrity into its populace. Without those values, liberty cannot stand. Now, by association those who do not study the scriptures and apply them to their lives are held to a near enough standard of conduct in order to function in a society of overwhelming numbers of those who do.
I hope not, I would hope ethics are passed to our children on their merit, along with the wisdom to use them appropriately, not on the basis of laws. Laws are written to protect the society from those who don't practice acceptable ethics. Ethics are pliable to the circumstances and the wisdom of the individual. Laws are meant to be set, hard rules which when broken are met with set, hard consequences. If we try to use policy for every circumstance, no liberty will remain.
Agreed.
Ummmm Horrified!
So I triple agree on the first count!
The way I'm reading the statement above was that she was hired to take the photos and then told that it was a gay couple and decided that she couldn't do it due to her religious beliefs.
If that's the case, it's rather discriminatory. She should have highlighted her reluctance before she was hired.
I think this is a non-issue gone horribly wrong. Personally, I think since there are a lot of other photographers around, why focus on highlighting and punishing one who has a conservative view?
I dunno, this could lead to some gritty discussions on sexual orientation being natural or otherwise, as it's already done above.
I think she is within her rights to deny such business opportunities. However, if she had accepted the contract and then decided to breach it, then it may cause lawsuits like it does here, although I think the couple should have simply asked for a refund and found a different photographer.
But then, anyone who's planned a wedding or whatever ceremony knows how hard it is to get a professional photographer on such sudden notice. Perhaps that's what drove the whole vengeful discriminatory lawsuit.
Let's clarify that this is merely an issue of religious beliefs vs. job contracts, and not so much an issue of sexual orientation.
In this case, however, the law was not created to deal with this photographer. The case is being argued about existing antidiscrimination law. As to the merits of the case under that law - can't say.
All laws deal with single offenses. There is no provision in state or federal law that we wouldn't try a case because there were only one or two people involved. The same is true of ethics. If one person goes around smashing and grabbing, he's not ethically superior or inferior to a crowd of 1000 during a riot.
For example, in schools a few children are deathly allergic to peanuts. While I empathize with them I believe it is immoral to penalize all the thousands of children who are not allergic to peanuts from having access to peanut butter in school lunches. This policy will penalized the liberty of 99.99% of the populace for the will of the rest.
Okay, no fair. You're picking one of my favorite subjects. :-) Wandering off topic now:
The peanut ban in schools isn't a civil rights or civil liberties issue. You could argue that that component exists, definitely, but it's not the crux of the issue. Banning peanuts would fail the "reasonable accommodation" test of the ADA.
It does, however, fall under health and safety - and consequently, tort liability. The school isn't penalizing all students to protect a few. The school is trying to cover its butt.
On an ethical level, yes, freedom is a great thing. But we do balance that with safety. No one really has a right to control my diet, but at the same time, it's not worth it for somebody's kid to die for my right to eat a PB&J. These allergies are sometimes lethal, and are becoming more common. Schools are responding to that out of necessity.
On topic, the entirety of civil rights law involves protecting small groups. Without this area of law, we would be left with majority rule. We've had that before in this country - we were not better off for it.
Tax collectors and prostitutes weren't gaining the approval of the Pharisee's and political power in the court of the king.
Tax collectors by definition had political power. They were working for the king - and subsequently, for the Roman empire. The Jews of that day (including Jesus) hated Rome, and very much wanted that empire overthrown - at least in their own land. As such, the tax collectors were seen as enemies. Jesus hung out with them anyway.
During the Roman occupation, the Sanhedrin continued to exist, but in a contest between Jewish and Roman law, Rome would win. I'm not familiar with the status of prostitutes under Roman law, but given their other habits, I tend to doubt that it was outlawed.
And how does this change the story of Jesus anyway? If Israeli society then had been largely secular, and halacha was ignored, would his association with these "sinners" have been different?
Jesus understood something that historically, his followers have not. When he detailed the ethic of reciprocity, he was not simply applying it to those whom he would have considered to be righteous. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you [see caveat about the gays]." Jesus also applied this ethic to sinners. Despite his disapproval of their behavior, he treated them as equals. When, in his entire recorded lifetime, did he say that he would not associate with someone because they were a sinner? Yet his followers do this all the time, and in his name no less.
We don't condemn these people, we just don't want their behavior presented to our children as an alternative equal and as right as heterosexual behavior.
If you can present Christianity (a behavioral system you chose) as an alternative - even a superior alternative - to other religions - and this is your right - then why under civil law should gay people be exempted from that? Let them make the case for their civil rights. We all have the right to agree or disagree, but not to silence them. And how does getting their photo taken make a statement about homosexuality in public life anyway?
In this business setting, the owner recognizes the danger this behavior is to our society.
How was he protecting society by refusing to serve a customer? Would his photos somehow have legitimized the union? Made a difference in civil or Biblical law? He wasn't defending anything - he was discriminating. He was saying that he refused to associate with - or perform his standard service for - these people because they were sinners. There are a lot of people who think of Jews as "Christ killers" - if he had refused the same service to me and my spouse for the same reason, it would more likely have been called what it is - discrimination. We wouldn't even be having this discussion now.
The couple do have other options, but they chose this business in hopes of rejection the same way they want the laws changed so that a business cannot hire or fire on the basis of transgenderism.
How do you know that? Is it detailed in the case? How do you know that they weren't just flipping through the yellow pages, and decided that this guy's photography looked nice? They could have gotten a recommendation from a straight friend. Was there a sign hung on the guy's door - "Straights only"?
If a man comes to work in a dress and visits the women's restroom because he feels like a woman, the employer would not be able to fire him? I would visit a restaurant where that person was going to be my server. That business suffers, indeed all of the general public suffers for the will of some few.
There are 2 issues here. The first would be one of the company's dress code, which it would have a right to enforce. The second would be that of refusing to hire someone because of the attitudes of some customers.
In 1958, after the Temple was bombed in Atlanta for supporting desegregation, the people who were responsible threatened businesses in the area with more bombings if they did not start firing their black employees. Once upon a time, people in this country would not have wanted a black server, and may have avoided a business because of it. We established antidiscrimination laws on the basis of race anyway, and for the most part, people got over it.
Laws are written to protect the society from those who don't practice acceptable ethics.
And this is why we have civil rights law. Because people see it as ethically acceptable to practice discrimination, the law intervenes to protect minority groups, regardless of the prevailing attitude of the majority toward those groups. But even our laws are based on ethics. So many of the freedoms we enjoy are based on the ethic of reciprocity.
If we try to use policy for every circumstance, no liberty will remain.
If we try to scrap the law every time someone thinks that their breaking of the law is ethically or religiously justified, the law means nothing.
I don't see the use of religion to justify great evil as an application of ethics.
How so? Is it not their religious belief that is the argument for their decisions? Would the 9/11 hijackers have flown planes into those buildings because they were in a bad mood that day? Religion dictated their ethics.
I believe these people know they are doing evil but it fits their will and so use the religion.
I could make the argument that discrimination against homosexuals is a moral evil because it violates the ethic of reciprocity. From there, I could make the claim that because those who do so in the name of religion have certainly been taught the ethic of reciprocity, they know they're doing evil, and are just looking for religion as an excuse. It doesn't work though. We have no way of reading minds, so if a person makes an ethical or religious justification for their actions, we have to take that at face value, and assume that they believe their own arguments.
Ethical confusion is propagated on purpose in Muslim territories in their educational systems from grade school to college and over their TV.
I could argue the same of this country. In fact, we know that this has historically been the case. The US has a long history of human rights violations that were justified by our religion and our popular culture.
This is my point. Policy, be it the school board decision or legislation limits liberty. Ethics increase liberty, because the responsible behavior in one setting is different in another setting. If a law is passed because of recurring breeches of ethics, then the responsibility to choose activities/behaviors is taken away. Suddenly that behavior is specified in all settings unless special instructions are added to the policy for certain settings
On topic, the entirety of civil rights law involves protecting small groups.
Yes, but the pendulum has swung the other way, the few are empowered and the many suffer. Why can't a Mom&Pop store survive anymore, why are Doctors' insurance costs through the roof driving up health care costs, why can't kids play tag on the school grounds? It isn't just PB&J's, its playground equipment, and children's games, its no go areas because they're Muslim, a lukewarm cup of coffee, etc., all of these are because of huge payoffs due to litigation. I'm not being clear...another example; children are forbidden to play tag on school grounds because somebody might get hurt!!!
another example: three 7th grade boys were arrested for participating in slap butt day for sexual harassment.
another example: kids are forbidden to pray in school because somebody might be offended.
As I understand it, they were a system of collection devised by the Romans, Jews had an entirely different setup. So no, they didn't have political power in the King's court unless it was through the Romans. That's going off on a tangent. The point is that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and the Scribes because they were making it impossible for the people to reach God. He was establishing and/or restoring a path to the tax collectors and the prostitutes. So the analogy doesn't really fit with refusing to serve homosexuality as they celebrate their perversity. If I have the story right, and I believe I do, Jesus was being condemned by the Pharisees for associating with the sinners, but the sinners were repenting of their ways. The reputation was enough to condemn them, so there was no avenue for them to come back into relationship with God. I am fully ready to associate with gays, I am not going to encourage their sinful and self destructive behavior.
She was making a statement. Not a public one, a personal one. They took it to the court and made it the big public ordeal. And the court justified them.
I don't know, I strongly suspect for reasons listed above.
Ethic of reciprocity, a general philosophical principle of most philosophies and religions.
That's right. But you appear to be using the term for the opposite result. Silencing the many for the benefit of the few. This is not a back of the bus situation. Neither is it a lunch counter situation. This is a celebration of the union between two women. The ceremony!!! The photographer does run a business that specializes in these ceremonies, but her religious views stand in stark contrast to this particular event. She should have the right to decline on any one of those three points I made but especially this one.
Every time? This is the point I was making earlier about the difference between ethics and policy. No room for discretion, for the application of wisdom.
That's what juries are for. They often have to decide with a presentation of the facts whether intent was for evil or not.
You say you could argue, is that to mean that you are not arguing this? Because if you are looking for a comparison of the culture of Islam to the culture of the U.S. ? It's a new twist to many of my old debates, but I'm up for it. Islam is still taking slaves out of Africa. Islam has 1st and 2nd grade kids marching around in uniform and swearing to kill the infidel. That's not back when, that's today. If you want to compare this photographer with that sentiment, I'm afraid you are morally confused.
Ethics are the practice of personal boundaries and respect. Policies cannot rule a people alone. We have always had unethical people among us. Policies provide a venue for 1 encouraging the practice of ethics 2. taking amoral people out of the general populace. When we lean too hard on ethics, abuses go unchecked, but when we lean too hard on policies, the recognition of the need for ethics is diminished and abuses go as far as they can before the policy enforcers catch them. That was the great failing of the Soviet Union. The society built on eliminating the Creator who writes those ethics and commands parents to instill them into their children.
I don't think she was hired. From what I understand, the couple just inquired services via an email and she refused them in a returned email.
Judge:
You have done about as good a job as anyone in arguing the merits of this issue,which has gotten so blown out of proportion on this page it is not even funny.
We have gone from the Romans through Jesus,American History,9/11,
right up to the present day arguing a case where a business owner simply refused service to a customer because of Her disgust at the idea,and the gay community is,indeed,trying to foist their beliefs on other business owners with fear of litigation.
This is not a case of "emergency" or" Medical treatment" (the pharmacist,the mechanic)and a person who refuses to touch pork would certainly not be working in a barbecue joint to begin with.Maybe I should convert to judaism,for example,go file an application at Sonny's barbecue,and then tell them,"Oh,by the way,I won't handle pork".Then,when they refuse to hire Me,I could sue on the grounds of religious discrimination.The payoff would certainly solve My monetary/unemployment problems,but would be most unfair to the proprietors of the restaurant,who could not hire Me simply because My "religious beliefs" would prevent Me from doing My job properly.
Therefore,the photographer could say She photographs "Weddings",not
gay unions,and has the right not to do so,HER rights are the ones being trampled here.Once this case is appealed to an actual court,and not some
PINKO "Human Rights Panel",that refuses to take the photographer's
''Human Rights" into consideration,I'm willing to bet that a jury will rule in favor of the photographer.
End of Story.
Chezza, you're right.
This was a consultation. This company was asked probably about prices and so forth, and when it came to what duties was to be performed, the owner of this business, I'm sure - knew they were not the company to do this job, and also would not be the photographers that would do the best job for the services discussed. Both parties should have been satisfied this one photographer was not the right one for the job. But......
Here is the problem. Here in our country we do have many people with many different agendas. Not everyone but there are many. This homosexual person decided to be offended because of the reason given. Then comes the anger because the offended didn't like photographer's world view and so the offended decided to try to force this person to change their world view or maybe not even change it but instead force the photographer to do the job.
My question is what was the motive behind the homosexual trying to force the Christian to photograph them? We already know, it would have been a very uncomfortable session. Would the pictures have turned out good if everyone was tense with attitudes?
The motive was...the agenda to make someone do what they did not morally believe their God would want them to do. The homosexual didn't like being told about a God that did not approve of their homosexual lifestyle.
Let's forget about law's of the land for a minute and think about the person.
Lets say someone came into your pharmacy and gave you a script to be filled. This script was for a medicine that would kill this person and you knew it. Would you fill it? Would you called the doctor to verify the script and consult with the doctor that indeed you knew it would kill the person buying the prescription. What if the doctor told you he knew it would kill the person, and that was the end goal that this patient and doctor were hoping for. Would you fill it? Why? And what if you would not fill it because you felt it to be morally wrong? Would this patient to have the right to force you to go against your conscious?
I know this is an extreme example, but I tried to relate it to your business.
You make some rather interesting points and I can see where you are coming from and in the main I agree with you.
I am trying to think this through. Okay let's assume in this case the couple had a choice of photographers and the couple could just move on, and use a photographer who would not feel there was a conflict of their world view, then in a sense it would be fine as there was a choice. They may still feel offended and hurt at the attitude of the 1st photographer, but at least they had a choice.
But what if we have a situation where they are unable to find a photographer who approves of their ceremony and they are left without a photographer. Then it becomes an unfair situation and the discrimination is a real problem. Now that is an issue that would need to be addressed.
I know that you and I have differing views on whether being gay is a choice or not, so we are going to see this situation a bit differently. As Sheri said it is a case of being "Torn between libertarian principles and social ethics."
This is a murky area because of this on going debate between whether being gay is a choice or not and also the religious debate around being gay.
You have made a good case when you say:
In many cases it is wrong to try and force a world view onto someone. However having said that, there are times when a better world view does have to be forced onto a society and it has happened many times in the past: slavery, equality and race, women's rights and the list goes on and it does include laws to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In my opinion it is wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but I can understand if someone has strong religious views on the matter, then it may conflict with their views and the question is, "Is it right to impose other's views onto them in this case?". To be totally honest I am not sure in this particular case given there are harder and more significant fights to be fought, but at the same time this could be just one small battle that needs to be fought along the way to fighting the more significant battle.
Let's not forget religious views were strongly debated in the matters of slavery, equality and race, women's rights and we realise how foolish we were to hold onto those oppressive ways using religion as a means to support the oppression. There is a good chance that the acceptance of LGBT sexual orientation is another such case and in my opinion it is.
In this particular case, as long as there was some other photographers available to take their photos then I would say, move on.
I do understand where you are coming from Twana. I think there are cases when a particular view does have to be imposed onto a society for the betterment of the greater society, but at the same time there are cases when people should be entitled to their own opinion and to be free to express it.
Let me see the pharmacy question.
Would I dispense the prescription? Well there is an easy answer to that and that is NO. Morals wouldn't even have to come into it, as by law I could not dispense the prescription. Also I don't think I would be prepared to lose my registration to practice.
However on reflection it is an interesting question, because my morals may actually make me act in reverse depending on the situation the patient was in. If I knew that this patient was suffering extremely from a terminal illness and there was no chance of recovery and death was close by and if I knew this patient very well (which is quite often the case in a small country town) there is the possibility I may dispense it. The euthanasia question once again is a murky area.
To be honest with many medications all a patient has to do is take too much of it and they can kill themselves anyway and it would be out of my control. I wouldn't dispense a known poison or a medication that was not part of their regular treatment regime and I would never dispense a script knowing that there would be harm to the patient - euthanasia aside. If a case of euthanasia came up, I honestly don't know what I would do in that case, which ever decision I made I would always be second guessing myself.
Seeing how you brought up the pharmacy question and morals, I will give you one real example of many I could choose from. Australian pharmacists are not permitted to dispense a prescription (or supply an over the counter medication) if we believe the prescription/medication will be used to supplement a drug addiction or it will be wrongfully used and/or abused. This quite often puts us in some rather awkward/dangerous positions as substance abusers can get a bit "stropy" when we don't supply what they want.
When I first started out as pharmacist, there was a rather huge practice of some doctors writing scripts for diet medications (uppers) for truck drivers to keep them awake on long haul trips and as you can imagine this was a very dangerous practice. Sometimes it just would have been easier to just dispense the script and look the other way and I would have got away with it. But I couldn't do that due to my conscience, so I never did dispense those scripts. To this day I am so glad I never did dispense those scripts, as a young fellow who I had refused to supply the medication to, ended up killing himself while driving his truck, he fell asleep behind the wheel and drove off a bridge. Someone some where had supplied the medication, but it was not me.
Twana you made some interesting points and you certainly made me think.
This is really interesting,
In my state and a few other states, we've done the same thing probably with the same over the counter drugs. It's the allergy meds that have ephedrine (sp?) in them. It is used in making crack, crank, etc. What I found interesting when this law was passed in my state, we had the pharmaceutical companies fighting against this law. I thought the pharmaceutical companies were thinking about their bottom line according to their monies to be made, which was pretty dangerous and selfish I thought.
But the good news is the law passed and many people have broken their addictions to the crank, crack, etc. We also don't have tons of cookers homes and sites to clean up anymore.
Before that law was passed, we had a rookie police women who'd gone into one of the cookers homes. She was exposed to the poisons used in making those drugs and she has had terrible physical health ever since. Her health has deteriorated ever since.