Search for "Vicodin" or "Oxycontin" in Google. Now buy some of these powerful opiates from Google's online pharmacy sponsors. You don't even need to visit a doctor first at some of their sponsors' sites, which makes these online pharmacies so popular with drug abusers.

I asked the Drug Enforcement Agency for their position on Google allowing advertising for online pharmacies. Ed Childress, a Special Agent with the DEA said, "The DEA doesn't regulate the internet. However, we're very concerned."

Carmen Catizone, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy said, "It's concerning to us that those ads are still appearing. That legitimzes those practices and confuses consumers. If those ads are still on their site we've got some discussions."

Google spokesperson David Krane said in a December 1st Washington Post article that Google will soon start using a third party company to weed out rogue pharmacies. However, many of the pharmacies advertising on Google right now still sell "consultations," an illegitimate method of obtaining drugs in which buyers simply fill out a form describing their ailments.

Mr. Catizone said his agency is still talking with Google about a third-party service that will help them differentiate between rogue and legitimate pharmacies.

Some of their advertisers do seem to require proof of an actual doctor's visit, but one Google sponsor I clicked on yesterday simply required me to check boxes (including one that read "have you abused prescription drugs in the past: yes/no") in order to receive an order of valium.

Regarding consultations versus prescriptions, the DEA's Mr. Childress said, "the doctor patient relationship has to exist. There has to be a physical examination of a patient."

Mr. Catizone said his organization, whose members are the state agencies that regulate and license pharmacies and pharmacists, has a similar stance. "All the websites we've seen that offer those consultations do not have a legitimate patient-physician relationship and we would therefore advise consumers not to buy from them and request that Google not accept these ads."

An FDA spokesperson said, "we defer to the states for regulation of medical practice such as whether an online questionnaire is legal." However, "the American Medical Association has determined that this practice is generally substandard medical care. FDA agrees."

"These words won't appear in our advertising." In the same Washington Post article that quoted Google's David Krane, Sheryl Sandberg, Vice president of global sales and operations for Google said "the effect is that those words won't appear in our advertising."

"It won't say 'Buy Vicodin here,'" she said.

She made this statement on December 1st. Their second sponsored link on a "Vicodin" search (01-14-03) says "Buy Vicodin ES 750."

I contacted Google for comment and am awaiting a response. When I receive a response I'll post it in this column.

__________________
Garrett French
Editor, WebProNews.com
http://www.WebProNews.com

-----------------------------------------------------------
"It won't say 'Buy Vicodin here,'" she said.

She made this statement on December 1st. Their second sponsored link on a "Vicodin" search (01-14-03) says "Buy Vicodin ES 750."

I contacted Google for comment and am awaiting a response. When I receive a response I'll post it in this column.

----------------------------------------------------------

haha... this sponsored link is already gone/edited at 3:35pm EST..

Indeed, Garrett is mighty in his righteousness. He need but wave his hand and the mighty Google stirs to quick action.

/bowsToGarrett

I do feel that selling items like Vicodin or Oxycontin online should not be allowed, but what does everone feel about diet pills like Phentermine, generic viagra, or sleeping aids like Ambien?

Google Watch has been interested in this issue since October. Today I sent a letter to the chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. This committee is interested in the role played by third parties that support rogue pharmacies, such as the postal service and FedEx. Perhaps they will also be interested in Google.

Other federal agencies and members of Congress are getting involved with the rogue pharmacy problem as well. It's only a matter of time before Google pulls these ads, but what I fail to understand is how Google can muster the arrogance required to drag their feet on this issue. A copy of the letter is available from a link near the top of this page.

As much as most of us would probably want little or no "regulation" of the internet, this is among the areas that I think cries out for regulation - it's not just a question of whether or not it it, or even where it is, illegal - it's downright dangerous and sooner or later people who buy medications this way are going to start dying. I'm not talking only about addicts and drug abusers, either - I', talking about normal naive people who will believe that if some professional-looking pharmacy site says it's okay to take this medication (without having a medical history or knowing what other medications the individual may be taking), it must be safe.

This isn't just a Google problem - it's far more pervasive than that...

__________________
Psychology Mental Health & Self-Help Forum
Online Counseling & Therapy | Mental Health Directory

The flip side of this coin is the sites which sell preparations which they allege will hide illegal drug consumption from drug screening programs.

The sale of these preparations has been banned in some states, but the sellers have ways around that, for instance it is illegal to sell these preparations in New Jersey, so sellers in NYC arrange for you buy them online and to pick them up in NYC close to the NJ border.

The google aspect of the problem is that while they it appears they do not sell adwords for these terms, a search for pass drug tests returns 679,000 pages. If its not good enough for googles paid ads, why should google then allow free ads?

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO

Mel makes a good point. Even after Google drops the Adwords for keywords such as Vicodin and Oxycontin, the surfer merely has to sroll down a page or two and find the same rogue pharmacies in the regular organic results.

For me, it's a question of concentrating one's resources on the most obvious problem first. The Adwords problem presents a much stronger case than the organic search results problem:

1) Google is making a lot of money off of the Adwords from rogue pharmacies. Their motivation for continuing these is suspicious. They don't accept ads from registered firearms dealers, nor ads for knives, tobacco or alcohol. But opiates without a prescroption are just fine for Google.

2) Other corporations, such as Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL, and the New York Times, have said they don't want to display ads from rogue pharmacies. Google is the last holdout.

3) The prospect of filtering the Adwords is much easier for Google from a technical standpoint, than it would be to filter the organic results. One of Google's objections is that by filtering "Vicodin," for example, sites that concentrate on Vicodin as an addiction problem, and offer suggestions for rehab, might get filtered as well. But most sites that offer solutions cannot afford Adwords, and tend to show up only in the organic results. Therefore, by just concentrating on the Adwords, this objection raised by Google becomes much weaker.

4) Adwords are real time, and the software is designed for filtering. Google in Britain, and Google's special Adword feed to the New York Times, already filter out drug ads. The organic results are a lot trickier when it comes to clean filtering.

The bottom line is that the Adwords situation is a no-brainer, while the organic results offer Google more opportunities to stall and raise objections. It's even possible for Google to take the moral high ground when it comes to organic results, by claiming that they cannot mess with their "objective" algorithms. (None of us would be fooled, but most reporters would be willing to swallow this without chewing.)

If we can't get Google to pull the Adwords for rogue pharmacies, and fast, then we don't have a prayer of addressing the same issue with respect to the organic SERPs.

One thing at a time....

Here are two excellent pieces of reporting on the Internet pharmacy problem. The first one even mentions Google.

San Diego Union-Tribune
Knight-Ridder

I'm basically a conservative, so my viewpoint may surprise some of you. I don't think Google has a responsibility to filter out any of their search results. Specifically, on the topic of drugs, I think the world would be far better, if we didn't concern ourselves with what adults ingested. People who use drugs are going to use drugs. If they can get them delivered to their door, all the better. They won't be on the streets endangering others.

Furthermore, if on-line "doctors" are "prescribing medicine" in a dangerous manner, they will be easier for the authorities to find. No drug abuser is going to stop simply because they can't find a source on Google.

If Google starts judging morality and laws, where are they to stop? Will they stop listing eBay because of all of the fraudulent transactions? Maybe they should stop listing fast food restaurants as consumption of their food may contribute to heart disease? How about gambling? The list goes on forever.

If you find something on Google that you think is illegal, report it to the authorities, not Google. If Google starts watching out for our health, will they then become responsible for injuries caused by sites that they failed to catch? I can see the lawsuits now: "Google sued for drug over-doses because the abuser found the supplier using their search engine." Can people just take some responsibility for their own actions?

__________________
DrTandem's San Diego Web Page Design, drtandem.com

I agree with you, DrTandem, to the extent that I don't see this as a Google problem or a search engine problem at all - the problem is that even within the US and Canada, we see regional differences in the legality if this type of operation - that's what needs to change, but like most things it will probably take a few deaths before any one actually sits up and complains.

This really is not about addicts and abusers - it's about ordinary people who may be misled by purported authority and who still believe that if were illegal or dangerous it wouldn't be there.

__________________
Psychology Mental Health & Self-Help Forum
Online Counseling & Therapy | Mental Health Directory

The debate has some merrit because there is so much abuse out there, but how will Google screen out those who lie? For example, phentermine.com "supposedly" is still shipping controlled meds that are FDA approved and within the USA, however when you call and ask for their paperwork for proof, they deny having it, as well as they are located out of the country! Legitimate web pharmacies who do require the doctor patient relationship are being forced to change and lose business along with fly by night operators who just are out for a quick buck - those who don't care who is an addict versus those who really need the meds. With the paharmacy service our family of pharmacies provides, we DO require the relationship, either with their own PCP, or if they don't have a doc, we offer a visiting doc to see them in their home to write a valid script. The business model works for us as well as the patients.

I can only imagine how Google might take care of this, by eliminating everyone who sells controlled substaces, but they need to take into account those who are abiding by the FDA and making it work.

I do also have to admit that we've had a lot of P.O'd clients who can't provide the required doctor's information, and thus we won't fill and ship their orders, and that is what we need to weed out.

Thanks for the ear. :o)

Michelle

__________________
Michelle K-H.
Direct-Pharmacy.com
(One of the few legitimate, online pharmacy requiring a patient/doctor relationship for prescription medications)

I have to agree with DrTandem...I certainly wouldn't want my 16 year old nephew buying Paxil or Vicodin or whatever else because they saw the ad staring them in the face!. (I know we've all experimented a bit as kids, but that was grass not Paxil !!!) But it's really not Google's fault these people are low enough to prescribe drugs to those without a prescription! (and it's really not that hard for a kid to fake the form, either)

I recently had an owner of 3 of these online sites contact me for search engine optimization.... morals got the better of me, and I had to turn down that job - ESPECIALLY since 1 of those sites was spamming me repeatedly to buy pharmaceuticals! Anyway, I checked out his site and almost went through the ordering process just by answering a few questions correctly! Not too expensive to get some Fioricet!

Hello,

I wonder why my newsletters now a days from webpronews are filled with controversy related to google?
Is google is the world for us? There are many other search engines out there. Why id this goggle stuff all over. I am really bored with this stuff.
Every company has it's right to make the business it's way.
After all we are all users, why is that we depend on google so much?
The fact is general public all over the world are addicted to google for search. They excelled in their business of search engine services.
To get a good rank in google do what they suggest you to do.
It is the end user's who like google so much, this does not mean that we can force google to change it's policies or strategis taking others views into consideration.
They are good in developing staegis and business plans, let them go the way they want, and as a depending user of google we should get ourselves adopted to googles guidelines.
We cannot demand google to listen to what we say.

As far as the online pharmacies issue is concerned I too condone it, but whether to keep the online pharmacies where people(those who do drug abuse) buy drugs without prescriptions, alive or not is a task which federal government should think of. Not the user or abuser himself. Google is a business and they publish the ads of people who pay for the same.

I think on googles part they can leave a note under those ads that "use online pharmaciess responsibly, please donot abuse" some thing of this kind. That will be good for google in publics interest.

Why "Phillip Morris" sells cigerettes, can we assume that they are not aware of the fact that cigerettes makes people ill? That is not the case. The point is business and money. This is a different issue but it is same when you take "Public's" health into consideration.

These newsletters on google issues does not sound good to me at all. You like it stay with it, if you don't keep going with somethingelse. You have choice and you are free.

Regards,

Popper.

Minstrel wrote:

"This really is not about addicts and abusers - it's about ordinary people who may be misled by purported authority and who still believe that if were illegal or dangerous it wouldn't be there."

This is true. Socialism breeds ignorance and mediocrity. However, on the internet, it's diffult to get the average visitor to buy something mundane such as a book on-line. I think the people buying drugs on-line are well aware of what they are doing.

__________________
DrTandem's San Diego Web Page Design, drtandem.com

I was just "forced" to go online & purchase medications from one of those places. My SO was in the unfortunate position of having her purse stolen twice in one month. Both times, her prescription was in it. The first time, the doctor refilled the prescription. The second, he told her to find a new job (the first time it was stolen from the lobby at her office, the second, they broke the window on her truck). Both times there was a police report filed.

She was basically stuck without her medications, and that's *not* good.

So I went online & got a replacement for her. I just went to Froogle & picked a semi-legitimate looking site. It cost more money than it should, especially for the "consultation", but without it, she'd have been stuck.

While I was at the site, I looked at the more easily abused drugs, just to see if they were there & check the pricing. I could have ordered just about anything, although I didn't see crack or PCP. I still think they should be allowed to advertise (along with alcohol, tobacco, and whatever). There are legitimate reasons to use a site like that, and ultimately, it doesn't matter if they advertise on Google or not, people will find them & buy from them.

Where to begin. I am not a big fan of search engines period, to get placements you basically have to alter pages for the search engine, swap links with endless partners who have little or nothing to do with your business, so you end up creating content that is not optimized for your end users.
The internet is not googles, it is not yours, it is not mine, but if everyone bitches long enough, it will become the governments, and I am sure that nobody wants that.
If you take away the service because of the abusers, everyone loses.
Do you really want to pay tax on things like email, bandwidth etc.

This is starting to digress a bit I think but isn't this basically the search for a balance between freedom and your rights versus the protection of others? And in this particular thread, on the issue of online pharmacies, how much responsibility should Google be expected to bear for the remedy?

__________________
Psychology Mental Health & Self-Help Forum
Online Counseling & Therapy | Mental Health Directory

if Google tries to regulate advertisers it will create an expectation amongst the consumers that is not warranted. Carpe Diem has to be maintained, or else Google will be liable for the actions of those which they propose, or attmept to regulate. The first law suit could read, "Well, I found it on Google and they are not suposed to let people sell stuff like that." So Google has no choice but to remain providers and not moderators of, a medium. IMO Rad Bareford Richmond, VA

www.lawtees.com

Without intervention??
It will take someone dying of an overdose, then suing google because they supplied the information on how to purchase.
If you can sue McDonalds because your coffee is hot, I am sure some lawyer somewhere is just dying for a crack.
Bet that would change Googles outlook.
This is purely speculative of course.
Please note that I do not endorse Google, or any online "Pharmacy"
Alan H
http://www.EnterpriseSolutionsNetwork.com
Extending Business Through Technology

First off, if google makes the decision to no longer allow those sponsored ads, that's fine. However, I should hope no government body attempts to step in. The interference in legal business and the censorship of free speech in the name of "protection of the consumer" is just wrong. People buying things, even drugs, online should be responsible for the own actions. If it can be done legally (I don't know the laws on this), and the online pharmacy sends them the right drug, then they should have 0 liability. I personally see NOTHING wrong with these ads being there on google.

This is a topic which will go on in forums for quite awhile. Face it, as soon as someone finds a way of abusing something, anything, there will be others out there to exploit it. In this case it is the pharmaceutical world.

Being someone who takes perscription drugs, it at first sounded like a wonderful way to save money and much more convenient. However, in thinking this out, it is actually quite scary.

Never mind the few out there that will overdose, that will occur no matter what. But what about those that are taking mixed medicines? Our pharmacist is sometimes the only person that will question a perscription interaction, especially for those of us who are getting medical care from more than one doctor. Sure, we're SUPPOSED to tell our docs and such, but it doesn't always happen.

How about the elderly, those with mental illness? Can the online pharmacy claim no responsibility when a drug interaction happens? No. Is there not a responsibility for those of us as users of the internet to protect those that are less knowledgeble? If we believe in the freedom of the internet, we much also be protectors of those that use it.

I've been using the internet since before there way a WWW, and naively believed that it should be a free utopia, no rules, no regs. But the internet is only as strong and free as its weakest link - and if that weak link is cold hearted, money grubbing, fenceline walking scum, then regulation is the only thing that will work.

What this will undoubtedly mean is that our government, as awful as it sounds, will have to step in as it did with e-mail to stop the criminal element. I would suggest that anyone feeling strongly enough about this subject to forward this topic to their government officials.

PlaneLady