The Google Pharmacy Ad Controversy

[Garrett]

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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23588-2003Nov30.html) 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.

[mike]

-----------------------------------------------------------
"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

[incrediblehelp]

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?

[Daniel Brandt]

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 (http://www.google-watch.org/evilgoo.html).

[minstrel]

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...

[Mel]

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?

[Daniel Brandt]

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....

[Daniel Brandt]

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

San Diego Union-Tribune (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/health/20031220-9999_1n20interdoc.html)
Knight-Ridder (http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/7636481.htm)

[DrTandem1]

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?

[minstrel]

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.

[mmkwebbie]

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

[cyberious]

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!

[netpopper]

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.

[DrTandem1]

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.

[jred]

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.

[AlanMCSD]

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.

[minstrel]

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?

[acbareford]

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

[AlanMCSD]

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

[david-tom]

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.

[PlaneLady]

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

[Mick Elmes]

Why do you guys focus so much attention on Google?
Paranoia? It's allready the most used SE by a long shot...possibly even reaching scary status.
If you search for the same drug names on most SE's, they also show e-pharmacies, so why suggest it's only a problem with Google? Huh?

[uauthorize]

My response is an overwhelming yes. Google will not me advertise one of my sites that sells email address databases using keywords like (bulk email addresses), but yet they let advertisers offer illegal drugs...

[JohnSlater]

This is a bigger issue than allowing ads. If you do a Google search for "Ativan abuse" the fourth result is a cute little site headlined Abuse Ativan, which provides you with information about purchasing goodies such as Ativan (a particularly pernicious "prescription" drug that has addicted hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of unsuspecting patients, including many elderly patients for whom the drug is prescibed to "calm their anxiety", i.e. get them out of the doctor's hair).

Other old favorites on the site include mother's little helper, Valium, available for $98 - "no RX". In all fairness, only two of the three sponsored links on this search appear to offer illegal sale of the drug, the third offers a formula to ease the pain of withdrawal!

But wait, I'm a savvy consumer, not to be taken in. I'm going to get legal redress. So I search for Ativian and malpractice. Site one leads me to SearchingforHealth.com, certainly a promising URL. So promising in fact that I find, not one, but a score of sources for illegal purchase of Ativan. In all fairness, the sponsored links on Google at least lead to legal information sites, not drug peddlars.

There is a national scandal here of major proportions. Does anyone care?

[mikmik]

DrTandem1 opined
Socialism breeds ignorance and mediocrity.
Where did that come from?
If you want to talk politics, let's go to the break room and have at 'er. I don't see how this kind of a blanket, inflammatory remark can serve any purpose in a discussion where logic and reason should be the criteria for relevancy.

Sure this is an emotional topic, but maybe if 'humanitarianism' entered into the rhetoric once in a while, we would see that this is an issue of need for proper health care and education.

Listen to what minstrel says - and I am not saying that he shares or endorses any of my views - it is about innocent people getting hurt and ripped off.
Regulation is never going to be an answer ANYWHERE that there is a strong enough motivation for people to make a buck, or kill their personal demons.

And I, too, am wondering about the provinciality of this forum and newsletter these days.

[Mel]

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...

....

What you are ignoring is that fact that drugs are an addiction, and that those who ingest them do so because they are addicted, possibly because they were introduced to them by thier friendly schoolyard pusher years before.

Drug trafficing is a multi billion dollar business with no social benefits whatever, though they do have a very significant social detriments. The ingestion of illegal drugs only benfits the producers and sellers of these drugs whether they are the cocaine barons of Colombia, pushers of homebrewed designer drugs, or websites that sell what doctors will not.

I take a very different position, which is that only solution to drug problems is to make drugs unavailable except from legitimate sources.

If google allows ads for codiene then why not for cocaine?

[Sunfluer]

I have to agree with DrTandem1. It makes a lot of sense to me.
Adults don't need to be "policed." And, Google shouldn't be a "fall guy" for allowing "illegal" pharmacies on their search engine.
As stated previously, if the drug companies are censored then that opens the door for other censorship - another chip away at "freedom".
People who abuse drugs will continue to do so due to their addictive personalities. Those that abuse, will get what they want whether it be Google or elsewhere.
Attacking Google, expecting them to take a stand on filtering out drug companies, would only, in part, treat the symtoms of drug abusers - it doesn't do anything for treating the disease.
There is much in the Amercan culture, IMO, that should be legitimized, and perhaps, as a result, certain lifestyles might become better "protected".
Not to go off on a tangent....
The other side of the coin, and sadly, the said drugs getting into the hands of minors. There's no way to prove via the internet that one is truly over the age of 18 on the drug sites or other adult sites for that matter. Then, I think, that's where parental guidance needs to be ensured.
Do we really want the government or search engine filtering be our other parents??

Barbara Giordano, Mom and Jewelry Designer

[minstrel]

This is a topic with a lot of implications for many people and therefore a lot of intensely held opinions - as a result, it's one that is going to be difficult to keep on topic but I just wanted to pop up again to remind people that the issue under discussion is not internet drug information or internet drug purchasing in general but specifically whether Google should be expected to dissuade the spread of on-line pharmacies or drug stores by banning ads from such sites and/or filtering them from search results.

[Sunfluer]

As I attempted to respond in my previous post....
I think Google shouldn't ban the said companies in question. I stated my opinions why I feel this way in my previous post. I don't think it went off topic b/c jugements are being made about Google and what the user community feels what Google should be responsible for; hence banning sites due to their content.
When we search on any engine, we're making personal choices. If we push search engines to ban based on content what will that lead to and where will it end?

IMHO,
Barbara Giordano

[minstrel]

I stated my opinions why I feel this way in my previous post. I don't think it went off topic b/c jugements are being made about Google and what the user community feels what Google should be responsible for; hence banning sites due to their content.
Barbara, my comment wasn't intended for you (or anyone else) specifically. It's just that I see the potential for the thread to digress widely and my periodic reminders (this is my second one in this thread) are to help everyone (inlcuding myself) stay on track.

[mikmik]

Thanks, minstrel. I am one that needs reminding often.

As to the topic, no, I don't think, in principle, that Google, or anyone else for that matter, should be regulated or speciffically targetted any more than any other agent on the internet.
It is a situation that, at least at present, is difficult or impossible to force. The internet is to widely accessible to have much order imposed on it. Like I said, I see it as a societal problem and what will be tolerated is ultimately determined by our combined individual attitudes and actions, and unless a situation is beneficial to virtually all individuals, there will be immoral and underhanded enterprisings.
So I agree with DrTandem1 and Sunfluer. And I add that the solution comes through more options, and these options through legitimate avenues, not in imposing restrictions.

[Mel]

If the online pharmicies dispense controlled substances (whether pharmaceutical or otherwise) in contravention of established regulations why should Google assist them with it?

The arguement that those who abuse this practice will abuse it anyway is farcical, kind of like suggesting that we should not have laws against speeding since those that want to speed will do so laws or not. Laws are established to protect the greater public and thier rights should not be subverted to pander to the appetites of the few.

Google has established a policy of not accepting gun advertisements, why should online pharmacies be any different?

[Xcalabers]

I agree with david-tom from above. It's the consumers responsabality. There should be no regulation of advertizments. So what if someone is buying and abusing drugs from an online site. That is that person's choice. Besides the world would be a safer place if all our drug dealers where online instead of standing on streat corners with concealed weapons.

[Mel]

IMO if you want to get rid of street corner drug dealers, the way NOT to do is is to allow the creation of still more addicts by allowing still easier access to drugs, who in turn will need more dealers.....

[minstrel]

Again, this is not about addicts and dealers - it's about the sale of controlled substances (or products), many of which are things even the most desperate junkie couldn't get high with (i'm thinking about thyroid supplements, prostate treatments, blood pressure medications, and on and on) but which could kill someone either alone or in combination with other prescriotion or over the counter medications that individual might be taking (that's why they are controlled or regulated in the first place).

Although I haven't checked myself, Mel pointed out a couple of posts back that Google doesn't accept gun ads so why don't they ban drug ads?

[MarsAndBeyond]

Helow everybody !

I have been studying the working of the e-pharmacy eBusiness.

There are problems, but the utility of Internet based Pharmacies should not be slashed out of existence by legislation, lobbies, "personal" soap-boxes, etc. ... as the "they" are striving their darndest right now to eliminate this area of competion-leveling that is taking place.

VERY SAFE and LEGITIMATE actual-doctor prescriptions system can be implimented with SAFE suppliers ... combined with the ebusiness technology.

The sites that are NOT SAFE will be weeded out.

Now, talking about Google ... they should carry liability if they take advertisement money from Pharmacy-type "NON-LEGITIMATE" sites and they plug them into our "searches" or banners and such. BUT, they should not mess about with filtering our RESEARCH type of searches - after all, that is the soul of a search-engine ... otherwise its just going to be farcical hollow results that we will start getting ... and the ROT will set in for ever !!!

Regards,

Ken.

[jydee]

Moderm medicines are very potent and even lethal if used incorrectly. In most countries their use are stricktly regulated and two highly qualified professionals are involved in every transaction. A medical doctor examine and prescibe and a pharmacist dispense the prescibed drugs.

Internet regulation seems imposible. The only way to protect people against themselves is to enduacate and enlighten them to the dangers involved.

I think it is our duty as internet professionals (Google included) to attach warnings and advise our customers to only buy drugs that is recommended by their heatlh care workers . Internet consultations without a physical examination is also extremely dangerous.

A ethical code of conduct should be established and all on line pharmacies not comlying with these rules should be placed in the same category as hate speech,
etc.

It is imposible to regulate the internet and on line pharmacies definately have a role. We as reponsible "Web Professionals" should do our bit
to try an isolate irresponsible and undesireble sites. The search engines should also do there part to protect the general public.