Storage of Pharmaceuticals Act.

Question: Discuss about the Storage of Pharmaceuticals Act. Answer: The storage of pharmaceuticals Act of 2014 states about the protection of public against the regulation of any possession or in the storage of any pharmaceuticals drugs. It also states describes penalties for unsafe any harmful and careless type of practice associated with these materials[1]. In this case, it is stated that Michael Turnball had a pharmacy in a place called Toorak and not only this he was also the owner of a pond which consisted of many beautiful tropical fishes. So to protect those fishes and treating them against fungal infections he brought a bulk amount of curpazine which was sold online. As Michael was a pharmacist he had knowledge about the chemical, so he also bought some blue colored food and mixed it with the curpazine powder to serve the fishes. When the police investigated his garage they found blue colored curpazine powder which was stored in a shoe box. But Michael believes that the storage of pharmaceuticals act is not applicable to him as he was a pharmacist himself so the act cannot prohibit him in doing so. As in the act, it is mentioned that any person who is a registered medical practitioner, dentist, vet or a healthy professional has the authorization to supply, sell any pharmaceutical can only have the possession of these kinds of chem icals. As this can be stated that his believe was also correct because in this act it is also stated that the pharmacist has the power to restrict substances or the prescribed drugs in order of lawful practice included in his or her profession. So as per the theory of this act, it can be stated that believe of Michael is true because he had no intention of using it wrongly rather he used it for good faith. Moreover, he was also a Pharmacist himself and the act doesnt restrict any of the license holders to have the possession of any kinds of drugs to use it lawfully. It is also clearly mentioned in the act that the possession or storing of any drugs or any pharmaceuticals can result in penalties in case it is found that it is used for unsafe, dangerous or any careless practice. The act also states that the commencement of it should be only applicable to relevant provisions within the jurisdiction[2]. In accordance with this provision the power of the police officer can be stated that according to section 6 in which the police can conduct a search in the premises of any person who believes to be have stored any pharmaceutical substance in his or her premises in order to violate any of the act under this provision. If is conducted can be stated that if any illegal material is found relating to inhale or any intoxicating inhalant substances the police can seize those properties in possession. Even the police can detain or apprehend that accused person if it is in believe of the police that there is the possession of the pharmacist substances, or rather it was stored on his or her premises. As stated in the problem it is seen that Michael's friend Dutto was very much interested in literacy matters and got excited while they were having a discussion about literacy after drinking champagne. As Michael was pharmacist, he had the knowledge about how to treat a patient who is suffering from breathing problem. Thus to save his friend Dutto's life he treated him by injecting epinephrine which is an adrenaline used for emergency treatment purposes in allergic matters. Then after that, he also dialed 000 for the instance which the police and the ambulance arrived. Ambulance took Dutto away for treatment, but the police had a conversation with Michael and also investigated his house and recovered colored curpazin powder in the shoe box. After the recovery police had insisted Michael to come with them to police headquarters but he refused and was charged with the breaches of this act[3]. It is considered that Michael was charged under this act and he was arrested for the breach of this act. Then he was placed for prohibition of Storage of Pharmaceuticals Act 2014 as it is mentioned in the act that no one is allowed to keep the possession of any pharmaceuticals or any other drugs or any other such medicines without any proper cause, then he or she will be penalized under this act and here police has caught Michael red handed with colored curpazin powder which is an illegal act[4]. But from Michaels point of view he also argued on law points stating that he was a pharmacist and this law doesn't prohibit pharmacist for the possession of any such kind of drugs. Moreover according to the Interpretation Of Legislation Act 1984he also argued that he was also an owner of a pond which consisted of beautiful tropical fishes and to treat them from the infection he bought curpazin powder and mixed it with some blue food color material so he cannot be held liable for this regards. And when his friend was suffering from breathing problem he used epinephrine for injecting his friend and also used adrenaline to treat him against allergies. So here the act was done in good faith as to protect the life of his friend, so it can be stated that he had to face an emergency situation for which he had to use those drugs. Lastly, the most important defense in his favor is he was a pharmacist who had the license of keeping drugs in possession and to use it legally and good faith as he did in this method. Michael informed the police as well as the ambulance by dialing 000 that his friend Paul Dutton son also known as Dutto and was suffering from allergy and needed to be rushed to a hospital immediately. He was also interested in literacy rate had a discussion with him regarding literacy and meanwhile started suffering from breathing problem and his throat started swelling. Suddenly his friend's health started deteriorating, and the situation was quite serious, so to save his friend's life he injected him with epinephrine and also gave him adrenaline which fights against allergies. As soon as the ambulance and police arrived they started taking action, the ambulance took Dutto to observe him, and the police started the discussion with Michael and also investigated his house. Later the police were able to recover colored curpazine powder from his garage, and they asked him to follow with them to the police station and even insisted him. The police also explained to him that it was the b reech of Storage of Pharmaceutical Act 2014. But from Michaels point view, there can be an argument that is no breach of this act as according to this act pharmacists are allowed to keep possession of drugs. According to the law it is stated that:- A person cannot use set lay put or knowingly place be a part of the setting, putting laying or placing a pharmaceutical or regulate in or upon on any land whatsoever; It is also stated that any person who is legally having possession of pharmaceuticals such as Ketamine according to this section are not allowed to use it except on the purpose to tranquilizing horses situated outside or on land it may be outside township of Metropolitan Melbourne[5]. So taking into consideration of all the pros and corns of the matter we can state that while the matter will be held in the court. The court decision that will be in the favor Michael is that though he was a pharmacist, he has no right to use the drugs such as epinephrine and adrenaline on his friend. But the merit that lies in this situation that his friend was suffering from breathing trouble which resulted into swelling of his throat. His situation was also quite serious so he has used that medicine to save his friend's life which was done in good faith so he cannot be alleged in this regard and the curpazin powder which he used was for protecting his tropical fishes in his pond. Moreover, according to the Michael, the court will also focus stating that the police has violated his rights by forcing him to come to police head quarters which was not proper because he has not committed any crime. As he was a pharmacist he had knowledge about chemical and thus he treated his friend to save his life. Bob Shouten had a pharmacy shop in Marijbyrong. Suddenly on a Sunday afternoon a constable named Tatiana Bliberjek arrived in his shop and asked for medicine in regard that his cow was suffering from back stabbing. But her identification was not disclosed by her to the pharmacist. Thus, the pharmacist prescribed morphine in bulk for her cow. Later the constable disclosed her identification to the pharmacist and seized a sample of morphine and placed it in the laboratory for its analysation of those medicines. But Bob stated that he gather those medicines for one of his friend who was a vet. In the analysation, it was found that the morphine's contained a ketamine. As a result, the police officer destroyed all his morphine and all horse medicines[6]. According to Storage of Pharmaceuticals Act 2014, it can be stated that a person who has the legal possession of any pharmaceutical containing such as ketamine are not allowed to use those medicines except the purpose of tranquilizing horses and too situated out of the township or out of the Metropolitan Melbourne. The maximum penalty which can be charged is five penalty units. Provision of this act also states that any person who visits the house to house to sell intoxicating inhale substances or sell in the public place or Public Street for supplies of pharmaceuticals is charged as an offense liable to the penalty of 500 penalty units. There are also certain provisions for selling these kinds of pharmaceuticals, as stated in the act a person is not allowed to sell or store any of such pharmaceuticals in the container which is not complied with the act such as: A drug which is used to treat any amphibian, bird, reptile, mammals or invertebrate; A medicinal drug which is used humans internal purposes; A pharmaceutical for the humans internal use; There are also many other such substances which include for the purpose of designing for the use of external human use such as lotion, powder, ointment, salve or other such material as drinks, foods, condiment, etc. The act also deals that the central store which is at the in the institution must always maintain a record of solving, selling, purchasing related to the drug and the penalty that counts is 40 penalty units. The person who deals with highly abused pharmaceuticals in one or more packets to be keeping a transaction of it. So according to this case study, we can state that Bob is liable for the fault of selling pharmaceuticals such as morphine and other horse medicines in the open market which is against the act. Though he is a pharmacist, it can be stated that he can use those medicines as a stock to supply to those people who has the power to use them. But instead of doing so he was selling those medicines to the unknown persons. Not only was this he caught red-handed by a police constable. Later when that morphine was tested in the laboratory, it was found that the medicines contained ketamine which is also prohibited by this act. So Bob can be proved guilty in this case as the evidence is against him. Later it was also seen that the constable all his item in record and made a list of morphine or other such drugs which was present in his list and also seized a sample of morphine as an evidence and later when he returned with the troop and other police officers came and destroyed the morphine's and o ther horse medicines of the store and he was also charged for that. Thus, now the liability is totally on Bob to prove that he kept the stock of those drugs for his vet friend in the town for treating the animals. So there must be a positive defense for Bob to prove him innocent[7]. According to this problem, we can state that Bob can be charged under this act because in the act the provision states that selling any drug such as morphine or any other horse medicine, etc. is illegal. This is also regarded as a criminal offense as per under sections 9 (1) because it states that it is liable to the penalty which must not exceed (5) unit penalty. The following requirements must be there to apprehend or detent it as a criminal offense: That he or she wasn't adding or abetting the other person to inhale or inhaled any substances which are intoxicated; He or she had recently promoted and aided the other person to inhale or inhalant of any intoxicating substances. As per this case law, it is stated that a constable named Tatiana Bliberjek came to Bob's pharmacy shop and asked for medicines which can treat her cow who was suffering from the injury. Bob recommended her morphine which was a good drug to treat the injured animals. But it was totally illegal to sale those medicines in the market without any prior permission. But the storage of drug was not illegal as he was pharmacist himself. Later constable accompanied by some other police officers came and destroyed those drugs that were stored in his stores. As according to the provision of this act we can state that if any person keeps the storage of pharmaceuticals, regulated drug, or any medicine or medicinal device contradictory to this act, then he or she will be liable to the maximum of five penalty units. It also states that if any person sells any packed drug or pharmaceuticals without any proper prescription by the doctor, and also there must be a production of the birth certificate of the person who buys it[8]. But as Bob had no intention of selling those medicines for illegal reasons, there must be a proper cause for his defense. In relating to the provisions of this act, we can state that any person is a pharmacist has the power to keep in store certain kind of pharmaceuticals or any drug but certain are prohibited from selling. Thus, according to section 5, we can state that any person who shall not lay place or put be a part of the setting knowledgeable then laying, placing or putting any pharmaceuticals drugs upon the land or in the land what so ever is applicable. It also provides us with the information that the person who is having pharmacist license can keep in possession of drugs under the legal theory. The defenses that he can take in his favor to save him from the eyes of law are as follows: Bob was a pharmacist himself who was a pharmacist from Maribyrnong and had a shop of drugs. But he was caught by a lady constable for selling banned drugs such as morphine. But the according to section 4 of the act it does not stop him from doing so as the pharmacist can keep possession of drugs, being a license holder. In the second point we can state that he was not selling the drugs rather, the constable implicated a false story that her cow was injured badly and needs quick treatment. He can also be defended according to the provision that he kept those morphine and other drugs for his friend who was a vet and used to treat the horses. But presently the vet was not handling the horses, so the medicines were kept in store with him. Lastly, it can be stated that he was not selling the morphine or other horse medicines on the street or from house to house or rather not inviting the public to buy it. And it does not violate section 14 of the act[9]. Dl Battle v Real Estate Agents Authority (2010) Federal Court of Australia According to this case it is stated by Hanson-Old J that according Real-estate Agents Authority Act 1980 the Plaintiff was to submit the list of properties he managed from the realtor but he failed and was dismissed from the his position. But he stated that he provided all records listed in the back of his childrens nanny and he passed it to all that he was able to mange[10]. But according the problem it can be stated by the judge that there was a breach of contract made by the employee as he was supposes to produce the record in a proper manner. As it was provided by the plaintiff in the back of the photograph it doesnt clearly states that it is a record book. Thus his claims fail[11]. Xenophob v R 1995 (av., [2015]) South Australian Court of Appeal In this case Cosgrove Bryce JJ stated that according to the Pokies Act 1982 selling of Pokie machines is a crime and it is strictly prohibited. The Act also state that sale is prohibited under section 47 of the act. But in this matter there was an argument made the pokie machine was not sold in return of cash but rather exchanged. But the judge stated that though it was not sold in return of money but exchanged so he stated that it was a loophole regarding the crime. According to his view it can also be stated that if he considers it then others will also follow the same procedure thus it is a crime[12]. According to Jeffery J (dissenting) there was viewpoint given that sale of pokie machines according to section 47 is a crime. But here the machine was not sold rather exchanged in form of the barter system. Thus there is no contradictory provisions of law which can be stated here. As the transaction of money was not an issue in this matter so the judge acquitted the appellant[13]. Thus if both the decision of the judge is taken into consideration then it can be seen that the decision by Cosgrove Bryce JJ is more suitable because there is no scope of others to exchange or rather deal with Pokie machines which is considered as a crime[14]. Reference list: Counsel, Chief Parliamentary,Interpretation Of Legislation Act 1984(1st ed, 2015) Di Batale v Realestate Agents AuthorityFederal Court of Australia (2010) Storage Of Pharmaceuticals Act 2014(1st ed, 2014) The Pokies Act 1982. The Realestate Agents Authority Act 1980 Xenophob v RSouth Australia Court of Appeal (1995) Storage Of Pharmaceuticals Act 2014 (1st ed, 2014) Storage Of Pharmaceuticals Act 2014 (1st ed, 2014) Storage Of Pharmaceuticals Act 2014 (1st ed, 2014) Storage Of Pharmaceuticals Act 2014 (1st ed, 2014) Counsel, Chief Parliamentary, Interpretation Of Legislation Act 1984 (1st ed, 2015) Counsel, Chief Parliamentary, Interpretation Of Legislation Act 1984 (1st ed, 2015) Storage Of Pharmaceuticals Act 2014 (1st ed, 2014) Counsel, Chief Parliamentary, Interpretation Of Legislation Act 1984 (1st ed, 2015) Storage Of Pharmaceuticals Act 2014 (1st ed, 2014) Di Batale v Realestate Agents AuthorityFederal Court of Australia (2010). The Realestate Agents Authority Act 1980 Xenophob v RSouth Australia Court of Appeal (1995). The Pokies Act 1982. Xenophob v RSouth Australia Court of Appeal (1995).