.
Feedback

Pharmaceutical Companies File Lawsuit Against County's Drug Take-Back Ordinance

Pharmaceutical and biotechnology groups filed a lawsuit challenging Alameda County's drug take-back ordinance that requires drug makers to pay for programs to dispose of expired and unused drugs.

By Bay City News

Pharmaceutical and biotechnology groups filed a lawsuit on Friday which challenges an Alameda County ordinance requiring drug makers to pay for programs to dispose of expired and unused drugs.

Passed by a unanimous vote of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on July 24, the ordinance is the first such law in the country.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the ordinance violates the commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution for three reasons, including that it regulates and burdens interstate commerce and its main purpose and effect is to shift the costs of a local regulatory program directly onto interstate commerce and out-of-county customers.

It says the ordinance also discriminates against interstate commerce by targeting such commerce and products delivered from outside the
county for burdens and by favoring local interests "by deliberately shifting
costs away from local consumers and taxpayers and onto drug manufacturers and pharmaceutical customers nationwide."

The suit alleges, "If this novel ordinance were permissible, then Alameda County could likewise require interstate news publications to conduct the county's paper recycling program or require interstate food producers to collect and dispose of all spoiled food or similar garbage."

The suit asks that the ordinance be declared unconstitutional and that its implementation be stopped. It also asks for unspecified costs and attorneys' fees.

The suit was filed by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association and the Biotechnology Industry Organization. All three industry groups are based in Washington, D.C.

When the ordinance was passed, Board of Supervisors President Nate Miley said it is needed because the improper and careless disposal of prescription drugs and the illegal resale of prescription drugs puts members of the public, particularly children and the elderly, at risk of being poisoned.

In passing the measure, the board said another reason for the ordinance is that groundwater and drinking water "are being contaminated by unwanted, leftover or expired prescription drugs passing through our wastewater and treatment centers."

The ordinance requires drug manufacturers and producers to pay for the disposal of their products or face fines of up to $1,000 per day.

Alameda County residents currently can drop off their old medications at 28 drop-off locations but the program costs the county about $330,000 a year.

If the lawsuit is unsuccessful, companies affected by the ordinance have until next July, one year after it passed, to submit their plans to comply.

Larry Smith December 8, 2012 at 01:37 pm
Obviously David, you are not Lazarus begging for scraps at the rich man's table, but have the mind set of the Harvard Business School graduate who knows that the world is his oyster, and his alone. You are truly the Scrooge of Christmas lore! So enjoy your scraps, too, David. I know well what they have done. Their progress is the drug that has caused the world to slide to the brink and now they are yelling and screaming to every crooked congressman (only about 540) that will listen that it isn't their doing that has caused the world's problems but the drug users whose incessant demands for 'more and better and cheaper' have led to a throw-away world where the damn stuff that we throw away is toxic as hell. For the inflated costs that Americans are paying for these drugs, they should have a built-in disposal fee.
Back to your table, rich man, and take care not to step on Lazarus' hand while you step over him!
David December 8, 2012 at 01:37 pm
The world population as you know is larger than ever, thanks to "Big Oil, Big Ag, and Big Pharm"
Consumers of products have always been responsible for their disposal, not the manufacturers. Do you expect GM to take your Chevy Cruze to the junker when you're done with it? Get a sense of responsibility.
Larry Smith December 8, 2012 at 01:54 pm
Actually, I have long been a believer in the concept that if you leave some residual, recyclable value in things, the little ants of the world will scurry about to reclaim them and make sure that they get disposed of properly. I don't care who pays for it, Dave, what I care about is that it gets disposed of properly. I know that the fee and costs structure of goods is such that the manufacturers could easily add a small amount to their already bloated product costs to cover their eventual recovery/disposal costs. That way, we take care of the Lazarus' of the world too, and instead of being Scrooge, you are miraculously transformed into Mr. Ho-Ho-Ho himself.
Cheryl harawitz December 8, 2012 at 02:44 pm
Actually it's not a new concept for manufactuers to be required to assume disposal costs of their product. It's my understanding that car manufactuers in Europe have been required to do so for some time now. Why should producers of oil and drugs be able to monopolize the market, dump their costly burdens on all of us and screw up the the environment for future generations.
David December 8, 2012 at 03:19 pm
Obviously, Larry, you have no clue about me.
But beyond your repeated admissions of ignorance, I would invite you to take a look at the death rates from heart disease for example. Perhaps you'd learn that magically through no part of the eeeevil drug companies assuredly, the death rate from it has dropped over 50% in the past 30 years, curiously coinciding the with clearly useless development of excellent (and now mostly generic) anti-hypertensives and anti-cholesterol drugs. As for the "disposal fee" again, be responsible for your own trash. After all, you could always choose to not take your pills, have nothing to throw away, and die sooner. Enjoy.
David December 8, 2012 at 03:22 pm
Drug companies, nor oil companies "monopolize the market."
Who do you "pay" to junk your car? I've never paid anyone; I either have gotten some money back from the scrap dealer or called it even after letting a scrap dealer tow it. Why should I pay the car company to do something I can do either at no cost or at a small reimbursement to myself? Throw your own **** stuff away. Properly, of course.
David December 8, 2012 at 03:28 pm
Want to reduce the cost of drugs? Get rid of the FDA
Cheryl harawitz December 8, 2012 at 04:38 pm
End-of-life vehicles generate an estimated 8 or 9 million tons of waste annually in Europe. We can assume the US generates a great deal more than that. The European Union End-of-Life Vehicles Directive aims to prevent pollution and at least attempts to make vehicle dismantling less hazardess to the environment. Seems to me that making manufacturers reduce the use of hazardous substances when designing and making vehicles (they don’t contain mercury, hexavalent chromium, cadmium, or lead) and establishing authorized collection systems that are strictly controlled through de-pollution procedures is more desirable than leaving it up to manufacturers to do whatever makes the most money.
Also, I don’t know of any small business oil or drug companies. Of course the BIg Oil and Big Pharma monopolize the market. Laws are made for them.
Michael Moore December 8, 2012 at 05:02 pm
I am not surprised that civil discourse on Patch cannot stay on topic. The constitutional argument citing the Commerce Clause has been black letter law for well over one hundred years. If the Supremes strike it down the impact is huge on all Americans. This time I am on the side of business, this part of commerce is not something that local government should be meddling in. Alameda County is wrong on this.
Fred Eiger December 8, 2012 at 05:43 pm
Enough Larry!!! You're making me nauseated. It's like talking to Leah right now.
Fred Eiger December 8, 2012 at 05:44 pm
Another useless post. Cheryl is assuming the environment will be "screwed up", she has not proof to her assertions. Just emotions.
Fred Eiger December 8, 2012 at 05:45 pm
Finally. Someone joined David and I in the sane corner of the world. Thank you Michael.
Rob Rich December 8, 2012 at 06:11 pm
I have no idea how the District Court will rule, but nobody has to strike down the Commerce Clause in order to find that regulating the local disposal of pharmaceuticals is a constitutional exercise of local police powers to protect health, safety and welfare.
For what it's worth, the Supreme Court has been willing recently to limit the scope of the Commerce Clause when it comes to regulating guns near schools, http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-cases-and-the-constitution/us-v-lopez-1995/ or protecting women against violence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison
Tyler December 8, 2012 at 08:18 pm
We clearly need a good way of recycling these chemicals so that anyone can do it. Nobody's mentioned our local elected officials who passed such a silly, and probably unconstitutional way of going about it. But it's back on them now, or will be soon.
Meanwhile y'all can stop calling each other names and contribute. Please.
Michael Moore December 8, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Rob, your selection of Lopez [1995] and Morrison[2000] are interesting because they actually support my point that the court is not really interested in federalizing crimes that are local and state issue. Lopez is the foundation of no guns on a school campus and started in Texas. SCOTUS upheld the right of Texas to set their own standards and they held that the Commerce Clause could not be expanded to include Federal jurisdiction over schools and what children could and could not bring on campus.
Morrison held that Rape and Assault against women is not a Federal Crime and if the state of Virginia chose not to prosecute University of Virginia football players for rape and assault the state could do so. The more conservative nature of SCOTUS does not bode well for the Commerce Clause interpretation that has existed virtually intact since the narrow rulings after the War of Northern Aggression. I suspect that local courts will strike down Alameda's progressive law, and in so doing will cost all of us a good deal of financial resources better spent on other activities.
Larry Smith December 8, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Well, I for one have had a lot of fun pulling your collective chains. It is good to get riled up once in a while to keep the juices flowing. I hope I have done this for all of you. Quite frankly, I really don't give a darn where they are dumped or who pays for it. I think we ought to load them up on a military transport and dump them over Iran and North Korea....
Just kidding!!!!
Jessica Gardner December 9, 2012 at 12:58 pm
People are just throwing them down the toilet
When my grandpa recently died of cancer the hospice nurse dumped his morphine drip contents down the toilet
Larry Smith December 9, 2012 at 02:16 pm
Yeah, Jessica, that seems to be the disposal method of choice, and I am not sure I disagree with that method given that the sewage receives some level of treatment, although unlikely to be sufficient to remove all the toxins introduced . It probably removes some, but not all of the toxicity from the brew. Of course, city officials don't want us doing that because of the costs of treatment and the probability that it renders treatment inadequate.
The argument that we should let people be responsible for disposing of their own garbage makes the one terrible faulty assumption that people are responsible in the first place. If only pigs could fly! If that were the case, there would be no oil spills, no littered highways, and no midnight dumping of do-it-yourself oil changes into the storm drain systems, etc., etc., etc.
David December 9, 2012 at 02:24 pm
I'd invite you to look up the definition of "monopoly." Hint: Mono is Greek for "one."
David December 9, 2012 at 02:27 pm
Think about the dilution of a few hundred milligram pills in billions of gallons of water.
This isn't even a "problem." It's just the government wanting to shakedown companies to fund their cronies salaries.
anthony December 9, 2012 at 03:01 pm
Considering the absorbtion rates of many medications, dumping them down the toilet really should be better defined...couldn't find the numbers comparing used/unused deposits.
Fred Eiger December 9, 2012 at 07:08 pm
lol good one Larry.
Fred Eiger December 9, 2012 at 07:12 pm
Considering the absorption rates of methane when one eats at a local Mexican Restaurant I think we should require all Mexican Restaurants to be responsible for the methane their customers produce and the extra waste both fecal and paper that is caused by eating at Mexican Restaurants. If we were to ban Mexican Restaurants can you imagine all the fecal and toilet paper waste we would be diverting out of the sewage treatment plant and the oceans? I've caught fish with tortilla's and refried beans in their stomachs.
Jon Spangler December 10, 2012 at 12:35 am
Apparently, Fred and David never had parents who made sure that they cleaned up their own mess. That is all that Alameda County is trying to do with big pharma by
ensuring proper disposal of RXs outside of the household waste stream, as they should be. Alameda County is merely trying to make sure that toxic chemicals like unused pharmaceuticals are safely disposed of--and not just flushed down the drain or the toilet. Flushing unused drugs down the toilet or tossing them in the trash only ensures that our RXs pollute the biosphere with toxic waste that will come back to "bite" us later on with unforeseen negative results. Making manufacturers responsible for the entire product life cycle is quite reasonable. We are paying for the costs of improper disposal now--it is just an unidentifiable social cost rather than being incorporated into the private cost of what we buy. (Tires and computers are two products whose disposal cost is incorporated up-front into the purchase price. Doing this simply factors the cost of disposal or recycling into the purchase price, which makes it a tangible private cost instead of a generalized social cost we all pay for anyway.)
Fred Eiger December 10, 2012 at 02:15 am
Apparently Jon Spangler never had a man figure in his childhood who taught him individual responsibility. So Spangler if these allegedly "unforeseen negative results" are "unforeseen" then why are you so paranoid about them? If they are "unforeseen" then the could also never happen to begin with, so people like YOU Spangler are just overemotional paranoid Leftists nuts who want more government control over every aspect of our lives. Thank you though for using correct grammar in a vain attempt to sound reasonable, lucid and intelligent, however you failed to accoplish any of that.
You just exposed yourself for being an irrantional quack, you admit that your are talking about "unforeseen negative results" then go onto another diabtribe about "unidentifiable" or something is "unforeseen" and "unidentifiable" then what exactly are you looking for? Apparantly nothing, just something to "make" you feel good. And really Spangler, that's all that matters to people like yourself; "as long as it makes you feel good, then demand it".
David December 10, 2012 at 11:32 am
No, I have parents who made sure I cleaned up my own mess, and that I didn't expect some overstuffed bureaucrat to be my mommy and daddy.
Grow up.
Richard Eisenman December 13, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Why are the Alameda Co Supervisors meddling in this matter ? Maybe part of it is that they feel such low self-esteem that they are desperate to seize some issue, any issue, to pass a law about so that they can feel some justification for their existence ?
Michael Moore December 15, 2012 at 09:56 pm
Liz, there is no rule that says humans are supposed to do anything other than what they do, which is equally good and bad. The bottom line is not that humans will survive, but that life will go on.
David, the consumer has never been entrusted with the responsibility of disposal. Government has always stepped in to prohibit the dumping of things, after the consumers did a good job of poisoning either themselves or the later users of the area. Think Love Canal, most of New Jersey and Nevada as well as large portions on New Mexico and Eastern Washington. Remember that the Super Fund is paid by our taxes and not those of creators of toxic landscapes. In reality I expect the producer of the problem to clean it up. If folks dump drugs in to the water supply then I expect them to clean up the water supply. That is done through taxes which we vote on. I am not voting for more taxes. But then I do not toss pharmaceuticals in to the landfill, down the drain or in to the bay.
Fred Eiger December 24, 2012 at 01:21 am
Unfortunately Richard, you hit the nail on the head with your assessment.
Fred Eiger December 24, 2012 at 01:24 am
Spangler, there has NEVER been and NEVER will be a law that makes a manufacturer responsible for the entire product life. There would be no corporation able to take type of expense. All companies would be out of business. But then, that's what Leftists like you Spangler want; that there be no private businesses. Right Spangler?

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Castro Valley Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Boulevard Burger CV June 14, 2013 at 11:34 pm
There was an attempted robbery, someone, possibly the suspect was shot on Castro Valley Boulevard.Read More None of our employees were involved in the shooting.
Kari Hulac (Editor) June 15, 2013 at 07:34 am
Thanks for letting us know BVCV. Sorry to hear this happened at your business.
The Goonies
Randy Waage June 13, 2013 at 10:43 am
Great fun, classic movie and theater! Glad we still have such an amazing & beautiful theater inRead More San Leandro!
MICHELLE CLOWSER June 9, 2013 at 10:11 pm
If CV is great, and I am not disputing that fact, why would you want to change it's nature?Read More Wouldn't that change the very things that you are trying to protect and preserve?
Ken Martin June 11, 2013 at 12:50 pm
You can't compare Castro Valley with Menlo Park. Menlo Park is on the edge of Silicon Valley and hasRead More much more income per capita than Castro Valley could ever hope to have. Certainly the county is a lousy and unfair administrator, but we can at least afford them (somewhat). It is extremely unlikely that we could support a city unless you lie a lot about our finances like the incorporation proponents did during the last election.
Sarah Hyre DC June 12, 2013 at 10:48 am
Thank you for sharing this. I am moved by your courage to be honest with yourself about what youRead More want for your daughter and your willingness to give her up so she can have what she needs in this life. Also giving parents and opportunity to be parents who can't have kids of their own. This touches my heart. <3