Susan's Place Transgender Resources

The last time I picked up a vial of T, the pharmacist told me that he shouldn't really fill it because of U.S. laws. He said that at my dosage, which is the so-called standard dose at the so-called standard concentration, a 10-mL vial exceeded the amount of T that could be dispensed at one time. He explained that the law specified how many days' supply he was allowed to give me. He said that if he wanted to follow the law, he could only give me enough T for...I can't remember how long...but I think he said four months. My scrip obviously had enough T for longer than that.

He filled the scrip grudgingly, and I asked a few of my buddies if they'd had any similar trouble. The answer was no. I think I'll fill my new scrip at a different pharmacy.

Was this pharmacist just giving me a hard time? Is there any law about a T scrip's being limited to a four-month supply only, or maybe sixteen weeks' worth? If so, can you send me the link? I need to fill my new scrip in the next couple of weeks, and I want to know exactly what I'm up against.

I did some online research and couldn't find any info at all on what the pharmacist was talking about. I didn't look that hard because I had my stuff. But I don't want to waste time hunting around for info that might not even be there.

all i could find is legal limits based on fda guidlines and varies by state so probably is but may have to consult with your doctor to find out why the pharmacist is balking at the amount because its also set by gender so if he's using female gender it may be less then what you need

I think he's full of it, only dispensing restrictions *I'm aware of* are for schedule 2 meds (when a dea form 222 is required)

I get some of my doctor prescribed meds online.  They say if the amount does not exceed a three month supply there usually is no problem because you can't be considered a supplier.

That supplier/user point may be the sticky point here.  The FDA doesn't want anyone to have enough of a prescription medication on hand to qualify them as a seller.

Don't know if that's it but it's another possibility.

Julie

You can always get it from Stoheckers online, as long as you are in a state they ship to. No problems with them.
Cheers,
Myles

I've occasionally run into this, although not for the same reason. My argument is that I tend to be on the road more often than not and the individual 2-3 small vials are not enough. I recently asked my doctor to ensure that the script said 10 ml. so that I run into fewer challenges about it (here, it's not a law but rather I won't get a discount -- which isn't a big issue right now since I work and pay for this out of pocket).

hmmm... I guess that "supplier"  law would be for any prescription drugs? I'm leaving in 12 days back to Australia and will be there for 5 months. I was hoping to take 5 months worth of hormones with me so I wouldn't have to buy them over there. Prolly can't do that, huh?

Isn't testosterone abused by some athletes as a performance enhancer? I wonder if that's the root of the matter. I wandered over to the well known website I used to build a rainy day supply of hormones and noticed they have a wide array of mtf meds including injectables...but only have testosterone patches. They tend to sell everything they can so I wonder if there is actually some loose restriction on it that isn't really enforced or is discretionary. I agree that you need a new pharmacist either way though, you could have filled a script for enough Percocet to put down an elephant without so much as raising an eyebrow.

Hm, maybe he said California law instead of federal law...but I'm still not getting any definite answers here. Sigh. Well, I have time to wait for more feedback.

My script ended up being a single dose only, maybe that was the reason.

Sounds more like a state thing, if that.  Or possibly your pharmacist misremembered and thought T (which is a schedule III drug) was a schedule II drug.  In any case, I'll second the recommendation for Strohecker's.  The only thing is, they don't take insurance.  However, I found they were cheaper in the long run than my local pharmacy with insurance, mainly because my local pharmacy would only give me 1 month's worth at a time.  Strohecker's, if I'm remembering right, is around $70 for 10mL, needles, and alcohol swabs combined.

Strohecker's turns out to be a bit less than sixty bucks for a 10-mL vial, needles, and swabs. I think I'm going with them. I'm willing to pay a bit more to avoid hassles, but Strohecker's is actually cheaper than the best price I could find here in town. So that's just icing on the cake.

I'm still not certain what my current pharmacist was talking about, so I'm still interested in hearing from anyone who knows for sure.

---

Post Merge: November 06, 2009, 06:12:55 PM

---

Quote from: Jamie-o on November 05, 2009, 08:23:27 AM
Or possibly your pharmacist misremembered and thought T (which is a schedule III drug) was a schedule II drug. 

You know, I hadn't thought of this. I wasn't sure whether the pharmacist said that T was limited to a 90-day supply or a 120-day supply; but if he was thinking Schedule II, that would explain everything--including why my friends have never been hassled.

This just gives me more incentive to move my scrip, though. Shouldn't he know that T is Schedule III, or shouldn't he be willing to double check if he's not sure? And if he was just hassling me, well, that's just wrong.

I have looked in the Federal laws and the California statues and have only found this.. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/21/13/I/A/802 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/21/13/I/A/802)

And being you have a script I think it was just the pharmacist.


Janet

Quote from: Arch on November 02, 2009, 02:14:03 AM
Hm, maybe he said California law instead of federal law...

California restricts progesterone cream OTC as "a chemical known to cause cancer".

But according to the DOJ testosterone is schedule III.  Because it is an anabolic steroid not because it is an androgenic steroid.  Which to me is sort of silly because body builders look for the super-human anabolics that have the fewest androgenic side-effects.

You could try having the script written with a x2 or x3 daily dose (or something less than the limit -- I'm thinking 3 months?).  That way he won't know or can't argue. 

I been taking a schedule II prescription for the last 10 years.  It's very infrequent that I have difficulties (except the one month prescription limit).  Never got real upset about it.

Hmm... I don't know about the laws concerning T, but I never had any trouble procuring my 10 ml vials of T in California. Apparently, though, the last time my mom picked up my T for me, the pharmacist told her I shouldn't be taking it long-term, because it's only for use up to 4 months (not the vial in particular, but T in general). My mom brought this up to me with concern, thinking it was detrimental to my health, and I had to inform her that since the name on the scrip is Sebastien, the pharmacist likely thought I was a bio-guy taking it for low testosterone (particularly since that's what the doctor wrote on the scrip form... that it was to be taken for low T). Mom didn't believe me, but I'm going with that. I've never run into discriminatory pharmacists, however, in California or Colorado.

SD

Quote from: Sebastien on November 14, 2009, 12:45:01 AM
Apparently, though, the last time my mom picked up my T for me, the pharmacist told her I shouldn't be taking it long-term, because it's only for use up to 4 months (not the vial in particular, but T in general). My mom brought this up to me with concern, thinking it was detrimental to my health, and I had to inform her that since the name on the scrip is Sebastien, the pharmacist likely thought I was a bio-guy taking it for low testosterone (particularly since that's what the doctor wrote on the scrip form... that it was to be taken for low T).

Two things: if you're a guy with low T, why on earth would you take T for only four months?

And, second, are you sure that the pharmacist didn't think the scrip was for your mother?

Considering the scrip was in my name, I highly doubt they thought it was for my mom. LOL

Quote from: Sebastien on November 14, 2009, 02:45:54 PM
Considering the scrip was in my name, I highly doubt they thought it was for my mom. LOL

I was thinking that the pharmacist wasn't thinking...or maybe he thought that your mother had an unusual name. I mean, I had a male name for years before I started transition...

Quote from: Cindy Stephens on November 15, 2009, 02:19:18 PM
I wonder if this might shed light on your question.  Approx. 10-14 days ago I read a story (Business Week Oct 29,2009) that the FDA was cracking down on T usage. 

Might have something to do with it, except that the pharmacist was saying all of this back in June or July. Still, this crackdown could have been a gradual thing. And, as far as I've been able to determine, there was no legal reason for the pharmacist to deny my scrip even though he said that there was.

I just got my first shipment from Strohecker's. If I like them, I'll stay with them and to hell with local pharmacies.

If the FDA wants to crack down on legal T prescriptions, it would start pressuring the MDs, not the pharmacies, though, don't you think? I mean, the pharmacists are just filling the scrips, not writing them. As long as there are no laws preventing the pharmacists from filling the prescriptions, they're just going to continue doing their job.

I suspect that there are a few unscrupulous MDs out there who do a brisk business in prescriptions for T and other products. Perhaps there's been an increase in such doctors.

Quote from: Arch on November 15, 2009, 04:22:36 PM
If the FDA wants to crack down on legal T prescriptions, it would start pressuring the MDs, not the pharmacies, though, don't you think?

Give thanks to the DEA and the curiously named "Ryan Haight Online Consumer Protection Act" for protecting you from yourself. Most scheduled meds are under state and/or federal prescription monitoring programs because of abuse of dispensing. Unfortunately, like many government efforts, it goes after the way the meds are obtained, and not the abusers of said meds.

(*the "protection" act was named after a junkie who took their parents credit card, bought scheduled meds on the internet, (depending on story it was xanax or vicodin) then proceeded to get high on every substance known to man, causing a darwin award winning death causing the "parents" to blame the place that sold him the meds when he lied like hell to get them in the first place)

Necromancing because I was reading the FDA info for testosterone and just now noticed that it's schedule III. It never occurred to me to wonder how controlled it was. :P