prohibition in the news

Two related ongoing legal concerns hit the Seattle Times this morning.

First, according to a ruling by the state's pharmacy board, pharmacists who refuse to dispense "Plan B" will be allowed to follow their conscience "only if another pharmacist is on site to fill the prescription."

Readers are encouraged to consider how this situation might be similar or different to the following:

1. A librarian who refuses to check out the Bible to a child, noting its "adult themes, sex, and violence."
2. A judge who automatically commutes any death sentence.
3. A police officer who refuses to arrest minor drug offenders.
4. A pharmacist who won't dispense AIDS medication because AIDS is God's punishment for licentiousness.

Is there a proper remedy in each case? Should there be?

Incidentally, something I didn't know:

Under state law, a pharmacy must maintain a representative assortment of drugs to meet the pharmaceutical needs of its patients — but the only drug pharmacies are required to stock is Ipecac syrup, to treat accidental poisoning.

And even more incidentally, we ought to bring back the designation "apothecary." No reason.

Second, laws requiring artificial markups in wine and beer prices have gotten the federal kibosh.

A federal judge on Friday all but dismantled the state's three-tier system that governs the sale and distribution of wine and beer and artificially inflates prices — ruling that state interests do not trump federal law.

U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman ordered the state Liquor Control Board to stop enforcing key parts of its regulatory system, such as requiring distributors to mark up prices 10 percent. But Pechman stayed her ruling for 30 days to give defendants time for appeal.

The state can still take measures to promote teetotaling, though--the ostensible purpose of the markup rules.