if joe's doctor broke the law prescribing him illegal drugs for non- medical reasons....joe is guilty by association imho.
A jury would never convict him... they identify too much with the "patient", who assumes it is the
doctor's responsibility to ensure legality. Bottom line, he had a prescription. Now I know that yes, technically in might not be valid from a legal point of view, but to
a jury that's between the MD and the medical board, it's not Joe's problem. After all, if the government can hold Joe responsible for his doctor's mistakes today, what mistakes of
their doctors' might the government hold these jury members responsible for tomorrow?
