Pharmacist Suspended for Drug Possession, Dishonesty, and Misuse of Professional Position

Date of Decision: February 20, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Conviction for possession of cannabis, diazepam, and alprazolam
Possession of unlabelled prescription-only medications (Letrozole, Bendroflumethiazide, Zomorph, Aciclovir) without prescriptions
Dishonestly removing medicines from a pharmacy without permission or payment
Reckless consumption of cocaine and MDMA
Smoking cannabis on multiple occasions

Outcome: 12-month suspension with review; interim suspension order continued until substantive order takes effect

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 6.1 – Act with honesty and integrity to maintain public trust and confidence in your profession
Standard 6.2 – Not abuse your professional position or exploit the vulnerability or lack of knowledge of others
Standard 6.5 – Meet accepted standards of personal and professional conduct
Standard 6.6 – Comply with legal and professional requirements and accepted guidance on professional practice
2017 Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner

Case Summary

Allegations

The registrant faced a series of allegations including possession of controlled drugs (cannabis, diazepam, alprazolam), unlabelled prescription-only medications without prescriptions (Letrozole, Bendroflumethiazide, Zomorph, Aciclovir), dishonest removal of these medications from a pharmacy, and drug misuse, including reckless ingestion of cocaine and MDMA, and smoking cannabis.

The registrant admitted to several allegations but contested others. He initially claimed he had obtained the medications under a private prescription and had paid for them, but later retracted this, instead asserting they were given to him for disposal. The panel rejected this revised account as lacking credibility and inconsistent with earlier statements.

Findings

The Fitness to Practise Committee found the following:

The registrant had indeed removed medications from a pharmacy where he worked, without authority or a prescription.
His claim of having permission and paying for the medications was not supported by evidence and was deemed dishonest.
He admitted to reckless drug consumption at social events and to past cannabis use, which was corroborated by admissions to police and a psychiatric evaluator.
His explanations were inconsistent and often tailored to mitigate his culpability after the fact.

The panel concluded these actions amounted to serious misconduct, with dishonesty being a central concern. The dishonest removal of controlled substances and misuse of his professional role were especially troubling. As noted in the determination:

The Committee concluded that it is more likely than not that he did not have permission to take the medication. […] The Committee concluded that an ordinary decent person would regard actions in taking medication for his own use from his place of work without valid permission, without a prescription and without paying for it to be dishonest.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee assessed the registrant’s fitness to practise and found it currently impaired. They determined that while he did not present an ongoing risk to patients, his conduct seriously undermined public trust and breached the fundamental principles of the profession. Despite having no previous disciplinary history and engaging to some degree with the Council, the registrant failed to demonstrate genuine insight or adequate remediation. His inconsistent narratives and lack of a detailed reflective statement further undermined his position.

The misconduct and convictions, particularly the dishonesty and misuse of a trusted position, engaged paragraphs (b) and (c) of Rule 5(2) — bringing the profession into disrepute and breaching fundamental principles.

Sanction

Given the seriousness of the misconduct but the potential for rehabilitation, the Committee imposed a 12-month suspension with a review before potential reinstatement. They concluded that this sanction was sufficient to protect public confidence and maintain professional standards, while not unnecessarily ending the registrant’s career.

The decision considered both aggravating factors (dishonesty, persistent misconduct, lack of full insight) and mitigating factors (no prior issues, some CPD engagement, informal professional involvement).

An immediate interim suspension order was also imposed to ensure public protection until the substantive sanction took effect.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Uphold Honesty at All Times: Any form of dishonesty, particularly relating to medication access or personal use, severely undermines public trust and can lead to suspension or removal.
Controlled Substances Require Strict Adherence: Handling and storage of controlled drugs must comply fully with legislation. Unauthorized possession, even with benign intentions, is unacceptable.
Personal Conduct Affects Professional Standing: Recreational drug use, even outside of work, can bring disrepute to the profession and impair fitness to practise.
Insight and Remediation Are Critical: Registrants must show genuine understanding of their misconduct, its impact on the profession, and take tangible steps towards remediation.
Consistency Matters in Testimony: Conflicting accounts and retrospective justifications diminish credibility and increase the severity of outcomes.

This case serves as a powerful reminder that pharmacy professionals are held to high ethical and legal standards. Trustworthiness, responsibility, and transparency are non-negotiable pillars of the profession.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.