This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Worth separating two things that post #88 runs together.
Second-hand on Cross-border purchase within, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.
This follows post #91 rather than contradicting it.
Customs practice varies between entry points within the same country, which is why two people in the same jurisdiction report different experiences honestly.
I am not the right person to answer the follow-up to this.
The bit of Cross-border purchase within that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.
On post #93 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
On Cross-border purchase within I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
Reporting rather than recommending, on Cross-border purchase within. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.
Post #97 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Checked the Cross-border purchase within claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
Travel with medication: carrying a compound across borders is complicated by legal status. Documenting that it is prescribed and carrying proof reduces (but does not eliminate) risk.
Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.
One more thing on Cross-border purchase within that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears.
Post #102 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Cross-border prescribing and cross-border dispensing are different questions with different answers in most jurisdictions.
I have deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the argument starts.
I will take the caveat as seriously as the claim, which is the point of putting it there.
Compounding in different countries: some countries allow pharmacy compounding under defined conditions; others do not. The rules are jurisdiction-specific and change.
This follows post #105 rather than contradicting it.
Answering the Cross-border purchase within question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.
Understood. Thank you for being specific about the limits of it.
Post #108 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Regional practice around what a pharmacy will and will not do varies enormously and is not deducible from the regulatory position.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
I have three months of notes on Cross-border purchase within and the honest summary is that the trend is real and the week-to-week numbers are noise. I nearly drew the opposite conclusion from the first fortnight.
Something worth flagging about Cross-border purchase within: the strongest-sounding claims in this thread are the ones with no source attached, which is the usual pattern and not a coincidence.
This follows post #112 rather than contradicting it.
Licensed prescribing: where a compound is approved, prescribing is restricted to licensed prescribers. Where it is not approved, the legality of possession and use is unclear.
If anyone can point at the primary source I would be grateful.
Reframing Cross-border purchase within slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
Picking up post #116: that is the part I would want checked first.
Cross-border purchase within has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.
On post #115 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Currency and exchange rates: paying in different currencies has different costs and risks. Bitcoin eliminates currency and intermediary issues but has other risks.
I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.
Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.
Import rules for personal use: what you can import for personal use depends on your country's rules, not on where it is sold. Checking your country's rules before ordering is prudent.
Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.