Controlled Substances Act

Controlled Substances Act
Great Seal of the United States
Long title An Act to amend the Public Health Service Act and other laws to provide increased research into, and prevention of, drug abuse and drug dependence; to provide for treatment and rehabilitation of drug abusers and drug dependent persons; and to strengthen existing law enforcement authority in the field of drug abuse.
Acronyms (colloquial) CSA
Enacted by the 91st United States Congress
Effective October 27, 1970
Citations
Public law 91-513
Statutes at Large 84 Stat. 1236 a.k.a. 84 Stat. 1242
Codification
Titles amended 21 U.S.C.: Food and Drugs
U.S.C. sections created 21 U.S.C. ch. 13 § 801 et seq.
Legislative history
Major amendments
Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Prevention Act of 2000
United States Supreme Court cases
Gonzales v. Raich
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
McFadden v. United States

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is the statute prescribing federal U.S. drug policy under which the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of certain substances is regulated. It was passed by the 91st United States Congress as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon.[1] The Act also served as the national implementing legislation for the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

The legislation created five Schedules (classifications), with varying qualifications for a substance to be included in each. Two federal agencies, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug Administration, determine which substances are added to or removed from the various schedules, although the statute passed by Congress created the initial listing. Congress has sometimes scheduled other substances through legislation such as the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Prevention Act of 2000, which placed gamma hydroxybutyrate in Schedule I. Classification decisions are required to be made on criteria including potential for abuse (an undefined term),[2][3] currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and international treaties.

History

The nation first outlawed addictive drugs in the early 1900s and the International Opium Convention helped lead international agreements regulating trade.[4][5][6] The Food and Drugs Act of 1906 was the beginning of over 200 laws concerning public health and consumer protections. Others were the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1938), and the Kefauver Harris Amendment of 1962.[7]

In 1969, President Richard Nixon announced that the Attorney General, John N. Mitchell, was preparing a comprehensive new measure to more effectively meet the narcotic and dangerous drug problems at the federal level by combining all existing federal laws into a single new statute. The CSA not only combined existing federal drug laws and expanded their scope but it also changed the nature of federal drug law policies, and expanded Federal law enforcement pertaining to controlled substances.

Part F of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 established the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse—known as the Shafer Commission after its chairman, Raymond P. Shafer—to study cannabis abuse in the United States.[8] During his presentation of the commission's First Report to Congress, Shafer recommended the decriminalization of marijuana in small amounts, saying,

[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only with the greatest reluctance.

Rufus King notes that this stratagem was similar to that used by Harry Anslinger when he consolidated the previous anti-drug treaties into the Single Convention and took the opportunity to add new provisions that otherwise might have been unpalatable to the international community.[9] According to David T. Courtwright, "the Act was part of an omnibus reform package designed to rationalize, and in some respects to liberalize, American drug policy." (Courtwright noted that the Act became, not libertarian, but instead repressionistic to the point of tyrannical, in its intent.) It eliminated mandatory minimum sentences and provided support for drug treatment and research.[10] King notes that the rehabilitation clauses were added as a compromise to Senator Jim Hughes, who favored a moderate approach. The bill, as introduced by Senator Everett Dirksen, ran to 91 pages. While it was being drafted, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, to be passed by state legislatures, was also being drafted by the Department of Justice; its wording closely mirrored the Controlled Substances Act.[9]

Since its enactment in 1970, the Act has been amended several times:[11]

Content

The Controlled Substances Act consists of 2 subchapters. Subchapter I defines Schedules I-V, lists chemicals used in the manufacture of controlled substances, and differentiates lawful and unlawful manufacturing, distribution, and possession of controlled substances, including possession of Schedule I drugs for personal use; this subchapter also specifies the dollar amounts of fines and durations of prison terms for violations. Subchapter II describes the laws for exportation and importation of controlled substances, again specifying fines and prison terms for violations.[14]

Enforcement authority

The Drug Enforcement Administration was established in 1973, combining the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) and Customs’ drug agents.[15] Proceedings to add, delete, or change the schedule of a drug or other substance may be initiated by the DEA, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or by petition from any interested party, including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a state or local government agency, or an individual citizen. When a petition is received by the DEA, the agency begins its own investigation of the drug.

The DEA also may begin an investigation of a drug at any time based upon information received from laboratories, state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or other sources of information. Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the Deputy Administrator of DEA,[16] requests from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of HHS. Then, HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and, on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed.

The HHS recommendation on scheduling is binding to the extent that if HHS recommends, based on its medical and scientific evaluation, that the substance not be controlled, then the DEA may not control the substance. Once the DEA has received the scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the DEA Administrator evaluates all available data and makes a final decision whether to propose that a drug or other substance be controlled and into which schedule it should be placed. Under certain circumstances, the Government may temporarily schedule[17] a drug without following the normal procedure. An example is when international treaties require control of a substance. In addition, 21 U.S.C. § 811(h) allows the Attorney General to temporarily place a substance in Schedule I "to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety". Thirty days' notice is required before the order can be issued, and the scheduling expires after a year; however, the period may be extended six months if rulemaking proceedings to permanently schedule the drug are in progress. In any case, once these proceedings are complete, the temporary order is automatically vacated. Unlike ordinary scheduling proceedings, such temporary orders are not subject to judicial review.

The CSA also creates a closed system of distribution[18] for those authorized to handle controlled substances. The cornerstone of this system is the registration of all those authorized by the DEA to handle controlled substances. All individuals and firms that are registered are required to maintain complete and accurate inventories and records of all transactions involving controlled substances, as well as security for the storage of controlled substances.

Treaty obligations

The Congressional findings in 21 USC §§ 801(7), 801a(2), and 801a(3) state that a major purpose of the CSA is to "enable the United States to meet all of its obligations" under international treaties. The CSA bears many resemblances to these Conventions. Both the CSA and the treaties set out a system for classifying controlled substances in several Schedules in accordance with the binding scientific and medical findings of a public health authority. Under 21 U.S.C. § 811 of the CSA, that authority is the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Under Article 3 of the Single Convention and Article 2 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the World Health Organization is that authority.

The domestic and international legal nature of these treaty obligations must be considered in light of the supremacy of the United States Constitution over treaties or acts and the equality of treaties and Congressional acts. In Reid v. Covert the Supreme Court of the United States addressed both these issues directly and clearly holding:

[N]o agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . ."
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights—let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition—to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258, 133 U. S. 267, it declared:
"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."
This Court has repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.[19]

According to the Cato Institute, these treaties only bind (legally obligate) the United States to comply with them as long as that nation agrees to remain a state party to these treaties. The U.S. Congress and the President of the United States have the absolute sovereign right to withdraw from or abrogate at any time these two instruments, in accordance with said nation's Constitution, at which point these treaties will cease to bind that nation in any way, shape, or form.[20]

A provision for automatic compliance with treaty obligations is found at 21 U.S.C. § 811(d), which also establishes mechanisms for amending international drug control regulations to correspond with HHS findings on scientific and medical issues. If control of a substance is mandated by the Single Convention, the Attorney General is required to "issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations," without regard to the normal scheduling procedure or the findings of the HHS Secretary. However, the Secretary has great influence over any drug scheduling proposal under the Single Convention, because 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(2)(B) requires the Secretary the power to "evaluate the proposal and furnish a recommendation to the Secretary of State which shall be binding on the representative of the United States in discussions and negotiations relating to the proposal."

Similarly, if the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs adds or transfers a substance to a Schedule established by the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, so that current U.S. regulations on the drug do not meet the treaty's requirements, the Secretary is required to issue a recommendation on how the substance should be scheduled under the CSA. If the Secretary agrees with the Commission's scheduling decision, he can recommend that the Attorney General initiate proceedings to reschedule the drug accordingly. If the HHS Secretary disagrees with the UN controls, however, the Attorney General must temporarily place the drug in Schedule IV or V (whichever meets the minimum requirements of the treaty) and exclude the substance from any regulations not mandated by the treaty, while the Secretary is required to request that the Secretary of State take action, through the Commission or the UN Economic and Social Council, to remove the drug from international control or transfer it to a different Schedule under the Convention. The temporary scheduling expires as soon as control is no longer needed to meet international treaty obligations.

This provision was invoked in 1984 to place Rohypnol (flunitrazepam) in Schedule IV. The drug did not then meet the Controlled Substances Act's criteria for scheduling; however, control was required by the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. In 1999, an FDA official explained to Congress:

Rohypnol is not approved or available for medical use in the United States, but it is temporarily controlled in Schedule IV pursuant to a treaty obligation under the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. At the time flunitrazepam was placed temporarily in Schedule IV (November 5, 1984), there was no evidence of abuse or trafficking of the drug in the United States.[21]

The Cato Institute's Handbook for Congress calls for repealing the CSA, an action that would likely bring the United States into conflict with international law, were the United States not to exercise its sovereign right to withdraw from and/or abrogate the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and/or the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances prior to repealing the Controlled Substances Act.[20] The exception would be if the U.S. were to claim that the treaty obligations violate the United States Constitution. Many articles in these treaties—such as Article 35 and Article 36 of the Single Convention—are prefaced with phrases such as "Having due regard to their constitutional, legal and administrative systems, the Parties shall . . ." or "Subject to its constitutional limitations, each Party shall . . ." According to former United Nations Drug Control Programme Chief of Demand Reduction Cindy Fazey, "This has been used by the USA not to implement part of article 3 of the 1988 Convention, which prevents inciting others to use narcotic or psychotropic drugs, on the basis that this would be in contravention of their constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech".[22]

Schedules of controlled substances

Placing a drug or other substance in a certain Schedule or removing it from a certain Schedule is primarily based on 21 USC §§ 801, 801a, 802, 811, 812, 813, and 814. Every schedule otherwise requires finding and specifying the "potential for abuse" before a substance can be placed in that schedule.[23] The specific classification of any given drug or other substance is usually a source of controversy, as is the purpose and effectiveness of the entire regulatory scheme.

The term "controlled substance" means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
—21 U.S.C. § 802(6)[24]

Some have argued that this is an important exemption, since alcohol and tobacco are two of the most widely used drugs in the United States.[25][26] Also of significance, the exclusion of alcohol includes wine which is sacramentally used by many major religious denominations in the United States.

Schedule I controlled substances

Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings:

  1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
  2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
  3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.[27]

No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and such substances are subject to production quotas which the DEA imposes.

Under the DEA's interpretation of the CSA, a drug does not necessarily have to have the same "high potential for abuse" as heroin, for example, to merit placement in Schedule I:

[W]hen it comes to a drug that is currently listed in schedule I, if it is undisputed that such drug has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and it is further undisputed that the drug has at least some potential for abuse sufficient to warrant control under the CSA, the drug must remain in schedule I. In such circumstances, placement of the drug in schedules II through V would conflict with the CSA since such drug would not meet the criterion of "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." 21 USC 812(b). (emphasis added)[28]
— Drug Enforcement Administration, Notice of denial of petition to reschedule marijuana (2001)

Sentences for first-time, non-violent offenders convicted of trafficking in Schedule I drugs can easily turn into de facto life sentences when multiple sales are prosecuted in one proceeding.[29] Sentences for violent offenders are much higher .

Drugs in this schedule include:

Schedule II controlled substances

Schedule II substances are those that have the following findings:

  1. The drug or other substances have a high potential for abuse
  2. The drug or other substances have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions
  3. Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.[27]

Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in Schedule II, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 301 et seq.), may be dispensed without the written prescription of a practitioner, except that in emergency situations, as prescribed by the Secretary by regulation after consultation with the Attorney General, such drug may be dispensed upon oral prescription in accordance with section 503(b) of that Act (21 USC 353 (b)). With exceptions, an original prescription is always required even though faxing in a prescription in advance to a pharmacy by a prescriber is allowed.[35] Prescriptions shall be retained in conformity with the requirements of section 827 of this title. No prescription for a controlled substance in schedule II may be refilled.[36] Notably no emergency situation provisions exist outside the Controlled Substances Act's "closed system" although this closed system may be unavailable or nonfunctioning in the event of accidents in remote areas or disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. Acts which would widely be considered morally imperative remain offenses subject to heavy penalties.[37]

These drugs vary in potency: for example fentanyl is about 80 times as potent as morphine (heroin is roughly four times as potent). More significantly, they vary in nature. Pharmacology and CSA scheduling have a weak relationship.

Because refills of prescriptions for Schedule II substances are not allowed, it can be burdensome to both the practitioner and the patient if the substances are to be used on a long-term basis. To provide relief, in 2007, 21 C.F.R. 1306.12 was amended (at 72 FR 64921) to allow practitioners to write up to three prescriptions at once, to provide up to a 90-day supply, specifying on each the earliest date on which it may be filled.[38]

Drugs in this schedule include:

Schedule III controlled substances

Schedule III substances are those that have the following findings:

  1. The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
  2. The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
  3. Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.[27]

Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in schedule III or IV, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 301 et seq.), may be dispensed without a written or oral prescription in conformity with section 503(b) of that Act (21 USC 353 (b)). Such prescriptions may not be filled or refilled more than six months after the date thereof or be refilled more than five times after the date of the prescription unless renewed by the practitioner.[36] A prescription for controlled substances in Schedules III, IV, and V issued by a practitioner, may be communicated either orally, in writing, or by facsimile to the pharmacist, and may be refilled if so authorized on the prescription or by call-in.[35] Control of wholesale distribution is somewhat less stringent than Schedule II drugs. Provisions for emergency situations are less restrictive within the "closed system" of the Controlled Substances Act than for Schedule II though no schedule has provisions to address circumstances where the closed system is unavailable, nonfunctioning or otherwise inadequate.

Drugs in this schedule include:

Schedule IV controlled substances

"Placement on schedules; findings required Schedule IV substances are those that have the following findings:

  1. The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III
  2. The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States
  3. Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III[27]

Control measures are similar to Schedule III. Prescriptions for Schedule IV drugs may be refilled up to five times within a six-month period. A prescription for controlled substances in Schedules III, IV, and V issued by a practitioner, may be communicated either orally, in writing, or by facsimile to the pharmacist, and may be refilled if so authorized on the prescription or by call-in.[35]

Drugs in this schedule include:

Schedule V controlled substances

Schedule V substances are those that have the following findings:

  1. The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV
  2. The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States
  3. Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.[27]

No controlled substance in schedule V which is a drug may be distributed or dispensed other than for a medical purpose.[36] A prescription for controlled substances in Schedules III, IV, and V issued by a practitioner, may be communicated either orally, in writing, or by facsimile to the pharmacist, and may be refilled if so authorized on the prescription or by call-in.[35]

Drugs in this schedule include:

Federal regulation of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine

Due to pseudoephedrine (PSE) and ephedrine being widely used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, the U.S. Congress passed the Methamphetamine Precursor Control Act which places restrictions on the sale of any medicine containing pseudoephedrine. That bill was then superseded by the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which was passed as an amendment to the Patriot Act renewal and included wider and more comprehensive restrictions on the sale of PSE-containing products. This law requires[43] customer signature of a "log-book" and presentation of valid photo ID in order to purchase PSE-containing products from all retailers.[44]

Additionally, the law restricts an individual to the retail purchase of no more than three packages or 3.6 grams of such product per day per purchase – and no more than 9 grams in a single month. A violation of this statute constitutes a misdemeanor. Retailers now commonly require PSE-containing products to be sold behind the pharmacy or service counter. This affects many preparations which were previously available over-the-counter without restriction, such as Actifed and its generic equivalents.

Alternatives to scheduling

The UK Science and Technology Select Committee published a 2006 report which suggested that the current system of recreational drug classification in the UK was arbitrary and unscientific and that a more scientific measure of harm should be used for classifying drugs. The new classification system suggested that heroin, cocaine, alcohol, benzodiazepines, methamphetamine, and tobacco have a high or a very high risk of harm or abuse potential, whilst cannabis, LSD, and Ecstasy were all below the two legal drugs in harm or abuse potential.[45]

In 2007, The Lancet published a journal about researchers having introduced an alternative method for drug classification.[46] This new system uses a "nine category matrix of harm, with an expert Delphic procedure, to assess the harms of a range of illicit drugs in an evidence-based fashion." The new classification system suggested that alcohol and tobacco were in the mid-range of harm, while cannabis, LSD, and MDMA were all less harmful than the two legal drugs.[47]

Criticism

There has been criticism against the schedule classifications of the listed drugs and substances in the CSA, citing undefined terms.[2][3] Some criticism has arisen due to research that has found several substances on the list of Schedule I substances to have actual accepted medical uses and low abuse potential, despite the requirement for a Schedule I listing mandating that any substance so scheduled have both a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.[48][49] One such example is the legalization of marijuana in some capacity in over 23 states. Another criticism of the CSA is that the act has failed to reduce drug use. The US federal government has spent 1.5 trillion to control the illegal drug trade since 1970, but it is unclear how this has affected addiction rates.

See also

Similar legislation outside of the United States:

Notes

  1. ↑ Pub.L. 91–513, 84 Stat. 1236, enacted October 27, 1970, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 801 et. seq.
  2. 1 2 Docket ID: DEA-2009-0013 in DEA-2009-0013-0003 HHS recommendation document. Enclosure: BASIS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION TO CONTROL 5-METHOXY-DIMETHYLTRYPTAMINE (5-MeO-DMT) IN SCHEDULE I OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT, (B.) (1.) The term "abuse" is not defined in the CSA.
  3. 1 2 "[D]rug abuse may refer to any type of drug or chemical without regard to its pharmacologic actions. It is an eclectic concept having only one uniform connotation: societal disapproval. ... The Commission believes that the term drug abuse must be deleted from official pronouncements and public policy dialogue. The term has no functional utility and has become no more than an arbitrary codeword for that drug use which is presently considered wrong." – Second Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse; Drug Use In America: Problem In Perspective (March 1973), p.13
  4. ↑ Illegal Drugs in America: A Modern History
  5. ↑ The 1912 Hague International Opium Convention
  6. ↑ History of Legislative Control Over Opium, Cocaine, and Their Derivatives
  7. ↑ - Retrieved 2012-12-30
  8. ↑ Part F is printed on the inside cover of Drug Use In America: Problem In Perspective, Second Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, March 1973
  9. 1 2 The 1970 Act: Don't Sit There, Amend Something
  10. ↑ Courtwright, David T. (2004-10-05). "The Controlled Substances Act: how a "big tent" reform became a punitive drug law". doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.04.012. Retrieved 2008-02-12.
  11. ↑ Legislation reform- Retrieved 2012-12-30
  12. ↑ Steven B. Karch. Pathology, Toxicogenetics, and Criminalistics of Drug Abuse. CRC Press, 2007 ISBN 9781420054569
  13. ↑ Ryan Haight Act- Retrieved 2012-12-30
  14. ↑ http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/
  15. ↑ .DEA- Retrieved 2012-12-30
  16. ↑ Federal Register: August 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 161), Page 42220 "Under the authority vested in the Attorney General by section 201(a) of the CSA (21 USC 811(a)), and delegated to the Administrator of DEA by Department of Justice regulations (28 CFR 0.100), and redelegated to the Deputy Administrator pursuant to 28 CFR 0.104..."
  17. ↑ Temporary drug scheduling-Retrieved 2012-12-30
  18. ↑ Pharmacy Practice and the Law(Book, p 184); By Richard R. Abood -Retrieved 2012-12-30
  19. ↑ "Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1 at pp 17–19". Justia Law. Retrieved 30 October 2014.
  20. 1 2 "The War on Drugs" (PDF). Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress (PDF). Cato Institute. 2003. pp. 171–178. Retrieved 2012-10-20.
  21. ↑ "Date Rape" Drugs
  22. ↑ |url=http://www.fuoriluogo.it/arretrati/2003/apr_17_en.htm |date=20150423160616 fuoriluogo.it – aprile 2003 Archive copy at the Wayback Machine
  23. ↑ 21 USC Chapter 13 – DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL | LII / Legal Information Institute
  24. ↑ 21 USC § 802 – Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute
  25. ↑ "Appendix C: Measurement of Dependence, Abuse, Treatment, and Treatment Need – 2000 NHSDA – Substance Dependence, Abuse, and Treatment". National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies. 2000.
  26. ↑ "InfoFacts – Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products". Retrieved 30 October 2014.
  27. 1 2 3 4 5 21 U.S.C. § 812 – Schedules of controlled substances
  28. 1 2 Marshall, Donnie (20 March 2001). "Notice of denial of petition to reschedule marijuana". Federal Register (Drug Enforcement Administration) 66 (75): 20038–20076. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
  29. 1 2 See United States v. Angelos, 433 F.3d 738 (10th Cir. 2006) (55 years for three sales of marijuana).
  30. ↑ Gee, Paul; Gilbert, Mark; Richardson, Sandra; Moore, Grant; Paterson, Sharon; Graham, Patrick (2008). "Toxicity from the Recreational Use of 1-benzylpiperazine". Clinical Toxicology 46 (9): 802–07. doi:10.1080/15563650802307602. PMID 18821145.
  31. ↑ Brennan, K.; Johnstone, A.; Fitzmaurice, P.; Lea, R.; Schenk, S. (2007). "Chronic Benzylpiperazine (BZP) Exposure Produces Behavioral Sensitization and Cross-sensitization to Methamphetamine (MA)". Drug and Alcohol Dependence 88 (2–3): 204–13. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.10.016. PMID 17125936.
  32. ↑ Tunnicliff, G. (1997). "Sites of action of gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB)--A neuroactive drug with abuse potential". Clinical Toxicology 35 (6): 581–590. doi:10.3109/15563659709001236.
  33. ↑ Okun, M. S.; Boothy, L. A.; Bartfield, R. B.; Doering, P. L. (2001). "GHB: An important pharmacologic and clinical update". Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacological Science 4 (=2): 167–175.
  34. ↑ "MAPS Legal History of MDMA". Retrieved 30 October 2014.
  35. 1 2 3 4 "Manuals - Practitioner's Manual - SECTION V". Retrieved 2014-01-07
  36. 1 2 3 21 USC § 829 – Prescriptions | LII / Legal Information Institute
  37. ↑ 21 USC Part D – Offenses and Penalties | LII / Legal Information Institute
  38. ↑ "Issuance of Multiple Prescriptions for Schedule II Controlled Substances". U.S. DEA, U.S. DOJ. November 2007. Retrieved 3 September 2014.
  39. ↑ Exempt Anabolic Steroids (21 CFR § 1308.33 and 21 CFR § 1308.34) 05 February 2015 Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Diversion Control Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section
  40. ↑ Halpern, J.H. (2004). "Hallucinogens and dissociative agents naturally growing in the United States". Pharmacology & Therapeutics 102: 131–138. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2004.03.003.
  41. ↑ Schultes, R.E. and Hofmann, A., 1980. The botany and chemistry of hallucinogens, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
  42. ↑ [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2011)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 77330-77360]
  43. ↑ "Federal Pseudoephedrine Law" (PDF). doh.state.fl.us. Florida Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance. October 5, 2006. Retrieved 2012-10-20.
  44. ↑ "General Information Regarding the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act 2005". Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control. Retrieved October 20, 2012.
  45. ↑ Science and Technology committee 2006, p. 176.
  46. ↑ "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse", The Lancet, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4, PMID 17382831(subscription required)
  47. ↑ Nutt, David; King, Leslie A.; Saulsbury, William; Blakemore, Colin (24 March 2007), The Lancet Missing or empty |title= (help)
  48. ↑ Nutt, David J, King, Leslie A, & Phillips, Lawrence D. (2010). Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision analysis. The Lancet, 376(9752), 1558-1565.
  49. ↑ http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana-medicine

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, May 06, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.