Controlled Substances Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seal of the united states
United States Federal Law		 Seal of the united states
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.
Short title: Controlled Substances Act
Abbreviation: CSA
Type: Federal law
Scope: United States
Legal matter: Narcotics law
Session period: 91st Congress
Process: 91-513
Date of law: October 27, 1970
Signed: President Richard Nixon
Entry into force on: May 1, 1971

Please note the information on the applicable legal version !

The Controlled Substances Act ( CSA ) is a law that forms the basis of nationwide US drug policy . It regulates the manufacture, import, possession, use and distribution of certain substances. The law was passed by the 91st United States Congress as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and signed by President Richard Nixon . The law also served for the national implementation of the standard convention on narcotics .

Five annexes (classifications) were created with the law, which have different criteria for the inclusion of substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decide which appendix substances are included in; the first listing was established by Congress by law. Some substances have been incorporated by law of Congress, such as 4-hydroxybutanoic acid (GHB) in Appendix I and sodium oxybate (the isolated sodium salt from GHB) in Appendix III when used through the FDA, NDA or IND by the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date -Rape Prevention Act of 2000 . The classifications must be made based on criteria such as abuse potential (an undefined term), acceptance of medical use in the United States, and international treaties.

history

In the early 20th century, narcotic drugs were banned for the first time in the United States, and the International Opium Conference helped regulate international trade. The Pure Food and Drug Act was the beginning of a series of over 200 public health and consumer protection laws, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1938) and its extension with the Kefauver Harris Amendment of 1962.

In 1969, President Richard Nixon announced that Attorney General John N. Mitchell was preparing a major move to resolve the drug and narcotic problem in federal law by merging the previous laws into a single new law. With the help of White House Legal Counsel , John Dean , Executive Director of the Shafer Commission , Michael Sonnenreich, and Director of the BNDD , John Ingersoll, who drafted the bill, Mitchell was able to propose a bill to Nixon.

The CSA not only combined and expanded the already existing federal drug laws, but also changed federal drug policy and expanded federal law enforcement powers with respect to controlled substances. Title II, Section 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 Philip Shafer - to investigate cannabis abuse in the United States . During the presentation of the Commission's first report to Congress, Sonnenreich and Shafer recommended the decriminalization of marijuana in small quantities, in Shafer's words:

“[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 indication 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. "

“[T] he criminal law is too strict an instrument to apply to personal property, even if attempts are made to prevent its use. This implies an overwhelming indictment of behavior that we consider inappropriate. The actual and potential harm of drug use is not great enough to justify the intrusion of criminal law into private behavior, a step that our society takes with the greatest reluctance. "

- Raymond Philip Shafer

Rufus King noted that the strategy was similar to that of Harry J. Anslinger , when he grouped the early anti-drug treaties into a convention and took the opportunity to add new provisions that would otherwise have been uncomfortable for the international community. According to David T. Courtwright, "the bill was part of a major reform package aimed at streamlining American drug policy and liberalizing some of it." It removed minimum sentences and supported research and drug treatment. King noted that the rehabilitation regime was a compromise for Senator Jim Hughes, who advocated a moderate approach. Senator Everett Dirksen 's bill was 91 pages long. While the law was being drafted, the Department of Justice also drafted the Uniform Controlled Substances Act , the content of which mirrors that of the Controlled Substances Act.

Extensions (1970-2017)

Since 1970 the law has been extended several times:

  1. 1976 with the Medical Device Regulation Act .
  2. In 1978, the Psychotropic Substances Act added provisions to implement the Convention on Psychotropic Substances .
  3. The Controlled Substances Penalties Amendments Act of 1984 .
  4. The Federal Analogue Act of 1986 added chemicals that are "substantially similar" to Appendices I and II.
  5. The Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988 (implemented on August 1, 1989 as Article 12) added provisions to implement the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances , which came into force on November 11, 1990 .
  6. In 1990, the Anabolic Steroids Act included anabolic steroids in Appendix III as part of the Crime Control Act of 1990 .
  7. 1993 Domestic Chemical Diversion and Control Act (effective April 16, 1994) in response to the methamphetamine trade .
  8. 2008 the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 .
  9. 2010 the Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances (EPCS).
  10. The Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010 (effective October 12, 2010) enabled pharmacies to implement take- back programs for controlled substances in response to the opioid crisis in the US .
  11. In 2017, the Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act (PPAEMA) amended Section 33 of the CSA so that emergency services agencies can obtain permits for the use of standing orders through DEA ​​registration and must meet requirements for the management of controlled substances.

content

The Controlled Substances Act consists of two sub-chapters. Subchapter I defines Appendices I to V, lists chemicals that are used for the manufacture of controlled substances and distinguishes between legal and illegal manufacture, trade and possession of the substances, including medicinal products for personal use in accordance with Appendix I. In addition, the amount the fines and the length of the prison sentences. Subchapter II contains regulations for the import and export of controlled substances and also specifies fines and imprisonment for violations.

Enforcement Authority

Food and Drug Administration personnel search packages for illegal drug shipments at an international mail center in New York

The Drug Enforcement Administration was established in 1973 and combined the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) and the Customs Drugs Division. Requests to add, delete, or change a listing of a substance on an attachment can be submitted by the DEA, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or an interest group such as drug manufacturers, medical societies, pharmacy associations, drug abuse groups, government agencies or by individual citizens. When the DEA receives a corresponding application, the agency begins its own investigation of the substance.

The DEA can initiate the investigation of a drug at any time if new information is obtained from laboratories, law enforcement agencies or other sources of information. As soon as the DEA has the necessary data, the head of the DEA requests a scientific and medical assessment and recommendation from the Minister of Health as to whether the substance should be controlled or released from control. This request is sent to the Deputy Minister of Health. The Department of Health asks the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration for information and consults the National Institute on Drug Abuse for an assessment and recommendation. Occasionally, the entire scientific and medical community is interviewed. The Deputy Minister of Health compiles this information and sends a scientific and medical assessment to the DEA as to whether the substance should be controlled or in which appendix it should be included.

The recommendation of the Ministry of Health is binding insofar as the DEA does not control a substance if the Ministry of Health recommends not to control the substance based on medical and scientific assessment. As soon as the DEA has received the scientific and medical assessment from the Ministry of Health, the head of the DEA evaluates the data and decides whether the substance should be controlled and in which appendix it should be included. In certain situations, the government may temporarily add a substance to an appendix without this process expiring. This is possible, for example, when an international treaty requires the control of a substance. In addition, the Attorney General may temporarily include a substance in Appendix I "to avert an immediate danger to public health". This decree comes into force 30 days after notification and is valid for one year, but can be extended by six months if a procedure for the permanent inclusion of the substance in an annex is already in progress. In any case, the temporary ruling expires upon conclusion of the procedure. In contrast to the regular procedure, the temporary orders are not subject to judicial review .

In addition, the CSA has set up a distribution system for those who are permitted to trade in controlled substances. The basis for this is the registration of all persons and companies authorized by the DEA to trade in controlled substances. They are obliged to precisely document their stocks and must be able to prove all transactions and ensure safe storage of the substances.

Contractual obligations

According to Congress, the main purpose of the CSA is "to enable the United States to fulfill all of its obligations" under international treaties . The CSA has a lot in common with these contracts. Both the CSA and the international treaties provide a system for classifying controlled substances in different annexes based on scientific and medical research by a health authority. According to 21 USC  § 811 of the CSA, that authority is the Department of Health. According to Article 3 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Article 2 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, the World Health Organization is responsible.

However, contractual obligations must take into account the primacy of the United States Constitution over treaties and the equality of treaties and laws of Congress. In the case of Reid v. Covert , the Supreme Court addressed these two issues:

"[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 US 258, 133 US 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. "

“[No] agreement with another nation can give power to Congress or any other government agency free from the limitations of the Constitution.

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, states:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States ensuing from it, and all treaties which are made under the authority of the United States or which are to be made under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the country. .. "

There is nothing in this wording to suggest that treaties and laws made under these laws need not comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Neither is there anything in the debates that accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution that would suggest such an outcome. These debates, as well as the history associated with the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that treaties were not limited to those made in the "fulfillment" of the Constitution, but rather agreements between the United States and the Confederation , including the important peace treaties that ended the War of Independence, remain in force. It would obviously be contrary to the aims of those who created the Constitution, as well as those responsible for the Bill of Rights - and alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to interpret Article VI as giving the United States power within one international agreement without compliance with constitutional requirements. Indeed, such a construction would enable this document to be modified in a manner not prevented by Article V. The prohibitions of the constitution should apply to all branches of the national government and cannot be lifted by the executive branch or by the executive branch together with the senate.

There is nothing new or unique about what we are saying here. This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the primacy of the constitution over a treaty. For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 US 258, 133 US 267:

“The contractual power expressed in the Constitution is unlimited, except for the limitations imposed in this instrument on actions by the government or its agencies, and those inherent in the nature of the government itself or the state. It would not be construed as approving anything that the Constitution forbids, or approving a change in the character of the government or any of the states, or an assignment of part of the territory of the latter without its consent. "

This Tribunal has repeatedly held that a law of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is fully equivalent to a treaty and that if a subsequent statute is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute nullifies the point of conflict of the treaty power. It would be completely unusual to say that a treaty need not conform to the Constitution if such an agreement can be overridden by a law that must conform to that instrument. "

- United States Supreme Court : Reid v. Covert

According to the Cato Institute , the treaties are only (legally) binding as long as the nation is willing to remain a state party. The Congress of the United States and the President of the United States have absolute sovereignty to withdraw in accordance with the Constitution of the contracts. From this point on, the treaties no longer bind the country in any way.

There is a mechanism for automatic compliance with contractual obligations, which also contains mechanisms for changing the international control of pharmaceuticals - in order to comply with the economic and medical knowledge of the Ministry of Health. If control of a substance is required by an international convention, the Attorney General must “issue an order to control such a substance in accordance with the Appendix that it deems most appropriate for the performance of such obligations,” regardless of normal procedure and the assessments of the Ministry of Health. Nonetheless, the Department of Health has great influence in negotiating the inclusion of a substance through an international convention, as it has the power to “evaluate the proposal and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for the United States representative in related discussions and negotiations is binding with the proposal. "

If the United Nations Narcotics Commission added a substance to an appendix or changed an entry under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances so that United States regulations no longer correspond to the provisions of the treaty, the Minister of Health must make a recommendation on how the substance should be used should be controlled by the CSA. If the health minister agrees with the addiction commission's decision, he can recommend the attorney general to classify the substance accordingly. If he does not agree with the decision of the commission, the Attorney General must temporarily include the substance in one of the annexes (the one that meets the minimum requirements of the contract) and exempt it from all provisions that are not required by the contract. The Minister of Health must ask the Foreign Minister to appeal to the Addiction Commission or the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations to remove the substance from international control or to place it in another appendix. The temporary acceptance ends as soon as the contractual obligations no longer require control.

These provisions were used in 1984 to add Rohypnol ( flunitrazepam ) to Appendix IV. The substance did not meet the criteria of the Controlled Substances Act for inclusion in an appendix, but control was required by the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. In 1999, an FDA official told 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. "

“Rohypnol is not licensed or available for medicinal use in the United States, but is temporarily controlled in Appendix IV under a contractual obligation under the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. At the time flunitrazepam was temporarily added to Schedule IV (November 5, 1984), there was no evidence of abuse or drug trafficking in the United States. "

- Nicholas Reuter

The Cato Institute's Handbook for Congress calls for the repeal of the CSA, a measure that would likely bring the United States into conflict with international law since the United States committed itself to the 1971 Union Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances not repealed by national law until repealing the Controlled Substances Act. The only exception would be if the treaty provisions contradicted the United States Constitution. Many articles of these treaties - such as Articles 35 and 36 of the Single Agreement - are preceded by sentences such as "With due regard to their constitutional, legal and administrative systems, the contracting parties must" or "Subject to their constitutional restrictions, each contracting party must ...". According to former head of the demand reduction division of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime , Cindy Fazey , “This has been exploited by the United States to violate Article 3 of the 1988 Convention, which prohibits others from consuming narcotics or other psychotropic substances suggest not to implement as it would contravene the right to freedom of expression . "

Attachments

The controlled substances are listed in Appendices I – V. The CSA describes the appendices based on three factors:

  1. Abuse potential: How likely is it that the substance will be misused?
  2. Medical Use Acceptance: Is the Substance Used as a Drug in the United States?
  3. Safety and Addiction Potential : Is the Substance Safe? How likely is it that the substance will cause addiction? What types of addictions?

The following table gives an overview of the attachments:

Abuse Potential Medical use Addictive potential
Appendix I. High No The substance cannot be used safely even under medical supervision
Annex II High Partly,
only with "considerable restrictions"		 Abuse can lead to severe psychological and physical dependence
Annex III medium Yes Abuse can lead to severe psychological or moderate physical dependence
Annex IV Moderate Yes Abuse can lead to moderate psychological or physical dependence
Appendix V Low Yes Abuse can lead to little psychological or physical dependence

Before a substance is included in an appendix, it is necessary that the “abuse potential” of the substance is examined and determined. The classification of a drug or substance is mostly controversial as to what the purpose of the procedure is.

"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. "

“The term“ controlled substance ”refers to a medicinal product or other substance or an immediate precursor that is contained in Annex I, II, III, IV or V of Part B of this sub-chapter. The term includes non-distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco as these terms are defined or used in Subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. "

- 21. USC § 802 (6)

This has been viewed by some as a major exception as alcohol and tobacco are among the most commonly used drugs in the United States. It is also important to note that the alcohol exception includes altar wine , which is used by many religious communities in the United States.

Appendix I.

Substances in Annex I meet the following criteria:

  • The substance has a high potential for abuse.
  • The substance is not currently used for medicinal purposes in the United States.
  • The safety of the substance is not sufficient for use under medical supervision.

Substances from Appendix I may not be prescribed and are subject to production quotas set by the DEA .

According to the interpretation of the CSA by the DEA, the substance does not necessarily have to have a "high abuse potential" in order to be included in Appendix 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). "

“[W] hen it is a drug currently listed on Appendix I where it is undisputed that this drug is not currently accepted for medical treatment in the US and there is no accepted safety for use under medical supervision , and it is also undisputed that the drug has at least a certain abuse potential that is sufficient to justify a control under the CSA, the drug must remain in Appendix I. In these circumstances, the classification of the drug in Appendices II to V would be in conflict with the CSA, as such a drug would not meet the criteria of "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States". 21 USC 812 (b). "

- Drug Enforcement Administration : Notice of denial of petition to reschedule marijuana (2001)

Substances listed in this appendix:

  • Alpha Methyltryptamine , a psychedelic stimulant and empathogen-entactogen - drug from the group of tryptamines , which was originally in the 1960s by Upjohn was developed as an antidepressant.
  • 1-Benzylpiperazine , a synthetic stimulant that was first used as a designer drug . Although it is less effective than MDMA, there is a high potential for abuse due to the risk of neuroadaptation.
  • Cathinone , an amphetamine-like stimulant that can be obtained from the cath tree .
  • Dimethyltryptamine , a naturally occurring psychedelic found throughout the plant kingdom and endogenous in the human body. DMT is the main component of the South American drink Ayahuasca , for which the União do Vegetal has a special permit due to freedom of religion.
  • Etorphine , a semi-synthetic opioid that is about 1,000-3,000 times more effective than morphine.
  • 4-Hydroxybutanoic acid , an anesthetic and agent used to treat narcolepsy cataplexy and difficult to dose during alcohol withdrawal. It was added to Appendix I in March 2000 after use of the substance often drove patients to the emergency room and caused some deaths. A special formulation under the trade name Xyrem has been included in Appendix III.
  • Heroin , which is used in some European countries after morphine as a means to relieve pain in cancer patients. It is twice as effective as morphine and is converted into the bloodstream when it is injected into it.
  • Ibogaine , a naturally occurring psychoactive substance in plants of the Apocynaceae family. In some countries it is used to treat drug addicts. Ibogaine is used by the Bwiti in Africa for medicinal and ritual purposes.
  • LSD , a semi-synthetic psychedelic known for its use in the counterculture of the 1960s.
  • Marijuana and its cannabinoids . Pure tetrahydrocannabinol is also listed in Appendix III and has limited use. In some states such as Colorado , Washington , California , Florida , Massachusetts , Oregon , the use of marijuana is legal or exempt from punishment in small amounts - but these regulations do not affect federal law. It is not clear whether this use is still punishable under federal law.
  • MDMA , a stimulant, psychedelic, and entactogen originally developed for psycholytic psychotherapy of post-traumatic stress disorder . Medics originally recommended Appendix III listing, but the government refused, despite two court judgments ruling that Appendix I listing was illegal. Therefore, from the first hearing on December 22, 1987, to July 1, 1988, the substance was not included in any appendix.
  • Mescaline , a naturally occurring psychedelic and the main active ingredient in Lophophora williamsii , Echinopsis pachanoi, and Echinopsis peruviana .
  • Methaqualone , a sedative that has been used for the same purposes as barbiturates.
  • Lophophora williamsii , a cactus found in northeastern Mexico; one of the few plants recorded with one exception for religious use by Native Americans.
  • Psilocybin and psilocin , naturally occurring psychedelics and main active ingredients in mushrooms containing psilocybin .
  • Similar substances that are suitable for human use are defined by the Federal Analog Act .

Annex II

Substances in Annex II meet the following criteria:

  • The substance has a high potential for abuse.
  • The substance is used for medicinal purposes in the United States.
  • Abuse of the substance can lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Unless a substance in Appendix II is dispensed directly to the patient by the doctor, such a substance, which is subject to prescription under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 301 et seq. ) , May not be used without a written prescription from the doctor be handed in. Exceptions to this are emergencies in which such a drug may also be dispensed on the basis of an oral prescription under Section 503 (b) of the law (21 USC 353 (b)). With exceptions, the original recipe is required, but it is sufficient if it is available as a fax. Prescriptions should be retained in accordance with the requirements of Section 827 of the Act. A prescription for a controlled substance listed in Appendix II may not be redeemed. There are no regulations for emergencies outside of the “closed system” of the Controlled Substances Act, although it may not work in the event of accidents in remote areas or natural disasters such as hurricanes or earthquakes. Actions that are considered immoral continue to be punished with severe penalties.

The drugs differ greatly in their effectiveness: Fentanyl is around 80 times more effective than morphine ( heroin is twice as effective). They differ even more in terms of their chemical nature. The pharmacological classification and the classification by the CSA have little in common.

Since prescriptions for substances from Appendix II may not be redeemed again, the doctor and patient have to spend more time with long-term treatment with a corresponding substance. To reduce this, in 2007 doctors were allowed to write up to three prescriptions at the same time in order to ensure a supply for 90 days. The earliest point in time at which the prescription can be redeemed must be specified.

Substances listed in this appendix:

Annex III

Substances in Annex III meet the following criteria:

  • The substance has a lower potential for abuse than the substances in Annex I and II.
  • The substance is used for medicinal purposes in the United States.
  • Abuse of the substance can lead to severe psychological or low to moderate physical dependence.

Unless a substance from Appendix III or IV is dispensed directly to the patient by the doctor, such a substance, which is subject to prescription under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 301 et seq. ) , May not be used without a written or Oral prescription by the doctor under Section 503 (b) of the Act (21 USC 353 (b)). A prescription for a controlled substance from Appendix III may be redeemed for a maximum of six months and a maximum of five times, unless the doctor issues a new prescription. A prescription for substances from Annexes III, IV and V can be sent orally, in writing or as a copy. The prescription can be redeemed again with the appropriate permission, which can also be given by telephone. The control of the trade is less strict than for the substances from Appendix II. Provisions for emergency situations are also less strict than for substances in Appendix II, but here too there are no exceptions in the event that the "closed system" of Controlled Substances Act is not functional.

Substances listed in this appendix:

Annex IV

Substances in Annex IV meet the following criteria:

  • The substance has a lower potential for abuse than the substances in Appendix III.
  • The substance is used for medicinal purposes in the United States.
  • Abuse of the substance can lead to limited psychological or physical dependence.

The regulations are similar to those of the substances in Appendix III. Prescriptions for substances listed in Appendix IV can be redeemed five times over a period of six months. A prescription for substances from Annexes III, IV and V can be sent orally, in writing or as a copy. The prescription can be redeemed again with the appropriate permission, which can also be given by telephone.

Substances listed in this appendix:

Appendix V

Substances in Annex V meet the following criteria:

  • The substance has a lower potential for abuse than the substances in Appendix IV.
  • The substance is used for medicinal purposes in the United States.
  • Abuse of the substance can lead to limited psychological or physical dependence.

Substances from Appendix V that are medicinal products may only be dispensed for medical purposes. A prescription for substances from Annexes III, IV and V can be sent orally, in writing or as a copy. The prescription can be redeemed again with the appropriate permission, which can also be given by telephone.

Substances listed in this appendix:

Regulation of preliminary stages

The Controlled Substances Act also includes regulations that affect precursors that are used to manufacture some of the controlled substances. The list of these chemicals will be updated if the United States Attorney General determines that illegal manufacturing practices have changed.

In addition to the CSA, Congress passed the Methamphetamine Precursor Control Act , which restricts the sale of drugs containing pseudoephedrine due to the frequent use of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine to make methamphetamine . This law has been replaced by the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 , which, as part of an extension of the USA PATRIOT Act , contains further restrictions on pseudoephedrine-containing drugs. The law requires the customer to sign a “log book” and present a valid photo ID. In addition, a person may not purchase more than three packs or 3.6 grams of such a product per day and purchase and not more than nine grams per month. Retailers usually only sell these products in pharmacies or at a service counter. This affects many preparations such as Actifed , which were previously available for sale over the counter.

criticism

The classification of the substances in the appendices was criticized because the terms were not precisely defined. Another point of criticism is that studies have found that several substances listed in Appendix I have a low potential for abuse and that their use in medicine is accepted. This contradicts the requirement that, in order to be included in Appendix I, a substance must have a high potential for abuse and its use for medical purposes is not accepted. An example is the legalization of cannabis to a certain extent in 33 states in the United States.

See also

Remarks

  1. ↑ Lower than for the substances in Appendix I and II
  2. ↑ Compared to the substances in Appendix III
  3. ↑ Compared to the substances in Appendix IV

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Federal Law 91-513 84 Stat. 1236 , issued October 27, 1970. Codified by 21 USC  § 801 .
  2. ↑ 2000 - Addition of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid to Schedule I . US Department of Justice via the Federal Register. March 13, 2000.
  3. ^ William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000 . February 18, 2000.
  4. ↑ a b Government Regulations Docket ID: DEA 2009-0013 in BASIS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION TO CONTROL 5-METHOXY-dimethyltryptamine (5-MeO-DMT) IN SCHEDULE I OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT The term "abuse" ( abuse ) is in CSA not defined.
  5. ↑ a b “[D] rogen abuse can refer to any type of drug or chemical, regardless of its pharmacological effects. It's a versatile concept with only one connotation: social disapproval. ... The Commission believes that substance abuse should be removed from official communications and public dialogue. The term has no functional use and has ceased to be an arbitrary code word for drug use that is currently considered incorrect. ”- Second Report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse; Drug Use In America: Problem In Perspective (Mar 1973), 13
  6. ^ Illegal Drugs in America: A Modern History . Archived from the original on December 4, 2004.
  7. ^ The 1912 Hague International Opium Convention . In: Public Policy Options  (= Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs), Volume 3. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy,.
  8. ↑ David F. Musto: History of Legislative Control Over Opium, Cocaine, and Their Derivatives .
  9. ↑ Legislation . 2nd July 2015.
  10. ^ Medical Device Amendments . Parsons Printing Press.
  11. ↑ 50 Years: The Kefauver-Harris Amendment . FDA.
  12. ↑ Strength of the Pack: The Personalities, Politics and Espionage Intrigues . Douglas Valentine, November 15, 2010, ISBN 9781936296910 (Retrieved May 13, 2018).
  13. ↑ 91st United States Congress : Part F - Advisory Commission: Establishment of Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse . In: 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 . US Government Publishing Office, 1970, pp. 1280-1281. Pub.L. 91-513 , 84 stat. 1236 , issued October 27, 1970
  14. ^ National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse: Drug Use In America: Problem In Perspective, Second Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse . March 1973. 
  15. ^ NORML - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws ( English ) Retrieved May 15, 2018.
  16. ↑ a b Rufus King: The 1970 Act: Don't Sit There, Amend Something . In: The Drug Hang Up, America's Fifty-Year Folly . Schaffer Library of Drug Policy,.
  17. ↑ David T. Courtwright: The Controlled Substances Act: how a "big tent" reform wurde a punitive drug law . In: Drug and Alcohol Dependence . 76, No. 1, October 5, 2004, pp. 9-15. doi : 10.1016 / j.drugalcdep.2004.04.012 . PMID 15380284 .
  18. ↑ S.510 - An Act to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use, and for other purposes . Library of Congress. Retrieved August 31, 2016.
  19. ↑ p.2399 - Psychotropic Substances Act . Library of Congress. Retrieved August 31, 2016.
  20. ↑ Steven B. Karch. Pathology, Toxicogenetics, and Criminalistics of Drug Abuse . CRC Press, 2007 ISBN 9781420054569
  21. ^ Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 , 2009
  22. ↑ P. 3397 - 111th Congress (2009-2010): Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010 . Library of Congress. Retrieved March 26, 2019.
  23. ↑ CDC - The Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act of 2017 - Publications by Topic - Public Health Law ( English ) February 22, 2019. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  24. ↑ Title 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act . United States Department of Justice.
  25. ^ State and Local Task Forces . United States Department of Justice. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  26. ^ Drug Enforcement Administration: Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of 5-Methoxy-N, N-Dimethyltryptamine Into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act . In: Federal Register . 74, No. 161, August 21, 2009, pp. 42217-42220. "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… “ FR 42217
  27. ↑ Final Order: Temporary Placement of Five Synthetic Cannabinoids Into Schedule I . United States Department of Justice. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
  28. ↑ Richard R. Abood: The Closed System of Controlled Substance Distribution . In: Pharmacy Practice and the Law . Jones & Bartlett, November 21, 2012, ISBN 978-1-4496-8691-8 , p. 184, (accessed December 30, 2012).
  29. ↑ Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 at pp 17-19 . In: Justia Law . Retrieved October 30, 2014.
  30. ↑ a b The War on Drugs . In: Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress . Cato Institute, 2003, pp. 171-178 (accessed October 20, 2012).
  31. ^ "Date Rape" Drugs ( Memento from May 16, 2006 in the Internet Archive )
  32. ↑ fuoriluogo.it - ​​April 2003 ( Memento from April 23, 2015 in the Internet Archive )
  33. ↑ 21 USC § 812 - Schedules of controlled substances .
  34. ↑ 21 US Code Chapter 13 - Drug Abuse Prevention and Control .
  35. ↑ 21 US Code § 802 - Definitions .
  36. ↑ Appendix C: Measurement of Dependence, Abuse, Treatment, and Treatment Need - 2000 NHSDA - Substance Dependence, Abuse, and Treatment . In: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse . SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies. 2000. Archived from the original on February 21, 2013.
  37. ↑ InfoFacts - Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products . Retrieved October 30, 2014.
  38. ↑ a b c d e 21 USC  § 812 - Schedules of controlled substances
  39. ↑ a b Donnie Marshall: Notice of denial of petition to reschedule marijuana . In: Drug Enforcement Administration (Ed.): Federal Register . 66, No. 75, March 20, 2001, pp. 20038-20076. Retrieved June 13, 2013.
  40. ^ Paul Gee, Mark Gilbert, Sandra Richardson, Grant Moore, Sharon Paterson, Patrick Graham: Toxicity from the Recreational Use of 1-benzylpiperazine . In: Clinical Toxicology . 46, No. 9, 2008, pp. 802-07. doi : 10.1080 / 15563650802307602 . PMID 18821145 .
  41. ↑ K. Brennan, A. Johnstone, P. Fitzmaurice, R. Lea, S. Schenk: Chronic Benzylpiperazine (BZP) Exposure Produces Behavioral Sensitization and Cross-sensitization to Methamphetamine (MA) . In: Drug and Alcohol Dependence . 88, No. 2-3, 2007, pp. 204-13. doi : 10.1016 / j.drugalcdep.2006.10.016 . PMID 17125936 .
  42. ^ G. Tunnicliff: Sites of action of gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB) - A neuroactive drug with abuse potential . In: Clinical Toxicology . 35, No. 6, 1997, pp. 581-590. doi : 10.3109 / 15563659709001236 .
  43. ↑ MS Okun, LA Boothy, RB Bartfield, PL Doering: GHB: An important pharmacologic and clinical update . In: Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacological Science . 4, No. 2, 2001, pp. 167-175.
  44. ↑ See United States v. Angelos, 433 F.3d 738 (10th Cir. 2006) (55 years for three sales of marijuana).
  45. ↑ MAPS Legal History of MDMA . Retrieved October 30, 2014.
  46. ↑ a b c d Manuals - Practitioner's Manual - SECTION V . Retrieved January 7, 2014
  47. ↑ a b c 21 US Code § 829 - Prescriptions .
  48. ↑ 21 US Code Part D - Offenses and Penalties .
  49. ↑ Issuance of Multiple Prescriptions for Schedule II Controlled Substances . Drug Enforcement Administration , United States Department of Justice . November 2007. Retrieved September 3, 2014.
  50. ↑ Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / pgs. 49661 - 49682 / August 22, 2014 DEA-Final Rule, in effect from October 6, 2014 Text (162 KB) PDF (242 KB)
  51. ↑ Exempt Anabolic Steroids (21 CFR § 1308.33 and 21 CFR § 1308.34), February 5, 2015, Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Diversion Control Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section
  52. ^ JH Halpern: Hallucinogens and dissociative agents naturally growing in the United States . In: Pharmacology & Therapeutics . 102, No. 2, 2004, pp. 131-138. doi : 10.1016 / j.pharmthera.2004.03.003 . PMID 15163594 .
  53. ^ RE Schultes and A. Hofmann, 1980: The botany and chemistry of hallucinogens, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
  54. ↑ [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2011)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 77330-77360]
  55. ↑ FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products: Questions and Answers . US Food and Drug Administration. April 2, 2019. Retrieved May 18, 2019.
  56. ^ Federal Pseudoephedrine Law . In: doh.state.fl.us . Florida Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance. October 5, 2006. Archived from the original on July 30, 2012. Retrieved on October 20, 2012.
  57. ↑ General Information Regarding the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act 2005 . Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control. Retrieved October 20, 2012.
  58. ^ Drug Scheduling . Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice. Archived from the original on August 9, 2017.
  59. ↑ David J. Nutt, Leslie A. King, Lawrence D. Phillips, Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs: Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision analysis . In: The Lancet . 376, No. 9752, November 6, 2010, pp. 1558-1565. doi : 10.1016 / S0140-6736 (10) 61462-6 . PMID 21036393 .
  60. ↑ DrugFacts: Is Marijuana Medicine? . National Institutes of Health; US Department of Health and Human Services. July 2015.
  61. ^ State Marijuana Laws in 2018 Map .

Web links