No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Legal Control of Drugs and Generic Drugs
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2021
Extract
The regulation of the use and distribution of drugs in the United States is governed by a complex set of state and federal laws and regulations. These laws and regulations are designed to accomplish a variety of purposes. First, the federal government hopes to exclude from interstate commerce drugs that are not both “safe and effective.” This function is performed by the United States Food and Drug Administration, exercising its authority under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and involves, for the most part, regulating the manufacturers of drugs. Second, both state and federal laws and regulations exist to keep “controlled substances” out of the hands of individuals who would use (or abuse) such substances for recreational as opposed to therapeutic purposes. The regulation of the use of such substances is primarily accomplished by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and similar laws that exist at the state level. Third, some drugs, because of their toxicity or habit-forming qualities, are prohibited from public consumption without the guidance of a health care professional. Unlike over-the-counter drugs which may be purchased by anyone, these drugs may only be purchased by a consumer who presents a valid prescription to a pharmacist.
- Type
- Health Law Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1980
Footnotes
*
This article is adapted from portions of a chapter entitled “Drugs and Controlled Substances” in Annas GJ, Glantz LH, and Katz BF, The Rights of Doctors, Nurses & Allied Health Professionals, scheduled to be published by Avon Books N. Y. in early 1981.
References
21U.S.C. § 321 et.seq.Google Scholar
P.L. 91-513; 21 U.S.C. § 801 et. seq.Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 321(g).Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. I 353(b)(1).Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 353(b)(4).Google Scholar
National Nutritional Foods Assoc, v. Weinberger. 512 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1975), cert, den., 423 U.S. 827 (1976).Google Scholar
Id. at 704.Google Scholar
See, e.g., N.Y. Educ. Law (McKinney) 16810.Google Scholar
Cal. Health and Safety Code §26663.Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. § 353(b)(1)(c).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 4036.Google Scholar
Silverman and Lee, Pills Profits, and Politics, 142-143 (University of Cal. Press, Berkeley 1974).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Ala. Code tit. 46 § 277(al8) (Supp. 1971); III. Ann. Stat. ch. 56V4 § 503.14 (Smith - Hurd Supp. 1972).Google Scholar
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 19-226 (1969).Google Scholar
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 465.101 (1972).Google Scholar
Brennan, BJ, Drug Substitution — Boom to Consumers versus Legal Traps for the Professional, Journal of Legal Medicine 4(3):20 (March 1976).Google Scholar
Chadmck.Physician-Controlled Source Selection — A Suggested Approach to Substitution, The Journal of Legal Medicine 4(3):26,29 (March 1976).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 112 § 12D; N.Y. Pub. Health Law(McKinney) § 206-1; VA. Code Ann. § 54-52.101.9.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Del. Code Ann. § 2589; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 465.30.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 27-703; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4729.38; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 450.075.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 27-703; Alaska Stat. § 08.80.295; Del. Code Ann. § 2589; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4729.38.4.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 112 § 12D; Ken. Stat. Ann § 65-675.Google Scholar
See Brennan, supra note at 57; Sonnenreich, State Substitution Laws — A Lawyer's View, U.S. Pharmacist 2(0): 1 (April 1977).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Or. Rev. Stat. § 689.845; R.I. Gen. Law Ann. § 42-18.1-5.Google Scholar