Authorized sources of narcotic raw materials. Final rule

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is amending the list of non-traditional countries authorized to export narcotic raw materials (NRM) to the United States by removing Yugoslavia and adding Spain. This rule provides DEA registered importers with another potential source from which to purchase NRM that are used in the production of controlled substances for medical purposes in the United States.     

Registration and reregistration application fees. Confirmation of final rule,remanded for further notice and comment,and response to comments

DEA is publishing a final rule regarding the registration and reregistration fees charged to controlled substances registrants. DEA is required to charge reasonable fees relating to the registration and control of the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of controlled substances. To address this mandate, on March 22, 1993 DEA published a final rule in the Federal Register, establishing registration fees for controlled substances registrants (58 FR 15272). Following publication of the final rule, the American Medical Association (AMA) and others filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia objecting to the new fees. The district court issued its final order granting the government's motion for summary judgment and disposing of all claims. The AMA appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found DEA's rulemaking to be inadequate. The appeals court remanded, without vacating, the rule to DEA, requiring the agency to provide an opportunity for meaningful notice and comment on the fee-funded components of the Diversion Control Program. DEA responded to the remand requirement through a document published in the Federal Register on December 30, 1996 (61 FR 68624). This Final Rule supplements the December 30, 1996 Federal Register document and with that document, constitutes the final rule on the Drug Diversion Control Fee Account.     

Controlled substances and List I chemical registration and reregistration fees. Final rule

This rule adjusts the fee schedule for DEA registration and reregistration fees necessary to recover the costs of the Diversion Control Program relating to the registration and control of the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, importation, and exportation of controlled substances and List I chemicals as mandated by the Controlled Substances Act.     

WINE WARS—DIRECT SHIPMENT OF WINE: THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND CONSUMERS'RIGHTS

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. ¹     

Definition of "positional isomer" as it pertains to the control of schedule I controlled substances. Final rule

On May 25, 2006, DEA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which proposed the addition of a specific definition for the term "positional isomer" to allow for the systematic determination of which isomers of schedule I substances would be considered to be "positional," and therefore, subject to schedule I control. This rulemaking finalizes that definition. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations specify which hallucinogenic substances are considered schedule I controlled substances. The CSA states that all salts, isomers, and salts of isomers of these substances are also schedule I controlled substances. In non-technical terms, an isomer of a substance is a different compound, but a compound which has the same number and kind of atoms. The terms "optical isomer" and "geometric isomer" are specific scientific terms and it is easy to determine whether one substance is an optical or geometric isomer of another. The term "positional isomer," however, is subject to scientific interpretation. The addition of a definition for the term "positional isomer" will assist legitimate research[ers] and industry in determining the control status of materials that are "positional isomers" of schedule I hallucinogens. While the DEA will remain the authority for ultimately determining the control status of a given material, providing a specific definition for "positional isomer" will ensure consistent criteria are utilized in making these determinations. This rule does not change existing laws, regulations, policies, processes, and procedures regarding the determination of control status for schedule I hallucinogenic substances. This rule merely makes available to the public the longstanding definition of "positional isomer" which DEA has used when making these scheduling determinations. This rule is relevant only to specialized forensic or research chemists. Most of these individuals are existing DEA registrants who are authorized by the DEA to handle schedule I hallucinogenic substances.     

Designation of oripavine as a basic class of controlled substance. Final rule

This is a final rule issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) designating oripavine (3-O-demethylthebaine or 6,7,8,14-tetradehydro-4,5-alpha-epoxy-6-methoxy-17-methylmorphinan-3-ol) as a basic class in schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Although oripavine was not previously listed in schedule II of the CSA, it has been controlled in the United States as a derivative of thebaine and, as such, is controlled as a schedule II controlled substance which includes "Opium and opiate, and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium or opiate." Oripavine is a derivative of thebaine, a natural constituent of opium, hence oripavine has been and continues to be, by virtue of the definition of "narcotic drug", a schedule II controlled substance. International control of oripavine in schedule I of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961 Convention) during the 50th session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in 2007 prompted the DEA to specifically designate oripavine as a basic class of controlled substance in schedule II of the CSA.     

Eligibility for health care benefits for certain Filipino veterans in the United States. Final rule

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical regulations describe veterans who are eligible to receive health care from VA in the United States. This document amends VA medical regulations to provide eligibility for VA hospital care, nursing home care, and outpatient services for any Filipino Commonwealth Army veteran, including those recognized by authority of the U.S. Army as belonging to organized Filipino guerilla forces, and for any veteran of the new Philippine Scouts, provided that any such veteran resides in the U.S. and is either a citizen of the U.S. or is lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Under this regulatory provision, these certain veterans are eligible for VA hospital care, nursing home care, and outpatient medical services in the United States in the same manner and subject to the same terms and conditions as apply to U.S. veterans.     

3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and other amphetamine derivatives

As various substances of abuse come under Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Schedule restrictions, slightly modified derivatives (designer drugs) replace them. A series of amphetamine derivatives are discussed in this presentation. Applicable analytical methods are presented. Details of cases handled by the office (hospital patients, driving while under the influence/driving under the influence of drugs [DWI/DUID], and medical examiner cases) are discussed.     

Schedules of controlled substances: placement of 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Final rule

With the issuance of this final rule, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) places the substance 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine (5-MeO-DMT), including its salts, isomers and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible, into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This action by the DEA Deputy Administrator is based on a scheduling recommendation from the Assistant Secretary for Health of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and a DEA review indicating that 5-MeO-DMT meets the criteria for placement in schedule I of the CSA. This final rule will impose the criminal sanctions and regulatory controls of schedule I substances under the CSA on the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, importation, exportation, and possession of 5-MeO-DMT.     

Is it lawful to use Medicaid to pay for circumcision?

Since 1965, tens of millions of boys have been circumcised under the Medicaid program, most at birth, at a cost to the United States Federal Government, the States and taxpayers of billions of dollars. Although 18 States have ended coverage since 1982, the United States Government and 32 States continue to pay for non-therapeutic circumcision, even though no medical association in the world recommends it. Many cite American medical association policy that the procedure has potential medical benefits as well as disadvantages, and that the circumcision decision should be left to parents. This article shows that Medicaid coverage of circumcision is not a policy issue because it is prohibited by federal and State law. As American medical associations concede, non-therapeutic circumcision is unnecessary, elective, cosmetic surgery on healthy boys, usually performed for cultural, personal or religious reasons. The fundamental principle of Medicaid law is that Medicaid only covers necessary medical treatments after the diagnosis of a current medical condition. Physicians and hospitals face severe penalties for charging Medicaid for circumcisions. Medicaid officials and the Federal and State Governments are also required to end coverage. It is unlawful to circumcise and to allow the circumcision of healthy boys at the expense of the government and taxpayers.     

Special surveillance list of chemicals, products, materials and equipment used in the clandestine production of controlled substances or listed chemicals. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Justice. Final notice

On October 3, 1996, the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 (MCA) was signed into law. The MCA makes it unlawful for any person to distribute a laboratory supply to a person who uses, or attempts to use, that laboratory supply to manufacture a controlled substance or a listed chemical, with reckless disregard for the illegal uses to which such laboratory supply will be put. Individuals who violate this provision are subject to a civil penalty of not more than $25,000; businesses which violate this provision are subject to a civil penalty of not more than $250,000. The term "laboratory supply" is defined as "a listed chemical or any chemical, substance, or item on a special surveillance list published by the Attorney General, which contains chemicals, products, materials, or equipment used in the manufacture of controlled substances and listed chemicals." This final notice contains the list of "laboratory supplies" which constitutes the Special Surveillance List that was required to be published by the Attorney General pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 842(a).     

Organized cross-atlantic crime

There is concern about penetration of organized crime in the legitimate business. This penetration can take various forms, ranging from a complete take over to a veritable symbiosis between crime-enterprises and the legitimate industry. This paper describes the interaction between crime-enterprises in the mineral oil market in the Unites States and North-western Europe. It pictures the landscape or moral decay, lack of supervision by law enforcement and the spread of systematic fraud in a branch of industry which has become ripe for infiltration by organized crime. The paper reveals that organized business crime is not just a concern for the United States of Europe alone. If the entrepreneurial landscape has similar features and there are possibilities of personal bridgeheads organized business crime obtains crossborder, transatlantic dimensions. The paper questions the selective attention of law enforcement to easily recognizable crime and the morally dubious attitude of legitimate industry taking advantage of the profitable offers by criminal entrepreneurs.     

Restrictions on cryptography in India – A case studyof encryption and privacy

The developments of technology in communications industry have radically altered the ways in which we communicate and exchange information. Along with the speed, efficiency, and cost-saving benefits of the digital revolution come new challenges to the security and privacy of communications and information traversing the global communications infrastructure. As is with any technology the misuse of technology is noticed similarly the encryption technology. Encryption and other advanced technologies may be used, with direct impact on law enforcement and therefore some restrictions are necessary in the interests of national security. The problem, however, is ensuring that the restriction is legitimate and solely for in the interests of national security, the state not being allowed to interfere and keep a track on individuals' activities and private lives without sufficient cause. The individual needs encryption to protect their personal privacy and confidential data such as medical information, personal financial data, and electronic mail. In a networked environment, such information is increasingly at risk of being stolen or misused. Therefore, encryption is critical to building a secure and trusted global information infrastructure. Digital computers have changed the landscape considerably and the entire issue, at its simplest level, boils down to a form of balancing of interests. The specific legal and rights-related problems arising from the issue of cryptography and privacy in the Indian context are examined in this paper.     

论个人信息保护限制的立法范式与体系逻辑——以应对突发疫情事件为例

对个人信息保护进行适当限制是平衡个人权益与公共利益的必然选择。基于特定的紧急背景在公法中设定个人信息保护限制,虽有助于集中力量驱逐疫情,但往往忽视对作为私权客体性的个人信息对象考察,容易侵犯个人信息法益。当前我国民法典对个人信息保护的限制规定虽符合疫情防控下个人信息保护限制的紧急需求,但缺失对权利限制的一般条款以及合理实施的进一步解释,亟待更精细的规范进行界定。这表明应对重大疫情防控时,我国立法在个人信息保护的合理限制问题时出现了制度缺位。原因在于,无论是公法还是私法都无法独自处理好疫情防控下的个人信息保护限制问题。公、私法二元性质个人信息保护立法框架契合数据治理理论的内在属性,也是风险社会中公私法协力的必然要求。重大疫情背景并不决定个人信息保护限制的二元范式,这是由个人信息的属性本身所决定的。公法和私法分别规定个人信息保护限制规则均具有部分正当性来源,但从法律的实现效果以及比较立法趋势来看,将个人信息保护限制置于一部公私复合的个人信息保护法之中更符合时代发展。文章最后在该立法范式引导下,反思了当前个人信息保护限制立法体系逻辑,并提出了个人信息保护限制立法完善的建议。     

投资基金持有人派生诉讼制度比较法研究

投资基金组织一体化程度弱，基金持有人权益易受侵害。本文尝试将公司法中的股东派生诉讼制度移植到投资基金领域，构建投资基金持有人派生诉讼制度，为保护基金投资者合法权益另辟一条蹊径。美国特拉华州于1998年率先在企业信托中创建了派生诉讼制度，契约型投资基金就是企业信托的主要组织形式。从比较法角度出发，借鉴关国特拉华州立法先例，同时辩证借鉴公司股东派生诉讼制度的立法经验，将有利于构建符合我国国情的投资基金持有人派生诉讼制度。     

Schedules of controlled substances: temporary placement of three synthetic cathinones in Schedule I. Final Order

The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is issuing this final order to temporarily schedule three synthetic cathinones under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The substances are 4-methyl-N-methylcathinone (mephedrone), 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone (methylone), and 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV). This action is based on a finding by the Administrator that the placement of these synthetic cathinones and their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers into Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As a result of this order, the full effect of the CSA and its implementing regulations including criminal, civil and administrative penalties, sanctions and regulatory controls of Schedule I substances will be imposed on the manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, and exportation of these synthetic cathinones.