STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RETAIL DRUGGISTS THE DESIGNER DRUG ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1985 September 18, 1985 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I am John W. White of Tallahassee, Florida. I serve as President of the National Association of Retail Druggists. With me today is John Rector, our Director of Government Affairs. The National Association of Retail Druggists (NARD) represents owners of more than 30,000 independent pharmacies, where over 75,000 pharmacists dispense more than 70 percent of the nation's prescription drugs. Together, they serve 18 million persons daily." NARD has long been acknowledged as the sole advocate for this vital component of the free-enterprise system. NARD members are primarily family businesses. They have roots in America's communites. The neighborhood independent druggist typifies the reliability, stability, yet adventuresomeness, that has made our country great. 1 We are especially pleased to present our views to the Committee on proposed amendments to the Controlled Substances Act,' which will create new penalties for the manufacturing with intent to distribute, the possession with intent to distribute, or the distribution of "designer drugs", and for other purposes. We would like to express our special appreciation to the Committee, its Chairman, and Staff for their thorough but expeditious consideration of this important legislation. In 1982, independents filled 1,039,893,000 and chains filled 421,989,000 prescriptions of the total prescriptions (1,461,822,000) filled in the U.S. The average prescription price in 1982 for independents was $8.22 and for chains $8.29. Of the 210,493,000 prescriptions filled under the Medicaid program, chains filled 34,849,000 and independents filled 175,644,000. See American Druggist prescription survey May 1983. 2Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, P.L. 91-513, 84 Stat 1736, enacted 10/27/70, effective 5/1/71, is known as the Controlled Substances Act (21 USC 801 et.seq.). 198 Congress which eventually became the CSA, were CARD 120Dorted this Landmark reform. It was * Conard in bringing together into a single statute FA 3d and ragmented Laws relating to controlled drugs. ༤༣ **arning rears, we have worked closely with federal 16A0:09 encrainte for its molementation to help assure that regulations were inderstood by pharmacists and 30% 36mm-ies vare srotected from drug diversion and abuse. sciate the sodortunity to continue this effort on behalf of -dependent retail sharmacy today. The fational Association of Retail Druggists has monitored -ke smergence of so-called designer trugs with an ever-increasing degree of alam. In the 18th Congress, we strongly supported the anactment of the Driq Diversion Control Act of 1984. As relates to the mbject of today's hearing, we strongly supported provisions which authorized the Drug Enforcement Administration to exercise emergency scheduling authority when necessary to address the public nea, hazards and complex law enforcement issues presented by the Manufacture, distribution, and abuse of designer drugs.d de were concerned that the emergency scheduling authority, 4 Wiginally drafted, was far too broad, and we were pleased When the Chairman and his colleagues agreed to a modification so *a* sny drugs not approved for medical use could be the subject of the new emergency scheduling authority. The recent exercise of the new authority by DEA in the Lastances of 1-methyl-4-phenylpropionoxypiperidine MPPP) and 12-phenylethyl)-4-phenylacetyloxypiperdine (PEPAP, demonstrates the efficacy of the modified appropach, which could in no way deny due process to the retail pharmacists we represent, who have numerous controlled substances with approved medical usefulness in their inventory. We have supported a number of bills addressing the serious problems posed by designer drugs. We had strongly supported Senator Chiies' legislation, 9.746, which would require the National Drug Enforcement Policy Board to provide a comprehensive assessment of the Designer Drug Program and make recommendations to Congress for additional legislation, and its counterpart in the House, H.R.2014, introduced by Congressman Charles B. Rangel, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. Today, we are pleased to indicate our strong support for S.1437, the Designer Drug Enforcement Act of 1985. By providing penalties up to $250,000 or imprisonment of not more than fifteen years, or both sanctions, S.1437 will, in our view, provide an important deterrent for any person who knowingly, or intentionally manufactures with intent to distribute, possesses with intent to distribute, or distributes designer drugs for human consumption. Additionally, we strongly endorse provisions which make these new penalties inapplicable to a person who manufactures or distributes a substance in conformance with provisions of an Approved New Drug Application or an exemption for investigational use. Designer drugs are extremely dangerous from a health standpoint. The drugs are thousands of times more potent than the illegal narcotics presently flooding the country, and over a hundred deaths have been identified with designer drug use so far. Furthermore, these drugs have been responsible for causing longterm neurodegenerative diseases in some users. The human and medical economic costs of designer drugs are potentially devastating. It is our hope that S.1437 will be a valuable tool in the law enforcement effort to curb traffic and abuse of designer drugs. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we commend you for your strong3 support of S.1437 and each of the co-sponsors of the legislation. I am especially proud of our two Florida Senators, Mrs. Hawkins and Mr. Chiles, who have provided national leadership on the problem of designer drugs. Again, on behalf of the Officers, Executive Committee, and members of the National Association of Retail Druggists, we thank you for the opportunity to appear and continue to participate in the formulation of appropriate Federal drug diversion policy. s.1437, To amend the Controlled Substances Act to create new penalties for the manufacturing with intent to distribute, the possession with intent to distribute, or the distribution of "designer drugs", and for other purposes. In the Senate of the United States, July 16, 1985 by Mr. Thurmond (for himself, Mrs. Hawkins, Mr. Chiles, Mr. Biden, Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Specter) referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 63-720 (204) |