Constitucionalidad y regulación de sustancias controladas en Georgia

Explicación Simple

Esta ley habla sobre cómo se controlan las drogas en Georgia y su legalidad. También dice que el estado debe seguir ciertas reglas al decidir qué drogas son peligrosas.

Es como cuando un maestro decide si un estudiante puede pasar de grado, pero debe seguir un conjunto de reglas y evaluar el desempeño del estudiante antes de tomar la decisión.

Ejemplo Práctico

Imagina que Juan, un farmacéutico, quiere vender un nuevo medicamento llamado Zolpidem. Sin embargo, antes de poder hacerlo, debe asegurarse de que este medicamento esté regulado por el estado y seguir las normas que se establecieron para su venta.

Penalidades

null

Texto Original del Estatuto (Inglés)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - Former Code 1933, § 79A-803 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-13-22 ) was not unconstitutional as violative of Ga. Const. 1976, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. IV, and Art. III, Sec. I, Para. I (see now Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. III, and Art. III, Sec. I, Para. I), which provisions deal with separation of powers and delegation of legislative power respectively. Harmon v. State, 235 Ga. 329 , 219 S.E.2d 441 (1975). Former Code 1933, § 79A-801 et seq. (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-13-20 et seq.) was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority on the ground that the General Assembly had failed to maintain control over the determination of whether a substance should fall within its purview, since these provisions provide that the State Board of Pharmacy "shall consider" nine factors and shall make findings after considering those nine factors. Consideration of the statutory factors was mandatory. Ward v. State, 248 Ga. 60 , 281 S.E.2d 503 (1981). State failed to prove drug regulated by law. - Defendant was improperly convicted of violating the Georgia's Controlled Substances Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-13-20 et seq., by distributing a Schedule IV drug, Zolpidem, which was commonly known as Ambien, O.C.G.A. §§ 16-13-28(a)(33) and 16-13-30(b) , because the state failed to prove that the drug Ambien was regulated by law, and the trade name of a statutorily designated controlled substance was not the proper subject of judicial notice; while the state