Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In Michigan, there is a zero-tolerance policy for driving while under the influence of controlled substances, such as marijuana or heroin, which are both Schedule 1 controlled substances. [13] The per se laws also extend to driving under the influence of alcohol; the punishments associated with this offense can be found under the "alcohol ...
(4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances. (5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety. Separate registration under this part for practitioners engaging in research with controlled substances in schedule 11, III, IV, or V, who are already registered under this part ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Help; Learn to edit; Community portal; Recent changes; Upload file
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, is the legal foundation of the government's fight against the abuse of drugs and other substances. This law is a consolidation of numerous laws regulating the manufacture and distribution of narcotics, stimulants, depressants ...
Pages in category "United States controlled substances case law" The following 52 pages are in this category, out of 52 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
New Michigan laws approved by Democrats take effect Tuesday, ushering in changes to a slew of policies from labor to abortion rights. These laws received little or no Republican support in the ...
On June 23, 2011, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), along with 1 Republican and 19 Democratic cosponsors, introduced the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011, which would have removed marijuana and THC from the list of Schedule I controlled substances and would have provided that the Controlled Substances Act not apply to marijuana except ...
McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that section 841 of the Controlled Substances Act requires the government to prove that to be in criminal violation, a defendant must be aware that an analogue defined by the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act with which he was dealing was a controlled substance.