clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Session Laws, 1982
Volume 742, Page 1885   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

HARRY HUGHES, Governor

1885

(2)  THE SECRETARY, BY RULE OR REGULATION, MAY
EXEMPT ANY DRUG FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION IF THE
SECRETARY FINDS THAT, AS TO THE DRUG, THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS SECTION ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
PUBLIC HEALTH.

(3)  THE SECRETARY, BY RULE AND REGULATION, MAY
EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION ANY DRUG THAT
IS REMOVED FROM THE PRESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL
ACT BY A RULE OR REGULATION ADOPTED UNDER THAT ACT.

REVISOR'S NOTE: This section is new language derived
without substantive change from former Article
43, § 189C(a), (c), and (d).

In the introductory language of subsection (a) of
this section, the reference to a health
practitioner who is authorized by law to
"prescribe" a drug is substituted for the
reference to a health practitioner licensed to
"administer" a drug. In the context of the
introductory language of subsection (a) of this
section, the relevant authority is the authority
to "prescribe" a drug.

As to subsection (c) of this section, the
language of former Article 43, § 189C(a) was
ambiguous as to whether the requirement for the
pharmacist to write out a refill order promptly
applied both when the refill was authorized in
the original prescription and when the refill was
authorized by an oral order of the health
practitioner or if the requirement applied only
if the refill was authorized by an oral order.
The Commission to Revise the Annotated Code
concluded that the correct interpretation was
that the pharmacist was required to write out a
refill order only if an oral order was used, and
the provision is revised accordingly.

Read literally, former Article 43, § 189C(c)
would permit the Secretary to exempt from the
requirements of this section any new drug and
any other drug "in package form". In the view of
the Commission to Revise the Annotated Code,
there is no evidence of legislative purpose to
differentiate between drugs in package form from
other drugs with respect to prescription
requirements. Therefore, in subsection (f)(2)
of this section, "any drug" is substituted for
"drugs subject to § 189B(2) and § 189D". This
revision is called to the attention of the
General Assembly.

 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Session Laws, 1982
Volume 742, Page 1885   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 11, 2023
Maryland State Archives