79–010 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–521 

RYAN HAIGHT ONLINE PHARMACY CONSUMER 

PROTECTION ACT OF 2007 

NOVEMBER 17 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17, 2008).—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 980] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill 

(S. 980) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to address online 

pharmacies, reports favorably thereon, with an amendment, and 

recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Background and Purpose of the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2007 .................................................................... 1 

II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 8 

III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 12 

IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 17 

V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 19 

VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 19 

VII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 19 

I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE RYAN HAIGHT ONLINE

PHARMACY CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2007 

Senators Feinstein and Sessions introduced the Online Pharmacy 

Consumer Protection Act of 2007 on March 23, 2007. Senators 

Biden, Coleman, Leahy, and Cornyn cosponsored the legislation 

(renamed the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection 

Act of 2007). 

This legislation responds to the increasing use of prescription 

controlled substances by adolescents and others for non-medical 

purposes, which has been exacerbated by drug trafficking on the 

Internet. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has acknowledged that 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

1Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 

110th Cong. (Jan. 18, 2007) [hereinafter Jan. 2007 DOJ Hearing], Responses to Questions for 

the Record Posed to Alberto Gonzales, Att’y Gen. of the United States at 11. 2 Rogue Online Pharmacies: the Growing Problem of Internet Drug Trafficking: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2007) [hereinafter Rogue Online Pharmacies 

Hearing] (testimony of Joseph A. Califano, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nat’l Ctr. on 

Addiction and Substance Abuse). 3 Under the Counter: The Diversion and Abuse of Controlled Prescription Drugs in the U.S., 

Nat’l Ctr on Addiction & Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia Univ., July 2005, at 3, available 

at http://www.casacolumbia.org/absolutenm/articlefiles/380-Under%20the%20Counter%20- 

%20Diversion.pdf. 4 Id. at 16. 

this ‘‘is a very significant problem and is a major concern of DOJ 

and the DEA.’’ 1

A. BACKGROUND

The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 

2007 is the latest in a series of bills introduced to address the problem of rogue Internet pharmacies. The current legislation has origins in, but has also been modified substantially from, previous 

bills: S. 3834, the Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 

2006, introduced by Senators Sessions and Feinstein in the 109th 

Congress; S. 399, the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act, 

introduced by Senators Coleman and Feinstein in the 109th Congress; and S. 2464, the Internet Pharmacy Consumer Protection 

Act, introduced by Senators Coleman and Feinstein in the 108th 

Congress. 

B. NEED FOR LEGISLATION

1. The alarming rise in abuse of prescription controlled substances 

Over the past decade, the United States has experienced a growing epidemic of prescription controlled substance abuse involving 

opiates like OxyContin and Vicodin, depressants like Valium and 

Xanax, and stimulants like Ritalin and Adderall. As Joseph A. 

Califano, Jr., former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and now President and Chief Executive Officer of the National 

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia 

University, testified before this Committee, ‘‘Over the past 12 

years, the fastest growing drug abuse among our Nation’s children 

involves prescription drugs.’’ 2

In its 2005 report, Under the Counter: The Diversion and Abuse 

of Controlled Prescription Drugs in the U.S., the National Center 

on Addiction & Substance Abuse (CASA) reported that, from 1992 

to 2002, prescriptions written for such controlled drugs increased 

more than 150 percent, 12 times the rate of increase in population 

and almost three times the rate of increase in prescriptions written 

for all other drugs.3 The number of 12- to 17-year-olds who abused 

controlled prescription drugs jumped 212 percent and the number 

of adults 18 and older abusing such drugs climbed 81 percent. 

Abuse of prescription controlled substances has grown at a rate 

twice that of marijuana abuse; five times that of cocaine abuse; and 

60 times that of heroin abuse.4

Mr. Califano told the Committee about the troubling implications 

that prescription drug abuse posed to children. From 1992 to 2002, 

new abuse of prescription opiates among 12- to 17-year-olds was up 

an astounding 542 percent, more than four times the rate of increase among adults. In 2003, 2.3 million 12- to 17-year-olds (nearVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:13 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR521.XXX SR521

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

5 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2. 

6 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2 (testimony of Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy 

Assistant Adm’r, Office of Diversion Control, U.S. Drug Enforcement Admin.). 7 Jan. 2007 DOJ Hearing, supra note 1, (statement of Alberto Gonzales, former Att’y Gen. of 

the United States); see also, Department of Justice Oversight: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on 

the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (April 19, 2007) [hereinafter Apr. 2007 DOJ Hearing] (statement of 

Alberto Gonzales, former Att’y Gen. of the United States). 8President George W. Bush, Radio Address: 2008 National Drug Control Policy (Mar. 1, 2008) 

[hereinafter Bush Radio Address], available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/ 

20080301.html. 9 ‘‘You’ve Got Drugs!’’ IV: Prescription Drug Pushers on the Internet, Nat’l Ctr on Addiction 

& Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia Univ., May 2007, at 7 [hereinafter You’ve Got Drugs 

IV] (‘‘The Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc., the American Medical 

Continued 

ly one in 10) abused at least one prescription controlled substance; 

for 83 percent of them, the drug was an opiate. According to 

Califano, ‘‘Teens who abuse controlled prescription drugs are twice 

as likely to use alcohol, five times likelier to use marijuana, 12 

times likelier to use heroin, 15 times likelier to use ecstasy and 21 

times likelier to use cocaine, compared to teens who do not abuse 

such drugs.’’ 5

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Diversion Control at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), confirmed in testimony before the Committee that 

there has been an ‘‘alarming’’ increase in non-medical use of addictive prescription drugs. Nationally, misuse of prescription drugs was 

second only to marijuana in 2005, in part due to a false sense of 

security associated with the abuse of prescription substances. Mr. 

Rannazzisi testified that ‘‘many feel as though if a doctor can prescribe it, the drug can’t be as harmful to your health [as illegal 

drugs sold on the street].’’ 6 In reality, however, prescription controlled substances are not just highly dangerous, but also potentially lethal. The consequences for people who seek prescription 

controlled drugs illegally over the Internet can be severe. According 

to the DEA, abuse of prescription drugs can be just as dangerous 

and deadly as the consequences of abusing cocaine and heroin. 

In testimony before the Committee at a Department of Justice 

Oversight hearing in January 2007, Attorney General Alberto 

Gonzales confirmed that the Department was concerned about the 

non-medical use of prescription controlled substances, and he 

verified that such drugs were ‘‘the fastest rising category of drug 

abuse in recent years.’’ 7

President George W. Bush has also acknowledged the growing 

problem of prescription drug abuse. On March 1, 2008, in his national radio address, President Bush noted that abuse of prescription drugs among the Nation’s youth was a growing problem, and 

that the total number of Americans who have died from prescription drug overdoses was also increasing.8

2. Lack of effective controls over prescribed controlled substances 

distributed by rogue Internet pharmacies 

Although many online pharmacies are legitimate businesses that 

offer safe and convenient services similar to those provided by traditional neighborhood pharmacies and large chain drugstores, other 

online pharmacies, often referred to as ‘‘rogue sites,’’ engage in the 

illegal practices of distributing controlled substances without prescriptions or using a truncated prescription process so flawed that 

medical authorities reject it.9


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

Association, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) all agree that online consultations cannot take the place of a face-to-face physical examination with a legitimate physician.’’), available at http://www.casacolumbia.org/ 

absolutenm/articlefiles/380-2007%20You’ve%20Got%20Drugs%20IV.pdf. 10 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2 (testimony of Joseph T. Rannazzisi). 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 You’ve Got Drugs IV, supra note 9, at 4. 14 Id. at 5. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. at 7. 18 Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice SitesTM (VIPPS®), Nat’l Ass’n. of Bds. of Pharmacy, 

available at http://www.nabp.net/index.html?target=/vipps/intro.asp&. 19 Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice SitesTM (VIPPS®), http://www.nabp.net/ (last visited 

Oct. 16, 2007) (the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy reported that 13 pharmacies had 

received VIPPS certification as of Oct. 16, 2007). 

Mr. Rannazzisi testified that the Internet has created a new 

marketplace and delivery system for drug traffickers. Mr. 

Rannazzisi called the Internet a ‘‘perfect medium’’ for the sale of 

illicit drugs, connecting people from anywhere around the world at 

any time and cloaking them in anonymity, and said that the Internet allows for a more rapid means of diverting large quantities of 

controlled substances.10

Indeed, many rogue Internet pharmacies appear to have been set 

up for the very purpose of promoting large sales of controlled substances. According to Mr. Rannazzisi, in 2006, 34 known or suspected rogue Internet pharmacies dispensed 98,566,711 dosages of 

hydrocodone combination products.11 These 34 pharmacies alone 

dispensed enough hydrocodone combination products to supply 

410,000 actual patients with a one-month supply at the maximum 

amount recommended per prescription. Mr. Rannazzisi said that a 

typical, traditional, independent brick and mortar pharmacy sells 

about 180 prescriptions per day. Of these sales, only 11 percent involved controlled substances. However, the typical online pharmacy 

sells around 450 prescriptions each day—425 of these sales, or 95 

percent, involve controlled substances.12

Unfortunately, the number of rogue Internet sites only has 

grown. In CASA’s fourth annual report on this topic, entitled 

You’ve Got Drugs! IV: Prescription Drug Pushers on the Internet, 

it found that from 2006 to 2007 there had been: 

• A 70 percent increase in the number of websites advertising or selling controlled prescription drugs, from 342 to 

581; 13

• A 135 percent increase in the number of websites advertising prescription controlled substances, from 168 to 394; 14

• A seven percent increase in the number of websites selling 

prescription controlled substances, from 174 to 187 (between 

2004 and 2007, the number websites selling prescription controlled substances rose steadily from 154 in 2004 to 187 in 

2007); 15

• Eighty-four percent of the websites selling prescription 

controlled substances do not require a prescription from the 

patient’s physician; 16 and 

• No controls to stop the sale of these drugs to children.17

The current mechanism for certifying Internet pharmacy practice 

is purely voluntary.18 Of the 187 selling sites identified by CASA 

in 2007, only two were certified by Verified Internet Pharmacy 

Practice SitesTM (VIPPS®).19 Most often, according to Mr. Califano, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
5 

20 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2 (testimony of Joseph A. Califano). 21Drug Website Safety Fears Raised, BBC News, Aug. 19, 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ 

health/6951254.stm. 22 Id. 23 You’ve Got Drugs IV, supra note 9, at 7. 24 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2 (testimony of Joseph T. Rannazzisi). 25 Id. 26The Victims, Washington Post, Oct. 21, 2003, at A15, available at http:// 

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062801388.html. 

‘‘Online purchase of controlled prescription drugs happens beneath 

the radar screens of Internet providers, financial institutions, shippers and parents.’’ 20

A recent study by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) revealed the wide scope of rogue Internet pharmacies operating 

worldwide.21 The BBC sought to identify all of the websites selling 

six popular prescription drugs online. In total, the BBC identified 

3,160 online pharmacies. The number of the websites offering prescription controlled substances was not identified, but controls were 

clearly lacking—many websites advertised the fact that no prescription was required to buy medicines, and only four had VIPPS® 

accreditation. According to the BBC, many of the websites falsely 

claimed VIPPS® accreditation, and half of the websites did not 

safeguard customer details. The websites were also heavily trafficked—the websites averaged 32,000 visitors daily, which could 

equate to £2 billion in annual sales for the six drugs examined by 

the BBC study.22

In short, at a minimum, ‘‘[t]ens of thousands of ‘prescriptions’ are 

written each year for controlled and non-controlled prescription 

drugs through such Internet pharmacies, which do not require 

medical records, examinations, lab tests or follow-ups.’’ 23

Mr. Rannazzisi testified that the problem extends beyond Internet sales.24 The sheer volume of prescription controlled substances 

being dispensed anonymously over the Internet also contributes 

significantly to other downstream methods of diversion, like children and young adults who obtain prescription controlled substances from the family medicine cabinet or other family and 

friends. Mr. Rannazzisi said that when these downstream individuals obtain these substances, they generally acquire only a few 

pills at a time. In contrast, individuals ordering over the Internet 

frequently receive 100–120 pills at a time, making the Internet 

purchaser a potentially much higher-volume source for friends and 

family than the family medicine cabinet.25

3. Disastrous consequences 

Ease of access to the Internet, combined with lack of medical supervision, has led to tragic consequences in the online purchase of 

prescription controlled substances. News reports continue to document the growing list of examples: 

• In 1999, an autopsy of 43-year-old Juris Abolins identified 

traces of OxyContin and diazepam (generic Valium). Relatives also 

found a bottle of Tussionex, a cough suppressant containing 

hydrocodone, which Abolins had purchased from a website based in 

Texas. Abolins had told friends he was suffering from kidney 

stones, but an autopsy found no evidence of this condition.26

• In September 2001, Douglas Townsend of South Carolina died 

after driving his car into a fence. His family said he took a generic 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 

27 Id. 28 Id. 29 Id. 30 Vincent Todaro, Center to memorialize local overdose victim Jason Surks, 19, died last year 

due to his abuse of prescription drugs, The Sentinel, Aug. 19, 2004; see also Linda Surks, A 

Lethal Prescription, Partnership for a Drug-Free America (May 18, 2006), http:// 

www.drugfree.org/Portal/Memorials/AlLethallPrescription. 31Thomas Tryon, Wife’s death leads husband to sue Internet prescription purveyors, Sarasota 

Herald-Tribune, Oct. 16, 2005, at F1. 32Keith Epstein, The Deadly Side Effects of Net Pharmacies, Business Week, Dec. 18, 2006, 

available at http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06l51/b4014070.htm; see also 

Abdon M. Pallasch, Man Sues Over Online Prescription, Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 10, 2006, at 

8. 33David Unze, Internet Operation Puts Man in Prison, St. Cloud Times, Aug. 3, 2007, at 1B. 

form of the tranquilizer Xanax, which he purchased from 

myprivatedoc.com, a now-defunct website based in Mesa, Arizona.27

• In April 2003, Elizabeth Carr found her 47-year-old husband 

and former triathlete, James Lewis, dead on their living room 

couch. An autopsy found excessive amounts of the painkiller 

Darvon, purchased through Internet pharmacies based in South Africa, Thailand, and Vietnam.28

• In July 2003, 33-year-old mother Sandra M. Waltz died of an 

overdose of Soma and generic Darvon. Her family discovered that 

she had ordered drugs from a computer at her workplace.29

• In December 2003, 19-year-old Jason Surks died of an accidental overdose of Xanax, which he had been buying along with 

OxyContin over the Internet.30

• In December 2003, Robin Bartlett of Florida died from complications of drug overuse after receiving 4,000 doses of prescription drugs, including Schedule II narcotics like hydrocodone, that 

were purchased over the Internet over a period of just 31⁄2 months. 

After she died, her husband continued to get messages from Internet-based distributors, asking why his wife had not reordered more 

controlled substances.31

• In April 2004, 30-year-old plastics salesman Craig Schmidt suffered brain damage and nearly died after taking the anxiety drug 

Xanax and the painkiller Ultram, both of which he had purchased 

over the Internet. Schmidt reasoned that ‘‘spending $400 for brandname drugs like Xanax and Ultram simply seemed easier and more 

discreet than visiting a doctor.’’ But three weeks after taking tablets containing 2mg of Xanax (quadruple the typical initial dosage 

a physician would normally prescribe) he awoke in a Chicago hospital room with hypoxic encephalopathy—widespread brain damage.32

• In 2006, Justin Pearson of St. Cloud, Minnesota died on 

Christmas Day of an overdose after receiving at least 12 shipments 

of drugs purchased over the Internet. The man who sold Pearson 

and others controlled substances made $24 million before he was 

stopped, even though at least two other people had also died within 

18 months of buying such drugs.33

4. Demonstrated need for a federal legislative solution 

The DOJ recognizes the need for legislation to address the Internet-based pharmacy problem. During a July 2006 Department of 

Justice oversight hearing before this Committee, Attorney General 

Gonzales testified that the sale of pharmaceuticals over the Internet was a great concern and that rogue Internet pharmacies gave 

drug abusers the ability to obtain controlled substances and cirVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:13 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR521.XXX SR521

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
7 

34Department of Justice Oversight: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th 

Cong. (July 18, 2006) (statement of Alberto Gonzales, former Att’y Gen. of the United States). 35 Jan. 2007 DOJ Hearing, supra note 1; see also, Apr. 2007 DOJ Oversight, supra note 7. 36 Jan. 2007 DOJ Hearing, supra note 1, at 12. 37 Id. 38 Id. 39 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2 (testimony of Joseph T. Rannazzisi). 40 Bush Radio Address, supra note 8. 41 Id. 

cumvent the law, as well as sound medical practice. The Attorney 

General testimony noted that because the websites associated with 

these online pharmacies either posted no identifying information or 

simply gave false information, it was difficult for law enforcement 

to track any of the individuals behind the websites. The Attorney 

General also noted that the DOJ was using all available tools to 

investigate and shut down rogue Internet pharmacies, but left no 

doubt of the difficulties law enforcement was facing in these investigations.34

In January 2007, Attorney General Gonzales testified that problems with the illegal sale of prescription drugs over the Internet remained and that increased enforcement efforts were simply not 

enough. Mr. Gonzales indicated that the DOJ looked forward to 

working with Congress to enact additional enforcement tools to address the problem.35

In responses to written follow-up questions, Mr. Gonzales explained that Internet technology had outpaced the enforcement 

scheme set forth in the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which was 

enacted many years before the development and widespread use of 

the Internet.36 Mr. Gonzales stated that the evolution of Internet 

technology had created a haven for individuals to operate rogue 

Internet pharmacies anonymously. Noting that currently no statutory definition of a valid doctor/patient relationship existed, Mr. 

Gonzales’s testimony indicated that additional statutory clarification relating to the sale of controlled substances over the Internet 

would allow law enforcement to more readily distinguish between 

legitimate and rogue online pharmacies, and would also help in 

gathering information pointing to drug abuse patterns.37

Mr. Gonzales also testified that the statutory penalties associated with the sale of Schedule III–V controlled substances, the 

most common controlled substances sold over the Internet, were too 

lenient.38 In later testimony before the Committee, Mr. Rannazzisi 

also singled out Schedule III and IV controlled substances, including hydrocodone combination products and anabolic steroids, as ‘‘increasingly accessible and often illegally purchased through the 

Internet.’’ 39

On March 1, 2008, in his national radio address, President 

George W. Bush called on Congress to enact legislation to address 

rogue Internet pharmacies.40 While noting that legitimate Internet 

pharmacies provide substantial benefits, the President said that 

the Internet has created the opportunity for unscrupulous doctors 

and pharmacists to profit from addiction. The President specifically 

mentioned Ryan Haight, for whom the bill is named, who died of 

an overdose of pain killers that were illegally prescribed over the 

Internet, and called on Congress to pass legislation to end the illegal sale of prescription drugs over the Internet.41

Other groups have also called on Congress to enact legislation to 

address this problem. For example, CASA has noted that the lack 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
8 

42 You’ve Got Drugs IV, supra note 9, at 3. 43 Id. at 8. 44 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2 (testimony of Joseph A. Califano). 45 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2 (testimony of Francine Haight, Founder, 

Ryan’s Cause). 

of clarity in Federal and State law over what constitutes a legitimate prescription and has stated that enforcement efforts on the 

part of law enforcement to address rogue Internet websites have 

been hampered by the lack of clear legislation on the issue.42 CASA 

further concluded that because the Internet transcends State lines, 

Federal action is essential to address rogue Internet pharmacies.43

The bill has received endorsements from law enforcement organizations such as the Fraternal Order of Police and the National 

Narcotics Officers’ Associations Coalition, from industry representatives such as the Healthcare Distribution Management Association, AmerisourceBergen Corporation, eBay Inc., and 

GoDaddy.com, and from the Federation of State Medical Boards. 

II. HISTORY OF THE BILL AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

A. INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL

Senators Feinstein and Sessions introduced S. 980, the Online 

Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2007, on March 23, 2007. 

The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 

Following the introduction of S. 980, Senators Biden, Coleman, 

Leahy and Cornyn joined as cosponsors of this legislation. 

B. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On May 16, 2007, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled, ‘‘Rogue Online Pharmacies: The Growing Problem of Internet 

Drug Trafficking.’’ 44 Witnesses at the hearing included: (1) 

Francine Haight of Laguna Niguel, California, Founder of Ryan’s 

Cause; (2) Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator of 

the Office of Diversion Control at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration; (3) Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Chairman and President 

of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (and former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education 

and Welfare); (4) A. Thomas McLellan, Ph.D., Executive Director of 

the Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania; and (5) Philip Heymann, the James Barr Ames Professor of 

Law at Harvard Law School (and former U.S. Deputy Attorney 

General). 

During the hearing, Ms. Haight testified about her son Ryan, 

who died from an overdose of controlled substances that he ordered 

over the Internet at age 17.45 Ryan, described as ‘‘the boy next 

door,’’ was an honor student who maintained an academic average 

of at least 4.0 throughout high school, and a varsity athlete. Ryan 

also was computer savvy and was considering a possible career in 

computers after college. On February 12, 2001, Ryan’s mother 

found him in bed, lifeless. Later analysis established an overdose 

of Vicodin, with traces of Valium and Morphine. His family did not 

know how Ryan had obtained such drugs until a friend of Ryan 

said he had bought them over the Internet. After examining Ryan’s 

computer, the Haights learned that a doctor Ryan had never seen 

prescribed the medications, and an online pharmacy had delivered 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
9 

46 Id. 47 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2 (testimony of Joseph T. Rannazzisi). 48 Id. 49 Id. 50 Id. See also You’ve Got Drugs IV, supra note 9, at 7 (The National Center on Addiction 

and Substance Abuse calls such physicians ‘‘script doctors,’’ who ‘‘are willing to write prescriptions for a fee.’’ It has identified some fees for certain prescriptions as high as $180); and Epstein, supra note 32 (noting that an ‘‘accomplished’’ doctor of this type, as the hired hand of 

an online pharmacy, ‘‘typically approves Internet prescriptions at a rate of more than 1,000 a 

day—without communicating with the purchaser, or in many cases, reading the questionnaire.’’ 

It estimates that ‘‘[a]n ambitious doctor [of this type] can earn over $1 million a year.’’). See 

also http://sid.senate.gov/dana/home/launch.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.congress.gov%2F (Unfortunately, as the Congressional Research Service notes, ‘‘laws governing medical practice vary 

widely in strength and effectiveness from State to State. While some states have strong laws 

that explicitly prohibit activities such as prescribing drugs without conducting an in-person examination, other states have weak laws, lax enforcement, or both.’’) 51 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2 (testimony of Joseph T. Rannazzisi). 

them to him at home. Ms. Haight testified, ‘‘We did not know that 

drug dealers were in our own family room.’’ Six years after the 

tragedy, Ms. Haight said that little has changed: ‘‘I am still 

shocked at the ease and availability of buying controlled substances 

on the Internet. I still receive emails to purchase drugs daily.’’ She 

concluded: ‘‘Tighter controls on the sale of controlled substances on 

the Internet will not totally solve the drug problem, but I guarantee it will help and it’s a good place to start.’’ 46

Mr. Rannazzisi testified about the methods historically used by 

many rogue Internet pharmacies, and named three primary 

facilitators of illegal pharmaceutical sales—the doctor, the pharmacy, and the Internet facilitator.47 His testimony noted that these 

sales are promoted by Internet facilitators who lack medical training and are not DEA registrants and that these facilitators target 

doctors with significant debt and convince them to approve prescriptions because prospective Internet clients submit minimum 

‘‘medical history’’ forms through the website.48 Mr. Rannazzisi testified that such doctors approve prescriptions for Schedule III or IV 

controlled substances with the mistaken belief or justification that 

these substances are not as dangerous as those listed in Schedule 

II.49 According to Mr. Rannazzisi, for every online prescription that 

doctors authorize, the Internet facilitator pays the doctor $10 to 

$25, and law enforcement has discovered website-affiliated physicians who authorized hundreds of online prescriptions a day.50

Mr. Rannazzisi testified that Internet facilitators also recruit 

brick and mortar pharmacies into their online schemes, often targeting small, independent pharmacies struggling to make ends 

meet.51 According to the DEA, the Internet facilitator tells these 

pharmacies that all they have to do is fill and ship these prescriptions to customers. In addition to paying the pharmacy for the cost 

of the prescription, the Internet facilitator also pays the pharmacy 

a negotiated fee, sometimes amounting to millions of dollars. 

Mr. Rannazzisi also testified that Internet facilitators host the 

websites that draw online customers into the rogue Internet pharmacy scheme. According to Mr. Rannazzisi, these websites often 

mislead customers by advertising the website as an actual pharmacy. In reality, the rogue Internet websites offer only a few pharmaceutical products for sale, typically limited to prescription controlled substances and lifestyle drugs. Mr. Rannazzisi testified that 

website advertising typically emphasizes the ability of online customers to acquire controlled substances without prescription or an 

appropriate medical examination, and none of the rogue Internet 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
10 

52 Id. 53 Id. 54 Id. 55 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2 (testimony of Joseph A. Califano). 56 Id. 57 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2 (statement of A. Thomas McLellan, Ph.D., 

Executive Dir., Treatment Research Inst., Univ. of Penn.). 58See, e.g., Gilbert M. Gaul and Mary Pat Flaherty, Doctors Medicate Strangers on Web, 

Washington Post, Oct. 23, 2003, at A1. 

pharmacies require an in-person medical examination from a licensed physician. He also testified that rogue Internet pharmacy 

websites rarely contain any identifying information on the website 

about where the pharmacy is physically located or who owns and 

operates it.52

In addition, Mr. Rannazzisi’s testimony highlighted how customers of rogue Internet pharmacies obtain prescription controlled 

substances online. Typically, customers simply filled out a medical 

questionnaire, without any meaningful interaction between a doctor and the customer. In many cases, the questionnaire simply is 

a ruse created to identify exactly what type of prescription controlled substance the customer wants to purchase. In some cases, 

such website questionnaires will not permit the customer to continue until specific information justifying the purchase of a particular prescription controlled substance is entered.53

Mr. Rannazzisi also noted that prescription controlled substances 

in the United States are legitimately prescribed and dispensed 

within a closed system of distribution. With rogue Internet pharmacies, however, complicity exist among all of the participants, effectively eliminating all of the normal checks and balances. While 

acknowledging that rogue sites outside of the United States may 

prove more difficult to regulate, Mr. Rannazzisi testified that the 

‘‘DEA believes a majority of the rogue sites operating today are 

based in the United States and work in concert with unscrupulous 

doctors and pharmacies.’’ Other evidence indicated that offshore 

and foreign rogue sites are also a very significant problem.54

Mr. Califano testified that Federal enforcement efforts aimed at 

illegal Internet drug trafficking was complicated by outdated Federal law enacted before the advent of the Internet.55 Given the 

widespread public health threat that rogue Internet pharmacies 

posed, Mr. Califano called on Congress to take action legislatively 

to clarify Federal law to prohibit the sale or purchase of prescription controlled substances on the Internet without a valid prescription, and to require certification of online pharmacies to assure 

that they meet rigorous standards of professional practice. Mr. 

Califano specifically described S. 980 as an important ‘‘step in the 

right direction.’’ 56

Dr. McLellan, whose Treatment Research Institute first completed a study of this issue in 2004, testified that ‘‘anyone—regardless of age or medical need can purchase pharmaceutical grade opiates, barbiturates, benzodiazepines and stimulants over the Internet without a prescription.’’ 57 Despite intensive publicity in the 

past,58 Dr. McLellan testified that nothing has changed and that 

it remains as easy to buy prescription controlled substances online 

as it is to buy a book or compact disc. He noted that while illicit 

drug use by teens had dropped 23% over the past five years, new 

users of prescription drugs have caught up with new users of marijuana. Dr. McLellan blamed the increase in prescription drug abusVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:13 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR521.XXX SR521

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
11 

59 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2 (statement of A. Thomas McLellan). 60 Id. 61 Rogue Online Pharmacies Hearing, supra note 2 (statement of Philip Heymann, James Barr 

Ames Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, former U.S. Deputy Att’y Gen. of the United 

States). 62 Id. (‘‘[O]n receipt of information about illicit transactions from independent monitoring 

groups or from their own internal monitors, the financial institutions would and should be expected to identify the accounts that are being abused, presumably by putting through a ‘test’ 

order of their own. The drug merchant’s bank would be contractually obligated to know its customer and to take steps to penetrate any pseudonyms used by the drug dealer. The dealer’s merchant bank would also cut off credit to the offending account and to those behind the account 

if it is really a front—furnishing the information it learns about the illegal transaction to other 

credit card companies and to law enforcement.’’). 63 ‘‘Keep Internet Neighborhoods Safe’’: A Proposal for Preventing the 1AIllegal Internet Sales of 

Controlled Substances to Minors, Harvard Law School Internat’l Ctr. for Criminal Justice, July 

13th, 2006, available at http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/criminal-justice/kins-draft.pdf. 

ers on the rise of rogue Internet pharmacies. He testified that 

‘‘Internet savvy teenagers with their own credit cards or access to 

their parents’ cards are increasingly disposed to prescription drugs 

to get high.’’ In particular, Dr. McLellan singled out OxyContin and 

Vicodin—both in the same family of drugs as heroin—as two drugs 

teenagers are increasingly abusing. However, unlike heroin, 

OxyContin and Vicodin are appropriate for pain management when 

prescribed and taken under a physician’s care, but are frequently 

available in large quantities through unscrupulous doctors and 

rogue Internet pharmacies.59

Dr. McClellan also discussed some of the more troubling marketing principles of Internet pharmacies’ websites—including free 

or discounted first orders, shipments with no identifying information, and even credit card billings for drug orders made to look like 

charged ‘‘ring tones’’ for a student’s cellular phone. While deferring 

to others on the proper policy response, Dr. McLellan testified: 

[We] should do all in our power to put it out of the reach 

of children. . . . for the majority of people in this country 

suffering from addiction, the roots of the disease can be 

traced to adolescence. More than 95% of people who are 

dependent on alcohol or other drugs started before they 

were 20 years old.60

Mr. Heymann testified that despite the public outcry against 

rogue Internet pharmacies, nothing was being done legislatively to 

stop the problem.61 In Mr. Heymann’s view, however, many rogue 

websites selling such narcotic painkillers as OxyContin and Vicodin 

are located abroad and will not be deterred by U.S. threats of increased penalties. Accordingly, Mr. Heymann suggested broader 

legislative approaches, such as Government funding of a private 

monitoring group, with immunity granted to companies taking actions recommended by that group. Other suggestions included legislation forcing Internet search engines to place warning banners 

on all online pharmacy websites, and efforts by Congress to enlist 

credit card companies and banks in enforcement efforts.62 Mr. 

Heymann noted that his suggestions arose after six plenary meetings at Harvard Law School, which were attended by a collaboration of affected parties, including leaders of companies that play 

key roles in Internet commerce, banks, credit card companies and 

private carriers.63 However, Mr. Heymann acknowledged that ‘‘not 

all agreed with each of our recommendations’’ that were being suggested by the plenary group’s 5–6 leaders. While leading credit 

card companies and Internet service providers did express general 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
12 

64 Buyer Beware: The Danger of Purchasing Pharmaceuticals over the Internet—Day 2 Federal and Private Sector Responses: Hearing Before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, S. Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 108th Cong., (2004); U.S. Gen. 

Accounting Office, Internet Pharmacies: Some Pose Safety Risks for Consumers and Are Unreliable in Their Business Practices (2004), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04888t.pdf. 65 Hearings Before the H. Comm. on Gov’t Reform on Internet Drug Sales, 108th Cong. (2003, 

2004) (testimony of William K. Hubbard, Assoc. Comm’r for Policy and Planning, Food and Drug 

Admin., Dep’t of Health and Human Servs.). 

support for many of the plenary group’s ideas, their preference was 

for encouraging voluntary compliance rather than legislative or 

regulatory mandates. Several plenary participants, as well as several panelists at a Judiciary Committee roundtable briefing held by 

the Internet Drug Caucus Advisory Committee on June 22, expressed opposition to adding these proposals to S. 980. 

In addition to the hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee 

in the 110th Congress, other congressional hearings have also examined problems of rogue Internet pharmacies, providing background for this legislation. For example, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate’s Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a hearing on June 17, 

2004, following the issuance of a Government Accountability Office 

report that documented the ease with which prescription drugs, including addictive narcotic pain killers, could be purchased over the 

Internet without a prescription.64 On March 27, 2003 and March 

18, 2004, the House of Representatives’ Committee on Government 

Reform also held hearings at which the FDA’s Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning discussed illegal Internet sales of 

controlled substances.65

Chairman Leahy placed S. 980 on the Committee’s executive 

business meeting agenda for consideration on September 20, 2007, 

and the bill was considered by the Committee on that same day. 

Senator Feinstein introduced an amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to the original bill which was adopted by the Committee. 

In addition to making various substantive changes, the substitute 

named the bill in honor of Ryan Haight. The Committee, by voice 

vote, reported the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2007, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, 

favorably to the full Senate. 

III. SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE BILL

Section 1. Short title 

This section provides that the legislation may be cited as the 

‘‘Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2007,’’ 

in honor of Ryan Haight, a California high school honors student 

and athlete who died in 2001 from an overdose of controlled substances that he had purchased from a rogue online pharmacy. 

Section 2. Requirement of a valid prescription for controlled substances dispensed by means of the Internet 

This section adds a new subsection to section 309 of the Controlled Substances Act that requires a ‘‘valid prescription’’ for dispensing a controlled substance over the Internet. A ‘‘valid prescription’’ is defined as one issued for a legitimate medical purpose in 

the usual course of professional practice, by a practitioner who has 

conducted at least one in-person medical evaluation of the patient, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
13 

or a covering practitioner (as requested by a practitioner who had 

conducted an in-person medical evaluation of the patient within the 

past 24 months). Certain telemedicine practices are exempted from 

the in-person medical evaluation requirement. 

The Committee recognizes that telemedicine is a practice tool 

that can improve health outcomes and reduce costs. It is not the 

intent of the Committee to restrict the legitimate practice of telemedicine or the emerging practices of telemedicine which are consistent with medical practice guidelines of the State in which the 

practitioner is licensed, provided such practices do not contravene 

the goal of effectively controlling the diversion of controlled substances. 

The Committee recognizes that telemedicine offers options for 

specialty and primary care not available in many remote areas, 

and that practitioners with prescriptive authority are often not 

available on-site at the time of tele-consultations. It is not the intent of the Committee to place unnecessary restrictions on the operations or growth of telemedicine organizations that both conduct 

telemedicine consultations and provide Internet prescription services to its patients. 

Accordingly, the statute provides that the Attorney General and 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services may promulgate regulations that allow for the full practice of telemedicine consistent 

with medical practice guidelines, so long as those regulations continue to effectively control diversion. The Committee anticipates 

that the Attorney General and the Secretary may update these regulations on an ongoing basis to reflect changes in telemedicine. 

The legislation is intended to regulate practices related to the delivery, distribution, or dispensing of schedule II, III, IV, and V controlled substances by means of the Internet. The bill does not address the delivery, distribution, or dispensing of any non-controlled 

substance by means of the Internet or any other means. The bill 

is not intended to infringe upon the powers of the Department of 

Health and Human Services and its Secretary with respect to noncontrolled substances. Nor is it intended to infringe upon the traditional power of the States to regulate the practices of medicine and 

pharmacy with respect to the prescription of non-controlled substances. It is not the intent of the Committee to affect the delivery, 

distribution, or dispensing of non-controlled substances, approved 

by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the regulatory 

bodies of the States, by means of the legislation. 

Section 3. Amendments to the Controlled Substances Act 

This section makes a number of changes to the Controlled Substances Act: 

Section 3(a)—Definitions 

This subsection defines ‘‘Internet’’, ‘‘deliver, distribute, or dispense by means of the Internet’’, ‘‘online pharmacy,’’ and ‘‘practice 

of telemedicine.’’ It also exempts from the definition of an ‘‘online 

pharmacy’’ non-pharmacy practitioners and mere advertisements 

that do not attempt to facilitate an actual transaction. 

It is not the intent of the Committee, in paragraph (55)(B), to 

prohibit a licensed pharmacist, acting pursuant to a patient’s request via the Internet, and in the usual course of professional pracVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:13 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR521.XXX SR521

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
14 

tice, from contacting the patient’s prescriber and receiving an order 

for a new prescription for a previously prescribed controlled substance that has expired or has no remaining valid refills. Similarly, 

as a general rule, it is not the intent of the Committee, in paragraphs (56)(A), (B), and (C) to prohibit a pharmacist from contacting a practitioner under all the circumstances described in either paragraph (55) or (56). The lone exception is that a practitioner, acting in the usual course of professional practice and for 

a legitimate medical purpose, can direct the pharmacist that the 

patient should be prescribed a different controlled substance and 

specify the new prescription, provided that the pharmacist subsequently contacts the patient by telephone or in person to notify the 

patient of the practitioner’s change in prescription and provides appropriate information and instructions to the patient regarding the 

change in medication. 

Therefore, it is the intent of the Committee that the modified 

registration, reporting, and website posting requirements applicable to online pharmacies would not apply to DEA-registered pharmacies whose Internet business consists solely of permitting consumers to use the pharmacy’s Internet site to order refills in the 

scenarios described above. 

Section 3(b)—Registration requirements 

This subsection establishes that a pharmacy that seeks to dispense controlled substances via the Internet must register in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General. 

Section 3(c)—Reporting requirements 

This subsection requires that online pharmacies must report on 

substances dispensed in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General. 

Section 3(d)—Online pharmacy licensing and disclosure requirement 

This subsection requires that online pharmacies must clearly display notification that they comply with certain requirements set 

forth in the bill: Pharmacies must post information regarding: 

name of the owner, owner’s contact information, list of states in 

which the pharmacy is licensed to distribute prescription drugs or 

controlled substances, name of the pharmacy, street address of the 

pharmacy, name and degree of pharmacist in charge, contact information for pharmacist in charge, and the name and contact information of affiliated practitioners. Their websites must also post a 

statement of compliance. Online pharmacies must also notify the 

Attorney General and State boards of pharmacy 30 days before 

they begin delivering, distributing, or dispensing a controlled substance. 

Section 3(e)—Increased penalties for illegal distribution of 

schedules III–V controlled substances 

This subsection increases the penalties for all illegal distributions of Schedule III, IV and V controlled substances (not just 

Internet sales). For Schedule III controlled substances, the maximum penalties are increased to 10 years for first offenders and 20 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
15 

years for repeat offenders, and to 20 and 30 years, respectively, if 

death or serious bodily injury results. For Schedule IV substances, 

the new penalties are 5 years for first offenders and 10 years for 

repeat offenders. For Schedule V repeat offenders, the maximum 

penalty increases to 6 years. Supervised release terms after imprisonment for a Schedule V offense are also authorized for the first 

time. 

Section 3(f)—Internet sales of controlled substances 

This subsection clarifies that knowingly causing or facilitating 

the delivery or dispensing of controlled substances over the Internet in violation of this Act can be prosecuted and penalized in the 

same manner as illegal hand-to-hand drug sales. The subsection 

clarifies, however, that this provision does not apply to persons 

who register and follow the requirements of this Act, to those who 

merely advocate usage or list pricing information but do not promote or facilitate an actual transaction involving a controlled substance, or to anyone providing telecommunications, Internet services, or links to other websites unless they are acting in concert 

with persons violating this Act. 

Section 3(g)—Advertising controlled substances 

This subsection clarifies that Internet sales of controlled substances must follow the terms of this Act. 

Section 3(h)—Injunctive relief 

This subsection authorizes State attorneys general to file civil 

lawsuits in Federal court against online pharmacies and obtain nationwide relief if the residents of a State are threatened or adversely affected by noncompliance, and the U.S. Attorney General 

is notified in advance and also given a chance to intervene in the 

case within 120 days. 

Section 3(i)—Forfeiture 

This subsection expands the scope of property subject to civil forfeiture under Federal drug laws, to encompass ‘‘any property used, 

in any manner or part, to commit or to facilitate the commission 

of a violation’’ under titles II or III of the Comprehensive Drug 

Abuse Prevention and Control Act. 

Concerns have been expressed about the potential impact of this 

provision upon responsible companies engaged in providing Internet marketplaces, electronic payment services, or similar e-commerce services whose property may be used without the companies’ 

knowledge and consent to commit the new criminal offenses created by the bill to address illicit online pharmacies. Since such offenses will necessarily involve use of the Internet and likely will involve electronic payments, the Committee thinks it prudent to spell 

out its intent as to how this new authority should be used in this 

context. 

The intent of section 3(i), as applied to online pharmacies, is to 

authorize Federal civil forfeiture of non-innocent owners’ property 

that facilitates violations of the new statutes created by the bill. In 

this manner, this provision of the bill is intended to provide Federal law enforcement with an additional tool to combat the proliferation of Internet-based criminal operations that employ everVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:13 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR521.XXX SR521

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
16 

changing methods and technologies to deliberately distribute pharmaceutical controlled substances without a sound medical basis. 

This expanded civil forfeiture authority is necessary to provide law 

enforcement with a more effective and rapid means to bring to a 

halt the operation of such rogue Web sites, which the bill is designed to prohibit. 

However, section 3(i) is not intended to authorize forfeiture of the 

property, including the computer equipment, facilities or networks 

of legitimate Internet marketplace companies or payment card systems that take reasonable precautions against the illegal use of 

their property, do not consent to such use, and, upon learning of 

any such use, do all that reasonably can be expected under the circumstances to terminate it. The Committee notes that responsible 

companies in this sector have adopted strong policies against use 

of their networks, websites, or services for illegal purposes, and 

have cooperated with law enforcement when they learned that 

their services were being abused for criminal purposes. The Committee commends those companies and encourages them to maintain and strengthen their anti-crime policies and their efforts to 

prevent criminal use of their property. 

The Committee is aware that many existing civil forfeiture statutes authorize forfeiture of property that is involved in or facilitates other violations of Federal law that may be facilitated 

through the abuse of the Internet. This existing authority has not 

had disruptive impact on legitimate Internet marketplaces, payment card systems, or their legitimate customers because it has 

been exercised carefully and prudently to date, in accordance with 

internal controls intended to prevent misuse. The Committee urges 

that such careful enforcement continue in service of the dual goals 

of detecting and preventing criminal use of the Internet and fostering the healthy growth of legitimate e-commerce. 

Section 3(j)—Import and Export Act 

This subsection makes the same penalty changes to the Import 

and Export Act that are being made to the Controlled Substances 

Act, so that illegal imports and exports of controlled substances 

will continue to receive the same penalties as illegal domestic sales. 

Section 3(k)—Effective date 

This subsection clarifies that the Act will become effective 60 

days after enactment. 

Section 3(l)—Regulations and guidelines 

This subsection specifies that the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations as necessary to effect the Act, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission shall add or modify the Sentencing Guidelines 

as warranted. 

Section 3(m)—Report to Congress 

This subsection establishes that the DEA, after consulting with 

the State Department, must provide a report to Congress within 

180 days of the Act’s enactment, and annually thereafter for 2 

years, describing the foreign supply chains and sources of conVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:13 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR521.XXX SR521

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
17 

66 As CASA recommends, ‘‘[T]he State Department should encourage and assist foreign Governments to crack down on Internet sites illegally selling controlled prescription drugs to U.S. 

citizens.’’ 

trolled substances illegally offered over the Internet, and the efforts 

and strategies being used to confront these challenges globally.66

IV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, S. 980, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, October 25, 2007. 

Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 980, the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2007. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

S. 980—The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection 

Act 

Summary: S. 980 would require businesses that distribute controlled substances using the Internet to register with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). CBO estimates that implementing S. 980 would have no significant net cost to the Federal 

Government. Enacting the bill could affect direct spending and revenues, but CBO estimates that any net effects would not be significant. 

S. 980 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would preempt 

certain State regulations governing controlled substances that are 

manufactured, distributed, or dispensed via the Internet. CBO estimates, however, that states would incur few, if any, costs as a result of that preemption, and therefore the costs to comply with the 

mandate would be well below the threshold established in UMRA 

($66 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The registration and reporting requirements and the requirement of a valid prescription for Internet distribution of controlled 

substances constitute private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

CBO estimates that the direct costs of those mandates would not 

exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($131 million in 2007, 

adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: 

Spending subject to appropriation 

S. 980 would establish new crimes and increase penalties for activities relating to illegal use of controlled substances. Because the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
18 

bill would establish new offenses, the government would be able to 

pursue cases that it otherwise would not be able to prosecute. We 

expect that S. 980 would apply to a relatively small number of offenders, however, so any increase in costs for law enforcement, 

court proceedings, or prison operations would not be significant. 

Any such costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated 

funds. 

Direct spending and revenues 

S. 980 would require businesses that distribute controlled substances using the Internet to register with the DEA. The DEA 

would charge a registration fee of $551 for a three-year period. 

Based on information from the DEA about the likely number of 

new registrants, CBO estimates that the agency would collect no 

more than a few million dollars each year. The DEA would spend 

those fees without further appropriation, mostly in the same year, 

to conduct inspections and carry out administrative activities related to the new registrants. Thus, CBO estimates that S. 980 

would have no significant net effect on DEA spending. 

Because those prosecuted and convicted under S. 980 could be 

subject to criminal fines, the Federal government might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, then deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and 

later spent. CBO expects that any additional revenues and direct 

spending would not be significant because of the small number of 

cases likely to be affected. 

Estimated impact on State, local, and Tribal Governments: S. 

980 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA 

because it would preempt certain State regulations of controlled 

substances that are manufactured, distributed, or dispensed via the 

Internet. Under current law, states license pharmacies and doctors 

to dispense controlled substances within each state. This bill would 

prohibit the sale of controlled substances that are sold over the 

Internet without a prescription and would require doctors to have 

at least one in-person consultation with patients for whom they 

prescribe controlled medications. Currently, all states allow medications to be purchased via the Internet, but some states do not 

specifically require in-person consultations for prescriptions. Enacting this provision would preempt State authority. CBO estimates, 

however, that states would incur few, if any, costs as a result of 

that preemption, and therefore the costs to comply with the mandate would be well below the threshold established in UMRA ($66 

million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimated impact on the private sector: The registration and reporting requirements and the requirement to have a valid prescription for distributing controlled substances via the Internet constitute private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. CBO estimates that the direct costs of those mandates would not exceed the 

threshold established in UMRA ($131 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Mark Grabowicz; Impact on 

State, local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on 

the private sector: Colin Baker. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
19 

67See Legal Issues Related to Prescription Drug Sales on the Internet (RS21711, updated 

September 19, 2007) https://sid.senate.gov/dana/home/launch.cgi?url=http%3A%2Fst%2F 

www.congress.gov%2F. 68 You’ve Got Drugs IV: Prescription Drug Pushers on the Internet, at 8 (White Paper issued 

by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, May 2007). 

V. REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b)(1), rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that the passage of 

S. 980 will require the Department of Justice to promulgate regulations governing the registration of, and reporting requirements imposed on, online pharmacies that dispense controlled substances by 

means of the Internet, and may require the Department of Health 

and Human Services and the Department of Justice to promulgate 

regulations governing certain practices relating to the practice of 

telemedicine. 

VI. CONCLUSION

The Congressional Research Service has stated: 

The current legal framework for regulating online pharmacies and doctors is a patchwork of Federal and State 

laws regarding controlled substances, prescription drugs, 

pharmacies, and the practice of medicine. Although many 

doctors and pharmacies who use the Internet prescribe 

and dispense drugs in a safe and legal fashion, others have 

exploited gaps in the current system to prescribe and dispense potentially dangerous quantities of highly addictive 

prescription drugs.67

Passage and enactment of the bipartisan Ryan Haight Online 

Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2007, S. 980, will address 

the intolerable ‘‘wide-open channel of distribution’’ that currently 

exists for prescription controlled substances sold over the Internet, 

which represents an ‘‘easy availability [that] has enormous implications for public health, particularly the health of our children.’’ 68

The Committee believes that the time has come for Congress to act, 

and that S. 980 is an appropriate response that should be adopted 

by Congress. 

VII. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 980, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 21, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 13—DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND 

CONTROL 

* * * * * * * 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
20 

Subchapter I—Control and Enforcement 

* * * * * * * 

Part A—Introductory Provisions 

* * * * * * * 

§ 802. Definitions 

As used in this subchapter: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(50) The term ‘‘Internet’’ means collectively the myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, including equipment 

and operating software, which comprise the interconnected 

worldwide network of networks that employ the Transmission 

Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocol to such protocol, to communicate information to 

all kinds by wire or radio. 

(51) The term ‘‘deliver, distribute, or dispense by means of the 

Internet’’ refers, respectively, to any deliver, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance that is caused or facilitated 

by means of the Internet. 

(52) The term ‘‘online pharmacy’’— 

(A) means a person, entity, or Internet site, whether in 

the United States or abroad, that knowingly or intentionally delivers, distributes, or dispenses, or offers or attempts to deliver, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance by means of the Internet: and 

(B) does not include— 

(i) manufacturers or distributors registered under 

subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 303 who do not 

dispense controlled substances to an unregistered individual or entity; 

(ii) nonpharmacy practitioners who are registered 

under section 303(f) and whose activities are authorized by that registration; 

(iii) mere advertisements that do not attempt to facilitate an actual transaction involving a controlled 

substance; or 

(iv) a person, entity, or Internet site which is not in 

the United States and does not facilitate the delivery, 

distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance by 

means of the Internet to any person in the United 

States. 

(53) The term ‘‘homepage’’ means the opening or main page 

or screen of the website of an online pharmacy that is viewable 

on the Internet. 

(54) The term ‘‘practice of telemedicine’’ means the practice of 

medicine in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws 

by a practitioner (other than a pharmacist) who is at a location 

remote from the patient and is communicating with the patient, 

or health care professional who is treating the patient, using a 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
21 

telecommunications system referred to in section 1834(m) of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(m)). 

* * * * * * * 

Part C—Registration of Manufacturers, Distributors, and 

Dispensers of Controlled Substances 

§ 823. Registration requirements 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(i) DISPENSER OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES BY MEANS OF THE

INTERNET.— 

(1) An online pharmacy shall obtain a registration specifically authorizing such activity, in accordance with regulations 

promulgated by the Attorney General. In determining whether 

to grant an application for such registration, the Attorney General shall apply the factors set forth in subsection (f). 

(2) Registration under this subsection shall be in addition to, 

and not in lieu of, registration under subsection (f). 

(3) This subsection does not apply to pharmacies that merely 

advertise by means of the Internet but do not attempt to facilitate an actual transaction involving a controlled substance by 

means of the Internet. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 827. Records and reports of registrants 

(a) INVENTORY.— 

* * * * * * * 

(d) PERIODIC REPORTS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL.— 

(1) Every manufacturer registered under section 823 of this 

title shall, at such time or times and in such form as the Attorney General may require, make periodic reports to the Attorney General of every sale, delivery or other disposal by him of 

any controlled substance, and each distributor shall make such 

reports with respect to narcotic controlled substances, identifying by the registration number assigned under this subchapter the person or establishment (unless exempt from registration under section 822(d) of this title) to whom such sale, 

delivery, or other disposal was made. 

(2) A pharmacy registered under section 303(i) shall report to 

the Attorney General the controlled substances dispensed under 

such registration, in such manner and accompanied by such information as the Attorney General by regulation shall require. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 829. Prescriptions 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES DISPENSED BY MEANS OF THE

INTERNET.— 

(1) No controlled substance may be delivered, distributed, or 

dispensed by means of the Internet without a valid prescription. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
22 

(2) As used in this subsection: 

(A) The term ‘‘valid prescription’’ means a prescription 

that is issued for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual 

course of professional practice by— 

(i) a practitioner who has conducted at least one inperson medical evaluation of the patient; or 

(ii) a covering practitioner. 

(B)(i) The term ‘‘in-person medical evaluation’’ means a 

medical evaluation that is conducted with the patient in 

the physical presence of the practitioner, without regard to 

whether portions of the evaluation are conducted by other 

health professionals. 

(ii) Nothing in the clause (i) shall be construed to imply 

that one in-person medical evaluation demonstrates that a 

prescription has been issued for a legitimate medical purpose within the usual course of professional practice. 

(C) The term ‘‘covering practitioner’’ means, with respect 

to a patient, a practitioner who conducts a medical evaluation (other than an in-person medical evaluation) at the request of a practitioner who— 

(i) has conducted at least one in-person medical evaluation of the patient during the 24-month period ending on the date of that medical evaluation; and 

(ii) is temporarily unavailable to conduct the evaluation of the patient. 

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall apply to— 

(A) the delivery, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance by a practitioner engaged in the practice 

of telemedicine if— 

(i) the telemedicine is being conducted while the patient is being treated by, and physically located in, a 

hospital or clinic registered under section 303(f), and 

the practitioner conducting the practice of telemedicine 

is registered under section 303(f) in the State in which 

the patient is located and is acting in the usual course 

of professional practice and in accordance with applicable State law; 

(ii) the telemedicine is being conducted while the patient is being treated by, and in the physical presence 

of, a practitioner registered under section 303(f) who is 

acting in the usual course of professional practice, and 

the practitioner conducting the practice of telemedicine 

is registered under section 303(f) in the State in which 

the patient is located and is acting in the usual course 

of professional practice and in accordance with applicable State law; or 

(iii) the telemedicine is being conducted under any 

other circumstances that the Attorney General and the 

Secretary have jointly, by regulation, determined to be 

consistent with effective controls against diversion and 

otherwise consistent with the public health and safety; 

or 

(B) The dispensing or selling of a controlled substance 

pursuant to the practices as determined by the Attorney 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
23 

General by regulation, which shall be consistent with effective controls against diversion. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 830. Regulation of listed chemicals and certain machine 

* * * * * * * 

§ 831. Online pharmacy licensing and disclosure requirements 

(a) IN GENERAL.—An online pharmacy shall display in a visible 

and clear manner on its homepage a statement that it complies with 

the requirements of this section with respect to the delivery or sale 

or offer for sale of controlled substances and shall at all times display on the homepage of its Internet site a declaration of compliance 

in accordance with this section. 

(b) LICENSURE.—Each online pharmacy shall comply with the requirements of State law concerning the licensure of pharmacies in 

each State from which it, and in each State to which it, delivers, 

distributes, or dispenses or offers to deliver, distribute, or dispense 

controlled substances by means of the Internet. 

(c) COMPLIANCE.—No online pharmacy or practitioner shall deliver, distribute, or dispense by means of the Internet a controlled 

substance without a valid prescription (as defined in section 309(e)) 

and each online pharmacy shall comply with all applicable requirements of Federal and State law. 

(d) INTERNET PHARMACY SITE DISCLOSURE INFORMATION.—Each 

online pharmacy site shall post in a visible and clear manner on 

the homepage of its Internet site or on a page directly linked from 

its homepage the following: 

(1) The name of the owner, street address of the online pharmacy’s principal place of business, telephone number, and email 

address. 

(2) A list of the States in which the online pharmacy, and any 

pharmacy which dispenses, delivers, or distributes a controlled 

substance on behalf of the online pharmacy, is licensed to dispense controlled substances or prescription drugs and any applicable license number. 

(3) For each pharmacy identified on its license in each State 

in which it is licensed to engage in the practice of pharmacy 

and for each pharmacy which dispenses or ships controlled substances on behalf of the online pharmacy: 

(A) The name of the pharmacy. 

(B) The street address of the pharmacy. 

(C) The name, professional degree, and licensure of the 

pharmacist-in-charge. 

(D) The telephone number at which the pharmacist-incharge can be contacted. 

(E) A certification that each pharmacy which dispenses 

or ships controlled substances on behalf of the online pharmacy is registered under this part to deliver, distribute, or 

dispense by means of the Internet controlled substances. 

(4) The name, address, professional degree, and licensure of 

practitioners who provide medical consultations through the 

website for the purpose of providing prescriptions. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
24 

(5) A telephone number or numbers at which the practitioners 

described in paragraph (4) may be contacted. 

(6) The following statement, unless revised by the Attorney 

General by regulation: This online pharmacy will only dispense 

a controlled substance to a person who has a valid prescription 

issued for a legitimate medical purpose based upon a medical 

relationship with a prescribing practitioner, which includes at 

least one prior in-person medical evaluation. This online pharmacy complies with section 309(e) of the Controlled Substances 

Act (21 U.S.C. 829(e)). 

(e) NOTIFICATION.—(1) Thirty days prior to offering a controlled 

substance for sale, delivery, distribution, or dispensing, the online 

pharmacy shall notify the Attorney General, in the form and manner as the Attorney General shall determine, and the State boards 

of pharmacy in any States in which the online pharmacy offers to 

sell, deliver, distribute, or dispense controlled substances. 

(2) The notification required under paragraph (1) shall include— 

(A) the information required to be posted on the online pharmacy’s Internet site under subsection (d) and shall notify the 

Attorney General and the applicable State boards of pharmacy, 

under penalty of perjury, that the information disclosed on its 

Internet site under to subsection (d) is true and accurate; 

(B) the online pharmacy’s Internet site address and a certification that the online pharmacy shall notify the Attorney General of any change in the address at least 30 days in advance; 

and 

(C) the Drug Enforcement Administration registration numbers of any pharmacies and practitioners referred to in subsection (d), as applicable. 

(3) An online pharmacy that is already operational as of the effective date of this section, shall notify the Attorney General and applicable State boards of pharmacy in accordance with this subsection 

not later than 30 days after the effective date of this section. 

(f) DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE.—On and after the date on 

which it makes the notification under subsection (e), each online 

pharmacy shall display on the homepage of its Internet site, in such 

form as the Attorney General shall by regulation require, a declaration that it has made such notification to the Attorney General. 

(g) REPORTS.—Any statement, declaration, notification, or disclosure required under this section shall be considered a report required to be kept under this part. 

* * * * * * * 

Part D—Offenses and Penalties 

§ 841. Prohibited acts A 

(a) UNLAWFUL ACTS.— 

* * * * * * * 

(b) PENALTIES.—Except as otherwise provided in section 849, 

859, 860, or 861 of this title, any person who violates subsection 

(a) of this section shall be sentenced as follows: 

(1)(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
25 

(C) In the case of a controlled substance in schedule I or II, 

gamma hydroxybutyric acid (including when scheduled as an 

approved drug product for purposes of section 3(a)(1)(B) of the 

Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000), or ø1 gram of¿ flunitrazepam, except as provided in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D), such person shall be 

sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years 

and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of 

such substance shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment 

of not less than twenty years or more than life, a fine not to 

exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the 

provisions of title 18 or $1,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $5,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a 

prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, 

such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 

not more than 30 years and if death or serious bodily injury 

results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to 

life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that 

authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or 

$2,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $10,000,000 if 

the defendant is other than an individual, or both. Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18, any sentence imposing a term 

of imprisonment under this paragraph shall, in the absence of 

such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of 

at least 3 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and 

shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 6 years in addition to such term of 

imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of 

any person sentenced under the provisions of this subparagraph which provide for a mandatory term of imprisonment if 

death or serious bodily injury results, nor shall a person so 

sentenced be eligible for parole during the term of such a sentence. 

(D) In the case of less than 50 kilograms of marihuana, except in the case of 50 or more marihuana plants regardless of 

weight, 10 kilograms of hashish, or one kilogram of hashish oil 

øor in the case of any controlled substance in schedule III 

(other than gamma hydroxybutyric acid), or 30 milligrams of 

flunitrazepam¿, such person shall, except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection, be sentenced to a term 

of imprisonment of not more than 5 years, a fine not to exceed 

the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $250,000 if the defendant is an individual 

or $1,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or 

both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person 

shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 

10 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $500,000 

if the defendant is an individual or $2,000,000 if the defendant 

is other than an individual, or both. Notwithstanding section 

3583 of title 18, any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment 

under this paragraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:13 Nov 19, 2008 Jkt 079010 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR521.XXX SR521

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
26 

viction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 2 years 

in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there 

was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 4 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. 

(E)(i) In the case of any controlled substance in schedule III, 

such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not 

more than 10 years and if death or serious bodily injury results 

from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment of not more than 20 years, a fine not to exceed 

the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions 

of title 18, or $500,000 if the defendant is an individual or 

$2,500,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or 

both. 

(ii) If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person 

shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 

20 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the 

use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 years, a fine not to exceed the greater 

of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of 

title 18, or $1,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or 

$5,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or 

both. 

(iii) Any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment under 

this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 2 years in 

addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was 

such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of 

at least 4 years in addition to such term of imprisonment 

(2) In the case of a controlled substance in schedule IV, such 

person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not 

more than ø3 years¿ 5 years, a fine not to exceed the greater 

of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 

or $250,000 if the defendant is an individual or $1,000,000 if 

the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation øafter one or more prior convictions of him for an offense punishable under this paragraph, 

or for a felony under any other provision of this subchapter or 

subchapter II of this chapter or other law of a State, the 

United States, or a foreign country relating to narcotic drugs, 

marihuana, or depressant or stimulant substances, have become final¿ after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense 

has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment of not more than ø6 years¿ 10 years, a fine not 

to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance 

with the provisions of title 18 or $500,000 if the defendant is 

an individual or $2,000,000 if the defendant is other than an 

individual, or both. Any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment under this paragraph shall, in the absence of such a prior 

conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least one 

year in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if 

there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised 

release of at least 2 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
27 

(3) In the case of a controlled substance in schedule V, such 

person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not 

more than one year, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or 

$100,000 if the defendant is an individual or $250,000 if the 

defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person 

commits such a violation øafter one or more convictions of him 

for an offense punishable under this paragraph, or for a crime 

under any other provision of this subchapter or subchapter II 

of this chapter or other law of a State, the United States, or 

a foreign country relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, or depressant or stimulant substances, have become final¿ after a 

prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such 

person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not 

more than ø2 years¿ 6 years, a fine not to exceed the greater 

of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of 

title 18 or $200,000 if the defendant is an individual or 

$500,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. 

Any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment under this paragraph may, if there was a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of not more than 1 year, in addition to such 

term of imprisonment. 

* * * * * * * 

(h) OFFENSES INVOLVING DISPENSING OF CONTROLLED SUB- STANCES BY MEANS OF THE INTERNET.— (1) Except as authorized by this title, it shall be unlawful for 

any person to knowingly or intentionally cause or facilitate the 

delivery, distribution, or dispensing by means of the Internet of 

a controlled substance. 

(2) Examples of activities that violate paragraph (1) include, 

but are not limited to, knowingly or intentionally— 

(A) delivering, distributing, or dispensing a controlled 

substance by means of the Internet by a pharmacy not registered under section 303(i); 

(B) writing a prescription for a controlled substance for 

the purpose of delivery, distribution, or dispensation by 

means of the Internet in violation of subsection 309(e); 

(C) serving as an agent, intermediary, or other entity that 

causes the Internet to be used to bring together a buyer and 

seller to engage in the dispensing of a controlled substance 

in a manner not authorized by sections 303(i) or 309(e); 

and 

(D) making a material false, fictitious, or fraudulent 

statement or representation in the submission to the Attorney General under section 311. 

(3)(A) This subsection does not apply to— 

(i) the delivery, distribution, or dispensation of controlled 

substances by nonpractitioners to the extent authorized by 

their registration under this title; 

(ii) the placement on the Internet of material that merely 

advocates the use of a controlled substance or includes pricing information without attempting to propose or facilitate 

an actual transaction involving a controlled substance; or 

(iii) except as provided in subparagraph (B), any activity 

that is limited to— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
28 

(I) the provision of a telecommunications service, or 

of an Internet access service or Internet information location tool (as those terms are defined in section 231 

of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231)); or 

(II) the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of 

a communication, without selection or alteration of the 

content of the communication, except that deletion of a 

particular communication or material made by another 

person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of 

the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) 

shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the 

content of the communication. 

(B) The exceptions under subclauses (I) and (II) of subparagraph (A)(iii) shall not apply to a person acting in concert with 

a person who violates subsection (g)(1). 

(4) Any person who knowingly or intentionally violates this 

subsection shall be sentenced in accordance with subsection (b) 

of this section. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 843. Prohibited acts C 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) ADVERTISEMENT.— 

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to place in any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publications, any written 

advertisement knowing that it has the purpose of seeking or 

offering illegally to receive, buy, or distribute a Schedule 1 I 

controlled substance. As used in this section the term ‘‘advertisement’’ includes, in addition to its ordinary meaning, such 

advertisements as those for a catalog of Schedule 1 I controlled 

substances and any similar written advertisement that has the 

purpose of seeking or offering illegally to receive, buy, or distribute a Schedule 1 I controlled substance. The term ‘‘advertisement’’ does not include material which merely advocates 

the use of a similar material, which advocates a position or 

practice, and does not attempt to propose or facilitate an actual 

transaction in a Schedule 1 I controlled substance. 

(2)(A) Except as authorized by this title, it shall be unlawful 

for any person by means of the Internet, to knowingly advertise 

the sale or distribution of, or to offer to sell, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance. 

(B) Examples of activities that violate subparagraph (A) include, but are not limited to, knowingly or intentionally causing 

the placement on the Internet of an advertisement that refers to 

or directs prospective buyers to Internet sellers of controlled 

substances who are not registered under section 303(i). 

(C) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to material that either— 

(i) merely advertises the distribution of controlled substances by nonpractitioners to the extent authorized by their 

registration under this title; or 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
29 

(ii) merely advocates the use of a controlled substance or 

includes pricing information without attempting to facilitate an actual transaction involving a controlled substance. 

* * * * * * * 

Part E—Administrative and Enforcement Provisions 

* * * * * * * 

§ 881. Forfeitures 

(a) SUBJECT PROPERTY.—The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in 

them: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) øAll conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles, or vessels, 

which are used, or are intended for use, to transport, or in any 

manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of property described in paragraph (1), (2), 

or (9).¿ Any property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, 

used or intended to be used to commit, or to facilitate the commission, of a violation of this title or title III, and any property 

traceable thereto. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 882. Injunctions 

(a) JURISDICTION.—The district courts of the United States and 

all courts exercising general jurisdiction in the territories and possessions of the United States shall have jurisdiction in proceedings 

in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to enjoin 

violations of this subchapter. 

(b) JURY TRIAL.—In case of an alleged violation of an injunction 

or restraining order issued under this section, trial shall, upon demand of the accused, be by a jury in accordance with the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

(c) STATE CAUSE OF ACTION PERTAINING TO ONLINE PHARMACIES.— 

(1) In any case in which the State has reason to believe that 

an interest of the residents of that State has been or is being 

threatened or adversely affected by the action of a person, entity, or Internet site that violates the provisions of section 303(i), 

309(e), or 311, the State may bring a civil action on behalf of 

such residents in a district court of the United States with appropriate jurisdiction— 

(A) to enjoin the conduct which violates this section; 

(B) to enforce compliance with this section; 

(C) to obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation, 

including civil penalties under section 402(b); and 

(D) to obtain such other legal or equitable relief as the 

court may find appropriate. 

(2)(A) Prior to filing a complaint under paragraph (1), the 

State shall serve a copy of the complaint upon the Attorney 

General and upon the United States Attorney for the judicial 

district in which the complaint is to be filed. In any case where 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
30 

such prior service is not feasible, the State shall serve the complaint on the Attorney General and the appropriate United 

States Attorney on the same day that the State’s complaint is 

filed in Federal district court of the United States. Such proceedings shall be independent of, and not in lieu of, criminal 

prosecutions or any other proceedings under this title or any 

other laws of the United States. 

(B)(i) Not later than 120 days after the later of the date on 

which a State’s complaint is served on the Attorney General 

and the appropriate United States Attorney, or the date on 

which the complaint is filed, the United States shall have the 

right to intervene as a party in any action filed by a State 

under paragraph (1). 

(ii) After the 120-day period described in clause (i) has 

elapsed, the United States may, for good cause shown, intervene 

as a party in an action filed by a State under paragraph (1). 

(iii) Notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to 

intervention shall be afforded the State that filed the original 

complaint in any action in which the United States files a complaint in intervention under clause (i) or a motion to intervene 

under clause (ii). 

(iv) The United States may file a petition for appeal of a judicial determination in any action filed by a State under this section. 

(C) Service of a State’s complaint on the United States as required in this paragraph shall be made in accord with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1). 

(3) For purposes of bringing any civil action under paragraph 

(1), nothing in this Act shall prevent an attorney general of a 

State from exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general of a State by the laws of such State to conduct investigations or to administer oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance of witnesses of or the production of documentary or 

other evidence. 

(4) Any civil action brought under paragraph (1) in a district 

court of the United States may be brought in the district in 

which the defendant is found, is an inhabitant, or transacts 

business or wherever venue is proper under section 1391 of title 

28, United States Code. Process in such action may be served 

in any district in which the defendant is an inhabitant or in 

which the defendant may be found. 

(5) No private right of action is created under this subsection. 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter II—Import and Export 

* * * * * * * 

§ 960. Prohibited acts A 

(a) UNLAWFUL ACTS.— 

* * * * * * * 

(b) PENALTIES.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
31 

(3) In the case of a violation under subsection (a) of this section involving a controlled substance in schedule I or II, 

gamma hydroxybutyric acid (including when scheduled as an 

approved drug product for purposes of section 3(a)(1)(B) of the 

Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000), or flunitrazepam, the person committing such 

violation shall, except as provided in paragraphs (1), (2), and 

(4), be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 

20 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the 

use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than twenty years and not more than life, a 

fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance 

with the provisions of title 18 or $1,000,000 if the defendant 

is an individual or $5,000,000 if the defendant is other than an 

individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation 

after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become 

final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 30 years and if death or serious bodily 

injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of 

twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 

18 or $2,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or 

$10,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or 

both. Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18, any sentence 

imposing a term of imprisonment under this paragraph shall, 

in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 3 years in addition to such term of 

imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, 

impose a term of supervised release of at least 6 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding the prior 

sentence, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of 

any person sentenced under the provisions of this paragraph 

which provide for a mandatory term of imprisonment if death 

or serious bodily injury resultsø, nor shall a person so sentenced be eligible for parole during the term of such a sentence¿. 

(4) In the case of a violation under subsection (a) of this section with respect to less than 50 kilograms of marihuana, except in the case of 100 or more marihuana plants regardless 

of weight, less than 10 kilograms of hashish, or less than one 

kilogram of hashish oil, øor any quantity of a controlled substance in schedule III, IV, or V,3 (except a violation involving 

flunitrazepam and except a violation involving gamma hydroxybutyric acid)¿ the person committing such violation shall be 

øimprisoned not more than five years, or be fined not to exceed 

the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $250,000 if the defendant is an individual 

or $1,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or 

both. If a sentence under this paragraph provides for imprisonment, the sentence shall, notwithstanding section 3583 of title 

18, in addition to such term of imprisonment, include (A) a 

term of supervised release of not less than two years if such 

controlled substance is in schedule I, II, III, or (B) a term of 

supervised release of not less than one year if such controlled 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
32 

substance is in schedule IV¿ sentenced in accordance with section 401(b)(1)(D) of this title (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(E)). 

(5) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section 

involving a controlled substance in schedule III, such person 

shall be sentenced in accordance with section 401(b)(1)(E). 

(6) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section 

involving a controlled substance in schedule IV (except a violation involving flunitrazepam), such person shall be sentenced in 

accordance with section 401(b)(2). 

(7) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section 

involving a controlled substance in schedule V, such person 

shall be sentenced in accordance with section 401(b)(3). 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS