Opinion ID: 2208979
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Chapter 155, Code of Iowa, is headed and relates to pharmacists and wholesale druggists. Section 155.20 provides:

Text: Restricted prescription drugs. No prescription drug may be sold at wholesale or brokerage for resale to other than licensed pharmacies nor shall any person licensed under this chapter sell or dispense any prescription drug to any person other than a licensed pharmacy or a physician without prescription. Defendant is a licensed pharmacist and subject to the provisions of this section. None of the exceptions or exemptions appearing in sections 155.22, 155.23 and 155.25 would appear applicable to defendant. In 1965 the 61st General Assembly enacted Senate File #285 amending and adding to chapter 155, Code of 1962. The law under which defendant was prosecuted was an addition to the chapter. It appears as chapter 169, section 7, subsection 2, Laws of the 61st General Assembly. With authorized editorial changes it now appears as section 155.30, 1966 Code of Iowa. The pertinent parts are as follows: Penalties. Any person who sells or offers for sale, gives away, or administers to another person any prescription drug shall be deemed guilty of violating the provisions of this subsection or any person who violates any provisions of section 155.29 and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or be imprisoned in the county jail for not more than one year, or both.    Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a licensed practitioner of medicine, dentistry, nursing, veterinary medicine, or pharmacy from such acts necessary in the ethical and legal performance of his profession. Subsection 1 of section 7 of the Act, now section 155.29 of the Code, lists acts that are proscribed. They all relate to a person attempting to obtain drugs. None relates to defendant and he is not charged with violation thereof. Nowhere in the statute under which defendant was prosecuted is there any specific reference to pharmacists except to exempt them from its operation when performing acts necessary in the ethical and legal performance of his profession. Without this exception a licensed practitioner would be in the same position as a dope peddler. Neither need nor logical reason for a new statute to cover pharmacists appears. Their acts were covered by existing statutes. No explanation as to the purpose or intended scope of the Act appears in connection with the Bill for an Act as introduced, the Act as passed or the Senate Journal. However, it does appear from a study of chapter 169, Laws of the 61st General Assembly that the purpose was to make illegal individual acts not otherwise proscribed, make unlicensed persons subject thereto and provide penalties therefor. We note that the penalty for violation of section 155.20 of the Code is covered by section 155.27. The penalties set forth in the statute involved here are more severe, cover second and subsequent offenses, and the unauthorized sale, gift or administering of a prescription drug to a minor. We also note that the first part of the law, quoted, supra, refers to a violation of this section while the part referring to minors is more inclusive by using the words this chapter.