Court Opinion

ID: 9644716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:02:42.883488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:16.994240
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DOUGLAS, Judge.
After further consideration, it appears that the dissenting opinion by Judge Odom on original submission is correct. The Legislature made it a penal offense under the Controlled Substances Act for a practitioner to issue a written prescription for a Schedule II controlled substance without taking steps deemed proper in the course of professional practice. It appears that the Legislature intended to restrict the activities of physicians, as well as others, who might deal in controlled substances.
Article 1.02(24) of the Act defines practitioner as being “a physician, or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute * * * a controlled substance in the course of professional practice. .” (Emphasis supplied)
Section 3.01(b) of the Act provides that persons registered under the Act may, among other things, dispense those substances “to the extent authorized by their registration and in conformity with the other provisions of this Act.”
The Controlled Substances Act makes it a penal offense for a practitioner to issue a written prescription without giving a medical examination or taking other steps deemed proper in the course of professional practice.
The State’s motion for rehearing should be granted and the judgment affirmed.