United States v. Tyhurst
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
1Concurrence
Judge BLOMMERS
(concurring in the result):
I am not at this time ready to accept my brothers’ conclusion that wrongful involvement with an analog drug cannot presently be prosecuted under Article 112a of the Uniform Code unless the analog itself is listed on one of the schedules of Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 812). Our views differ as to the *676definition or scope of the term “derivative.”
Prohibited substances include “opium, heroin, amphetamine, lysergic acid diethylamide, methamphetamine, phencyclidine, barbituric acid, and marijuana and any compound or derivative…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. ManceUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1988
- Reckitt & Colman, Ltd. v. Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, McNeil Pharmaceutical, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1986
- United States v. KingU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1984
- United States v. LoftinU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1989