Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Tyhurst

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided March 17, 1989No. ACM 26944Published

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

  1. United States v. ManceUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1988
  2. Reckitt & Colman, Ltd. v. Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, McNeil Pharmaceutical, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1986
  3. United States v. KingU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1984
  4. United States v. LoftinU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API