3925. Misbranding of amphetamine sulfate tablets and capsules of Seconal
Sodium and Amytal Sodium. U. S. v. Frank A. Harlan (Harlan Drugs).
Plea of nolo contendere. Fine of $750, plus costs. (F. D. C. No. 32725.
Sample Nos. 18807-L, 18812-L, 188i8-L, 18825-L, 18826-L,)
INFORMATION FILED: September 16, 1952, Southern District of Iowa, against
Frank A. Harlan, trading as Harlan Drugs, Des Moines, Iowa.
ALLEGED VIOLATION : On or about October 24 and November 2 and 13,1951, while
a number of amphetamine sulfate tablets and capsules of Seconal Sodium and
Amytal Sodium were being held for sale at Harlan Drugs, after shipment in
interstate commerce, the defendant caused various quantities of such drugs to
be repacked and dispensed without a physician's prescription, which acts
resulted in the repackaged drugs being misbranded.
NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (b) (1), the repackaged drugs,
with the exception of a portion of the capsules of Seconal Sodium and Amytal
Sodium,, failed to bear labels containing the name and place of business of
the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; Section 502 (b) (2), all of the re-
packaged drugs failed to bear labels containing an accurate statement of the
quantity of the contents; and, Section 502 (f) (1), all of the repackaged drugs
failed to bear labeling bearing adequate directions for use.
Further misbranding, Section 502 (d), the repackaged capsules of Seconal
Sodium and Amytal Sodium contained chemical derivatives of barbituric acid,
which derivatives have been found to be, and by regulations designated as,
habit forming; and the label of the repackaged capsules failed to bear the
name, and quantity or proportion of each such derivative and in juxtaposition
therewith the statement "Warning-May be habit forming."
Further misbranding, Section 502 (e) (2), the repackaged amphetamine sul-
fate tablets failed to bear a label containing the common or usual name of each
active ingredient of the drug.
DISPOSITION : January 23, 1953. A plea of nolo contendere having been en-
tered by the defendant, the court imposed a fine of $750, plus costs.