The Uniform Controlled Substances Act, which is the fundamental law pertaining to control of narcotic drugs in 46 states, was originally promulgated by the Uniform Law Commis-sioners in 1970. It replaced the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, promulgated by the Uniform Law Commissioners in 1932. The earlier Act was adopted in all the states, and was the fundamental drug law in those adopting states until replaced by the Controlled Substances Act.

The Uniform Law Commissioners have been the source of law at the state level for control of narcotics for 58 years in 1990, the year that major revisions to the Uniform Controlled Substances Act are offered to the states. A unique aspect of uniformity of law pertains that does not pertain in the vast majority of other subject areas in which Uniform Acts are drafted by the Uniform Law Commissioners. In the case of law governing control of narcotics, the Uniform Act is an effort to establish uniformity between federal law and state law, as well as uniformity between the states. The Uniform Controlled Substances Act significantly follows the Federal Controlled Substances Act, as the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act followed the earlier Federal Narcotic Drug Act. The objective is coordinated law the encourages identical efforts for control at both the federal and state level.

A major reason for returning to the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in 1990 is substantial change in federal law in the latter part of the decade of the 1980's. The changes in federal law, coupled with renewed concern over the influence of narcotic drugs in American life, led to this revision.

It is important to distinguish as clearly as possible what uniformity between state and federal law means. Both the state and federal government have the ability to control narcotic drugs, and both do. The federal government enforces the federal law and state government enforces the state law. The advantage of parallel law is concentration of both federal and state enforcement upon the same drugs, and the ability to cooperate in that enforcement. But it should always be realized that the federal government and state governments act separately under the Constitution of the United States.

The basic structure of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, as promulgated in 1970, remains in 1990. Known narcotic and dangerous drugs are listed, by chemical name, in ranked schedules. There are five schedules which are ranked by the potential for abuse and usefulness in medical treatment. Thus, Schedule I contains those drugs that have "high potential for abuse" and have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." Familiar substances such as heroin and cocaine fall into Schedule I. Contrast these standards to those for Schedule V: "the substance has low potential for abuse relative to substances included in Schedule IV, "the substance has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," and, "abuse of the substance may lead to limited physical dependence relative to the substances included in Schedule IV." Comparing these two stan-dards, the most stringent and the least, gives some idea of the character of the five schedules. Not only are heroin and cocaine controlled substances, but the mildest of prescription tranquil-izers are, as well.

What the 1990 Controlled Substances Act does is to enroll all applicable substances, developed or discovered since the Act was originally promulgated, in the appropriate schedules. The narcotic and dangerous substances that are the subject of this Act are organic chemicals. There may be an infinite variety of such chemicals that are likely to be depressants, stimulants, analgesics and/or hallucinogens. Laboratories, both legal and illegal, work on discovering new drugs all the time. (Heroin was originally synthesized in the search for a better pain killer.) So the initial mission of the Uniform Law Commissioners in revising the Controlled Substances Act is to include those substances that were discovered between 1970 and 1990.

Keeping the schedules current is a major concern in the Controlled Substances Act. It is not enough to include all the known substances at any given time in appropriate schedules. The potential for the development of new substances is very great. Indeed, the dangerous substances popularly called "designer drugs" are simply an example of that potential. The "designer drug" controversy involved synthesization of narcotic drugs that were chemically different enough to be unscheduled in the Controlled Substances Act, but chemically similar enough to identified controlled substances to provide similar depressant, stimulant, analgesic or hallucinogenic responses in those who used them. They were synthesized to elude enforcement of the law.

The original Controlled Substances Act provides for adminis-trative scheduling to keep the schedules up to date. There are two ways to schedule. A designated agency can do the scheduling by following the provided procedures. There is a short-form scheduling procedure, also, which allows a state to follow the actions of the Food and Drug Administration in scheduling under federal law. Either way, somebody is responsible for keeping the schedules up to date without having to return to the legislature every time a new dangerous substance is discovered.

The 1990 Controlled Substances Act goes a step further. It provides for emergency scheduling of "analogues" (the more precise term for what are popularly called "designer drugs"). If a chemical analogue to a scheduled controlled substances becomes known, it can be scheduled without any delay. The emergency scheduling is temporary. It terminates unless a permanent scheduling procedure takes place and the analogue is permanently scheduled thereby. Emergency scheduling subjects an analogue to the Act, and to enforcement under the Act much quicker than is the case under the original Act. At the same time, due process of law is maintained.

There are special penalties for the manufacture and sale of analogues, as analogues, in the 1990 Act, as well. Immediate enforcement of the law is, therefore, available as analogues become identified, even without scheduling.

Many narcotic and dangerous substances are manufactured and prescribed legitimately. The problem is not with legitimate prescriptions, but with diversion of legitimate controlled substances into illegal markets. The Act requires registration of every person "who manufactures, distributes, or dispenses any controlled substance..." so that the registrant can, in fact, manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance. Registrants must keep records, which are available to the adminis-tering agency. The idea is to keep track of controlled substances and to assure that they are not diverted.

The 1990 Act further requires a designated state agency to conduct a diversion control program that consists of preparing reports on distribution and diversion of controlled substances on a regular basis, and of engaging in agreements with other agencies to identify sources of diversion, and to engage in cooperative programs to "identify, prevent, and control" diversion. These functions are to be performed in addition to the registration requirements provided in the original Act.

Penalties are a major aspect of the original Controlled Substances Act. A full range of criminal penalties are an essential part of it. The 1990 Act simply adds more penalty provisions. Included are criminal penalties for "counterfeit" and "imitation" controlled substances, for solicitation of any person to engage in a violation of the Act, for distribution of controlled substances in the vicinity of a school or college, for using children in the distribution of controlled substances, and for participating in laundering proceeds from traffic in illegal controlled substances. The Act in 1990 tries to provide law enforcement with a full array of criminal penalties commensurate with the business of illegal drugs.

The Uniform Controlled Substances Act (1990) should serve the states in the continuing effort to curtail the sale and use of dangerous controlled substances. Better law enhances the entire effort.