Bill Description: House Bill 40 adds regulations and makes changes to the Pharmacy Practice Act.
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
House Bill 40 modifies Section 54-1723, Idaho Code, to remove subjective language requiring that an applicant for licensure as a pharmacist "have good moral character and temperate habits."
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the Tenth Amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
House Bill 40 creates Section 54-1729A, Idaho Code, related to the licensure of wholesale drug distributors. While licensure mandates of any kind run contrary to the principles of a free society, the problem with this new section is more specific. The new language requires that "every business entity that engages in the wholesale distribution of prescription drugs in or into Idaho" meet unspecified "federal requirements." Idaho code should not incorporate definitions that are based in changeable federal laws, rules, or classifications, much less a general requirement to abide by the byzantine labyrinth of laws and rules that might conceivably fall under the umbrella of "federal requirements."
STAY CONNECTED with the latest news, research and opinions from the Gem State.