California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Perzik v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.App.4th 898, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 (Cal. App. 1991):
6 Petitioner makes much of the first sentence of subdivision (a) of section 11153 (quoted at note 3, ante ), and its absence from section 11379. This is much ado about nothing. Unlike the normal situation where a prescription written by a physician for a patient who has the prescription filled by a pharmacist (see Baker v. Superior Court, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d at p. 126, 100 Cal.Rptr. 771), the evidence adduced at the preliminary examination shows that petitioner was in effect ordering a prescription he himself would provide. (See 11250.) In such a situation it seems foolish to limit the "legitimate medical purpose" obligation of section 11153 to the metaphysically distinct first part of this transaction.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.