*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Honorable George n. cox state Health orrhw

Auetln, Texae

./ mir will aakfmfledge ‘rsoe%it or your letter 0r June 81, 19 1443, regarding thq constitutionality or House Bill 825, e gsnera@ogd-i, drugs and aosti?tlcs eat intro- ehy Regular EMsion of the 46th duced but not mydtsqfat Leglsle turo . \ ‘,, ‘>. . . . ‘\ \ \

With nn&a&r: the &ur& here been Tory liberal .in oonrtru$rigvmaotnh~ts Qsq%&md to proteot the publio .polSjr pliirer. Xx parts Vaughan, health u&m the eta& 93 Cd&’ m J&3, 240 S1~ W .,,6?3; Cozlns ~8’. state, 09 Dslegatlons or authority to Crlm.,4to boar& 4’ 92; 28!W3. w. X%B. See 12 R. 0. o health-~ ar& ,_seldofi held unwarrented. f I,. 1206.

In the -*i&d or rood end drug lrgialation, uhllr eneatmnte or the state must not aonrliat with superior fed- eral legislation, a broad lattitude is allowed the stats in proteoting its altizena from adulterated, impure or miabrand- ed arti.ales In raopact to purely lntraetate transaotions if the enaetnwnt does not burden or interfere with interstate Royal Baking Powder compeny vs. Enrerson (C.C .A. eomerce. xck..l020) 270 Fed. 429, appeal dlaniased (1922), 43 Sup. *2 Honorable George w. COX, Page 2

Ct. 166, 200 U.S. 762, 67 L. Ed. 96; MoDermott vs. State or Wisoonsin (1913) 288 u. s. 156, 33 sup. ct. 431, 57 L. Ed. 754, Ann. Cas, 1915a, 39, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 984. In the case or H.B. 226 a studlous erfort seems to have bern made to avoid aontllot with the Bsderal Food and Drugs Act, 62 Stat. 1040, 21 U.S.C.A. Seas. 301-302.

Consequently, It is our opinion, and you are re- speotrully advised that so far as we oan asoertain rrom a oarerul study of H. B. 225 without haring an opportunity to consider its relation to the multitude of diverse fact sit- uatlons whlah might arise In its application, the bill does not offend the State or Federal Constitutions insofar aa it arreots Intrastate transactions.

Yours vdry truly ATTORNEY CENERAL OF TE$AS BY Asafstant