3947. Misbranding of Seconal Sodium capsules and amphetamine sulfate tablets.
U. S. v. John L. Tarlow (Tarlow Drug).   Plea of guilty.   Fine, $500.
(F. D. O. No. 33800.   Sample Nos. 6580-L, 6581-L, 6583-L.)
INFORMATION FILED : February 5, 1953, District of Massachusetts, against John
L. Tarlow, trading as Tarlow Drug, at Boston, Mass.
ALLEGED VIOLATION : On or about March 25 and 26, 1952, while a number of
Seconal Sodium capsules and amphetamine sulfate tablets were being held for
sale, after shipment in interstate commerce, the defendant caused quantities
of the drugs to be dispensed without a physician's prescription, which acts
resulted in the drugs being misbranded.
NATURE OF CHARGE: Misbranding, Section 502 (f) (1), the labeling of the dis-
pensed drugs failed to bear adequate directions for use; and, Sections 502
(b) (1) and (2), the amphetamine sulfate tablets and a portion of the Seconal
Sodium capsules were in package form and failed to bear labels containing the
name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, and an
accurate statement of the quantity of the contents.
Further misbranding, Section 502 (d), the Seconal Sodium capsules con-
tained a chemical derivative of barbituric acid, which derivative has been
found to be, and by regulations designated as, habit forming; and the capsules
failed to bear a label containing the name, and quantity or proportion of such,
derivative and in juxtaposition therewith the statement "Warning-May be
habit forming."
Further misbranding, Section 502 (e) (1), the amphetamine sulfate tablets
failed to bear a label containing the common or usual name of the drug; and,
Section 502 (f) (2), the labeling of the amphetamine sulfate tablets failed to
bear adequate warnings against use in those pathological conditions where their
use may be dangerous to health, and against unsafe dosage and methods and
duration of administration, in such manner and form, as are necessary for the
protection of users.
DISPOSITION: February 25, 1953. A plea of guilty having been entered, the
court fined the defendant $500.