4002. Misbranding of pentobarbital sodium capsules, Dexedrine Sulfate tablets, and capsules containing dextroamphetamine sulfate plus minerals and vitamins. U. S. v. Paramount Drug Co. Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $25. (F. D. C. No. 32701. Sample Nos. 20763-L, 20795-L, 21417-L to 21420-L, incl., 22265-L, 22267-L.) INFORMATION FILED : March 31, 1953, Middle District of Alabama, against the Paramount Drug Co., Montgomery, Ala. NATURE OF CHARGE: On or about February 6 and May 3 and 4, 1951, while a number of pentobarbital sodium capsules and Dexedrine Sulfate tablets were being held for sale at the Paramount Drug Co., after shipment in interstate commerce, the defendant caused various quantities of the drugs to be repacked and dispensed without a physician's prescription, which acts resulted in the repackaged drugs being misbranded as follows: Section 502 (b) (2), the repackaged drugs failed to bear labels containing an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents; Section 502 (d), the repackaged pentobarbital sodium capsules contained a chemical derivative of barbituric acid, which derivative has been found to be, and by regulations designated as, habit forming; and the label of the repackaged capsules failed to bear the name, and quantity or proportion of such derivative and in juxtaposition therewith the statement "Warning-May be habit forming"; Section 502 (e) (2), a portion of the repackaged Dexedrine Sulfate tablets failed to bear a label containing the common or usual name of each active ingredient of the drug; and, Section 502 (f) (1), the labeling of all of the repackaged drugs failed to bear adequate directions for use. On January 7 and 9, 1953, while a number of capsules containing dextro- amphetamine sulfate plus minerals and vitamins were being held for sale at the Paramount Drug Co., after shipment in interstate commerce, the defendant caused a number of the capsules to be dispensed without a pre- scription from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drug. This act of dispensing was contrary to the provisions of Section 503 (b) (1) and resulted in the dispensed drug being misbranded. DISPOSITION : March 31, 1953. The defendant having entered a plea of nolo contendere, the court fined it $25. DRUGS ACTIONABLE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO BEAR ADEQUATE DIRECTIONS OR WARNING STATEMENTS*