norml23 - Page 68

 comprehensive fashion with the growing menace of
 drug abuse in the United States (1) to providing
 authority for increased efforts in drug abL_se
 prevention and rehabiJitation of users, (2) to
 providing more effective means for Jaw enforcement
 aspects of drug abuse prevention and control, and
 (3) by providing for an overall balanced scheme of
 cdmina[ Penalties for offenses involving drugs.
 UoSo Code Congressional and Administrative News, 91st
 Congress - Second Session, 1970, page 4567.
 That is, even if this dual purpose of the [egisJation passes
 constitutional muster, the amalgamation of law enforcement and
 reguJatory functions contains important impJications for our federal
 system of dual sovereignty, which must be kept carefui{y in mind when
 Congress departs, as it has done here, from the tradition that federal
 criminaJ Jegis[ation shouJd be "genera[Jy interstitial in its nature, n
 See Tribe, American Constitutiona_ Law (t978) at: pgs. 232-244°
 B. The Legislation/Regulation Dichotomy
 The challenges to the delegation provisions of the CSA which have
 been made in every case which defendants could find have been phrased
 in terms of the traditionaJ nondeJegation doctrine, whereby Congress
 was supposedly forbidden to delegate its _egis_ative functions to the
 executive depa_tmento See, e g., United States v. []avis, supra, 564
 F.Zd 840, 843; United States v. Pastor, 557 F.2d 930, 936-37 (2d Cir.
 1 977). The response of-the Davis court to this challenge was typica]:
 The federal courts have _ong held that
 Congress may validly provide a criminat sanction
 for violation of ruJes or regulations which it has
 empowered the President, a cabinet member or an
 administrative agency to promulgate. Avent v.
 United States, 266 U°S. 127, 130-13I, 45 S.Ct. 34,
 69 L.ed. 202 (1924); NcKinJey v. United States, 249
 U.S. 397, 399, 39 S.Ct. 324, 63 LEd. 668 (I 919);
 United States v. Gdmaud, 220 U.S. 506, 5t 2o51 4, 31
 S.Ct. 480, 55 LEd. 563 (1911 ); United States Vo