The board may promulgate regulations and charge reasonable fees relating to the registration and control of the manufacture, distribution and dispensing of controlled substances; provided, however, that in no case shall the fees exceed eighty dollars ($80.00) per year. If the board determines to increase any fee, the board shall notify, in addition to any other notice required by law, the affected professional group of the board's intention to increase the fee and the date for the scheduled hearing to review the matter.

History: 1953 Comp., § 54-11-11, enacted by Laws 1972, ch. 84, § 11; 1989, ch. 57, § 1; 1994, ch. 42, § 1.

The 1994 amendment, effective May 18, 1994, substituted "eighty dollars ($80.00) per year" for "sixty dollars per year for a period of three years after January 1, 1989" in the first sentence and deleted the former second sentence, which read: "After January 1, 1992, if the board determines, for good cause shown, that a fee increase is necessary, the board may increase the fees, but in no case shall the fees exceed seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per year".

The 1989 amendment, effective June 16, 1989, added the proviso at the end of the first sentence and added the last two sentences.

Interests of state legitimate. — The regulations propounded under this section and 26-1-18 NMSA 1978 do not violate due process since the state has a legitimate interest in the control of dangerous drugs sold or distributed therein and has not brought within the orbit of state power any matters unrelated to local interests. Pharmaceutical Mfrs. Ass'n v. N.M. Bd. of Pharmacy, 1974-NMCA-038, 86 N.M. 571, 525 P.2d 931, cert. quashed, 86 N.M. 657, 526 P.2d 799.

License fee not violative of commerce clause. — Although the regulations adopted pursuant to this section and Section 26-1-18 NMSA 1978 include a license fee to cover administrative costs, their primary purpose is the protection of the public from dangerous drugs, a purpose within the traditional definition of police power; and where the burden of a small fee does not outweigh the substantial state benefit derived from the control, and the regulations do not discriminate against interstate commerce since there are no drug manufacturers within the state, there is no violation of the commerce clause. Pharmaceutical Mfrs. Ass'n v. N.M. Bd. of Pharmacy, 1974-NMCA-038, 86 N.M. 571, 525 P.2d 931, cert. quashed, 86 N.M. 657, 526 P.2d 799.

Formal findings unnecessary. — In propounding regulations the board of pharmacy need not make formal findings, but must only insure that the public and the reviewing courts are informed as to the reasoning behind the regulation; the comments of the one board member suffice in this regard. Pharmaceutical Mfrs. Ass'n v. N.M. Bd. of Pharmacy, 1974-NMCA-038, 86 N.M. 571, 525 P.2d 931, cert. quashed, 86 N.M. 657, 526 P.2d 799.

No unconstitutional delegation of power. — Granting of authority to the board of pharmacy was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority nor is there any constitutional prohibition to granting the board the power to adopt registration fees without specification of any statutory minimum. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-07.

Registration fees authorized. — This section grants to the state board of pharmacy authority to set registration fees for all persons required to register under the Controlled Substances Act. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-07.

It is presumed that the authority conferred on the board of pharmacy would be exercised with fair and just regard for the interest affected; and a $10.00 registration fee appears to meet this standard. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-07.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 25 Am. Jur. 2d Drugs, Narcotics and Poisons §§ 17, 19, 33.

28 C.J.S. Drugs and Narcotics § 117 et seq.