Institute of Medicine, Treating Drug Problems (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990); and SimpsonD.D., “Treatment for Drug Abuse. Follow-up Outcomes and Length of Time Spent,”Archives of General Psychiatry, 38 (1981): 875–80.
2.
CooperJ.R., “Methadone Treatment and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome,”JAMA, 262 (1989): 1664–68.
3.
DoleV.P., “Hazards of Process Regulations; The Example of Methadone Maintenance,”JAMA, 267 (1992): 2234–35.
4.
Federal Register, 54 (Mar. 2, 1989): 8976–79.
5.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Methadone Maintenance: Some Treatment Programs Are Not Effective; Greater Federal Oversight Needed (Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/HRD-90-104, 1990).
6.
DoleV.P.NyswanderM.E.DesjarlaisD., “Performance-Based Rating of Methadone Maintenance Programs,”JAMA, 306 (1982): 169–71.
7.
CooperJ.R., “Establishing a Methadone Quality Assurance System: Rationale and Objectives,” in PickensR.W.LeukefeldC.G.SchusterC.R., eds., Improving Drug Abuse Treatment. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 106 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, DHHS Pub. No. (DAM) 91-1754, 1991).
8.
Institute of Medicine, Development of Anti-Addiction Medications: Issues for the Government and Private Sector (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1994).
9.
Pub. L. No. 91–513 (1970).
10.
Pub. L. No. 93–281 (1974).
11.
Pub. L. No. 98–473 (1984).
12.
21 U.S.C. § 822(a) (1970).
13.
21 U.S.C. § 823 (1970).
14.
21 U.S.C. § 824 (1970).
15.
U.S. House of Representatives Report No. 93–884, U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, 93rd Congress (1974), pp. 3029–39.