PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12492-12493)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 9, 1998
Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 1998 - Amends the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to require the Attorney General to determine that registration of an applicant to manufacture, distribute, conduct research with, or dispense specified controlled substances or listed chemicals is inconsistent with the public interest if: (1) during the five-year period immediately preceding submission of the application, the applicant's registration was revoked; or (2) the Attorney General determines, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the applicant is applying for the registration with the intention of using such registration to violate CSA provisions. Authorizes the Attorney General to suspend or revoke a registration upon a finding that the registrant has intentionally dispensed or distributed a controlled substance with a purpose of causing, or assisting in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing of any individual. Directs the Attorney General to establish the Medical Review Board on Pain Relief, which, based on a hearing, shall make findings regarding whether a particular action at issue is an appropriate means to relieve pain that does not constitute a violation of such provision.
People & committees
Sen. Nickles, Don [R-OK] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12492-12493)
By Senator Hatch from Committee on Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 105-372. Additional and minority views filed.
By Senator Hatch from Committee on Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 105-372. Additional and minority views filed.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 607.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 105-974.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5797-5798)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2151 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2151 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2151 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2151 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.