¶ 45. Case 1:12-cv-00185-RBW Document 5 Filed 02/06/12 Page 34 of 42 26 by law to investigate whether each prescription it fills is issued for a legitimate medical purpose, an investigation that Cardinal Health, as a wholesaler, cannot conduct.12 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a) (2011); see also Pharmacist’s Manual, DEA Office of Diversion Control, Section IX, available at http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/manuals/pharm2/pharm_content.htm #9 (“To dispense controlled substances, a pharmacist must know the requirements for a valid prescription which are described in this section,” including that the prescription “must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose”). Second, despite the fact that DEA has stated that its role is to further the CSA’s purpose to “prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances . . . into the illicit market while ensuring a sufficient supply of controlled substances . . . for legitimate medical . . . purposes,” 76 Fed. Reg.

(Jd. § 1304.04(f)-(h).) For a controlled substance prescription to beeffective, the prescription “must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose” (21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a)), though States retain primary authority to define the applicable standards of practice. (United States v. Tobin (11th Cir. 2012) 676 F.3d 1264, 1275.)

Clemons v. Crawford, 585 F.3d 1119, 1125-27 (8th Cir. 2009); Taylor v. Crawford, 48720 F.3d 1072, 1083-84 (8th Cir. 2007). 21 U.S.C. 353(b)(1); 21 U.S.C. § 829(b) (Schedule III and IV controlled substances);21 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a). Clemons, 585 F.3d at 1124.