OPINION

Dr. Maurice W. Rosenberg appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on April 15, 1974, in the Central District of California, following a jury trial at which he was found guilty of 27 counts of distributing a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). 1 Dr. *192 Rosenberg was sentenced to concurrent terms of two years in prison for each violation and was fined $20,000. Imposition of the prison sentences was suspended and payment of the fine was stayed pending appeal. Dr. Rosenberg argues that the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutional, that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of violating that statute, and that his right against self incrimination was violated. We affirm.

Rosenberg was a seventy-five year old doctor who had been practicing medicine in California for approximately 50 years. During 1973 the doctor was visited by five undercover agents working for the California Bureau of Narcotics, Department of Justice, and Department of Consumer Affairs. 2 The investigators used a total of seven names with two agents using the same name.

Of course, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 , 62 S.Ct. 457 , 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). The government established that the following was the mode of operation at Dr. Rosenberg’s office: An agent would make an appointment. When he arrived at the office, the doctor’s nurse would record his name and address and collect the fee for an office visit. The fee for the first visit was $15 payable in cash; for subsequent visits the charge was $8. The nurse normally took the patient’s record into the doctor with the cash clipped to one corner.

At no time did Dr. Rosenberg give any of the agents a physical examination. The agents never voluntarily indicated that they had any medical problem for which they needed medication. For example, when the doctor asked agent Van Diest what was wrong with her, she said that she did not have any problems, that she had been buying pills on the street and wanted a safer source, and that she had heard that she could get them from him. She told Dr. Rosenberg that she wanted some “reds.” 3 When Dr. Rosenberg asked her why she wanted them, Ms. Van Diest said that she just liked taking them. The doctor then indicated that he would only give her a month’s supply and that the pills could be dangerous. He then asked her if he could do anything else for her and she replied that she would like some “whites.” 4 At this point the doctor asked her if she would like to say that she wanted to lose weight. Ms. Van Diest told him that she really did not care. The doctor replied, “Well, we’ll say that you would like to lose weight.” Dr. Rosenberg gave Ms. Van Diest a prescription for both seconal and dexedrine. At the time of her visit Ms. Van Diest was five feet, six inches tall and weighed 127 pounds. The doctor gave her no physical examination. The testimony of the other agents was similar to that of Ms. Van Diest.

On the basis of the above described evidence, Dr. Rosenberg was charged with violating the federal Controlled Substance Act which provides that

21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). Under the statute a “practitioner” is authorized to prescribe controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. § 829 (a), (b). “Practitioner” is defined as

21 U.S.C. § 802 (20) (emphasis added). We interpret this combination of sections 802(20), 829, and 841 to mean that a doctor who acts other than in the course of professional practice is not a practitioner under the Act and is therefore not authorized to prescribe controlled substances. Such a physician is therefore subject to the criminal provisions of the Act contained in section 841(a)(1). Accord, United States v. Badia, 490 F.2d 296, 298 (1st Cir. 1973); United States v. Jobe, 487 F.2d 268, 269 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 955 , 94 S.Ct. 1968 , 40 L.Ed.2d 305 (1974); United States v. Collier, 478 F.2d 268, 271-72 (5th Cir. 1973) (“It is apparent that a licensed practitioner is not immune from the act solely due to his status, . . . but rather, because he is expected to prescribe or dispense drugs within the bounds of his professional practice of medicine.”) This same interpretation of the Act was made by the Attorney General:

21 C.F.R. § 1306.04 (a) (1974).

Our dissenting brother describes the language of section 802(20) as “vague.” However, the terms contained in that section are not vague; courts have often defined the phrase “in the course of professional practice.” See pages 197—198 infra. Judge Ely’s vagueness argument is more accurately viewed as another statement of his contention that Congress did not intend that doctors registered under 21 U.S.C. §§ 821—29 should be punished under section 841. We reject that contention.

Our examination of the legislative history convinces us that Congress intended section 841(a)(1) to apply to registered doctors. Congress was concerned with the diversion of drugs out of legitimate channels of distribution. The registration system, which requires written records to be maintained of drug transfers from manufacturer to doctor to user was intended to serve as a means of monitoring the flow of drugs in an effort to stop diversion to illegal uses. See H.R.Rep.No.91-1444, 1970 U.S.Code, Cong. & Admin.News 4566, 4571-72, 4590 [hereinafter House Report], This legislative intent is manifested in those penalty provisions of the Act that are applicable only to registrants. Those provisions are focused on proper record keeping. See, e. g., 21 U.S.C. §§ 842 (a)(1) (use of prescriptions required), 843(a)(1) (use of order forms required).

There is no suggestion in the legislative history that the registration provisions were intended to be a substitute for the Act’s general criminal penalties. The legislative history expressly states that the Act “provides severe criminal penalties for persons engaged in illicit . sale of controlled drugs primarily for the profits to be derived therefrom.” Since this is what Dr. Rosenberg did, the severe criminal penalties contained in section 841 were appropriately applied to him. This conclusion is buttressed by the facts that physicians were subject to the prior federal drug laws, see, e. g., Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189 , 41 S.Ct. 98 , 65 L.Ed. 214 (1920), and that one of the three purposes of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (of *194 which the Controlled Substances Act is title II) was stated in the preamble to be “to strengthen existing law enforcement authority in the field of drug abuse.” (emphasis added).

One of the findings of the Congress in enacting the Controlled Substances Act was that “(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.” 21 U.S.C. § 801 (6) (emphasis added). If doctors were not subject to section 841(a)(1) the ability of the federal government to counter drug abuse would be greatly reduced. Congress recognized that “the widespread diversion of [controlled substances] out of legitimate channels in to the illegal market” was a serious problem. House Report at 4572. To stop such abuse, Congress determined that “illegal traffic in drugs should be attacked with the full power of the Federal Government.” House Report at 4575. Yet, as the dissent recognizes, any doctor can be registered under the Act as a matter of right if he is allowed to dispense controlled substances under state law. House Report at 4590, 21 U.S.C. § 823 (f). Revocation of registration is virtually impossible. See 21 U.S.C. § 824 (a). Even conviction of the “technical violations” 5 of section 842 and 843 is foreclosed as long as a doctor complies with the easily fulfilled requirements of prescription writing, etc., contained in the registration sections. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 842 , 843, 825, 827-29. Under the reasoning of the dissent a doctor would not even have to pretend to act as a doctor. He could stand on a street corner and sell prescriptions to passersby and yet he would be immune from federal prosecution. 6 To leave the federal government powerless to act against such persons would be to “override common sense” and reject the “evident statutory purpose” of Congress. 7

Moreover, we note that the dissent’s interpretation of the Act would make superfluous one of its main reform provisions. Title I of the Act deals with rehabilitation of addicts. Section 4 of that title provides that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, in consultation with the Attorney General, “shall determine the appropriate method of professional practice in the medical treatment of narcotic addiction.” This section was adopted in light of Congress’ awareness that there had been “criminal *195 prosecution of physicians whose methods of prescribing narcotic drugs have not conformed to the opinions of Federal prosecutors.” House Report at 4581. The committee evidenced no intention to restrict such prosecutions. Indeed they seemed to think that they would continue, but that some standards of professional practice should be established so that “[t]hose physicians who comply with the recommendations made by the Secretary will no longer jeopardize their professional careers by accepting narcotic addicts as patients.” House Report at 4581. If a registered doctor was not subject to the penalties of section 841, section 4 of title I would be superfluous because no federal action could be taken against such a doctor in any event.

The above considerations, taken altogether with the fact that there is no statement in the legislative history that indicates that doctors are not to be subject to section 841, lead us to conclude that section 841 was appropriately applied in this case.

In dissent Judge Ely relies principally on a decision by the District of Columbia Circuit, United States v. Moore, 505 F.2d 426 (1974), cert. granted, 420 U.S. 923 , 95 S.Ct. 1116 , 43 L.Ed.2d 392 (1975), which held that doctors registered under the Act, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 821-29 , are exempt from the penalty provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). The court in Moore gave essentially three reasons for its decision.

First, it noted that section 822(b) provides that “[pjersons registered by the Attorney General under this subchapter to manufacture, distribute or dispense controlled substances are authorized to . distribute or dispense such substances ... to the extent authorized by their registrations and' in conformity with the other provisions of this subchapter.” It concluded that this passage was a blanket authorization to dispense drugs that exempted registered doctors from section 841. However, according to the legislative history that section was added merely to “make it clear that persons registered under this title are authorized to deal in or handle controlled substances.” House Report at 4606. This section was not part of the original bill, so it can scarcely be called an essential part of the registration scheme. Indeed, it only says that registrants are authorized to do what the Act permits them to do. Thus, in the absence of any explicit direction from Congress, we think it inappropriate to interpret that section to work a major change in the prior enforcement pattern of drug laws which heretofore have not exempted doctors who acted outside the scope of their professional practice from the penal provisions that apply generally to all persons.

The second factor stressed by the Moore majority is that while certain of the penalty provisions found in sections 842 and 843 specifically refer to “registrants,” that word does not appear in section 841. 505 F.2d at 430 . From this the Moore court seemed to conclude that registered doctors are subject only to those penalty provisions which specifically refer to registrants. This is clearly a misreading of the statutory scheme. Sections 841, 842, and 843 each apply to all persons. 8 Whenever Congress wanted to limit the scope of a provision’s coverage it specifically so indicated. See, e. g., 21 U.S.C. §§ 842 (a)(1)-(3), (b), 843(a)(1). In doing so Congress evidenced complete awareness of the distinction between registrants and persons. However, it still chose to apply all of the remaining penalty provisions of the Act *196 to any “person.” See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 , 842(a)(4)-(8), 843(a)(2)-(5), (b).

We see no reason to construe the statute’s clear language in those eleven sections to mean “person other than a registrant.” Section 843(a)(3), for example, applies to any person who “acquire[s] or obtain[s] possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge” — a crime obviously committable by any person— registered doctor or otherwise. Yet the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit would seem to compel a holding that registrants were not subject to the provision because the word “registrant” is not included therein. We see no basis for such a result. Congress understood that persons included registrants (see, e. g., 21 U.S.C. § 842 (a)(2): “any person — . . . (2) who is a registrant”), and it made 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) apply to “any person.”

Finally, the court in Moore refused to interpret the 1970 Act in light of the Harrison Act, 505 F.2d at 431-34 , because the new act is “fundamentally different.” The major difference, however, is only complexity. The Controlled Substances Act was intended to replace the some 50 pieces of legislation dealing with drugs that had been enacted by Congress since 1914. House Report at 4571. In any event, the legislative history of the Act shows that section 841 was meant to apply to drug traffickers. When a doctor acts as Dr. Rosenberg did in this case, he can appropriately be called a trafficker in drugs. While it is difficult to convict a doctor under this standard, a combination of sections 841, 829, 802(20) certainly allows such conviction. Indeed, Congress seemed to recognize that this Act could result in the conviction and punishment of a doctor, just as under the Harrison Act, if the doctor failed to comply with certain standards of professional practice. See House Report at 4581.

Thus, we conclude that the Controlled Substances Act, including 21 U.S.C. § 841 , on its face, can be applied to registered doctors. The reasons advanced by the dissent and the Moore court are at best inconclusive of Congress’ intent. Since there are other indications in the Act and in the legislative history that Congress intended section 841 to apply to registered doctors, we hold that the Act does, and was intended by Congress to, apply to the registered doctors acting outside the course of professional practice. For further support of this view, see United States v. Green, 511 F.2d 1062, at 1066-1069 (7th Cir., 1975), United States v. Moore, 505 F.2d at 444-58 (MacKinnon, J., dissenting).

We turn now to the arguments raised by Dr. Rosenberg in his various briefs filed in this court. 9 First, he argues that he was convicted of violating a regulation issued by the Attorney General rather than the Act itself. He suggests that this would violate the doctrine of separation of powers because the Department of Justice has no statutory authorization to issue regulations that create new criminal offenses. 10 The indictment against Dr. Rosenberg charged him with distributing pills not “in the usual course of professional practice” and not “for any legitimate medical research purposes.” The first quoted phrase is similar to the statutory language, see 21 U.S.C. § 802 (20); the second is similar to the language in the regulation, see 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04 (a) (1974). The indictment referred only to *197 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (b) (general provision on liability of principals for criminal acts); no mention was made of any regulation. Dr. Rosenberg seems to argue that these two phrases have different meanings and that he was convicted of violating the regulation. We disagree.

The two phrases in the indictment have essentially the same meaning. At no time did Judge Gray instruct the jury (or even suggest to the jury) that there were two separate ways in which the statute could be violated. In his instructions to the jury on what he called the “principal issue” Judge Gray charged that

The trial judge stressed that the jury had to look into Dr. Rosenberg’s mind to determine whether he prescribed the pills for what he thought was a medical purpose or whether he was passing out the pills to anyone who asked for them. He in no way indicated that the jury could find Dr. Rosenberg guilty if it found that he either acted not in the course of his professional practice or not for legitimate medical reasons. In fact, as the extract from the judge’s charge demonstrates, he laid out the issue as whether the doctor had acted not in the course of professional practice, which is the statutory language. While the trial judge later used the phrase “good faith for legitimate medical treatment in the usual course of his professional practice,” it seems clear that the trial judge was simply elaborating on the statutory language, as he did in other ways on different occasions. 11 We find it difficult to understand how Dr. Rosenberg can argue that he was not acting for legitimate medical reasons yet was acting in the course of his professional practice.

Dr. Rosenberg next argues that the phrase “in the course of professional practice” is so vague that it violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court has recently held that “(t)o avoid the constitutional vice of vagueness, it is necessary, at a minimum, that a statute give fair notice that certain conduct is proscribed.” Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313, 315 , 92 S.Ct. 993, 994 , 31 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972) (per curiam). Here we think that the statute does give such fair notice. This language has been in the statute books since 1914 and no one has ever had problems with its interpretation. The language .clearly means that a doctor is not exempt from the statute when he takes actions that he does not in good faith believe are for legitimate medical purposes.

The Supreme Court had several occasions to interpret this language when it was used in the Harrison Narcotics Law § 2, 38 Stat. 785 . For example, in Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189, 194 , 41 S.Ct. 98, 100 , 65 L.Ed.2d 214 (1920) (emphasis added), the Court noted that “the phrases ‘to a patient’ and ‘in the course of his professional practice only’ are intended to confine the immunity of a registered physician, in dispensing the narcotic drugs mentioned in the act, strictly within the appropriate bounds of a physician’s professional practice, and not to extend it to include a sale to a dealer or a distribution intended to cater to the appetite or satisfy the craving of one addicted to the use of the *198 drug.” Two years later the Court again explained the meaning of the statute: “[T]he purpose of the exception is to confine the distribution of these drugs to the regular and lawful course of professional practice.’’ United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 287 , 42 S.Ct. 303, 304 , 66 L.Ed. 619 (1922) (emphasis added). In another case the Court said that “[t]he disputed question was whether the defendant issued the prescriptions in good faith in the course of his professional practice.” Boyd v. United States, 271 U.S. 104, 105 , 46 S.Ct. 442 , 90 L.Ed. 857 (1926) (emphasis added).

The ease and consistency with which courts have interpreted this language convinces us that it is not vague. See also United States v. Collier, 478 F.2d 268, 271-72 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Larson, 507 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1974). Moreover, it is difficult to see how the language can be made more precise and at the same time ban the undesirable conduct on the part of physicians which Congress intended to make illegal and subject to sanctions.

Third, Dr. Rosenberg attacks the constitutionality of the federal drug laws. He urges that they violate the Tenth Amendment. 12 Specifically Dr. Rosenberg argues that the determination of whether or not he was acting in the course of his professional practice must be determined by the state of California because “direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.” Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18 , 45 S.Ct. 446, 449 , 69 L.Ed. 819 (1925). He also argues that the language of the statute makes it clear that Congress intended that the federal government rely on such a state determination. These arguments are singularly unpersuasive.

As the doctor admits in his brief, the Tenth Amendment is generally viewed as stating a truism. “From the beginning and for many years the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.” United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 , 61 S.Ct. 451, 462 , 85 L.Ed. 609 (1941). The authority of Congress to control the dispensation of narcotics or other dangerous drugs under a taxing scheme was expressly upheld in United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 , 39 S.Ct. 214 , 63 L.Ed. 493 (1919). 13 While the current drug laws are not part of a revenue-raising scheme, we have no doubt that Congress has the power to regulate drugs under the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution. United States v. Collier, 478 F.2d 268, 272-73 (5th Cir. 1973). The statute involved in this case is constitutional. 14

Fourth, Dr. Rosenberg argues /that the federal drug control statute violates due process because it establishes a *199 presumption of guilt. The doctor focuses on 21 U.S.C. § 885 (a)(1) which provides that

We find nothing wrong with this provision. It is a common provision in criminal statutes that contain many exemptions or exceptions. Without such a provision the government would be required to waste valuable court time disproving arguments that a defendant did not and" could not conceivably make. v

The important fact is that the quoted provision does not shift the .burden of proof. Once a defindant presents a claim that he falls within the exemption, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused does not fall within it. In this case a reading of the trial judge’s instructions to the jury leaves no doubt that the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. Rosenberg was not a physician acting in the course of his professional conduct. 21 U.S.C. § 885 (a)(1) is clearly constitutional. United States v. Collier, supra, at 273 .

Fifth, the doctor argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict. In addition to the testimony outlined above, there was additional evidence to support the conviction of the defendant. For example, the agents testified, among other things, that when they paid their money, but did not receive prescriptions, the money was refunded; that they indicated to the doctor that they were giving some of the prescribed pills to other people, and that they were also obtaining pills from other doctors. In addition, the government offered the testimony of a medical expert, who stated that proper professional practice required that a doctor give a physical examination before prescribing the drugs involved here for a patient he had never seen before. The expert also indicated that dexedrine has only limited uses and in the area of weight control is primarily used to help grossly obese people lose weight. In rebuttal, Dr. Rosenberg offered only his own testimony.

We think that the testimony of the expert and the facts outlined by the agents are sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction. Indeed, the jury could decide for itself, on the basis of the facts shown and without any expert testimony, that Dr. Rosenberg was not acting in the course of his professional practice. United States v. Larson, 507 F.2d 385 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. Badia, 490 F.2d 296 (1st Cir. 1973); United States v. Bartee, 479 F.2d 484 (10th Cir. 1973). There was ample evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

Sixth, Dr. Rosenberg argues that his conviction should be overturned because his medical files were used against him in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. 15 The validity of the doctor’s arguments turns in the first instance on whether or not he had a protected interest in his prescription records. The general rule is that if records are required to be maintained by law then a defendant cannot assert a privilege against self incrimination with respect to those records. Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1 , 68 S.Ct. 1375 , 92 L.Ed. 1787 (1948).

A California statute requires that records of prescriptions for the drugs involved in this case be kept for two years. Cal.Health & Safety Code § 11191. While the statute does not expressly pro *200 vide that records shall be open to inspection by state officials, 16 we think that the only purpose for the record-keeping requirement is to aid in the enforcement of the drug control statutes.

In Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 68 , 88 S.Ct. 709 , 19 L.Ed.2d 906 (1968), the Supreme Court laid down three criteria to be used in determining the applicability of the official-records exception to the Fifth Amendment. The first is that the purpose of the record-keeping requirement is essentially regulatory. Second, that the records are customarily kept, and third, that the records have public aspects. These criteria are clearly met in this case. Cf. United States v. Resnick, 488 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1974). Dr. Rosenberg’s Fifth Amendment rights were not violated.

Finally, Dr. Rosenberg argues that he was improperly indicted for unlawfully “distributing” a controlled substance. He contends that he should have been charged with unlawfully “dispensing” a controlled substance. We find no merit in this argument. United States v. Black, 512 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1975); United States v. Badia, 490 F.2d 296 (1st Cir. 1973); but see United States v. Leigh, 487 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1973). We have previously upheld convictions for distribution in similar circumstances. United States v. Cosby, 500 F.2d 405 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. Larson, supra. 17

We have considered the other arguments made by Dr. Rosenberg and find them to be without merit.

Affirmed.

. Twelve of the counts charged the doctor with unlawfully distributing dextroamphetamine, *192 (dexedrine), a schedule II controlled substance; nine of the counts charged him with unlawfully distributing secobarbital (seconal), a schedule III controlled substance; and six of the counts charged him with unlawfully distributing meprobamate (miltown), a schedule IV controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. § 812 .

. Dr. Rosenberg argues that he was somehow denied due process because the state investigators turned their information over to the United States Attorney. Such a division of labor is highly desirable so long as it does not deprive a defendant of some constitutional right. There is no suggestion that the California investigators violated Dr. Rosenberg’s rights. The doctor was indicted by a grand jury and enjoyed all of the rights and procedural safeguards normally afforded a federal defendant.

. A street name for seconal.

. A street name for dexedrine, a drug that can be used for weight reduction purposes.

. The House Report refers to the violations in section 842(a)(1)-(3) as “technical violations.” House Report at 4516. The only other provision expressly applied to registrants is section 843(a)(1) which deals with failures to use the prescribed order forms, another violation properly viewed as technical.

. We do not understand the dissent’s suggestion that veterinarians would somehow be restricted by the Act. They are practitioners, 21 U.S.C. § 802 (20), who can register under the Act. Once registered, there is nothing in 21 U.S.C. §§ 842 (a)(1), (2), (b), 843(a)(1), which would prevent them from hawking pills to humans. The only limitation imposed by the Act with regard to registration is that the drugs prescribed must be covered by the registration. 21 U.S.C. § 842 (a)(2). Under the Act no limitation exists as to whom a registrant can prescribe drugs. Since the veterinarian’s prescription would enable a human to buy drugs, the human could use the drugs.

. The Supreme Court has written that

[t]he canon in favor of strict construction [of criminal statutes] is not an inexorable command to override common sense and evident statutory purpose. . . . [n]or does it demand that a statute be given the “narrowest meaning”; it is satisfied if the words are given their fair meaning in accord with the manifest intent of the lawmakers.

United States v. Brown, 333 U.S. 18, 25-26 , 68 S.Ct. 376, 380 , 92 L.Ed. 442 (1948).

In this regard it is interesting to note that the Senate report on the Narcotic Addict Treatment Act of 1974, Pub.L.No.93-281, 88 Stat. 124 , discussed Dr. Moore’s conviction with approval. (Dr. Moore was the doctor involved in United States v. Moore, 505 F.2d 426 (1974) where the D. C. Circuit held that section 841 cannot be applied to registered doctors). There was no indication that the conviction was a violation of Congress’ scheme of drug abuse control. If Congress had not intended doctors to be subject to section 841, one would have expected that to have been pointed out by some member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, especially since all but two of its members in 1974 had been on the committee in 1970.

. Section 841 applies to any person unless he is “otherwise authorized” to distribute drugs. We have already indicated that' such authorization is contained in section 829, which permits practitioners to write prescriptions. It is suggested by the Moore court that this language could also refer to section 822(b). However, since that section only authorizes a registered doctor to act in conformity with the Act, it is still necessary to refer to section 829. Since a doctor acting outside the course of professional practice is not a practitioner in our view, such a doctor would not be able to avail himself of section 829, and thus would violate section 841 if he made drugs available to other persons by prescription or otherwise.

. Apparently only Dr. Moore has thought that section 841 did not apply to registered doctors. This argument is not among the many arguments made by Dr. Rosenberg, and it does not seem to have been made before any other court, see United States v. Moore, 505 F.2d 426 , 434 n. 44 (D.C.Cir. 1974). The fact that virtually everyone has assumed that registered doctors are subject to section 841 is some evidence that Congress intended them to be.

. The Attorney General does have the power to “promulgate and enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures which he may deem necessary and appropriate for the efficient execution of his functions under this subchapter.” 21 U.S.C. § 871 (b).

. This interpretation is supported by language in the Supreme Court cases discussed infra.

. The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

. Doremus was discussed and cited with approval in Linder , the case relied upon by defendant. Linder v. United States, supra, 268 U.S. at 19 , 45 S.Ct. 446 .

. - The doctor argues that the cases upholding the constitutionality of drug laws are distinguishable because the defendants in those cases had prescribed excessive amounts of drugs and were clearly not acting in the course of professional conduct. He claims that since his prescriptions were within the legal quantity limits for such prescriptions and since it was not clear that he was acting other than in the course of his professional conduct, the Constitution somehow requires that the state of California must first find his acts were unauthorized before federal prosecution is permissible. We do not agree. If the Constitution allows the federal government to regulate the dispensation of drugs, it allows it to do so in every case, and not just where more than a certain quantity of drugs are involved. It would be impractical and unheard of first to determine whether a physician’s conduct was or was not sufficiently egregious in order to decide whether federal or state-federal prosecution was appropriate. The question of whether federal criminal laws have been violated is a federal issue to be determined in federal courts.

. On September 24, 1973, Dr. Rosenberg was served with a grand jury subpoena for his patient records as they related to the dispensation of narcotic substances to several named persons. He supplied the records for all but one of the patients covered by the subpoena. On a motion to suppress the records as evidence Dr. Rosenberg claimed that he was tricked into surrendering them. The district court, however, found that he was not tricked.

. The statute at one time expressly provided that the records were to be open to such inspection.

. Since the defendant raised this argument only as an afterthought in a brief filed after the argument, he can scarcely claim that he was not fully apprised of the charges against him. See The Schooner Hoppet v. United States, 7 Cranch 389 , 11 U.S. 389, 394 , 3 L.Ed. 380 (1813).