by a term based on the chemical or biological composition of the substance — for example, “opiate” or “cocoa leaves.” There is no reason to read into that linguistic convention a legal requirement for additional proof of quantity or effect in a particular case. Rather, the descriptive phrase serves the purpose of aiding the Attorney General in classifying emerging drugs. Because stimulants and depressants may appear in new chemical forms, language based on stimulant or depressant effect enables the Attorney General to include those new drugs within the appropriate schedule based on general pharmacological evidence regarding those effects. Every Court of Appeals to confront this question has reached the same conclusion. See United States v. Durham, 941 F.2d 886, 890-91 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Picklesimer, 585 F.2d at 1203 (holding that
holding that the language was intended as guidance for the attorney general holding that similar language provided a sufficient general jurisdiction allegation holding that the state was a real party in interest when the attorney general filed suit under the illinois consumer fraud act on behalf of residents who were specifically aggrieved by violations of the act because the attorney general decides whether to bring the litigation and maintains control of it in her role as protector of the public and not as personal representative of the consumers for whom she seeks restitution holding attorney general could not contract on behalf of the state to employ an assistant attorney beyond the attorney generals own term recognizing this as the general rule