<P> Concerns about the length of the drug approval process were brought to the fore early in the AIDS epidemic . In the mid - and late 1980s, ACT - UP and other HIV activist organizations accused the FDA of unnecessarily delaying the approval of medications to fight HIV and opportunistic infections . Partly in response to these criticisms, the FDA issued new rules to expedite approval of drugs for life - threatening diseases, and expanded pre-approval access to drugs for patients with limited treatment options . All of the initial drugs approved for the treatment of HIV / AIDS were approved through these accelerated approval mechanisms . Frank Young, the commissioner of the FDA was behind the Action Plan Phase II, established in August 1987 for quicker approval of AIDS medication . </P> <P> In two instances, state governments have sought to legalize drugs that the FDA has not approved . Under the theory that federal law passed pursuant to Constitutional authority overrules conflicting state laws, federal authorities still claim the authority to seize, arrest, and prosecute for possession and sales of these substances, even in states where they are legal under state law . The first wave was the legalization by 27 states of laetrile in the late 1970s . This drug was used as a treatment for cancer, but scientific studies both before and after this legislative trend found it to be ineffective . The second wave concerned medical marijuana in the 1990s and 2000s . Though Virginia passed a law with limited effect in 1979, a more widespread trend began in California in 1996 . </P> <P> The Critical Path Initiative is FDA's effort to stimulate and facilitate a national effort to modernize the sciences through which FDA - regulated products are developed, evaluated, and manufactured . The Initiative was launched in March 2004, with the release of a report entitled Innovation / Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products . </P> <P> A 2006 court case, Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach, would have forced radical changes in FDA regulation of unapproved drugs . The Abigail Alliance argued that the FDA must license drugs for use by terminally ill patients with "desperate diagnoses," after they have completed Phase I testing . The case won an initial appeal in May 2006, but that decision was reversed by a March 2007 rehearing . The US Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and the final decision denied the existence of a right to unapproved medications . </P>

What drug s approved in 1987 by the u.s. food and drug administration as a treatment of hiv/aids