In Commonwealth v. West, 270 Pa. Super. 301, 411 A.2d 537 (Pa. Super. 1979), a doctor was convicted of four counts of unlawfully writing prescriptions in violation of Section 13(a)(14) of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act of 1972, April 14, P.L. 233, 35 P.S. 780-113(a)(14), which states: (a) The following acts and the causing thereof within the Commonwealth are hereby prohibited: (14) The . . . prescription of any controlled substance by any practitioner . . . unless done (i) in good faith in the course of his professional practice; (ii) within the scope of the patient relationship; (iii) in accordance with treatment principles accepted by a responsible segment of the medical profession. He challenged his conviction contending that the provision was unconstitutionally vague because it contained no ascertainable standard of conduct. In rejecting that claim, the Superior Court stated: In construing statutes couched in similarly comprehensive language, this court has dealt with claims of impermissible vagueness as follows: "If the comprehensive words of the statute . . . convey concrete impressions to the ordinary person . . . then the common sense of the community, as well as the sense of decency, propriety and the morality which most people entertain is sufficient to apply the statute to each particular case, and to individuate what particular conduct is rendered criminal by it."