Appellant Love Jeet Kaur appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion to dismiss the criminal charges against her:  Class D felony dealing in a synthetic cannabinoid, Class D felony possession of a synthetic cannabinoid, and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.  Kaur argues on appeal that (1) the new Indiana Synthetic Drug Law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is too vague to serve notice as to what behavior is prohibited and (2) it represents an unconstitutional delegation of authority by the General Assembly because it allows the Indiana Board of Pharmacy to alter the definition of “synthetic drug.”  The State argues that (1) Kaur cannot mount a challenge to the Synthetic Drug Law because the drug she is alleged to have possessed and dealt is specifically mentioned in the relevant statutes, (2) the statutes in question are not unconstitutionally vague, and (3) allowing the Indiana Board of Pharmacy to alter the definition of “synthetic drug” is not an unconstitutional delegation of authority.