SarahPvc said:

rickd said:

SarahPvc said:

I do believe Pills have been classified a class B now.

AS for acid i do believe it should be a class A due to the amount of people that have ended up being mentally sectioned over it or screwed up for life.

There was talk of making pills a class B, but I don't think it was implemented due to political pressure...

 

Also there are plenty of drugs that should be class A drugs, but are not currently. LSD is a bad example, like most drugs, if it is taken in moderation, it is safe, if you apply your logic to any drug, then all should be class A's...

 

It isnt my logic - its based on facts & statistics

Try reading it again...

 

Any drug can [censored] you up if you over do it... That was the simple fact I was trying to put across...

Trying re-phrasing what you wrote then -

 

if you apply your logic to any drug, then all should be class A's

 

How else was that meant to be taken?

thanks for all your replies!

 

Alasdair: They class Marijuana the same as heroin??? is there something i'm not getting here?

SarahPvc said:

Trying re-phrasing what you wrote then -

 

if you apply your logic to any drug, then all should be class A's

 

How else was that meant to be taken?

rickd, is this what you're trying to say: that sarah's logic is that LSD should be class A cuz it fucks you up bad. And that you disagree because all drugs [censored] you up bad if you don't take them "safely" and that LSD is no exception. So, if you class something as A because if fucks you up bad (which you feel is due to it being taken unsafely) then all drugs should be class A (because all of em have the potential to do that, if they are taken unsafely)?

 

Phew, bit longwinded, but is that the gist of what you're saying?

Thanks, that is exactly what I was trying to say... Made sense to me the way I wrote it...

the higher the class then the better the quality

fantastique said:

rickd, is this what you're trying to say: that sarah's logic is that LSD should be class A cuz it fucks you up bad. And that you disagree because all drugs [censored] you up bad if you don't take them "safely" and that LSD is no exception. So, if you class something as A because if fucks you up bad (which you feel is due to it being taken unsafely) then all drugs should be class A (because all of em have the potential to do that, if they are taken unsafely)?

 

Phew, bit longwinded, but is that the gist of what you're saying?

 

hey bacon fucks you up... dont see that taken off the super market shelf tho!!!

ok, i did some background reading. some people in the thread are suggesting that, in the UK, drugs are scheduled and classes in an arbitrary manner. this is simply not the case. again, agree or disagree with the schedules and classes, clearly some thought has gone into the system. here are the UK classes and schedules:

 

1. Classes and penalties

The penalties applicable to offences involving the different drugs are graded broadly according to the social harm attributable to a drug when it is misused and for this purpose the drugs are defined in three classes: A, B and C.

 

Class A Offences involving those in Class A attract the highest penalties – a maximum of seven years and/or unlimited fine for possession; life and/or unlimited fine for production or trafficking. A mandatory seven year sentence is now the penalty for a third conviction for trafficking.10 This class includes the more potent of the opioid painkillers (heroin, morphine, methadone11, dipipanone, pethidine), hallucinogens (eg LSD, ecstasy) and the stimulant cocaine. It also includes liquid cannabis, cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives (THC).12 Any Class B drug prepared for injection counts as Class A.

 

Class B has lower penalties: a maximum of five years and/or unlimited fine for possession; fourteen years and/or unlimited fine for production or trafficking. It includes herbal cannabis, cannabis resin, less potent opioids (codeine, pentazocine), strong synthetic stimulants (eg oral amphetamines), and sedatives (eg barbiturates).

 

Class C has the lowest penalties: a maximum of two years and/or unlimited fine for possession; five years and/or unlimited fine for trafficking. It includes tranquillisers, some less potent stimulants, and mild opioid analgesics (eg buprenorphine which is used in the treatment of opioid dependency).

 

Most offences involving drugs are triable either way, that is, summarily by magistrates or on indictment with a jury at a Crown Court. Less serious offences are usually dealt with by magistrates' courts, where sentences cannot exceed six months and/or £5,000 fine, or three months and/or fine for less serious offences. Eighty five per cent of all drug offenders are convicted of unlawful possession.13 Although maximum penalties are severe, just over 20 per cent of offenders receive a custodial sentence (even fewer actually go to prison), and nearly 3/4 of fines are £50 or less.14

 

2. Drug schedules

The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985, made under the Act, divide the controlled drugs up in a different way to take account of the needs of medical practice. They define the classes of persons who are authorised to supply and possess controlled drugs while acting in their professional capacities and lay down the conditions under which these activities may be carried out. In the Regulations drugs are divided into 5 schedules each governing such activities as import, export, production, supply, possession, prescribing, and record keeping which apply to them. Details of the schedules are as follows:15

 

Schedule 1, the most restricted drugs, (eg, LSD and cannabis), can only be supplied or possessed for research or other special purposes by people licensed by the Home Office; these drugs are not available for normal medical uses and cannot be prescribed by doctors who do not have a licence.

 

All the other drugs are available for medicinal use. Most are Prescription Only, so they can only be obtained if prescribed by a doctor and supplied by a pharmacy (eg, strong analgesics like morphine, stimulants like amphetamines or cocaine, tranquillisers and most sedatives). Some very dilute, non-injectable preparations of controlled drugs - because they are so unlikely to be misused - can be bought over the counter without a prescription, but only from a pharmacy (eg, some cough medicines and anti-diarrhoea mixtures containing opiates). Medicines available in this way can also legally be possessed by anyone. The same also applies to benzodiazepine tranquillisers and hypnotics (except temazepam and flunitrazepam) even though these drugs can only be legally obtained on prescription.16

 

Schedule 2 includes such drugs as diamorphine (heroin), morphine, pethidine, cocaine. These are subject to the full controlled drug requirements relating to prescriptions, safe custody, the need to keep records, etc.

 

Schedule 3 includes the barbitrates (except secobarbital, now in schedule 2), buprenorphine, pentazocine, the tranquillisers nitrazepam and flunitrazepam. These are subject to the special prescription requirements, but not, for the most part, to the safe custody requirements, nor to the need to keep registers.

 

Schedule 4 includes benzodiazepines (other than flunitrazepam and tamazepam which are now in schedule 3) and anabolic steroids. Controlled drug prescription requirements do not apply and Schedule 4 Controlled Drugs are not subject to the safe custody requirements.

 

Schedule 5 includes those preparations which because of their strength, are exempt from virtually all Controlled Drug requirements other than retention of invoices for 2 years.

 

alasdair

fantastique said:

Alasdair: They class Marijuana the same as heroin??? is there something i'm not getting here?

 

that certainly doesn't make a whole lot of sense to most people.

 

this does not answer your specific question but a lot of people look at scheduling and scratch their heads.

 

the fact is that most schedules use a combination of criteria when deciding which applies. the two most common in the US are:

 

- potential for abuse

- medical usefulness

 

there are, of course, other factors.

 

thus, one drug may have a higher potential for abuse than another but, at the same time, a higher 'usefulness' in medicine. thus, they both end up on the same schedule when one's kneejerk reaction is that they are very different drugs.

 

whatever the case, clearly thought has gone into the system and it's a lot less arbitrary than some people seem to think.

 

regards

 

alasdair

Reasons why ecstasy is class A (at a guess):

 

* The long-term effects are, by definition, unknown (don't forget the drug is relatively new compared with marijuana, cocaine etc). Also, individual reactions to E vary, and are not fully understood.

 

* It is less safe than many other drugs, in that it is possible to die unexpectedly from it. Not many people have died from it, but in some of the most highly publicised cases, people have died from taking a single tablet for the first time. It is a fact that many pills on the street are contaminated with other substances; the only way to improve pill quality would be to make it legal and hence subject to quality control, which will never happen.

 

* It is very widely used; I'll bet usage is second only to marijuana, and hence very much in the public eye. The goverment probably want to make an example of ecstasy. Of all the drugs going, it is one they definitely don't want to appear to be condoning in any way.

 

Reasons not to re-classify any drug:

 

* The press will leap on it, and there will be the usual controversy about how the government are "going soft" on drugs. Like it or not, more people will take it if it becomes class B. (I reckon there is a massive number of people for whom the main deterrent from these substances is their illegality.)

liquideyes said:

Reasons why ecstasy is class A (at a guess):

 

* The long-term effects are, by definition, unknown (don't forget the drug is relatively new compared with marijuana, cocaine etc). Also, individual reactions to E vary, and are not fully understood.

 

* It is less safe than many other drugs, in that it is possible to die unexpectedly from it. Not many people have died from it, but in some of the most highly publicised cases, people have died from taking a single tablet for the first time. It is a fact that many pills on the street are contaminated with other substances; the only way to improve pill quality would be to make it legal and hence subject to quality control, which will never happen.

 

* It is very widely used; I'll bet usage is second only to marijuana, and hence very much in the public eye. The goverment probably want to make an example of ecstasy. Of all the drugs going, it is one they definitely don't want to appear to be condoning in any way.

 

Reasons not to re-classify any drug:

 

* The press will leap on it, and there will be the usual controversy about how the government are "going soft" on drugs. Like it or not, more people will take it if it becomes class B. (I reckon there is a massive number of people for whom the main deterrent from these substances is their illegality.)

 

There's one reason why MDMA was classified as a class A drug and that is because it has an hallucinogenic effect.

 

Nice guess tho.

 

 

I disagree: the hallucinogenic effects are negligible compared with other mind-altering drugs. Even if ecstasy had no hallucinogenic effects whatsover, it would still be class A. Marijuana can have a hallicinogenic effect, but it is not class A.

 

Furthermore, are you denying the political reasons for its classification...?

Classification, and indeed establishment attitudes to drugs are informed by current trends, media attitudes, dodgy research, and ill informed thinking (ask frank!!). That are prevelant at the time that the drug in question appears in the public eye. If Nicotine were discovered today it would probably be class A.

Very few if any of the legislators/ police/ establishment figures can have tried the drugs they are classifing. 'educating' or legislating about, and have to seek 'advice' from ex-users. (generally very [censored]-up individuals who have taken to 'educating' and moralising as an alternative to abusing the substances they were addicted to. 12 steps, God and all that bollocks.

 

Real users, who are in control, and manage the habit or even addiction well, are unlikely to want to contribute to the debate, as this would cause them real problems with families, at work ect.

 

Establishment figures, who want intelligent debate, who claimed to have tried illigal drugs, always have done so 'in their youth', never currently. So will not be able to contribute or inform as to what the drug actually does.

 

Establishment figures who are habitual users will keep well out of the debate. Bad enough to be caught, but much worse if you have spoken out, and none of them have the bollocks to stand up and promote de-criminilisation, or legalisation.

 

Even non establishment clebrities like Will Self who are very sympathetic (for reasons that I leave to you to decide upon) will never openly encourage or even condone illegal drug use.

 

So the reallity is that people who can speak with a degree of informed intelligence don't, won't or can't. That's why the law, and justice in this area is so [censored] up, and classifications don't make any sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What? how 'dangerous' they're perceived to be (class A 'most dangerous'). Who decides? New drugs are added or classified drugs reclassified by the home secretary.

 

as others have said, the criteria are unclear and of course perceptions vary!

 

nb. classification is different to schedules...schedules control who can legally possess under what terms, and are much more about perceived medical value. Schedule 1 - little value, schedule 5 - everyday use. so schedule 1 (eg lsd, cannabis) you need a home office licence (eg. for research puposes) to possess. perceived value, again, some would say that some schedule 1 drugs have tremendous medical value.

 

home secretary is advised by the advisory council on the misuse of drugs (ACMD), among others, which does include ex-users and professionals who are able to approach these issues with some degree of objectivity - eg. changes to 'paraphernalia' legislation from 1 Aug was on the advice of ACMD.

 

And, at the same time, the home secretary is of course a politician. And will respond to perceived values/norms. particularly the values/norms of floating voters in strategically important seats, some would suggest.

 

(MDMA) Ecstasy reclassification was thought to be a bridge too far by many, and so it remains class A. And although cannabis will be class C, there are changes to the penalties for class c drugs (more punitive) and new offences created to offset the political fallout of being seen to be 'soft' on drugs which will come into force as the reclassification is enacted.

 

An offence committed involving any drug prepared for injection is treated as though that drug were in the class above (c becomes B, B becomes A)...on the basis of course that it is more dangerous. Steroids, for example, class C. An offence involving steroids prepared for injection would be treated as a class B offence.

 

Hope that helps.