Talk:Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Class C

Under class C it has Benzodiazepines, yet in contradiction it states below this that valium is not in this list. Valium is Diazepam, a benzodiazepine, so this section makes no sense at all.

Different Classes

Something is very wrong here; I can't find any mention anywhere of what the different classes mean. It doesn't even say whether A or C is more restrictive (although I assume A, if it's like the US Schedule system). Any info on what the classes mean? Snowboardpunk

Yes, Class A is deemed the worst and Class C the 'least worst'. I've put a section in on the max penalties available to illustrate. Sapient 23:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drug licensing

The Misuse of Drugs Act is presented here (and often elsewhere) as if little more than a list of proscribed drugs and of penalties linked to their possession and supply. I believe in practice however the Act establishes the Home Office as the key player in a drug-licensing system. Therefore, for example, various opiates are available legally as prescription-only medicines and cannabis (hemp) may be grown under licence for 'industrial purposes'. This should be quite explicit in the article. Laurel Bush 10:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Refactored

This article was, until now, just a list of drugs (most of which were dead links), categorised into the three Classes of control. I've updated it a little (by moving cannabis into Class C, as it was downgraded nearly a year ago [1]), but it's by no means exhaustive.

One thing I am worried about, though, is that the "History of drugs policy" section I've added in is both very terse and somewhat POV. Generally, I avoid editing politics articles where I feel strongly on the subject, as I find it difficult to be objective and I don't feel I've done a very good job of explaining the two sides of the coin. If anyone can improve upon it, please do. — OwenBlacker 02:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Dead links? I prefer to think of such links as proto links to yet-to-be-created articles, and so as invitations to expand WP with new articles. Laurel Bush 10:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC).
Having just done some digging around I've managed to put piped links in for several drugs that are listed in Wiki, just not by that exact name. Sadly it's a non-trivial task... I'll try to do some more at some point Sapient 22:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date that cannabis was transferred

I see conflicting dates for when cannabis was transferred from Class B to Class C. For instance, this link says "After receiving advice from the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, the Home Secretary re-classified cannabis from Class B to Class C on 10 July 2002." This article, though, says cannabis was downgraded on January 29, 2004. Can anyone nail down the exact date? Rad Racer 00:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The transfer was trailed for two, three or more years before it happened, often with the 'promise' (or 'threat'?) that it would happen in 'the spring'. That the transfer would actually happen was probably quite certain in July 2002. The event itself was in January 2004. Laurel Bush 10:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC).
It takes time for the appropriate legislation to be put in place, including notification to all concerned, training, updating of procedure manuals, sentencing guidelu, etc.

Requested move

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 -> Misuse of Drugs Act (United Kingdom). A series of articles will be created for the different nations. Some, such as Ireland, rename their Acts when they are amended, so references can be found on the Internet to the Irish Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, Misuse of Drugs Act 1984, etc. The new naming convention will avoid confusion arising from year collisions. 205.217.105.2 13:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Oppose. We have a very clear rule about placing Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom - we name them (without their chapter abbreviation) with the official short form. I see no reason to give it a name that isn't this when there are no conflicts. See Talk:List of Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom. James F. (talk) 00:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Having a consistent set of names for UK acts is more important than having a consistent set of names for unconnected articles. If there is a Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in another country, then we can change it to Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (United Kingdom). sjorford →•← 08:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. But the article does seem to be a special case and I would be quite happy with a change to Misuse of Drugs Act (United Kingdom) 1971. Laurel Bush 09:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC).
  • Oppose, albeit belatedly. As James F. wrote, we have a policy, I see no reason not to stick with it. In the (not very likely) event of any collisions, then Xxx Act 19XX could be a disambig page, linking to Xxx Act 19XX (United Kingdom), Xxx Act 19XX (Ireland) etc. I'd put the parenths after the year, though, not only for the use of piped links, but also because UK Acts of Parliament often have parenthesised chunks before the year. — OwenBlacker 13:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
There is no consensus for this to be moved; the result is not moved. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

Add any additional comments

Other Misuse of Drugs Acts

New Zealand and several other countries have Acts by the same name, usually with a different year appended (e.g. New Zealand's Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). See [2]. 205.217.105.2 12:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, in Ireland for instance, there is a Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, Misuse of Drugs Act 1984, etc. for each year it was amended. So, this page should be renamed Misuse of Drugs Act (United Kingdom).
Or Misuse of Drugs Act (United Kingdom)? Cant see the point of a renaming myself. Existing redirect(s) seems better. Laurel Bush 15:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC).
Giving the country's name is more descriptive than a year. 205.217.105.2 17:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 16:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1971 vs. 1964

"Before 1971, the UK had a relatively liberal drugs policy . . ." Is this accurate, considering that the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act was enacted in 1964? Joo-joo eyeball 16:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

classes

a better description of the classes should be made.

History

The section History of drugs policy in the UK seems to need some development. I believe the Act has roots in attitudes toward opium use which developed during the 19th century, and there was then legislation on that issue. Later dates of legislation that spring to mind include 1916 (when the idea of prescription-only-medicine was estasblished in legislation) and 1928 (when cultivation of cannabis was first prohibitted, under the Dangerous Drugs Act). Laurel Bush 16:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure all of the history would really truly belong to this article as much of it far predates this, One could probably right an entire article on the history of drug prohibition laws in the United Kingdom which would of course need to cover the international forcing effects of the US pressure brought to bear through the UN. I could probably have a go at writing such an article although I would like to know others opinions on it first, also I would be a little worried about writing such an obviously political type article on this topic alone as I have some strong feelings on the topic and would worry that would affect my writing even if I tried to neutralize it, then becomes the obvious question should such an article be made for the UK alone, seams that one could have a History of Drug Legislation article covering events on the international level with sections for specific national events? Perhaps also a global time line? 212.159.54.242 (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the preceding comment was by me did not realize I was not logged in. MttJocy (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re use of US language

I read: The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is the Act of Parliament that controls narcotics possession, use and trafficking in the United Kingdom. The language looks very US (eg the use of narcotics). Does it reflect the language of the Act? Or does it represent a US perception of what the act is or should be? Controls was piped as controls until I cancelled the link. Laurel Bush 10:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Pholcodine is worse than cannabis?

The stuff in cough medecine is worse than dope..... Does anyone else think this is odd?

"remembers days at school- we were always warned about cannabis causing problems, but cough medecin....." How bizar: isn't the UK odd

Above added by User:Blonde2max 23:23, 27 April 2006
Yes much criticism, at time & since, of the then Home Secretary's decision to do this. The reasoning was that the previous equal classification required the police to devote as much attention on those with small quantities of cannabis for personal/friends' use as on those supplying (the perceived) more harmful heroin. Of course the media & the public viewed this as an official acceptance that cannabis is less harmful than claimed, and further fuelled calls for its legalisation. Of course very shortly afterwards were published studies showing cannabis does increase rates of depression, and involvement in traffic accidents - thus making the then Home Secretary's decision seem foolish. The newer current Home Secretary has voiced his opinion that with the benefit of hindsight this may not have been a good decision (but political embarrassment has prevented any reversal of the decision)
I guess most UK pharmacies every few years become aquainted with a customer who seems to regularly be buying codeine linctus for coughs - a phone call to neighbourghing shops sometimes then reveals that the same person is effectively buying several bottles a week from a variety of pharmacies. Such customers are often elderly patients who following a bout of a persisting cough felt better on the "cough tonic" and so continued. So yes, abuse of cough medicine is well recognised as part of a pharmacists role in supervising the sale of P-Pharmacy-only medicines.
Still don’t mock the UK too much – could start calling the US odd to – e.g. the US FDA's holding back on over the counter emergency contraceptive pills for fear that it "would lead adolescents to form sex-based cults centered around the use of Plan B"[3]. Good to know paternalistic misogynistic authoritarianism flourishes in the 'Land of the free' :-) David Ruben Talk 23:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offence meant here but as a UK citizen I am embarrased by how little you know about drugs as a GP. Cannabis is a very safe drug and should have a lower classification than the much more harmful drugs, alcohol and tobbaco. As a GP you should recognise this. let me list the various things about cannabis that make it relatively harmless in compariston to other drugs.

1) It's arguable whether it's even physically addictive and there are many studies which show it is not physically addictive 2) It's pretty much physically impossible to die of a cannabis overdose, 3) cannabis stays in the body for around 4 weeks, so it's unsurprising that people will test positive for it after a traffic accident as theoretically they could have consumed cannabis around four weeks before the accident and it would still be detected. There relatively little risk of cancer if you vapourize or eat cannabis rather than smoke it, there are even studies (particularly UCLA dr Tashkin) that show even smoking cannabis doesn't cause cancer and may even have a protective effect oweing to the fact both THC and CBD are anti-carcinogens. It's never been conclusively proved whether cannabis causes psychosis, there are many studies which shows that there is no cause-effect relationship including a recent one from Keele university which has shown a decrease in psychotic illness whilst cannabis use has been increasing. Cannabis is also used as a medicine for a whole host of illness's including pychiatric ones, like anxiety disorders, ADHD etc, oweing I'd expect to cannabidiols both anxiolytic and anti-psychotic properties. Now compare this with alcohol, tobbaco, codeine linctuc or even caffeine and you'll find that on almost every level cannabis is a safer drug. Supposed (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


OMG the USA is just a dreadful place; it really is!

But I would be more concerned with people managing to buy huge amounts of paracetamol. In america you can buy them in packs of 100 from your "gas station" Which is ironic because the gas station doesn't sell any gas such as LPG which have lower CO2 emmissions; but DOES sell LIQUID petrol.....

Oh to live over the water :) Blonde2max 19:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


i agree 100 per cent. and polititians, are usually good for nothing -- here today, gone tomorrow --85.210.25.70 19:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removal of "Criticism of the research"

Neither of the below points are valid. Low consumption of many drugs, including alcohol, have some beneficial effects. Cannabis is perhaps even easier than alcohol production so that negates that.

  • low consumption of alcohol by healthy people have some beneficial effects[1]
  • it is too easy to produce alcoholic beverages at home, so enforcement of such a law might be hard.

References

  1. ^ Alcohol-Attributable Deaths Report, United States 2001

ETH-LAD

Does the "(and other N-alkyl derivatives of lysergamide)" cover things like ETH-LAD which is 6-ethyl-6-nor-LSD and other derivitives of 6-Norlysergamide?

Which court?

I am totally confused by the great disparity in penalties between the two courts. Why would being tried in Magistrates court for a class A possession net a maximum of 6 months, while a class C possession, ostensibly a much less serious violation (worth up to only 3 months in Magistrates) be liable to imprisonment of up to 2 years (24 months = 4 times as long) in the Crown court? I saw from the linked WP article that the Youth Courts are a form of Magistrates venue; is that the difference, in being tried as a juvenile or as an adult?

Could someone familiar with the British legal system please clarify this point? Thanks. --Eliyahu S Talk 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is because the magistrates' courts have limited powers. If they decide that the defendant deserves a higher sentence than they can impose then they send him to the Crown Court to be sentenced. Richard75 (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is only half the story. These are what are called 'either way' offences. Depending on the seriousness of the case that can either be tried summarily in the Magistrates' Court or on indictment in the Crown Court. Because the magistrates' powers of punishment they can, if they consider their powers insufficient, commit a person they have convicted to the Crown Court for sentencing. This happens more frequently now, as defendants can plead guilty to all offences in the lower court. Pleading guilty at the first opportunity, and thus saving the cost of a trial, can help to reduce the sentence that might otherwise be awarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.66.68 (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibas downgrading

Please note that it is still a class C drug until it goes through parliament 81.159.53.164 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, editors should note this news article. Note that it says early 2009. The act must gain royal assent first! I have added this as a note with reference. Josh 13:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Classification change is authorised by Section 2(2) of the act, not primary legislation. Thus it will not need royal assent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahowell (talk • contribs) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide view

How on earth do you think Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 could be changed to provide a "worldwide view on the subject"? It's a UK law. --Tombomp (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People ARE importing drugs into the country...
It may affect some people trying to import the drugs from outside the country.
It is worth some views from individuals outside the UK which may be worth mentioned on the respective article.
82.11.169.134 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the people who import illegal drugs into the country are by definition breaking the law, I doubt you will be able to find many reliable sources discussing their views (it would be a very unusual individual who would openly admit committing a crime to a source that we could consider reliable). The only exceptions perhaps are court papers (which may or may not be in the public domain) or a rare under-cover journalist report. If you know of any useful reliable sources then I would be happy to see them (especially given the lack of references for the existing claims).
Are there any other ways you consider that we can "globalise" a UK specific article? If not then I would suggest keeping the globalise flag off this article until you have a more definite idea of how we can add a world view aspect. After all, "These tags should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist." Road Wizard (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article in disrepair

The whole article is in disrepair. It seems to speculate more on the United Kingdom's drugs policy than the actual statute. I have added a little about the structure of the act, but the article needs to be rewritten. For example it makes no mention of new police powers (such as section 23) or the structure or constitution of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

I am trying to do something with it, and I note that Home Office webpages about the act seem to represent a political agenda and are not very informative about the real statutory situation. Office of Public Sector Information webpages are often a much more useful resource. Laurel Bush (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quite a bit, including a split, but it's still way from satisfactory, I agree. Anxietycello (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class B cannabis

Cannabis has been upgraded to class B now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.138.115 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? The Home Office appear to think it is still Class C.[4] Road Wizard (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4583648.stm There's the source. It's at the very top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.151.81 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. All that source says is that they have made a decision to reclassify, not that it has been reclassified. The actual reclassification is not expected to occur until early 2009. Road Wizard (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a more recent article from the BBC that provides the 2009 date. Road Wizard (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It went back to class B earlier this week. Laurel Bush (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC). WHAT ABOUT STORAGE OF CLASS A - C DRUGS? 217.42.100.65 (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis was indeed put up to class B, but was recently moved back down into class C. 92.20.199.172 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor article

This article is very weak and incomplete. In particular it says nothing at all about the system of Schedules, which determine the level of control that is required when controlled drugs are used legitimately (if there are any legitimate uses). All controlled drugs are in a Schedule as well as a Class. Classes are only relevant in terms of the penalties for unauthorised possession or supply and only tell half the story. If I find time I will try and improve the article.Pharmagiles (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History section and section 8

This whole section makes almost no sense at all. What is it trying to say? It mostly concentrates on one section of the Act. I am going to delete most of it soon. Richard75 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_1971"