Challenging a classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act ?

Jasbird jasbird#deletethis# at myrealbox.com
Tue Jul 22 12:18:21 EST 2003


On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:32:30 +0000 (UTC), "Justin Heyes-Jones"
<justin.heyesjones at genepool-uk.com> wrote:

>> Almost half of all unnatural deaths are related to alcohol:
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/833483.stm>
>>
>> Alcohol is implicated in 33,000 deaths every year:
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1846589.stm>
>
>Alcohol generates revenue for the government in huge quantities, and it is
>socially acceptable. Therefore it is impossible to enter reasonable argument
>with the government about it.
>
>
>> If were're going to have illegal drugs - it seems reasonable that, at
>> the very least, a class A drug should be responsible for several
>> deaths. How many deaths have 2C-B or 2,3-butylenedioxymethamphetamine
>> been responsible for?
>>
>
> It could be argued that 2C-B has not been attributed to deaths because not
> many people do it, and/or there are deaths caused by the drug where nobody
> knows that the drug was the cause.

It could be argued that nutmeg hasn't caused many deaths because not
many people use it - but in that case why is it not (with millions of
other substances) a class A drug too?

I certainly think we should make rose petals class A drugs - after all
there the minutest possibility that our youths might start eating them
tomorrow and that a previously unknown mutant strain might have some
dangerous drug in it. Better to be safe than sorry. That seems to be
your 'logic'. But correct me if I'm wrong.

In case you didn't read my previous post I'll repeat what I said:

: Cough up the evidence please Mr Plod. - We demand a fair trial. 
: No lynch mobs here please.
:
: What a bizarre world we live in. We require evidence to find
: someone guilty if they commit a crime but no evidence (of harm)
: is needed to class a particular action a criminal.

Is it really too much for me to ask all these people (boogaloo, Justin
Heyes-Jones) to produce evidence of harm?

Are you saying that when Rudi Fortson wrote this, below, he was
talking a load of cobblers. If so, I suppose I might as well throw his
book in the bin because, although he's written the premier UK law book
on illegal drugs, he clearly doesn't know what he's on about.

: (b) Classification should not be arbitrary
: 
: This is particularly important where drugs are controlled on the basis
: that their misuse may have harmful effects sufficient to constitute a
: social problem. Drugs may or may not be fashionable to misuse. Those
: which are fashionable and meet the criteria, one would expect to see
: added to the list, and those ceasing to be so, deleted. Furthermore,
: it was presumably not the intention of the legislature to control
: drugs that demonstrably appealed only to an eccentric few and was
: likely to remain so. In those circumstances the abuse is contained and
: limited to an isolated group and therefore not likely to constitute a
: social problem. If flexibility is not maintained so that drugs are
: classified in keeping with current social and scientific opinion, then
: the courts are placed at a considerable disadvantage, at least on the
: question of sentence, believing the drugs in question to be more or
: less harmful than they really are.

Exactly how many regular users of 2C-B are there in the UK?

a) None
b) One
c) Ten
d) One thousand.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list