Challenging a classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act ?
jasbird#deletethis# at myrealbox.com
Tue Jul 22 13:26:38 EST 2003
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:56:35 +0100, "Ghosty"
<ghostyposty at mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>In news:mmsqhvkjch4utrdklgamlqk8aa05rjo8qm at 4ax.com,
>Jasbird <firstname.lastname@example.org> mused:
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:51:57 +0100, "boogaloo" <goaway at yahoo.co.uk>
>> > It can cause sickness- I have seen with my own eyes someone be
>> > sick form what was 2CB.
>> Well that's better than nothing at all. So, as it may cause sickness
>> (I'm provisionally taking your word for that), do you think we should
>> put it in class C? On the basis that as hardly anyone is using it,
>> it's clearly several hundred degrees less dangerous than opiates, it
>> is not addictive, there seems to be no community of problem users - in
>> fact - no community of users at all.
>> > > 1. Saying that it does not have a good effect is contradicted by
>> > > hundreds of reports of its use which all state that it has a good
>> > > effect on those people who are inclined to use it. Do a google
>> > > search yourself.
>> > Well a while ago you stated it had no drug like effect. I can't
>> > be arsed doing a google cos I don't care that much.
>> When I mentioned harmless non-drug substances I was referring to
>> millions of other substances classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act
>> as dangerous class A drugs. For example, stuff such as
>Must admit - doesn't ring a bell that last one. Is it named in the Act?
>Or is it deemed Class A by virtue of the generic definitions of
>methamphetamine, etc in the Act?
>Let's see - Butylenedioxy group attached at 2 and 3 of the aromatic ring
>of the methamphetamine molecule - so yeah that's gonna be caught anyway
>by the gumph about alkylenedioxy substitution in the phenethylamine ring.
>No effects? I'd have guessed psychedelic. Oh well.
Not that I know of.
It's because the people who wrote that law "guessed" that we have
an infinite number of illegal class A drugs. Don't you think it is
better to class substances as drugs based on evidence rather than
I'm truely shocked by the blasé attitude of people here.
Exactly what am I supposed to say when arguing for the legalisation of
a drug when my allies and opponents both say:
>Still, if it's no good as a drug why worry?
>You'd not bother making it illegally in the first place..
Exactly my point.
It has no drug-like effect. No one would want to use it as a drug.
So - why not make it legal?
I'm really puzzled by this prevalent attitude:
Why bother making something legal?
Shouldn't the question be - why make something harmless illegal? So
illegal that possession of a gram of the substance could put you in
prison with the resultant ruination of your life.
More information about the Neur-sci