The Future of Designer Drugs and Legislative Responses

[specialspack]

I have been think recently about the current situation with regard to the number and variety of "designer" psychoactive agents, which seem to be mostly from the psychedelic group, although there seem to be a few stimulants, dissociatives and possibly opiates around too.

Currently, legislation would seem to be struggling to keep up - with the possible exception of the US (and Australia?) who has an analog law.

In European countries, chemicals are either named speciifically or in "catch-all" groups, like the UK's on phenethylamines.

Recent new compounds are testing the limits of these laws, with methylone, the dragonflys, etc falling outside them.

So how do we think things are going to develop, in these two legislative paradigms? It seems in the UK/European model, there is a limit to the size of group that a catch-all clause delineates - too broad, and it would cover various established medicines, OTC and prescription, which would stir the wrath of the powerful pharmaceutical lobby.

In the US system, this situation is avoided by having the analog laws with its "substantially similar in effects" clause, but eventually it seems that the legislature would be forced into a corner of saying that anything that has broadly defined effects is illegal - seems like we're already halfway to that.

With the current exchange of information on the internet, it takes (relatively) very little time for a drug to be created, for it to by tasted, and to be produced in some form or another by a company or to appear on the streets.

Do you think that the "cat is out of the bag" - that laws are going to struggle to keep up with an ever-expanding field of psychoactives? Or is this wishful thinking - Nicholas Saunders' quote on the back of TIHKAL is of this vein, but now seems somewhat naive (although he was talking more about the extraction of tryptamines from plants).

S.

 

[fastandbulbous]

I really can't see the European model taking up the analogue act type legislation for 2 reasons

1) The vagueness of it would come a cropper at the European Court of Human Rights, because of the 'everything is illegal' approach

2) Europe simply doesn't have the hardline 'War on Drugs' approach of the US.

And with that, I'm so happy to be an EU citizen

 

[C6H6]

In the European Union we will probably see compounds being added to the list of controlled substances as they become prevalent on the grey market. 2C-I is now banned in the EU, and individual countries have their own lists. For example, Denmark recently added 2C-D to it's national list of controlled substances. So it's a double strategy, some compounds get EU-wide banned, others on a national level. Germany has probably the most complete list (except UK/Ireland), but didn't add anything for the longest while, and there are still a lot of legals in this country to give room for experiments.

 

[fastandbulbous]

Yeah, the EU drugs monitoring unit recently asked member nations to add 2C-I, 2C-T-2, 2C-T-7 and TMA-2 to their list of controlled substances if they hadn't already.

PS C6H6, which country do you live in?

 

[BilZ0r]

I like specific analogue laws i.e. "any phenetylamines with one or more alklyamine, thioalkyl, alkyl-oxy or halogen substitution on the 3,4 or 5 positions) or some such evidence (aka SAR) based assumptions.. The you just ammend the law when relatively novel structures are produced

Even better would be a pharmacological and harm based approach i.e. "5-HT2A agonists are schedual 3, DAT substrates are schedual 1"..
"Usage of psychoactive chemicals in a manner when is unreasonabley dangerous is punishable by a 3 month harm-reducation education"

 

[Neo1]

It is said that "Ignorance of the law is no defense".

So, as someone who visits various countries from time to time and likes to eat whatever fruits are legal there, where would I obtain a comprehensive list of exactly which chemicals are illegal in which countries?

I heard that methylone is still legal in the UK. Where could I find out for certain, without asking the Home Office. If we asked the home Office, they'd simply ban it before any could be imported!

 

[fastandbulbous]

You've got to get the full Misuse of Drugs Act regulations, and the subsequent Modification Orders, then once you've got those, you also need a fairly good understanding of structural organic chemistry.

Even the IDMU gets it wrong over the legal status of drugs.

Neo1 - have a look on EDD if you want the reasoning behind the methylone statement (I'm feeling lazy and can't be bothered to type it all out again)

 

[anjovis]

Erowid has some info on the legal status of different chemicals but it is a bit behind on the latest matters. I'd still say it is the most up-to-date list for all countries. Some countries have their "controlled substances" lists online, but often requires some work to find them.

 

[Neo1]

You've got to get the full Misuse of Drugs Act regulations, and the subsequent Modification Orders, then once you've got those, you also need a fairly good understanding of structural organic chemistry.

Even the IDMU gets it wrong over the legal status of drugs.

So these days it's not enough to ask the Law whether something is allowed or not..... you also need to have an advanced degree in organic chem. Great 8)

Neo1 - have a look on EDD if you want the reasoning behind the methylone statement (I'm feeling lazy and can't be bothered to type it all out again)

I remember reading your comments re:methylone, and found them very interesting. Unfortunately, I am not very well versed in organic chemistry and have no means to verify them. You obviously did your homework and know what you're talking about. I would wager, however, that there's a chance that if someone were to distribute methylone within the UK and got busted, unless they had a damn good drugs lawyer and a shit hot organic chemist on the team, that they would just get sent to jail anyways.

Erowid's drugs law pages are interesting but ultimately, completely useless. They're not going to help someone who gets caught with a substance that's just been made illegal and didn't know it.

Don't people wonder why laws get passed but the public doesn't get told about them? It's because laws are DESIGNED to be broken.

It appears to me that if someone gets busted with some new designer drug and says "well it never said it was illegal on Erowid etc." then the judge would just say "yes but didn't you read page 10245 of volume 793, part 2b(annex VII) of the 2005 drugs modifications? Ignorance of the law is no defense.".... kind of like when the Vogons were going to demolish the Earth to make way for a new hyperspace bypass and everyone got up in arms but the plans were on "public display" on some distant planet for the last 50 years 8)

Seriously, why people pay taxes to uphold systems like this, beats me 8(

Rant over

 

[fastandbulbous]

I would wager, however, that there's a chance that if someone were to distribute methylone within the UK and got busted, unless they had a damn good drugs lawyer and a shit hot organic chemist on the team, that they would just get sent to jail anyways.

No, if it's not covered by the M of DA, then they cannot proceed using that law. I know someone who got arrested with a LOT of 5-methoxy AMT, ready made up into doses, and nothing came of it (although they did also get caught with MDMA and cannabis, in supply amounts, which was taken further)

The reason I'm confident in my opinion about whether drugs are controlled in the UK is because I don't use Erowid etc as my legal source, but Hansard, which is the publication that gives details of laws passed by Parliament - if it isn't in Hansard, it aint in the statute books

f&b

 

[specialspack]

Ok, this is getting a bit off topic. This isnt the place to discuss the details of UK drug law, as interesting as they are.

I'm trying to find out what people think will happen, reading the zeitgeist - however, I also dont think we want to set up a nice neat explanation of how drug law should be amended to best control psychoactive substances!

 

[fungus44]

I think we can speculate on what's likely to happen. I'd rather try to figure out what we'd like and how we can get there. The RC discusssion ties into discussions about ethnobotanicals, and way loads of legal intoxicants, regular pharmaceuticals and prescription pharmaceuticals.

I think there needs to be a widespread willingness for people to say in public and direct ways that they enjoy and/or benefit from their use of psychoactives, regardless of their legal status or how they are socially percieved.

Dr. David Healy, well known in the last few years for his criticisms of SSRIs and the role of pharmceutical companies, is a keen arguer AGAINST abstinence. In his book, The Antidepressant Era, he shows the relative arbitrariness of the labels put on drugs. While criticizing the medical establishment, he also argues against some of its critics for preaching what he calls "pharmaceutical Calvinism". Why suffer more than one needs to? What's wrong with taking a pill to feel good? What's wrong with taking a pill that may make you more interested in butterflies or philosophy or playing the trombone?

I think there needs to be widespread public discussion about why people take drugs, negative and positive, and the effects of drug production, distribution and consumption, both negative and positive.

An onus would have to be put on producers to properly label, describe, and distribute their wares. Users would also have to given the resources to be responsible in their use of a psychoactive -- how much? in what circumstance? activities or situations to be avoided (eg. driving)? who should they give it to?

The paradigm shift we need to push for is that it be universally recognized that people will seek altered states of consciousness, and that this drive is neither good nor bad.

I think a social model based on the acceptance of sexual minorities (gay, lesbian, bi, trans, celibate, fetishists) is a model that drug users may wish to learn from, and, possibly, emulate.