The UK seems doggedly determined to circumvent reality. Recall when they first conjured up the idea of so-called “generic controls” for synthetic cannabinoids they imagined that…
“By using the generic definition provided by the ACMD, our controls will capture a range of agonists and therefore both current and future foreseeable trends.”
As has been pointed out elsewhere, there are at least 12 substances meant to be captured by this amendment that are already beyond its reach. Darn clever these agonists.
A proposal to control the following:
To fully grasp the magnitude of this proposal (i.e. infinite), careful study of these finite ACMD reports is suggested: Further consideration of the synthetic cannabinoids, Methoxetamine report, 2012, and ACMD advice on O-Desmethyltramadol.
This Order specifies 2-(Ethylamino)-2-(3-methoxyphenyl)cyclohexanone and related substances specified in article 2, commonly known as Methoxetamine, as drugs subject to temporary control under section 2A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
The Home Office bans the importation of Diphenylprolinol and Diphenylmethylpyrrolidine, as advised by the ACMD. See Further advice on Diphenylprolinol (D2PM) and Diphenylmethylpyrrolidine.
The psychoactive substance Desoxypipradrol (2-DPMP) and its related compounds are to be classified as Class B drugs. The move follows advice from the ACMD (see Desoxypipradrol (2-DPMP) advice) .
An order making the substance illegal will be put before Parliament this autumn. The order will also seek to make Phenazepam, also used as a ‘legal high’, a Class C drug along with other benzodiazepines.
The ACMD report proposes a generic control that includes Desoxypipradrol and a countable infinity of similar substances.
This Act amends the Misue of Drugs Act 1971 by granting the Secretary of State the power to make a temporary class drug order specifying any substance or product as a drug subject to temporary control of 12 months.
A large number of conditions and prerequisites must be met before such an order may be made, but in fact the bar is not very high. Consider this condition:
“…the Secretary of State can only proceed to make the order if it appears that the drug is one that is being, or is likely to be, misused, and that misuse is having, or is capable of having, harmful effects.” [italics added]
Is there a way to “misuse” a drug that ensures absolute safety? Just asking.
This Order adds Tapentadol to Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (the “1971 Act”) which specifies drugs which are subject to control as Class A drugs under that Act, and adds Amineptine to Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act which specifies drugs which are subject to control as Class C drugs under that Act.
This Order also removes 4-Methylmethcathinone from paragraph 1(a) of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act which specifies drugs which are subject to control as Class B drugs under that Act—4-Methylmethcathinone will though fall within paragraph 1(aa)—and revokes paragraph (a) of article 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2010.
This Order adds a further group of Cathinone quasi-analogues, including Naphthylpyrovalerone (Naphyrone), to Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which specifies drugs which are subject to control as Class B drugs under that Act.
The ACMD report “Consideration of the naphthylpyrovalerone analogues and related compounds” ostensibly provides the rationale.
The Drugs Act 2005 came into force in several stages. The section outlawing Fungus (of any kind) which contains Psilocin or an ester of Psilocin came into force 18 July 2005 via S.I. 2005/1650.
The named PiHKAL substances not covered by the generic definition introduced by S.I. 1977/1243. Curiously, one seems to have been missed: PiHKAL #167, 4T-MMDA-2.
See L. A. King, Forensic Chemistry of Substance Misuse: A Guide to Drug Control, RSC Publishing, Cambridge, 2009
The PiHKAL and TiHKAL generic amendments. Odd that “alkylthio” is not included in the list of ring substituents. Are the 2C-T series caught by the “other univalent substituent” clause? It seems almost deliberately inconsistent.
This brings into force those provisions of the MDA 1971 which are not already in force, with effect from 1 Jul 1973.
This brings into force Sections 1, 32, 35, 37, 38, 40 of and Schedule 1 to the MDA 1971, with effect from 1 Feb 1972.