3,4-Dichloromethylphenidate (3,4-DCMP), Ethylphenidate, Isopropylphenidate (IPP; IPPD), Methylnaphthidate (HDMP-28), and Propylphenidate are controlled as Temporary Class Drugs for one year on the advice of the ACMD report Methylphenidate-based NPS: A review of the evidence of use and harm.
MT-45 and 4,4′-DMAR become Class A drugs.
A proposal to make MT-45 and 4,4′-DMAR Class A drugs.
The errors in the ACMD report which were duly transcibed into the draft legislation S.I. 2014/3271* (beow) are noted and addressed in an Addendum to ACMD’s report on tryptamines. However, it also contains mistakes.
The substance formerly known only as ALD-52 has been redesignated:
(6aR,9R)-4-acetyl-N,N-diethyl-7-methyl-4,6,6a,7,8,9-hexahydroindolo[5,4,3-fg]quinoline-9-carboxamide (ALD-52) (LSD with an acetyl group on the tryptamine nitrogen). [emphasis added]
By no stretch could ALD-52 be called a tryptamine although one can envision tryptamine as a substructure of ALD-52. Still, tryptamine has two nitrogen atoms, and either might reasonably be intended in this context.
Indeed, the mistaken structure supplied originally does precisely that, depicting the acetyl group attached to the wrong “tryptamine” nitrogen. The correct structure, with the acetyl affixed to N1 (i.e. part of the indole substructure), is shown in the addendum.
Every one of the five systematic names listed is incorrect. Some have multiple errors. They do not describe any existing or even possible structure and defy parsing by the freely available Open Parser for Systematic IUPAC nomenclature (OPSIN), arguably the best of its kind and designed to bend over backwards to make sense of a botched name.
A proposal to criminalize anyone who may have, take or sell AH-7921; an infinite number of tryptamines (of which an infinite number are not known to exist); and some “LSD related compounds” (despite citing any evidence whatsoever).
The UK Government is acting on the advice of the ACMD . One might presume a hand-picked group of seasoned professionals would have this process down cold by now. This is criminal law they’re crafting after all.
So it’s disquieting to find errors in the Update of the Generic Definition for Tryptamines, not so subtle mistakes that seem to have—and not for the first time—escaped their combined scrutiny.
For instance, the report recommends “ALD-52” be made a Class A controlled substance, along with four other obscure initialisms utterly without meaning to all but the tiniest fraction of readers. Perhaps one person in 50,000 has heard of ALD-52, fewer still could draw the structure from memory. I certainly could not. There is a reason the rulebook for organic chemical nomenclature runs over 1500 pages.
The structural diagram thoughtfully provided for ALD-52 is incorrect, and not by a little. Rather counterproductive for an amendment alleging to clarify an existing ambiguity in the law.
“Khat” (i.e. “the leaves, stems or shoots of the plant of the species Catha edulis”) becomes a Class C drug 24 June 2014.
The final version of the draft amendment below.
This near-impenetrable omnibus amendment proposes to:
A proposal to make “Khat” (i.e. “the leaves, stems or shoots of the plant of the species Catha edulis”) a Class C drug—contrary to the advice of the ACMD. Sporting of them to ask, though.
This Order names at least 10, probably 14, and possibly 18 new substances as Temporary Class Drugs, effective 10 June 2013.
Exclusive of stereoisomers or salts, the total depends on how one interprets “… and its N-methyl derivatives.”One could argue there is only a single N-methyl derivative. But given the plural “derivatives,” it’s not hard to imagine they mean to capture the N,N-dimethyl derivative as well.
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 claimed:
“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.