HOW ARE THE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES MET? WHAT MAKES THEM LEGAL OR ILLEGAL?
I wish to start by saying I am in no way in agreement with the legalisation of all drugs.
As a 37 year old woman, happily married, raising three children (well) with a full-time, managerial role in my chosen career, a regular cigarette smoker, a dabbler in acid, speed, coke, ketamine and an ex-user of ecstacy and MDMA, alcohol and weed, I feel I have a valid opinion of the affects these drugs have on my own health and the potential harm my using these substances on those around me, and society as a whole.
After my entire adult life as a 'user' I have only just started questioning the classification system. I have been researching the whys and wherefores of the classification of drugs here in the UK, and have been trying to find out the reasoning behind the legal status of alcohol and cigarettes, yet not of other controlled substances such as cannabis and cocaine. I hope what follows is a balanced report. Please click the links for more info-there just ain't the space to put it all here!
I am not glamourising the use of illegal drugs, but maybe provoking questions as to why the government is allowing the use of such dangerous substances, yet not others, that have been scientifically proven to be less harmful? Is it really just the fundermental fact that these legal drugs generate millions of pounds each year in tax revenue?
The Misuse of Drugs Act categorises drugs according to how dangerous they are thought to be based on the harm they they do to individuals and the community. The problem with this classification is that cigarettes and alcohol, arguably the two most dangerous drugs, are not covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act. If they were they would be class As, carrying the same penalties!
Misuse of Drugs Act - http://www.ukcia.org/pollaw/lawlibrary/updatedMoDA1971.php
This BBC report details a new classification system, which is now on 'hold' for unknown reasons, defining classification by the harm it inflicts upon an individual. Cannabis, for example, was rated lower than both cigarettes and alcohol, as was ecstacy and LSD!!
The designation of drugs in classes A, B and C should be replaced with one more closely reflecting the harm they cause, the present system was based on historical assumptions, not scientific assessment.
Details of a system devised by government advisers was considered by former Home Secretary Charles Clarke but is now on 'hold'. It rates some illegal drugs as less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. The new system was based on the first scientific assessment of 20 legal and illegal stimulants used in contemporary Britain. Alcohol was rated the fifth most harmful drug, ahead of some current class A drugs, while tobacco was listed as ninth. Cannabis, currently rated a class C drug, was below both those legal stimulants at 11th. The MPs said including alcohol and tobacco in the classification would give the public "a better sense of the relative harms involved". They also denounced the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs - which provides scientific guidance to the government - for "dereliction of duty" in failing to alert ministers of "serious flaws" in the rating system.
Phil Willis, who chairs the committee, said the current classifications were "riddled with anomalies" and "clearly not fit for purpose". Mr Willis said the only way to get "an accurate and up to date classification system" was to "remove the link with penalties and just focus on harm", adding that this meant social consequences as well as harm to the user.
He went on: "It's time to bring in a more systematic and scientific approach to drug classification - how can we get the message across to young people if what we are saying is not based on evidence?"
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said: "In 1971 when the classification system was launched, that was right for the time.
"What we've had is a huge societal change over that period and what we've seen is that putting a drug into Class A does not stop people using it at all"
The alternative system was prepared by Professor David Nutt, a senior member of the Committee that advises the government on drug classification, and Professor Colin Blakemore - chief Executive of the Medical Research Council.
There are three class A drugs in the top five of the system, as well as one Class B and alcohol. Tobacco is listed as the ninth most harmful drug and cannabis, a class C drug, comes in at number 11. Perhaps most surprising is the presence of two Class A drugs - ecstasy and LSD - in the bottom six. This places them well below tobacco and alcohol and a number of class B and C drugs.
Professor Blakemore told BBC News alcohol and tobacco were included in the ranking to give a "calibration of what these levels of harm mean". He added: "That's not to say there's any argument that alcohol should be banned but it does give one a feel for the relative harm". (source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stmdrugs)
So, Professor Blakemore, a learned man, as his title professes, but a stupid man, I'm sure you'll agree! How can he include tobacco and alcohol in his studies as a "calibration of what these levels of harm mean", and not argue for the reclassification of all those substances found to be less harmful? After all, he said, and I quote once again; "That's not to say there's any argument that alcohol should be banned but it does give one a feel for the relative harm" Why?
Is it me? Am I missing something? I just don't get it!
'Drug' abuse kills!
Smoking kills around 114,000 people in the UK each year. The number of people under the age of 70 who die from smoking-related diseases exceeds the total figure for deaths caused by breast cancer, AIDS, traffic accidents and drug addiction. (source http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health_advice/facts/smokehealth.htm)
Numbers of deaths where selected substances were mentioned on the death certificate in England and Wales,2005-Heroin and morphine 842 -Methadone 220 -Cocaine (including crack) 176 -All amphetamines 103 (of which MDMA/ecstasy) 58 -Cannabis 19 -Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) 4 -All benzodiazepines 190 -Zopiclone/Zolpidem 48 -Barbiturates 14- All antidepressants 401-Paracetamol (including compound formulations) 466 -Codeine (non-compound formulation) 44-Dihydrocodeine (non-compound formulation) 106 -Aspirin 19 -Tramadol 53 (source http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_FactResearchGuide_DrugRelatedDeaths.htm)
The alcohol-related death rate in the UK continued to increase in 2006, rising from 12.9 deaths per 100,000 population in 2005 to 13.4 in 2006. Rates almost doubled from 6.9 per 100,000 in 1991. The number of alcohol-related deaths more than doubled from 4,144 in 1991 to 8,758 in 2006. (source http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091)
ONS figures for drug related deaths in England and Wales for 1993 was about 860 deaths rising to just over 1,420 in 2004. (In recent years an additional 220-280 drug-related deaths have been reported each year in Scotland). These figures include accidental and deliberate overdose with medicines (excluding paracetamol which is related to roughly 1000 deaths a year. Most of which is suicide). However, the most recent statistics show that deaths involving drugs of misuse have dropped to 1427 in 2004 (from a figure of 1666 in 2000) although the number of deaths involving specific drugs like cocaine and amphetamines (including ecstasy) have risen over the last 10 years. With many of these deaths people had also been using other drugs and indeed may not have died if they had not been taking more than one drug. (source http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/faqs/faqpages/how-many-people-die-from-drugs.htm)
There are 50 times more deaths from drinking every year than there are deaths from illegal drugs (source http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/crime-prevention/helping-prevent-crime/family/alcohol)
An individual's 'habit' can be detrimental to the health and well-being of those around them and society as a whole.
Secondhand tobacco smoke kills at least 3600 people a year in the UK, according to a new study, including the death of one pub or bar worker every week.(source http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4998-passive-smoking-kills-one-bar-worker-a-week.html)
One in six road deaths is caused by drink drivers. (source http://www.kent.gov.uk/transport-and-streets/roadsafety/safer-driving/drink-driving.htm)
A 1998 survey of those arrested in five areas of the UK found: 61% had taken at least one illegal drug 46% were tested positive for cannabis 18% for opiates/heroin and 10% for cocaine/crack. Nearly half of those arrested across all areas said their drug use was connected with their offending. 32% of the total illegal income of all these arrestees was spent on drugs. The average illegal income for a heroin/crack user was £10-20,000 (source
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2001/life_of_crime/drugs.stm)
These are but a few sites offering limited information regarding this matter.
Even after my lenghty trawling of the internet for information, I am still at a loss to understand how our government is able to justify the legalisation of tobacco and alcohol, yet not 'illicit' drugs. How they can argue that, based on the current classification system, that is, how dangerous a drug is, is thought to be based on the harm they they do to individuals and the community, that smoking a cigarette or drinking a few pints can be less harmful to oneself or society, than taking a few tokes or losing yourself in a psychedelic trip? I'm not trying to tell you that taking illegal drugs is less harmful than using 'legal' substances, I am merely questioning the classification system. Why isn't anyone else?
I shall continue my quest for answers, and post should I find any more info regarding this matter.
I would love to here from anyone that has taken the time to read this and have any views on the subject.
Posts
***
