Talk:Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Different Classes

Something is very wrong here; I can't find any mention anywhere of what the different classes mean. It doesn't even say whether A or C is more restrictive (although I assume A, if it's like the US Schedule system). Any info on what the classes mean? Snowboardpunk

Yes, Class A is deemed the worst and Class C the 'least worst'. I've put a section in on the max penalties available to illustrate. Sapient 23:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drug licensing

The Misuse of Drugs Act is presented here (and often elsewhere) as if little more than a list of proscribed drugs and of penalties linked to their possession and supply. I believe in practice however the Act establishes the Home Office as the key player in a drug-licensing system. Therefore, for example, various opiates are available legally as prescription-only medicines and cannabis (hemp) may be grown under licence for 'industrial purposes'. This should be quite explicit in the article. Laurel Bush 10:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Refactored

This article was, until now, just a list of drugs (most of which were dead links), categorised into the three Classes of control. I've updated it a little (by moving cannabis into Class C, as it was downgraded nearly a year ago [1]), but it's by no means exhaustive.

One thing I am worried about, though, is that the "History of drugs policy" section I've added in is both very terse and somewhat POV. Generally, I avoid editing politics articles where I feel strongly on the subject, as I find it difficult to be objective and I don't feel I've done a very good job of explaining the two sides of the coin. If anyone can improve upon it, please do. — OwenBlacker 02:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Dead links? I prefer to think of such links as proto links to yet-to-be-created articles, and so as invitations to expand WP with new articles. Laurel Bush 10:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC).
Having just done some digging around I've managed to put piped links in for several drugs that are listed in Wiki, just not by that exact name. Sadly it's a non-trivial task... I'll try to do some more at some point Sapient 22:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date that cannabis was transferred

I see conflicting dates for when cannabis was transferred from Class B to Class C. For instance, this link says "After receiving advice from the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, the Home Secretary re-classified cannabis from Class B to Class C on 10 July 2002." This article, though, says cannabis was downgraded on January 29, 2004. Can anyone nail down the exact date? Rad Racer 00:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The transfer was trailed for two, three or more years before it happened, often with the 'promise' (or 'threat'?) that it would happen in 'the spring'. That the transfer would actually happen was probably quite certain in July 2002. The event itself was in January 2004. Laurel Bush 10:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Requested move

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 -> Misuse of Drugs Act (United Kingdom). A series of articles will be created for the different nations. Some, such as Ireland, rename their Acts when they are amended, so references can be found on the Internet to the Irish Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, Misuse of Drugs Act 1984, etc. The new naming convention will avoid confusion arising from year collisions. 205.217.105.2 13:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Oppose. We have a very clear rule about placing Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom - we name them (without their chapter abbreviation) with the official short form. I see no reason to give it a name that isn't this when there are no conflicts. See Talk:List of Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom. James F. (talk) 00:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Having a consistent set of names for UK acts is more important than having a consistent set of names for unconnected articles. If there is a Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in another country, then we can change it to Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (United Kingdom). sjorford →•← 08:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. But the article does seem to be a special case and I would be quite happy with a change to Misuse of Drugs Act (United Kingdom) 1971. Laurel Bush 09:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC).
  • Oppose, albeit belatedly. As James F. wrote, we have a policy, I see no reason not to stick with it. In the (not very likely) event of any collisions, then Xxx Act 19XX could be a disambig page, linking to Xxx Act 19XX (United Kingdom), Xxx Act 19XX (Ireland) etc. I'd put the parenths after the year, though, not only for the use of piped links, but also because UK Acts of Parliament often have parenthesised chunks before the year. — OwenBlacker 13:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
There is no consensus for this to be moved; the result is not moved. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Other Misuse of Drugs Acts

New Zealand and several other countries have Acts by the same name, usually with a different year appended (e.g. New Zealand's Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). See [2]. 205.217.105.2 12:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, in Ireland for instance, there is a Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, Misuse of Drugs Act 1984, etc. for each year it was amended. So, this page should be renamed Misuse of Drugs Act (United Kingdom).
Or Misuse of Drugs Act (United Kingdom)? Cant see the point of a renaming myself. Existing redirect(s) seems better. Laurel Bush 15:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC).
Giving the country's name is more descriptive than a year. 205.217.105.2 17:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 16:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1971 vs. 1964

"Before 1971, the UK had a relatively liberal drugs policy . . ." Is this accurate, considering that the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act was enacted in 1964? Joo-joo eyeball 16:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] classes

a better description of the classes should be made.

[edit] History

The section History of drugs policy in the UK seems to need some development. I believe the Act has roots in attitudes toward opium use which developed during the 19th century, and there was then legislation on that issue. Later dates of legislation that spring to mind include 1916 (when the idea of prescription-only-medicine was estasblished in legislation) and 1928 (when cultivation of cannabis was first prohibitted, under the Dangerous Drugs Act). Laurel Bush 16:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Re use of US language

I read: The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is the Act of Parliament that controls narcotics possession, use and trafficking in the United Kingdom. The language looks very US (eg the use of narcotics). Does it reflect the language of the Act? Or does it represent a US perception of what the act is or should be? Controls was piped as controls until I cancelled the link. Laurel Bush 10:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Pholcodine is worse than cannabis?

The stuff in cough medecine is worse than dope..... Does anyone else think this is odd?

"remembers days at school- we were always warned about cannabis causing problems, but cough medecin....." How bizar: isn't the UK odd

Above added by User:Blonde2max 23:23, 27 April 2006
Yes much criticism, at time & since, of the then Home Secretary's decision to do this. The reasoning was that the previous equal classification required the police to devote as much attention on those with small quantities of cannabis for personal/friends' use as on those supplying (the perceived) more harmful heroin. Of course the media & the public viewed this as an official acceptance that cannabis is less harmful than claimed, and further fuelled calls for its legalisation. Of course very shortly afterwards were published studies showing cannabis does increase rates of depression, and involvement in traffic accidents - thus making the then Home Secretary's decision seem foolish. The newer current Home Secretary has voiced his opinion that with the benefit of hindsight this may not have been a good decision (but political embarrassment has prevented any reversal of the decision)
I guess most UK pharmacies every few years become aquainted with a customer who seems to regularly be buying codeine linctus for coughs - a phone call to neighbourghing shops sometimes then reveals that the same person is effectively buying several bottles a week from a variety of pharmacies. Such customers are often elderly patients who following a bout of a persisting cough felt better on the "cough tonic" and so continued. So yes, abuse of cough medicine is well recognised as part of a pharmacists role in supervising the sale of P-Pharmacy-only medicines.
Still don’t mock the UK too much – could start calling the US odd to – e.g. the US FDA's holding back on over the counter emergency contraceptive pills for fear that it "would lead adolescents to form sex-based cults centered around the use of Plan B"[3]. Good to know paternalistic misogynistic authoritarianism flourishes in the 'Land of the free' :-) David Ruben Talk 23:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


OMG the USA is just a dreadful place; it really is!

But I would be more concerned with people managing to buy huge amounts of paracetamol. In america you can buy them in packs of 100 from your "gas station" Which is ironic because the gas station doesn't sell any gas such as LPG which have lower CO2 emmissions; but DOES sell LIQUID petrol.....

Oh to live over the water :) Blonde2max 19:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


i agree 100 per cent. and polititians, are usually good for nothing -- here today, gone tomorrow --85.210.25.70 19:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/s/Talk%7EMisuse_of_Drugs_Act_1971_83d0.html"