What makes the FDA/ATF/CIA/FBI/WTF decide if a drug is legal or not? Caffiene, a stimulant, is legal. Meth, a stimulant, is not. What about a young punk in a lab – comes up with a new chemical that, oh, I don’t know, makes you small (apologies to Steve Martin). Legal or illegal?
One way of answering your question is to take a look at the FDA site on the Contolled Substance Act (revised) at the various scheduled drugs - i.e. Schedule I, Schedule II, and so on. (Sorry, I’ve lost the exact URL) But in their descriptions of the items listed on each schedule is a reference to “potential for abuse.” This factor, then, is at least one of those used to determine if some substance should be controlled and to what extent
I gots a URL:
Oh, and a brief quotation from the above (thanks for the guide, CC):
Factors determinative of control or removal [of drugs] from schedules
(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.
Add all of the factors below and score:
a) Circumstances of discovery - discovered by lab of existing [+10] and successful [+2] pharmaceutical company as part of funded research seeking exactly that sort of drug [+4]? Or by unemployed genius doctor in the privacy of his own lab [-4]? Or by noncredentialed organic-chem geeks in search of new thrills and drug-sales profits [-15]?
b) Historical use - In existence and in use before the era of FDA approval [+10] and favored for use by doctors [+5] or the general public [0]? Or ethnically [-5] and/or politically [-10] marginalized misfits who mainly use it to get high [-10]? Or no historical use so far [-5]?
c) Primary and side effects - Is well-suited for institutional control of misbehavior [+10] or else addresses an existing and previously identified illness or condition [+3] with no major ill side effects [+3] and doesn’t infringe on the market of any patented pharmaceutical owned by a major competing pharmaceutical chain [+4]? Addresses human conditions that have been politicized in some fashion [-50 to +50 depending on the politics]? Has recreational drug potential [-10]?
Forget anything with a negative score.
I think that the Controlled Substance Analogue amedment to the CSA is also worth mentioning.
In essence, it states that if you create a new drug and its effects are similar to an already-illegal drug, that drug is illegal by definition. This act was designed to curb so-called “designer drug” manufacture. Of course the sticky part would be trying to figure out exactly what they mean by “similar.”
Hunter - it is exactly that type of cynicism, insight, and cleverness that makes people like me…jealous. Nice shot.
To the more cynical-minded, the determining factor is this: can the government make money out of it without losing votes? If so, it’s a legal drug. If not, it’s illegal.
The strange thing is, even without being cynical, it’s hard to find counter-examples.