European Tribune

Display:
The classification for this or that drug should IMO be decided upon by an independent official or a directorate, not the European Parliament, not the Council. The EP and the Council only need effective controls to be able to override the official or the directorate when it makes procedurally dubitable decisions that are politically salient.

This seems to be how it works in the US, at least:

The legislation created five Schedules (classifications), with varying qualifications for a drug to be included in each. Two federal departments, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services (which includes the Food and Drug Administration) determine which drugs are added or removed from the various schedules, though the statute passed by Congress created the initial listing. Classification decisions are required to be made on the criteria of potential for abuse, accepted medical use in the United States, and potential for dependence.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sat Nov 10th, 2007 at 10:13:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sat Nov 10th, 2007 at 10:15:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The text you quote does indicate, though, that this is the first time the EP has been called upon to consider a matter like this one. Presumably because it was felt the question was not simply a technical one, there being some doubt about potential problems with the recreative use of BZP.

Benzylpiperazine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Benzylpiperazine (street names include "A2", "frenzy" and "nemesis"[1] ) (BZP) is a recreational drug with euphoric, stimulant properties. Its mechanism of action is believed to be similar to MDMA and the effects produced by BZP are comparable to those produced by amphetamine. Adverse effects have been reported following its use including psychosis, renal toxicity, and seizures. It does not appear to be very addictive and no deaths have been reported following a sole ingestion of BZP. It is banned in a few countries, including the United States, Australia and in parts of Europe. However, its legal status is less restrictive in some other countries such as Ireland, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada.

I don't see, a priori, why a parliament shouldn't be called on to look into this kind of matter.

And, after all, doesn't it raise the level of transparency you (and I don't disagree) were asking for?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Nov 10th, 2007 at 03:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's good that the EP is getting some say in criminal law matters. But this is a mere 'implementing measure' on a previous 'decision', which is a bit too particular IMO. Still, it could be that you are right and they are looking into it because the EP feels it is important.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sat Nov 10th, 2007 at 04:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recent Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series