Drug Classification Act of 1970
The Drug Classification Act of 1970 established a framework for categorizing drugs based on their potential for abuse, medical uses, and risks of dependence. This legislation created five schedules of drugs, ranging from Schedule I, which includes substances with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical uses, to Schedule V, which consists of drugs that have low abuse potential and accepted medical uses. The schedules are overseen by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, which include the Food and Drug Administration.
The classification system has faced criticism for being influenced more by political considerations than by scientific evidence, with some arguing that certain drugs, like cannabis, have legitimate medical uses despite being classified as Schedule I substances. Critics also point to inconsistencies within the classification, noting that drugs with similar properties may fall into different schedules. Additionally, the system has been scrutinized for overlooking the addictive nature of substances like alcohol and nicotine, which are not classified as controlled substances. The ongoing debates highlight the complexities of drug policy, reflecting broader societal attitudes towards various substances and their users.
Drug Classification Act of 1970
Definition: System of categorizing types of drugs according to their properties, therapeutic effects, or other features.
Significance: Drugs can be classified in many different ways, but the system of drug classification to which forensic scientists refer most often is that created by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Law-enforcement agencies are often concerned with criminal activities related to drugs classified as controlled substances under this act.
Drugs may be divided into categories based on a number of different factors. Medical practitioners, for instance, most commonly use a system of drug classification based on therapeutic effects; for example, drugs that alleviate headaches are classified with other substances that have the same effect. Alternatively, drugs can be classified based on their pharmacodynamic effects—that is, the ways in which they interact with the human biological system. This way of classifying drugs is most commonly used by researchers who study drugs and their effects. Drugs can also be classified based on the risks they pose for abuse and dependence. Using such a system, many researchers who study addiction place alcohol and nicotine in the same category as other commonly abused substances, such as heroin and cocaine. The system of drug classification used most often in the forensic sciences is the system created by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which attempts to weigh the potential medical benefits of drugs against the risks the drugs pose for abuse, physical dependence, and psychological dependence.
Five Drug Schedules
The Controlled Substances Act created five schedules, or classifications, of drugs. The US Department of Justice and the US Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Food and Drug Administration, are responsible for deciding which drugs should be included on the rather exhaustive list of substances that are regulated by the federal government. The list of substances includes drugs, minerals, organic materials, and the precursors to pharmacodynamic substances.
Schedule I drugs are those deemed to have a high potential for abuse and dependence while at the same time having no currently accepted medical uses in the United States. Drugs in this schedule are not available to the general population, no prescriptions can be written for these drugs, and only limited research has been conducted to examine their effects. Examples of Schedule I drugs are cannabis, heroin, ecstasy, and peyote.
Schedule II drugs are also considered to have high potential for abuse and dependence, but these drugs are considered to have some legitimate medical use. These drugs are legally available to the general population by prescription only, and the distribution of these drugs is subject to considerable regulation. Among the drugs included in Schedule II are morphine, oxycodone, methadone, opium, and phencyclidine (PCP).
Drugs that meet the criteria to be classified under Schedule III are thought to have lower risk for abuse than those regulated under Schedules I and II, have acceptable medical uses, and are considered to pose only moderate risk of dependence. These drugs are also available legally only by prescription, but the regulation of their distribution is less strenuous than that for Schedule II drugs. Drugs in Schedule III include anabolic steroids, hydrocodone, ketamine, and LSA (also known as d-lysergic acid amide or d-lysergamide), a precursor to and chemical relative of LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide).
The drugs included in Schedule IV are thought to have low risk for abuse, have medically acceptable uses in the United States, and have relatively low potential to create physical or psychological dependence. These drugs are available legally only by prescription and are regulated similarly to those in Schedule III. Schedule IV drugs include alprazolam (brand name Xanax), diazepam (Valium), dextropropoxyphene (Darvocet), and phenobarbital.
Drugs that are classified in Schedule V are thought to have a low risk for abuse, have medically accepted uses, and are considered to have limited risk for dependence. These drugs are legally distributed for medical purposes only by prescription. Some commonly used medications that are included in Schedule V are cough suppressants that have small amounts of codeine, antidiarrheal medications with small amounts of opium, and pregabalin (brand name Lyrica), a medication used to treat seizures and pain.
Criticisms of the US Drug Classification System
The drug classification system created by the Controlled Substances Act has been the source of ongoing controversy, in large part because of the process by which drugs are assigned to each of the different schedules. Many observers have asserted that the process is political rather than based in science. Medical practitioners and researchers have argued, for example, that some of the drugs listed in Schedule I have legitimate medical uses, such as cannabis for cancer patients, and that these drugs are included in Schedule I only because changing their classification would be politically unpopular. Many have advocated for the reclassification of some substances so that additional research can be done to assess the drugs’ medical value empirically.
Critics of the five-schedule classification system have also suggested that substances such as alcohol and nicotine, which are addictive and have no medical use, should be included in the list of controlled substances. In addition, some have noted inconsistency in the classification of drugs, pointing out that many drugs with similar pharmacological properties are classified into different drug schedules. For example, heroin, morphine, opium, and methadone all have similar chemical properties but they are listed in different schedules.
Some scholars have argued that the classification of drugs within the five-schedule system has been motivated by fear and xenophobic beliefs rather than science. Researchers have drawn connections between the passage of legislation banning the availability of certain drugs and the migration patterns of historically disenfranchised groups in the United States as well as stereotypes regarding their drug use. One specific example is the banning of peyote, which has long been a part of some Native American religious ceremonies.
Bibliography
Earleywine, Mitch, ed. Mind-Altering Drugs: The Science of Subjective Experience. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.
Gahlinger, Paul M. Illegal Drugs: A Complete Guide to Their History, Chemistry, Use, and Abuse. New York: Plume, 2004. Print.
Perrine, Daniel M. The Chemistry of Mind-Altering Drugs: History, Pharmacology, and Cultural Context. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 1996. Print.
Smith, Frederick P., ed. Handbook of Forensic Drug Analysis. Burlington: Elsevier, 2005. Print.