So Just What is a "Schedule I Drug," Exactly?

Drug schedules are one of those odd creations that pops up all over, including in foreign law. They're a classification system for drugs, and widely used. The observant will have noticed that there are references to drug schedules in the British reference guide I linked to below, and "magic mushrooms" count as a Schedule I drug in Washington State.

The reason for all this international appeal is the way these things got their start: a treaty. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 (amended in 1972), is apparently the model, laying out four schedules, the drugs in each, and charging the World Health Organization (WHO) with figuring out which drugs belong where. Amusingly, the progression on these goes: I, bad; II, not so bad; III, really not so bad; IV, really bad-- literally something that's in Schedule I, but worse than others in Schedule I.

The treaty doesn't directly explain its rationalle for putting drugs in particular schedules. The original document apparently just listed what went in which schedule, then charged the WHO with categorizing drugs on the basis of which schedule's contents they were most "similar to." Also, it's a limited list: the treaty only addresses narcotics. Hallucinogens had to wait their turn.

The Single Convention wasn't self-executing-- that is, it didn't transform the laws of the countries that signed on with a wave of its magic wand. Complying with the treaty was a matter for the national legislatures. The United States' take on this was the Controlled Substances Act, which provides, among other things, five schedules-- and this time, an explanation of what is supposed to go in each.

At the U.S. Federal level, Schedule I is supposed to consist of drugs that have a "high potential for abuse," no accepted medical use, and a "lack of accepted safety" for use of the drug under medical supervision-- there is no "safe" use that will avoid dependence. Schedule II is similar, but has medical uses. Schedule III covers drugs with less potential for abuse, a medical application, and consequences of abuse limited to "moderate or low" physical or "high" psychological dependence. Schedule IV contains medical drugs with lower potential and consequences for abuse than in III; V contains medical drugs with lower risks and consequences than IV.

Simple enough: nice and sequential, with its contents largely governed by findings of the DEA and FDA. Only, Washington State also cooked up its own set of drug schedules (conveniently, the rating standards appear identical to the Federal rules), and what goes where in this state is governed by the state board of pharmacy, which can take the DEA and FDA's findings into account in making its own.

Good fun-- and there's nothing to say that the state and federal schedules have to be exactly the same. As a side note, marijuana is still a Schedule I drug in Washington despite its legality for certain medical purposes.

I'm looking forward to seeing how many (or few) more years that lasts.

Psilocybin, or "Magic," Mushrooms - what do a glass jar, a paper bag, and a chunk of fungus have in common?

Magic mushrooms are an odd case, as far as drugs go. Psilocybin, the typical active ingredient providing the "magic," is a Schedule I drug under federal law. The same goes for another mushroom-manufactured hallucinogen, psilocyn. So far, so good, right?

The catch is that psilocybin mushrooms grow wild pretty near everywhere, and their primary negative effect seems to be the risk of eating the wrong mushroom (a problem I gather is inherent to mycology). The mushrooms themselves aren't often mentioned on drug schedules, and so have had their illegality challenged-- sometimes with success.

Not so much in Washington State.

Washington State courts first tackled the issue of whether psilocybin mushrooms are illegal in 1984 in State v. Patterson. The court decided that, by the wording of Washington's Schedule I (more on drug schedules, coming soon!), even though coca leaves and opium poppies (the natural origins of cocaine and heroin, respectively) are mentioned elsewhere in the schedules, mushrooms qualify for the full ton of bricks that comes with a Schedule I drug because they are, in the schedule's language, a "material ... which contains" psilocybin.

The court thus put naturally-occurring, raw mushrooms in the same category as, say, pills, and went on to pound a few more nails in by declaring that 1) the mention of psilocybin in Schedule I, even without mentioning mushrooms, was enough warning and 2) the common confusion over whether the mushrooms are illegal (a "mistake of law") is no defense.

The courts don't seem to have looked back, since. "Magic mushrooms" are a Schedule I drug in the State of Washington, as illegal as LSD.

An Interesting Resource

This is a media guide to drugs published in Britain by the apparently-frustrated independent drug-information organization, DrugScope. It seems they got tired of seeing British media pouring on the hysteria when covering drugs, drug addiction, and drug addicts, and therefore published this handy (and free!) booklet.

Please keep in mind when using this that it's a British publication, and its legal discussions apply only to British law. Certain bits of drug user culture also seem to differ: I didn't even know that cannabis came in any edible form that didn't involve a lot of baker's cocoa until I read this.

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/Resources/Drugscope/Documents/PDF/Publications/DrugScopeMediaGuideSpreads.pdf