header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 January 2010 / Roger Birch
Issue: 7399 / Categories: Features , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

A class apart

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Roger Birch on the misperceptions in defining medicinal products

There are a number of serious misperceptions upon which products are caught by the definition of what is a medicinal product. This is a serious matter and leads to confusion among members of the public and those who sell such substances which they believe are not caught by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, Sch 2.

The Medicines Act 1968 (MA 1968) seems to be forgotten when a particular product is being offered for sale and/or placed on the market.

Let us take the substance BZP as an example.

On the 20 March 2007 a press release was issued by MHRA. They stated that BZP (PEP) pills are dangerous and illegal The press release then states that “any other pills containing Piperazine…or its salts or derivatives would be classified as unlicensed…”.

There then appears in the Mail Online an article dated the 20 March 2007 where the MHRA state that “people are being bamboozled into thinking that BZP is safe because they are being billed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll