Stupid prohibition: psychoactive substances bill

cheesyboy

cheesyboy

cheesyboy

Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,660
Location
Gloucestershire
Not especially new news, but prompted by a read of the specifics of laughing gas here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33691783

A drug which has killed 17 people in the uk from 2006 to 2012 (fewer than 3 per year), mostly from plastic bag related asphyxia (over 400k users in 2013-14). Contrast with over 8k UK deaths per year from alcohol.

Of course, it's a media hot potato, nitrous oxide.

So the government is moving to ban everything under the "psychoactive substances bill". The ban includes a prohibition on the trade in "any substance intended for human consumption that is capable of producing a psychoactive effect".

The onerous nature of such a term could, presumably, be used to ban the viewing (consumption) of breathtaking (affecting ones psyche) paintings. Or, at least, ban the trade in such - museums watch out. Presumably, alcohol, tobacco, coffee (and probably museums, I guess) etc will have a special exemption.

Meanwhile, safe drugs get lumped in to the same category and same supply lines as dangerous ones. And get made more dangerous by the questionable provenance of their sourcing. As a parent (I never really considered this aspect much prior to fatherhood), it scares the hell out of me that my (and others') kids will grow up amongst muddled narcotic policy/guidance - how on earth are they made safer with this nonsense?

Is it really too much to ask that we have some evidence based decision making from our politicians?
 
I agree with what you are saying evidence based decision would be great in this and a great many other regards. However, as someone who has been involved in decisions at the top end about what may be considered "evidence" you end up with the old problem that academics rarely agree and the evidence they present is largely framed by "ego" and "personal philosophy". So you end up with the same problem anyway.

In my personal opinion we need to legalise drugs. I have used "drugs" in the past, most likely will again, and I am still here sound of mind (open to dispute by many I would appreciate) and physically well. But then I never abused "drugs" to the extent I would let such a situation occur. I controlled my "drug" usage I didn't let it control me. Unfortunately not everyone can do that.

But I do think it makes sense to legalise drugs, tax them and use that tax to put into the management of problems that may occur. The drugs trade stimulates crime and creates crime the method of administration is often more harmful that the drug itself and meanwhile we have legal drugs that cause massive societal problems staring us in the face.

This bill is a step in the wrong direction. Are they going to ban low strength codeine off the shelf for the purpose of pain relief because an awful lot of people have a good night's sleep with the aid of that one.
 
I agree with the idea of decriminalisation or even legalisation followed by taxation to fund programs to help abusers. However, I struggle to see a way around the dealers simply undercutting the full official taxed price, much like hooky ciggies and baccy which are everywhere.
 
All things in moderation, if I wanted to I could form a dependency on over the counter painkillers (likely to be a psychological need rather than chemical addiction), in 20 years I'd be knocking on the NHS' door for a kidney transplant, funded by the tax payer.

I can't see that the majority of drugs are worse than each other in terms of risk vs reward, it's a political perception thing really, your average 50 year old middle class white dude is unlikely to see any reason to legalise cannibis for instance.

I really think it's worth having some kind of pilot to see what the effect of legalisation of certain drugs would be. I'm already allowed to pickle my liver, smoke my lungs and pop myself full of as much aspirin and parecetamol as I feel is appropriate, are recreational drugs any worse really?
 
@ Tuppy: Most people still buy their cigarettes from a shop though don't they. Moreover, if you remove the petty dealers from the prison service you will open the capacity to really throw the book at the ones you still catch. You could introduce new statute at the same time with a greater punitive component because those you would be catching would be creating a new offense.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
I agree with the idea of decriminalisation or even legalisation followed by taxation to fund programs to help abusers. However, I struggle to see a way around the dealers simply undercutting the full official taxed price, much like hooky ciggies and baccy which are everywhere.
Click to expand...

cause you can go into a nice comfy coffeshop/bar and buy it at the counter.


face it super markets under cut clubs and pubs by a huge margin yet people still go out to drink.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
I agree with the idea of decriminalisation or even legalisation followed by taxation to fund programs to help abusers. However, I struggle to see a way around the dealers simply undercutting the full official taxed price, much like hooky ciggies and baccy which are everywhere.
Click to expand...

Legitimate retail pricing would need to be realistic but, for the majority of users, provenance of source, convenience, and the safety of not having to deal with criminal suppliers would override something of a mark-up. Legitimate selling would, also, be able to use legitimate supply - drugs could be brought in on a pallet rather than in a drug mule's arse - there's a significant saving to be made there.

As outlined by Xordium, the prohibition actually creates the criminal gangs and networks. legitimise it, and the supermarkets and pharmacies etc would quickly out-compete the gangs.

scorza said:
LOL the suggestion that this bans going to museums is hilarious. Hysterical much?
Click to expand...
The example was deliberately farcical. Is there any reason the specified term in the proposed statute couldn't be used to ban such works of art? I'm, quite clearly, not suggesting the art ban would actually happen but, if a law could theoretically be used for that, what extent is it actually going to be used/abused for? And is it the sort of law we should accept?
 
Last edited:
I had a particularly vivid dream last night which I thought was real. I handed my brain in at the police station first thing this morning as clearly there are psychoactive chemicals in it.

Please do the right thing and hand your brains in.
 
Lol, ridiculous.

A quick google shows that there are 4x as many alcohol related deaths in a week in the UK than there have been deaths from NOS in the world in the last 40 years (based on the figures given in that article and https://www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/help-and-advice/statistics-on-alcohol/)

Can't see beer being banned any time soon? :rolleyes:

I've used NOS in the past, IMO it's a far nicer "high" than alcohol or weed. Much more intense, but within 2 minutes it's completely gone. No hangover, no stink of smoke, no feeling groggy and stupid for the next couple of days...

Typical govt. reaction; can't tax it? Ban it :mad:

Of course, as with all prohibition, it's not going to stop people, all it will do is push it underground, increasing the risk of poor quality/contamination, and bringing users into contact with... "undesirables"

What about the people who end up with criminal records for doing something which doesn't actually affect anyone else?

Yes there's the argument that if it's illegal it's their own fault if they get caught, but I think it's pretty obvious what would cause more damage to someone's life out of a spliff every other weekend, or a criminal record for possession of cannabis.
 
Last edited:
problem with legalisation is aside from alcohol we dont have a reliable "they are affected right now" test.

all we have is testing for metabolites etc which can last months.

so what happens to nearly everyone who works in industry and transport who is subject to drugs testing, if they have a perfectly legal smoke on Friday night but get tested on the monday morning no longer under the effect but they test positive.
 
Tefal said:
problem with legalisation is aside from alcohol we dont have a reliable "they are affected right now" test.

all we have is testing for metabolites etc which can last months.

so what happens to nearly everyone who works in industry and transport who is subject to drugs testing, if they have a perfectly legal smoke on Friday night but get tested on the monday morning no longer under the effect but they test positive.
Click to expand...

I don't know too much about this really but what about the so called "drugalysers" being employed by police during traffic stops. They're designed to ID people driving under the influence so surely they must be able to do the job?
 
cheesyboy said:
Consumption: The reception of information or entertainment

Oxford English
Click to expand...

right you realise that laws arnt based on random dictionary definitions but legal definitions of phrases?

"for human consumption" does not include art, unless its edible art and its referring to dyes etc.

seriously you had a point but you ruined it by being so mind blowingly stupid.
 
Oh, and no more Egg Custard tarts - nutmeg can have psychoactive effects.

Coffee? Chocolate? Tea? Redbull? (other energy drinks are also available) Anything else that contains caffeine?

Say goodbye!

Edit: looks like the majority of spices can have psychoactive properties:

http://www.currentpsychiatry.com/ho...-spices/6b1192544e03a8659d455a11fdeb6658.html

Guess we're all going to be eating bland food from now on :p
 
Tefal said:
so what happens to nearly everyone who works in industry and transport who is subject to drugs testing, if they have a perfectly legal smoke on Friday night but get tested on the monday morning no longer under the effect but they test positive.
Click to expand...

Simply they can't smoke it, until a reliable way to test for it is designed. Safety has to come first in instances like that. If they don't like it then they can move careers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom