the idea is it bans new things mainly, things like that will be given exception before the law is even written.
Stupid prohibition: psychoactive substances bill
- Thread starter cheesyboy
- Start date
the idea is it bans new things mainly, things like that will be given exception before the law is even written.
You're wrong on the legal side - "consume" is interchangeable with "use".
In any case, this debate is simply a sidetrack - the law is onerous. Swap out viewing art to smelling flowers, if you prefer.
Thing is the greater populous can't even moderate their eating and drinking enough to stop them rocking up at A&E or their GP's weighing 40st, with diabetes and heart disease, cirrhosis of the liver. The system is constantly whimpering it's a breaking point now. Throw in a few more 10's of thousands of folk with varying forms of substance abuse, it will just break the camels back.
That assumes that:
A. more people would use the drugs
B. the drugs wouldn't be chemically safer than at present
C. those drugs are actually dangerous in the first place
D. people don't change their drug taking behaviour in line with sensible drug administration/dosage advice given at point of sale
E. people don't switch from dangerous already-legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco.... sugar (?!)) to safer newly-legal drugs
F. we can't actually have any effect on the level of NHS provision/supply
etc
A lot of assumptions, basically.
We can test pharmaceuticals to determine whether they have dangerous side effects. Why can't the same be done for recreational drugs?
Legalise those that are safer than, say, alcohol and tabacco.
So many of the worst problems associated with drugs are caused by the fact that they're illegal. Prohibition doesn't work.
Legalise those that are safer than, say, alcohol and tabacco.
So many of the worst problems associated with drugs are caused by the fact that they're illegal. Prohibition doesn't work.
Rofl.. I think you're actually making my assumptions up for me, But I'll go with it just for LOL's.
"A. more people would use the drugs" It's reasonable to think that if these legal highs start popping up on the shelves at rock bottom prices in Tesco & ASDA more people would take them.
"B. the drugs wouldn't be chemically safer than at present" What evidence to you have that they are safe anyway?
"C. those drugs are actually dangerous in the first place" How do you know they are safe. People smoke cigarettes for decades before they acknowledged the dangers.
"D. people don't change their drug taking behaviour in line with sensible drug administration/dosage advice given at point of sale" Wut? I doubt there's an alcoholic in the UK who isn't aware what the safe limits are re normal drinking.
"E. people don't switch from dangerous already-legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco.... sugar (?!)) to safer newly-legal drugs" Hmm.. What about all the people who've switched to Vaping?
"F. we can't actually have any effect on the level of NHS provision/supply etc"
Don't know what you're suggesting with that?
In truth it's not a subject that I particularly care about.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,321
- Location
- Woking
This makes me so angry. It's unbelievable that the government are so bloody blind they can't see the wood through the trees. Can they not see the problem with alcohol? Can they not see that everything else pales in comparison? Bloody idiots. This is why you don't vote conservative.
Evidence based decisions...if only we lived in a civilised world.
Evidence based decisions...if only we lived in a civilised world.
I wasn't suggesting which way the pendulum swings on all of those, simply that they are all factors which will have an impact on how many additional (or otherwise) hospital cases are resultant from a legalisation. You've not understood a few of them anyway
Basically, just thinking that legalising drugs will harm more people because of easier, or safer, or just decriminalised availability is a very reductive and simplistic view. And not one backed up by real-world examples (USA's prohibition era, for example)
(point F was referring to there being an actual ability to adjust the level of NHS provision to cope with demand, rather than letting a camel's back be broken)
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Bracing myself for when those teetotallers start to ban Opium and Absinthe. Again.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
I thought the police now have a mouth swab testing kit for roadside use ? *rushes off to research it*
Good god I would. I am retired in my early 40's I can't spend all day playing Eve Online and jogging.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,061
- Location
- Inverness (UK)
Nope, people have died from putting a plastic bag over their own heads / passing out into bag...
Why balloons are soooo much better... Makes that an impossibility.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Pharmaceuticals are abused much more so than illegal drugs. Pharma drugs accounts for far more deaths than illegal drugs as well. They give pharma drugs a free pass because apparently they all for medical reasons why illegal drugs have no medical properties and are only for recreation. I think a very large percentage of pharmaceutical use is non medical as well but that doesn't count because big pharma has a big lobby that pays the guys at the home office lots of money to pretend like there is no problem in society with pharmaceutical recreational abuse and associated deaths.
Maybe it would help?
Maybe a proportion of people would switch from using dangerous substances with both short and long term health implications (alcohol and tobacco) to safer ones such as cannabis and laughing gas?
Yes they may both have their own implications (although I've yet to see one for laughing gas), but when's the last time you heard of someone getting their head kicked in by someone who'd had too much to smoke?
Last edited:
Is Opium not banned already? Wouldn't mind trying a bit of that if it was legal.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
The Risk with nitrous is that it can lead to cardiac arrest when mixed with mdma and other uppers. I've seen it myself. Back in SA there was guys selling nitrous from large canisters, this is proper pharma grade nitrous with big baloons. This fat guy who had taken too much mdma took a hit of the baloon and flat lined on the dance floor. The medics tried adrenaline shot to his heart but never got another heart beat out of him.
In my opinion it is not realy a party drug and not suited for environments where uppers are being taken. Which tends to be where its used most.
In my opinion it is not realy a party drug and not suited for environments where uppers are being taken. Which tends to be where its used most.
In all fairness, probably shouldn't have been taking MDMA.