Khat to be banned

[atpbx]

I think it's a testament to how relevant this legislation is, in that I had never heard of khat, my wife said of course she had heard of cats, and the people at work thought "have you ever heard of khat" was either the opening line of a joke, or a new band.

Such is the menace to the public posed by this "stuff"

 

[Meridian]

Ridiculous semantics, when someone says 100% pure they are always referring to actual product being consumed, whether it is a salt or freebase.

Actually it illustrates a serious point: that anyone who says "91% pure MDMA" is talking ****, and that anything else they say is probably wrong. If they got the results from an actual analysis, then it would be quotes as "x% measured as base", because all quant techniques (except NMR IIRC, and that is very seldom used) measure only the active part, and the salt is missed. In that case the person quoting doesn't understand science or the person producing the quoted figure can't do it. If the figure is based on how much the drug was cut, then they are adding spurious accuracy to a fairly in exact mechanic of cutting drugs - which is usually "a spoon of that and two spoons of that". Either way it's just revealing ignorance. Although it still remains far less annoying than all those people who think taking drugs makes them an expert on them. "I took some MDMA once and it was great!" Really, how do you know that's what it was? Get it analysed? Saw an article on the tablet design in a paper? Erowid told you so?


As for legalisation, there are two possible flaws:

1) The assumption that legalised drugs would break the market in illegal ones. As one poster has already said: what, like legal tobacco has killed the market in illegal tobacco? And you can bet Pfizer (or whoever) would be selling MDMA at a price that the underworld could easily undercut. Not to mention mixing huge numbers of fake tablets into the mix via dodgy pharmacists, as already happens with diazepam, among other things.

2) The assumption that everyone who might take these drugs already does. At best this is just a blind assumption by the pros. However, the experience of users of "legal highs" suggests it's not that simple: many people taking them only took legal drugs, and as these were banned they move to new legal ones. Which would suggest that the illegality does act as a deterrent. Yes you say, MDMA is harmless. So, you wouldn't mind large numbers of (say) people driving vehicles off their faces on it?

 

[Judgeneo]

As for legalisation, there are two possible flaws:

1) The assumption that legalised drugs would break the market in illegal ones. As one poster has already said: what, like legal tobacco has killed the market in illegal tobacco? And you can bet Pfizer (or whoever) would be selling MDMA at a price that the underworld could easily undercut. Not to mention mixing huge numbers of fake tablets into the mix via dodgy pharmacists, as already happens with diazepam, among other things.

2) The assumption that everyone who might take these drugs already does. At best this is just a blind assumption by the pros. However, the experience of users of "legal highs" suggests it's not that simple: many people taking them only took legal drugs, and as these were banned they move to new legal ones. Which would suggest that the illegality does act as a deterrent. Yes you say, MDMA is harmless. So, you wouldn't mind large numbers of (say) people driving vehicles off their faces on it?

Which is why lots of drugs are not suitable for legalisation, I don't think MDMA or any synthetic drugs would be for the reasons in point 1.

Khat and Cannabis though? Perhaps shrooms?
These seem good candidates for legalisation and regulation.

 

[krooton]

Which is why lots of drugs are not suitable for legalisation, I don't think MDMA or any synthetic drugs would be for the reasons in point 1.

Khat and Cannabis though? Perhaps shrooms?
These seem good candidates for legalisation and regulation.

Just because they occur naturally in the world?

A person tripping on shrooms is more likely to cause injury to themselves or others due to the dissociative nature of high dosage. A high dosage of MDMA could leave you in a pukey mess on the floor, or dead, but you aren't likely to be taking anyone else with you.

 

[arknor]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tory-caught-chewing-drug-ban-comes-force.html

Police go soft on khat: Officers told to respect 'culture and history' of anyone caught chewing the drug after ban comes into force

Ban on khat comes into force at midnight on Tuesday
First time offenders get a 'Khat Warning' and then a fine
If a person is caught a third time, they face arrest

lol at the comments

My husband is American. It is part of their 'culture and history' for them to carry a gun. Presumably it's okay for him to follow his tradition whilst he lives here?

 

[Energize]

Actually it illustrates a serious point: that anyone who says "91% pure MDMA" is talking ****, and that anything else they say is probably wrong.

It doesn't illustrate that at all, when someone says pure they include the salt in that, so 100mg of "pure cocaine" would refer to 100mg cocaine hydrochloride, and 100mg of "pure crack "would refer to 100mg cocaine freebase.

As for legalisation, there are two possible flaws:

1) The assumption that legalised drugs would break the market in illegal ones. As one poster has already said: what, like legal tobacco has killed the market in illegal tobacco? And you can bet Pfizer (or whoever) would be selling MDMA at a price that the underworld could easily undercut. Not to mention mixing huge numbers of fake tablets into the mix via dodgy pharmacists, as already happens with diazepam, among other things.

There are plenty of pharmaceutical companies so competition results in a low price, almost all controlled drugs are sold for pennies by pharmaceutical companies.

The situation with tobacco is totally different, we are talking about the genuine product being imported to evade taxation, that is entirely different to having substances produced by clandestine labs and drug cartels selling them. Even if the same situation did occur the former type of illegal market would be far preferable as the only harm is the lack of tax revenue.

 

[ShortWarning]

2) The assumption that everyone who might take these drugs already does. At best this is just a blind assumption by the pros. However, the experience of users of "legal highs" suggests it's not that simple: many people taking them only took legal drugs, and as these were banned they move to new legal ones. Which would suggest that the illegality does act as a deterrent. Yes you say, MDMA is harmless. So, you wouldn't mind large numbers of (say) people driving vehicles off their faces on it?

This argument always annoys me.

Driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal now. Say MDMA (or any other drug) were to be legalised then it would be illegal to drive under the influence of that.

Sure people will still probably drive under the influence of it but if caught they would face hefty punishment (like that do now).

 

[Guest2]

UK at the moment seems to have a 'ban any new substance' law. All this will do is hurt cafe's and places that sell it legally.

People will continue to buy it and use it, just illegally. Same as anything else

 

[Judgeneo]

Just because they occur naturally in the world?

A person tripping on shrooms is more likely to cause injury to themselves or others due to the dissociative nature of high dosage. A high dosage of MDMA could leave you in a pukey mess on the floor, or dead, but you aren't likely to be taking anyone else with you.

Shrooms is one drug I know little about, but I do know its non-lethal, hence why I said "perhaps".

Khat and cannabis though seem safe enough if you are an adult, and treat them in a similar manner that we are advised to treat alcohol - not whilst driving, operating dangerous stuff etc..

 

[Pestilence]

They'd better not be coming after Salvia Divinorum next, or I'm stocking up on a lifetime's worth!

 

[arknor]

Shrooms is one drug I know little about, but I do know its non-lethal, hence why I said "perhaps".

Khat and cannabis though seem safe enough if you are an adult, and treat them in a similar manner that we are advised to treat alcohol - not whilst driving, operating dangerous stuff etc..

stupidly easy to get hold of as well so don't see the point in banning stuff like that which people could just grow anyway

I have a tiny circle of friends so small it wouldn't actually make a circle and I'm socially awkard as hell but I could still get them easy enough

 

[CREATIVE!11]

stupidly easy to get hold of as well so don't see the point in banning stuff like that which people could just grow anyway

I have a tiny circle of friends so small it wouldn't actually make a circle and I'm socially awkard as hell but I could still get them easy enough

You can pretty much buy mushroom growing kits anyway, and i'm sure a lot of people do it.

Just don't get caught growing class A drugs in your house.

 

[Tefal]

You don't buy many drugs do you? No dealer is ever going to be hounest about their product, half the time they don't exactly know what they are selling!

Look how many kids get their stomach pumped after stealing booze from their parents with no advice or drinking experience.

no dealer is going to under sell it though are they? they'll pretty much always know a good dose though for the specific batch.

lol and ill leave my drug history out of this.

She was 15? I don't think anything she'd done could constitute 'research'... and again she didn't know what she was buying - people don't in general when buying drugs.



The person selling it to you doesn't necessarily either as its often been passed through a few other stages before it got to him. Yes he can vaguely say it seems to be very pure and can advise her to only dab it...

Fact is she clearly didn't know what she was doing and perhaps hadn't been exposed to information about 'sensible' use. Common sense doesn't necessarily apply to naive teenagers who've generally been told that 'drugs are bad' and yet soon see that people seem to take drugs quite regularly and end up fairly OK.

one problem with this "if it was legal shed know what to take" path of argument.

What sane government is going to give a recommended dose?

seriously that's legal suicide.

they'll give a maximum healthy dose which is completely irreverent and probably much lower than the dosage normal used.

how would that of helped her?

just like how maximum daily units are completely meaningless as they equate to roughly one bottle of 6% beer.

The government could never put on "recommended dose XXXmg" cause eventuality someone will take that and die or be injured and sue the **** out of them.

 

[Tefal]

stupidly easy to get hold of as well so don't see the point in banning stuff like that which people could just grow anyway

I have a tiny circle of friends so small it wouldn't actually make a circle and I'm socially awkard as hell but I could still get them easy enough

Go for a walk at the right time of year and you'll come back with enough mushrooms to fund a new set of tires lol

 

[arknor]

You don't buy many drugs do you? No dealer is ever going to be hounest about their product, half the time they don't exactly know what they are selling!

Look how many kids get their stomach pumped after stealing booze from their parents with no advice or drinking experience.

There's a free service I think based in wales where you can send drug samples anonymously which they test and post the results on the website.
EDIT: it's http://www.wedinos.org/db/samples

most dealers know exactly what they are selling, it's the little dealers that cut the drugs with all kinds of crap..

The best thing to happen to drugs in years is all the TOR websites selling them, go read the forums for those websites, anyone selling crap that's toxic or dangerous is outed on the forums because most of the people who buy them are leaving reviews and doing their own drug tests at home, checking weed under a microscope to make sure it's not been sprayed etc.

people know exactly what they are buying if they go with the trusted vendors.

it's far safer than buying from some random guy with no references or testimonies in a dark alley and the government could tax it

 

[Tefal]

Alcohol has a narrow therapeutic index, the difference between a recreational dose and a toxic one is low, it is very easy to drink an extra few shots of vodka or down a triple vodka and tango that the local nightclub is offering. Why do you think so many people end up in hospital at the weekend from alcohol poisoning or injuries due to it?

By contrast it is almost impossible to die from benzodiazepine overdose, cannabis or LSD. And the effects of opioids can be instantly reversed by naloxone, which you can't do with alcohol.

Most drugs generally have a higher therapeutic index than alcohol.

except alcohol usually come sin very very low % by comparison.

but you must remember any drug you legalize WILL BE USED WITH ALCOHOL!


this turns many relatively safe drugs into incredibly dangerous ones, as it only takes a small amount with the alcohol to produce dangerous side effects.

legalization is not about the logical investigation of each drug, it is an assessment of the collective stupidity of the population.


One major factor with say legalising MDMA, you know that weekend there will be massive problems cause everyone will go out and have a massive rave full of people first time using it drinking with it and taking large amounts with little experience.

sure people will learn but you're gonna have a few weeks full of headlines like

"promising student killed by drug legalized by insane government"

and other such bad press.

 

[arknor]

they could just have dispensaries where you buy the drugs and must take them in the store before your allowed to leave.

don't let anyone buy a stupid sized dose and make sure every customer is well informed.

let's face it if you want MDMA you can likely get it through a friend of a friend, anyone who's been to uni likely can get almost anything so it's not like drugs are kept away from young adults.

you just need to make sure they don't get in to the hands of kids and go really hard on anyone caught selling them outside of dispensaries.

surely if the above happened it would mean less illegal dealers and less kids able to get drugs on the street

 

[Tefal]

they could just have dispensaries where you buy the drugs and must take them in the store before your allowed to leave.

well that sounds magnificently dangerous, first dose of mdma right out onto the street you go!

watch out for traffic.

don't let anyone buy a stupid sized dose and make sure every customer is well informed.

let's face it if you want MDMA you can likely get it through a friend of a friend, anyone who's been to uni likely can get almost anything so it's not like drugs are kept away from young adults.

you just need to make sure they don't get in to the hands of kids and go really hard on anyone caught selling them outside of dispensaries.

surely if the above happened it would mean less illegal dealers and less kids able to get drugs on the street

the problem isnt the availability its the legality, once everyone can get it legal to many people legal = safe, end of.
they will go out and use it in excess and without knowledge and bad things will happen.
just like alcohol.

 

[ShortWarning]

the problem isnt the availability its the legality, once everyone can get it legal to many people legal = safe, end of.
they will go out and use it in excess and without knowledge and bad things will happen.
just like alcohol.

That's kind of the problem now as well.

Alcohol - Legal - Safe
Drugs - Illegal - Dangerous

I'd imagine it's one of the reasons alcohol costs the NHS so much.

It's really just down to education. How to educate the masses? No idea.

 

[arknor]

well that sounds magnificently dangerous, first dose of mdma right out onto the street you go!

at least they would be fully aware of the dangers and be given a safe dose