FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The Psychoactive Substances Bill
The Psychoactive Substances Bill
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
This Bill is currently in the early stages of passing through Parliament and it is a game changer in British Law.
Currently everything in British life is said to be legal unless the law specifically criminalises it. This law will change that principle by making all substances that could be used recreationally to alter the human state of mind will be illegal, unless they can prove to be legal!
The modern 21st Century approach should perhaps have been to ask the producers of so called legal highs to prove that they were safe and thus become controlled on account of the "damage" or otherwise that they could be to the human body. Unfortunately, they have been given no such option to do so and they will simply be illegal by default.
The way the law is written is hypocritical as it specifically excludes already controlled substances such as cannabis, cocaine, alcohol and tobacco as well as food. Technically joss sticks, scented candles, room odorisors in the form of poppers and/or even heated oil diffusers could become illegal by default. Next time you see a room air freshener labelled as being "the calming scent of lavender" bear in mind that it could soon be illegal.
In my opinion, this is a very dangerous law for the 21st Century. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Personally, I think we should get with the times. People should have the right to choose what they put in their body.
Look at how much damage alcohol does. Yet it's legal.
The legal highs should be sorted out because they ARE dangerous. But people see 'legal' and they think 'safe'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This Bill is currently in the early stages of passing through Parliament and it is a game changer in British Law.
Currently everything in British life is said to be legal unless the law specifically criminalises it. This law will change that principle by making all substances that could be used recreationally to alter the human state of mind will be illegal, unless they can prove to be legal!
The modern 21st Century approach should perhaps have been to ask the producers of so called legal highs to prove that they were safe and thus become controlled on account of the "damage" or otherwise that they could be to the human body. Unfortunately, they have been given no such option to do so and they will simply be illegal by default.
The way the law is written is hypocritical as it specifically excludes already controlled substances such as cannabis, cocaine, alcohol and tobacco as well as food. Technically joss sticks, scented candles, room odorisors in the form of poppers and/or even heated oil diffusers could become illegal by default. Next time you see a room air freshener labelled as being "the calming scent of lavender" bear in mind that it could soon be illegal.
In my opinion, this is a very dangerous law for the 21st Century."
Have you ever seen anyone under the influence of these 'legal highs' ?
I guess not ! Pop along to a&e I'm sure you change your tune !
Yes I understand about alcohol as there are more deaths per year from alcohol but it's more socially accepted. Legal highs not nice at all x  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"....
Have you ever seen anyone under the influence of these 'legal highs' ?
I guess not ! Pop along to a&e I'm sure you change your tune !
Yes I understand about alcohol as there are more deaths per year from alcohol but it's more socially accepted. Legal highs not nice at all x "
I don't think anyone is doubting the need to "do something." Making everything illegal by default is a pretty poor effort at dealing with a problem though.
Surely we must be at such a stage of maturity as a society that we can have things made illegal that are actually (and proven by fact) to be harmful rather than to make everything illegal?
Scented candles, mood enhancing air freshners and odoriszers now fall into the same category as the so called legal highs that are the main target. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's a terrible loss of centuries old legal tradition and liberty.
The reason most of the new stuff is created is because of other bad laws.
I'm in favor of evidence based policy and law making. Not knee jerk fag packet laws that likely have unforeseen consequences, such as this.
Police cuts and enforcing blanket prohibitions aren't a good match. Someone likes an air freshener, if they're adult, let them live their lives as one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Agree with the op.
The "old school" psychoactive substances have been demonstrated to be far less harmful than alcohol, by study after study.
By criminalising them, it created a market for synthetic analogues, the so called legal highs. Many if not most of which are just plain awful and untested - I tried some synthetic skunk out of curiosity, it was harsh, unpleasant and in no way pleasurable.
We appear to have learned nothing from the disaster that was prohibition in the US, which allowed the rise of the Mafia and organised crime.
IMO the relatively safe psychoactives, and we can argue as to what those might be, should be made available to adults in a similar controlled way that alcohol (probably the most dangerous of all the well known pschyoactives) is, where quality and dosage is known.
I'm not against alcohol, like other well known psychoactive substances, in moderation and used responsibly it can be fun and pleasurable. Some people are twats and will abuse anything, be it lighter fluid or whisky. Many of the "old school" illegal psychoactives are far safer, but not without risk, and the same principle applies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"Agree with the op.
The "old school" psychoactive substances have been demonstrated to be far less harmful than alcohol, by study after study.
By criminalising them, it created a market for synthetic analogues, the so called legal highs. Many if not most of which are just plain awful and untested - I tried some synthetic skunk out of curiosity, it was harsh, unpleasant and in no way pleasurable.
We appear to have learned nothing from the disaster that was prohibition in the US, which allowed the rise of the Mafia and organised crime.
IMO the relatively safe psychoactives, and we can argue as to what those might be, should be made available to adults in a similar controlled way that alcohol (probably the most dangerous of all the well known pschyoactives) is, where quality and dosage is known.
I'm not against alcohol, like other well known psychoactive substances, in moderation and used responsibly it can be fun and pleasurable. Some people are twats and will abuse anything, be it lighter fluid or whisky. Many of the "old school" illegal psychoactives are far safer, but not without risk, and the same principle applies."
Could not agree more  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Just found a really interesting wiki that lists the median LD50 of many common substances, including common foodstuffs - makes interesting reading for anyone genuinely interested in facts.
Obviously the median LD50 is only one metric, but it paints an interesting picture. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
The modern 21st Century approach should perhaps have been to ask the producers of so called legal highs to prove that they were safe and thus become controlled on account of the "damage" or otherwise that they could be to the human body. Unfortunately, they have been given no such option to do so and they will simply be illegal by default.
"
Actually that is the case.
Exactly as you said it if they want to sell them for human use they have to prove they're safe.
That's why when you look on the back of all these legal highs they say "not for human consumption" or "for research purposes only".
They do not prove them safe like they should they instead use a loop hole to sell them with no testing this law simply closes that loop hole because companies started abusing it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
All it will do is drive these items onto the black market, where criminal gangs can make a packet out of it (like they currently do with illegal drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc). Government will lose revenue from tax and Vat on the sale of these items into the bargain. Just seems daft really, the war on drugs has been going on for decades, and it is a war that is not winnable. Far better to keep these things legal, control them better (instead of having dodgy ingredients put into them by criminal gangs), and add money into the public purse from tax and vat. Bad move by the government and they won't achieve what they want by doing this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All it will do is drive these items onto the black market, where criminal gangs can make a packet out of it (like they currently do with illegal drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc). Government will lose revenue from tax and Vat on the sale of these items into the bargain. Just seems daft really, the war on drugs has been going on for decades, and it is a war that is not winnable. Far better to keep these things legal, control them better (instead of having dodgy ingredients put into them by criminal gangs), and add money into the public purse from tax and vat. Bad move by the government and they won't achieve what they want by doing this. "
Criminal gangs however don't tend to own the means of production of these substances and if you're going illegal you may as well buy the cheaper and safer illegal substance the dodgy legal high was based off in the first place.
I doubt the government is making much in revenue off these items and doubtfully more than is spent in police and health costs of dealing with them on the oral Friday night. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
My stance on it is.
I don't agree with taking drugs for shits and giggles, people will say look at alcohol why is that legal.
Look at the effect of one joint, or one line of or a ecstasy pill. Compare that to one or two pints of beer. For example.
Sadly the war on drugs will only ever have one outcome.
Legalise, regulate and control would be the best bet in my opinion....an almost impossible task too.
Alcohol proves that with the amount of binge drinking etc.
You can control the substance but not how people use it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sure i read on the net years ago that the Government wish to outlaw all natural medical cures which are mostly free and seize them for the pharmaceutical industry.  "
Ahhh that would be the codex allimenterus (Latin spelling may be wrong) it was an EU thing to just condense all the legal requirements for goods for human consumption etc
Cue lots of stupid claims but conspiracy theorists that it would ban everything from garlic to non GO food. Also that all cows would require mandatory hormones etc (debate that being banned in the EU)
It's been in force since about 09 iirc and nothing much change get except dodgy companies couldn't get away with substandard goods so easily.
Also just to point out the "natural cures" and supplement industry isn't some pleasant little old lady gathering willow bark and herbs from the woods it's a multi billion dollar industry run by corporations just the same as the pharmaceutical sector just with less morals and less oversight. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gm not go
Codex allimenterus that was it, wows your quick, many thanks for the update."
I had a 100 quid bet with a CT on another forum that garlic would not be banned when it came in.
He still hasn't paid me and it's 6 years later lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I work in Probation and see people recalled back to prison on an almost daily basis for using legal highs. The problem with legal highs over their illegal counterparts is the unpredictability of behaviour. If I have a case stoned on , I can pretty much guarantee he is going to slouch in a chair, eating anything that stands still long enough whilst grinning inanely at me. Someone who has taken 'spice' (a synthetic marijuana) is so unpredictable in their responses it is untrue. They can range from outright aggression to being in such a deep sleep they can't be woken up and they have to be rushed to A&E.
Legal highs need regulation. And none of this 'not fit for human consumption' bollocks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
