Forum menu
We know what's best for you.
Well we apparently don't, we keep ****ing ourselves up, so we seem to need someone to give us a bit of sense.
As an A&E doctor at the pointy end of all the fall out from this I can't help but agree with some of the other posters on here with regard to legalisation of some of the other drugs.
It's my own personal belief that we missed the boat on this about 15-20 years ago. Legalisation of MDMA (a drug that is incredibly safe in comparison to many others out there - and even many other recreational pastimes) would probably have avoided all of this problem of people taking huge quantities of unknown chemicals in an effort to get high.
In the dozen or so years I have been working in A&E I have seen thousands of smoking related illnesses, thousands of alcohol related injuries and illnesses and now hundreds of 'legal high' related admissions. I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of MDMA related admissions to the assorted A&Es around the North East I have worked in. Most of whom were having an acute anxiety issues related to the drug use, the others a reaction to other, unknown substances known to be contaminating local MDMA supplies.
If we'd egalised it we could regulate it, know the doses and know the addatives. There would be no need to have even invented 'legal highs' as they would already exist..... However, now the box is open....
Here endeth the sermon.
Including alcohol???
I'm not sure the 'alcohol & tobacco are legal so why isn't everything else' argument is particularly helpful.
That was not what I said and you have sidestepped the point completely; I am not sure whether it was deliberate or not . You claim the legal status is to prevent harm for "public health"
Clearly this is not the case as some of the legal ones are more dangerous than the illegal ones so that argument is just not true. You did not even try and argue it tbh.
If they were invented today (as is effectively the case with some of these fully synthetic recreational drugs), would we want them banned or at least controlled?
alcohol and tobacco are controlled but they are not banned.
I certainly would.
They you must be happy
Tallpaul - Member
I'm not sure the 'alcohol & tobacco are legal so why isn't everything else' argument is particularly helpful.
It's not helpful at all.
The arguments for legalisation that are valid (imo) are:
Less money spent on policing.
It will raise tax.
It will stop funding the black market.
Quality control.
How people can argue against the above I dunno. The case is overwhelming for legalisation:
Would one of the prohibitionists, please outline the benefits of prohibition, as they see it?
Are they going to ban glue and other solvents too?
Well it is illegal to sell glue for sniffing in Scotland. The same common law could be applied to other substances. Though proving intent might be more tricky than when shopkeepers were selling glue along with a suitable bag for sniffing.
"On the one hand, the stuff seemed very moreish "
dark lol
Legal highs are only used because they're legal and other drugs aren't, so once they're illegal people will use the proper stuff. Which is good, cos the proper ones work much better.
Personally I would legalise/decriminalise to get young people away from super strength skunk as well as the risk of psychotic episodes seem to be linked to both strength and age at which you start.
I'm not sure its as simple as that. Some people always look for the next step on, because they want to or have issues or want to be regarded as edgy by their peers.. so I'm not sure legalising it would help the people who are always looking for the next, better hit. Though I'm not sure much will, other than (probably bad) experience. My worry would be making it freely available might just draw more people in who can't or won't moderate themselves.
That said, I am in favour of legalisation generally.
brassneck - Member
Personally I would legalise/decriminalise to get young people away from super strength skunk as well as the risk of psychotic episodes seem to be linked to both strength and age at which you start.
I'm not sure its as simple as that. Some people always look for the next step on, because they want to or have issues or want to be regarded as edgy by their peers.. so I'm not sure legalising it would help the people who are always looking for the next, better hit. Though I'm not sure much will, other than (probably bad) experience. My worry would be making it freely available might just draw more people in who can't or won't moderate themselves.That said, I am in favour of legalisation generally.
Legalisation will only help addicts in the sense that their drugs will be quality controlled, it won't help their addiction.
(unless of course with the likes of herion and other extreme drugs, if you legalise it, but it's only available by going to a health professional, least it would put these people in contact with the help they need).
prohibition is no barrier to addiction.
Oh dear some of you fuddy duddies are so out of touch. You should read this, especially if you are a parent
We have a project making some of these legal high compounds for toxicology research in our lab. They are surprisingly difficult to make and purify, even in a state of the art university lab. I have also witnessed the talents of undergrad and MSc students in practical labs...
You don't know who has made the stuff in the packet or what you're getting and that is a huge problem.
Dr death nails it for me...
Not so long ago I snorted something called 'gocaine' at a party...apparently it was bought totally legally. I remember it burning the inside of my nose like it was paint stripper...
hateful stuff
Working in mental health it's crazy the amount of people we get in with psychosis caused by synthetic cannabis. Honestly shocking, some really messed up people. To the people who think it's bad that things get banned or feel like they are being told what to do, be my guest, keep smoking that stuff, I'll be the one putting you on a section. Hope you like hospital food.
Synthetic Cannabis is the only drug I've taken that's had lasting and unwanted side effects.
Turned out some of the batch I took could act as a dissociative hallucinogen. Which was a 'surprise' at the time.
Took months for the tics in my vision to stop (and this is as someone who's eaten large quantities of psilocybin/mescaline cactii in the past)
pretty sure I'm not the target market for legal highs but aren't they the equivalent of drinking meths if booze was banned? Legalise and regulate the proper (comparatively not that bad for you) drugs and the market for LH would disappear - if regulation didn't do that already.To the people who think it's bad that things get banned or feel like they are being told what to do, be my guest
FWIW i used to do school education on drugs and it is impossible to explain our current laws rationally. Tobacco kills 1/3 of its users, alcohol implicated in 75% of violent crimes etc.
Tobacco we are trying to address. Alcohol the real issue is excessive drinking rather than the existence of it. Also pragmatically it's impossible to ban it, its too ingrained in society. If it where a brand new invention is would be illegal IMO. I happen to think it should be price controlled, with a minimum price set per unit and an end to drinks promotions, offer free food but not 2:1 drinks for example.
Instinctively, I'd jump on what ^ said. But are there any statistics on usage of "legal highs" in eg Holland where cannabis is ~legal to back that up?
I don't care a dman what people do in their own homes but I do care if they drive while smoking.
Why?
This has got to be one of the dafter pieces of legislation so far. So we are going to ban legal highs, except for the ones we generate tax revenue from (Alcohol and tobacco. We will also except coffee because we like that.
Other legal highs will be banned as they are dangerous. On that basis I think we should ban the birth of all animals and humans because I can guaruntee that being born will result in them dying in the future. Science has know for hundreds of years that being born is a fatal condition with no known cure. Perhaps we should ban being born whilst we are at it.
The only way to control and manage the consequences of drug taking is to legalise the lot and quality control it as we do with the legal highs they arent banning. It could even be funded by taxing them.
dirtydog - MemberWhy?
i hope you don't realise that he was talking about smoking weed. Otherwise, it seems you're suggesting that driving whilst stoned is ok...
Not normally in favour of prohibition but hopefully this might stop all the millions of people at festivals constantly caning those ****ing nitrous balloons. They're just annoying (and shit).
In general though, hasn't the decriminalisation thing in Portugal quite clearly worked? Thought there was fairly overwhelming evidence now. But obviously we can't base things on rationality and evidence, what would the Daily Mail say?
This has got to be one of the dafter [s]pieces of legislation[/s] STW posts so far
If you can't see the difference between two pints of ale and a mystery chemical from China that fries your brain, you're.. well.. trying to use rhetoric to prove a point, which doesn't make for good argument.
If you can't see the difference between two pints of ale and a mystery chemical from China that fries your brain, you're.. well.. trying to use rhetoric to prove a point, which doesn't make for good argument.
I reckon with most legal highs if you took the equivalent to two pints of ale (not sure how you'd work that out) they wouldn't 'fry your brain' at all. Claiming that alcohol consumption is usually just about drinking a couple of pints of ale is very dubious.
ernie_lynch - Member
Seriously though, how are you going to define and catagorise legal highs?
According to the OP's link : "any substance intended for human consumption that is capable of producing a psychoactive effect". Alcohol, tobacco and caffeine will be excluded.It seems very straightforward to me
What about glue, meths, petrol, solvents?
Yeah because every single person in the party shares the same view on everything
In a democratic organisation it is the responsibility of every member to support and campaign for democratically arrived decisions, whether or not he or she personally agrees with them. That of course especially includes manifesto commitments.
The time to voice opposition is during the period of democratic debate, not after. Or when it comes up again for review/debate. The will of the majority is always sacrosanct in a democratic process.
Of course the modern Labour Party is an utterly undemocratic and grotesque stalinist organisation devoid of all democratic debate and decision-making, so none of the above is any way relevant.
Just beware fr0sty should you ever leave the Labour Party and join a democratic organisation 🙂
What about glue, meths, petrol, solvents?
What about them? Have tried running your car on spice?
"This has got to be one of the dafter pieces of legislation so far. So we are going to ban legal highs, except for the ones we generate tax revenue from (Alcohol and tobacco. We will also except coffee because we like that.
Other legal highs will be banned as they are dangerous. On that basis I think we should ban the birth of all animals and humans because I can guaruntee that being born will result in them dying in the future. Science has know for hundreds of years that being born is a fatal condition with no known cure. Perhaps we should ban being born whilst we are at it."
I think you are trying to be iconoclastic and failing to acknowledge there's a significant difference in the likelihood of death or serious injury arising from a) an hour spent living; b) an hour spent consuming alcohol; and c) an hour spent consuming "legal highs". That difference explains the different grades of prohibition on each activity (and isn't rocket science).
Where has the apparently widely held notion that legal highs are safe come from ?
Because the govt argues that the reason it bans smack/mdma/etc is because they are dangerous. So it follows, if you're a dopey teenager like i was, that the reason they haven't banned all the stuff in the nice shiny headshop with brightly coloured labels is because it's not (particularly) dangerous.
Personally I would legalise/decriminalise to get young people away from super strength skunk as well as the risk of psychotic episodes seem to be linked to both strength and age at which you start.
...this. I gave up smoking weed partly because it was so hard to get hold of stuff that wasn't nuclear-grade poison. As a poor analogy, I wanted to sip a couple of pints of real ale, not down half a bottle of moonshine, but there's not much choice when you only know a couple of dealers. It's no wonder people get into trouble when their only choice is megaskunk. 🙁
a) an hour spent living; b) an hour spent consuming alcohol; and c) an hour spent consuming "legal highs". That difference explains the different grades of prohibition on each activity (and isn't rocket science).
Its not quite as linear as you state and danger ,to self, is not the basis for the legal status of the chemicals.
TBH I have no idea what is but it is not "harm".
😆doris5000 - Member
their only choice is megaskunk
you can use less of it!
This may help frame the legislation - based on risk to public health both in terms of outright danger but also increased prevalence i.e. what used to be a small problem is getting bigger:
seosamh77 - Memberyou can use less of it!
you can, and you can't.
what we call cannabis is a mix of different chemicals, mostly THC and CBD.
THC gets you stoned, CBD stops you feeling too paranoid/anxious/psychotic...
good old fashioned cannabis has a mix of THC + CBD, that by and large, produces a feeling that some people seem to enjoy.
Skunk has loads more THC, so if you simply smoked less, you'd also be recieving a lower dose of CBD, leaving you prone to feelings of paranoia/anxiety/psychosis.
I know, it's not as bad as it used to be 5/10 years ago, imo. Least the stuff I get. You can tell a mile away when it has too much thc in the ratio.
If it was legalised, we would know what that balance was.
Saying that though, I'm not particularly fussed about legalisation for commercial purposes, legalise home growning and it's all good with me.
that's not great reasoning TBHBecause the govt argues that the reason it bans smack/mdma/etc is because they are dangerous. So it follows....
ah right. Yeah ok, fair enough.if you're a dopey teenager like i was
I'm sure there loads of other areas where I can show my own dimwittery but legal high = safe was never a connection I made.
Mind you I guess it's like the thing on the news today about fruity snacks, cue parent "well they contain fruit so they're good, right?" fruit and a bazillion grammes of refined sugar you idiot. General public not that clever, when you get right down to it, shocker!
Egf, are you suggesting that (I) legal highs are legit circulating in prisons (ii) illicit drugs are not (iii) making legal highs illegal will solve the problem of substance abuse in prisons?
Ok, so put your hand up if you've actually seen someone 'go under' on spice. !st time I saw it I was shocked, the prisoner was fitting, frothing at the mouth & pissing himself, all at once. Paramedics came & his heartrate was about 200. Pity we couldn't video it & show others.
Wer'e getting about 3 a week going the same way & that's just where I work. It's only a matter of time Isn't it?
That Vice article someone posted pretty much nails it.
"These students are in hospital not because of their own naivety, or because of wily Chinese chemists outsmarting our laws. They have been harmed as a direct result of British politicians' reluctance to regulate, tax, formalise and make safe the cannabis industry."It's cowardly, unimaginative and by now, I would argue, given the repeated reports that synthetic, paralegal cannabinoids are riskier than weed, it is actually politicians who are morally responsible for their injuries. Taxes from legal cannabis in Colorado are building schools. The debate is over and it's time to change the law."
The legal high issue is something i follow as an ex partier of the 90s and 00s
Bluelight and Drugs Forums are worth following if you are interested in this area.
LSD analogues coming out that are as real as the real thing, I know if I was single and had weekends/weeks to spare again, I would be excited by this,
However there is a darker side to it all, and rather than calling them legal highs, use the name research chemicals, which is still BS but it paints a better picture of what is known about them.
Do some digging around and read up on the bromo-dragon fly incident where a mislabelled RC killed several people in the US and Europe.
The activity of some of these drugs is in the micro gram range, and young, foolhardy kids seeking a high are bumping lines of them not knowing that they have serious vascoconstrictive properties and half lifes of days.
Nbme blotters that people take thinking it is LSD, has a slow onset, so they take two three more blotters and then they are overdosed on something that constricts your blood vessels like mad with long half life.
Hey ho.. At least the targeted ads appearing at the bottom of the thread are more fun than the usual bolleaux 🙂
3 a week? I've been to that many in one call before.
Skunk has loads more THC, so if you simply smoked less, you'd also be recieving a lower dose of CBD, leaving you prone to feelings of paranoia/anxiety/psychosis.
If weed was legal like in some American states you would be able to go and buy strains with low THC/high CBD levels and no-one would get paranoid/anxious/psychotic or whatever. As it is now if people buy weed it's just whatever they can get their hands on, they don't even really know what it is.
Egf, are you suggesting that (I) legal highs are legit circulating in prisons (ii) illicit drugs are not (iii) making legal highs illegal will solve the problem of substance abuse in prisons?
They are an unauthorised item in prisons.
Illegal drugs do circulate in prisons.
It would be nigh on impossible to stop the use of non prescribed drugs in prisons.
Any prison officer you talk to would say 'legalise cannabis', prisoners don't generally get arsey on weed. 'Chiill Winstaan' 🙂
Hooch is brewed on a regular basis, that's naughty as well.
3 a week? I've been to that many in one call before.
Doesn't surprise me in the least mate.
I heard a prison officer on a radio phone in say the smell of weed could regularly be smelt on the wing of an evening and turning a blind nostril was the recommended course of action.
When the presenter said this was out of order and if an officer knows a prisoner is doing something illegal that prisoner should be brought to task.
The officer replied they would not be the staff on to do so and it would kick off big time, so best to leave them to it.
It's bloody horrible stuff watching and treating someone under the effects of it, especially when they become lucid and then just what to knock you out. Then they go unresponsive again but you have to be careful as because any action you do to help them may bring them instantly back to the fighting stage.
Making it illegal will hopefully reduce the risk of this happening to the general public.