[Closed] A ban on 'legal' highs, good!

So far no one has agreed with you so there are a lot of us not getting it.

How would you feel if your granny fell over & broke her hip (as an example) but no paramedic/ambulance was available cos theyr'e too busy sorting out a prisoner who's off his head on spice?

Did you get that bit?

I really wish the vast majority of people on here could be put in my or Dracs shoes & witness someone going under on a NPS. It aint nice & i don't get paid enough (or god forbid, trained enough) to deal with it.

& that bit.

Well it was written after i posted.

I get that folk realise that the emergency services deal with the rightfully needy and the undeserving needy

I dont see what that has to do with kids doing drugs/alcohol and where they get it from and how easy/hard it is.

FWIW i accept legal highs are not safe [ nothing is] and in may cases more dangerous than an illegal alternative

Synthetic Cannaniboids can be bought from your local corner shop, then easily supplied to anyone. They're not illegal to carry or sell so no laws are currently being broke. These are very dangerous drugs that have can have potentially life threatening effects on people adults and kids.

Society has enough issues dealing with the 2 biggest legal drugs alcohol and tobacco the issues with these though tend to be long term health problems. Spice and the likes can have an effect from the single use and trust me it is not a pleasant thing.

So while the ban won't get rid of them totally, no one believes that, it'll make so you can't just walk in and pick some up with a pint of milk.

I dont see what that has to do with kids doing drugs/alcohol and where they get it from and how easy/hard it is.

Because that was some peoples defence for keeping spice.

If they were unobtainable or just a lot less obtainable they'd go back to the stuff they could get before. (& stuff we can actually test for)

Fair enough. So, it's your testing that's pushing them to use these dangerous drugs?

NPS & their effects are just a complete drain on resources within the prison service & the NHS. How would you feel if your granny fell over & broke her hip (as an example) but no paramedic/ambulance was available cos theyr'e too busy sorting out a prisoner who's off his head on spice?

I'd be bloody angry. Angry at the politicians that perpetuate this ludicrous war on drugs and cause all this pain in the first place.

I'd be bloody angry. Angry at the politicians that perpetuate this ludicrous war on drugs and cause all this pain in the first place.

So let drugs be readily available as that'll mean there won't be a drain on resources?

If you legalised, weed and ecky etc, the synthetic market would dissappear over night.

There is a reason that legal highs mimic the traditional ones.

My argument isn't for legal highs at all, as I've said I wouldn't touch them and find it easy enough to get the real stuff if I choose.

So let drugs be readily available as that'll mean there won't be a drain on resources?

Well they're already readily available, but yes. Because then the quality can be maintained, and thus the drain on resources will be mitigated.

Drac - Moderator

So let drugs be readily available as that'll mean there won't be a drain on resources?

Plus we could them take all the money we put in to policing, and the tax income, and fund the NHS.

Drac your personal experience in this is just a meaningless emotional argument. Let's look at actual evidence shall we - drug decriminalisation in Portugal has worked, prohibition has [i]comprehensively[/i] failed - the debate is over.

I'd also ask the question, why should I be criminalised just because a small percentage(and it is a very small percentage) can't do something correctly or in moderation?

So let drugs be readily available as that'll mean there won't be a drain on resources?

Pretty much? Why would anyone take spice when the real deal is safer and and also legal?

The government needs a paradigm shift when it comes to drug policy, but there's not a chance of anything changing when policy isn't based on evidence.

Pretty much? Why would anyone take spice when the real deal is safer and and also legal?

I can see the sense in that but Spice isn't a harmless drug and it has nothing to do with my emotions of why I think that, it is a harmful drug.

Drac - Moderator
Pretty much? Why would anyone take spice when the real deal is safer and and also legal?
I can see the sense in that but Spice isn't a harmless drug and it has nothing to do with my emotions of why I think that, it is a harmful drug.

So let drugs be readily available as that'll mean there won't be a drain on resources?

If you let them be available legally you could tax them, and in a similar vain to Alcohol and Tobacco the funds from taxation can contribute to more resources. Currently that doesn't happen (unless you count tax on fertiliser).

No-one is arguing that it isn't.

Good but I only emphasising that as grim seems to think I'm emotional over my reason for wanting rid of it.

I think we're all agreed that most if not all of these new drugs aren't good, but we differ in how we solve the problem. Making them illegal isn't going to help much, whereas a whole new approach to drugs policy where we don't criminalize those who dabble would be a much better solution.

no recreational drug is "good"
no recreational drug is "safe"- everything has risks
Some are clearly more dangerous than others
Plenty enjoy alcohol yet some choke on their own vomit/drink them self to death
Prohibition is not the best method to reduce harm
Having the supply of dangerous things only in the hands of criminals wont make things safer

Drac - Moderator
No-one is arguing that it isn't.
Good but I only emphasising that as grim seems to think I'm emotional over my reason for wanting rid of it.

Fair enough. Do you agree with continuing and expanding prohibition? If yes, could you list the benefits of this approach?

Drac & EGF - I don't think anyone has actually disagreed with anything you've said regarding legal highs. Reading through this though it's like both sides are having completely seperate arguments.

Ban the "legal highs", decriminalise and regulate the illegal ones. With no reason to emulate easily mass produced drugs the synthetic market becomes irrelevant. Good old capitalism undercuts the criminals (growing, producing, smuggling, distributing) and the profits go back into society rather than warlords, terrorists and cartels. Sounds good to me.

Sounds a better idea squirrel but these dangerous ones do need banned.

Drac - Moderator
Sounds a better idea squirrel but these dangerous ones do need banned.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/29/psychoactive-substances-ban-end-brain-research-britain-david-nutt

Why do people think that legalising cannabis and ecstacy will mean that we get a safe supply?

Hamburgers have been legal for years and have you seen the dodgy crap that gets put into them? And of course, all the current supply chain from the cartels to the dealers are just going to say "Oh well, that was good while it lasted. Time to get a proper job now".

[quote> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/29/psychoactive-substances-ban-end-brain-research-britain-david-nutt
br />

That was posted back there. <<<<

Hamburgers have been legal for years and have you seen the dodgy crap that gets put into them?

There was a scare when I was a kid, but that's kind of the point - we found out. At least the stuff that goes into cheap nasty meat is edible and won't poison you.

Drac - Moderator

That was posted back there. <<<<

It is but given all the have to do is make exceptions for research it's a none issue.

Looks like they have already covered that in S10 of the draft bill:

[i]]Regulations made by the Secretary of State may provide that it is not an offence under this Act for any person, or any person of a specified description, to do an act, or an act of a specified description, in specified circumstances or if specified conditions are met.[/i]

Drac - Moderator
It is but given all the have to do is make exceptions for research it's a none issue.

The point on the ban on psychedelics and the lack of research in to the due to 50 year old legislation, suggests it's not that simple.

Why do people think that legalising cannabis and ecstacy will mean that we get a safe supply?

Hamburgers have been legal for years and have you seen the dodgy crap that gets put into them? And of course, all the current supply chain from the cartels to the dealers are just going to say "Oh well, that was good while it lasted. Time to get a proper job now".

That was all down to a lack of regulation which, quite rightly, should have been in place.

I'm not saying it's a silver bullet but even the worst regulation would be better than no regulation at all.

As for the current chain, where is their market when it's all above board? The unit cost would have to be so low to make it economically viable to undercut a legit supply that, even after tax, still costs the same or less than their product due to the costs of smuggling and such but with the added bonus of being a known quantity. It won't wipe them out overnight but they would be forced to either go legit or find another source of income.

Why do people think that legalising cannabis and ecstacy will mean that we get a safe supply?

why should I be criminalised just because a small percentage(and it is a very small percentage) can't do something correctly or in moderation?

I see a lot of young people coming through the YOS. The problem with legal highs is that they are very often more potent than the things they are imitating.
Let's not forget that methedrone was until quite recently a legal high.

A ban on legal highs isn't so much a good or bad idea, as largely pointless, IMHO. Legal OR illegal, synthetics will still have advantages and niches that they fill, such as prisons where the lack of ability to detect and the ease of concealment makes them winners.

It is also largely a separate issue to the decriminalisation/legalisation debate, the problem with which is that the logical and sensible argument is completely at odds with the sensationalist, over emotional daily mailesque side of the argument, which has a great deal of traction in the UK unfortunately. This seems to lead to stalemate and the status quo prevails.

Why do people think that legalising cannabis and ecstacy will mean that we get a safe supply?

Well just look at the places where it has been done and there is your answer. Also are you suggesting the alcoholic drinks and over the counter drugs you buy from the shop or pharmacist are not from a safe supply?

At the end of the day, kids are going to want to take drugs, whether they are legal or not, that is just a fact of life. They are also going to successfully source these drugs whether they are legal or not, pretending it is hard for young people to get hold of drugs is a bigger problem than the rest of it put together.

Would you rather they went to a criminal dealer to buy some weed or filthy hash cut with plastic and god knows what else, who will also be more than happy to sell them a range of other far more potentially damaging and fake drugs also cut with poisonous compounds and other random drugs, or would you rather they were able to buy from a regulated safe source with no criminal element?

This is a separate argument from whether it is good for you to take drugs or not, the bottom line is people are going to take drugs whether they are legal or not, and illegal drugs are readily available to any young person anywhere in the UK, often from very nasty people.

Ultimately, there will always be a demand(that is never going to change), that supply will be met with someone. Question is who do you want to be in control of the supply?

So which currently ileagal drugs do we want leagalised.
Weed, ecstasy and LSD.
Speed, coke, crack and heroin.

Who will decide which and how?

I'll decide. Legalise everything. Lets all get stuck in, and the last one left alive, and with their marbles remotely intact, is the winner, and gets to be the king and emperor of everything. Which in their own addled mind they probably have been all along anyway

And would the people currently dealing in the ones we would like legalised then concentrate their efforts on the ones we don't.

So which currently ileagal drugs do we want leagalised.
Weed, ecstasy and LSD.
Speed, coke, crack and heroin.

All of them. Make drug addiction a public health issue and not a criminal one. You'll free up police time, reduce harm caused through people taking drugs of a known quality and not being afraid to tell the hospital what they've taken and reap huge tax income. There'll always be a black market, as there current is for booze and fags, but most wont use it as it's safer and easier to go through the licensed head shop.

There's a school of thought that proposes MDMA cured my anxiety and depression.

Hypothetical situations aside, plant food has been ****ing people up for years because the law insisted on legal alternatives.

As the "understanders" will testify, the "danger" isn't new. Just how it's presented. Ive had a worse time avoiding early onset cirrhosis than staring at a full moon dancing to Bloc Party.

Whatever. The debate is older than the problem. Talking, talking, talking....

chip - Member
So which currently ileagal drugs do we want leagalised.
Weed, ecstasy and LSD.
Speed, coke, crack and heroin.

Who will decide which and how?

The level of open availability is up for debate.

chip - Member
And would the people currently dealing in the ones we would like legalised then concentrate their efforts on the ones we don't.

But, if you legalised the main ones, I reckon you'd find the market for others to be negligible to non existent tbh.

Lot of the drugs I would prefer people not to do then again I would prefer people not to gamble or use prostitutes

Sadly my wishes wont make any difference to their behaviour wo we need to do the least harm
I would decriminalise all drugs but the harder ones I would only prescribe under licence with the users having to get "treatment" of some sort in order to get the drug

Prohibitions doe snot make it better.
The legal status of heroin is not what stops me doing it anymore than we all rush out to smoke a fag just because we can.

Junkyard - lazarus

I would decriminalise

Buying weed in Amsterdam is much more preferable to asking some dodgy looking guy in the middle of lisbon for some weed.

Yes my error I mean legalise 😳
Sorry