A ban on 'legal' highs, good!

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 202 total)
  • A ban on 'legal' highs, good!
  • fr0sty125
    Member

    ernie_lynch – Member

    About 3 weeks ago as an active member of the Labour Party you were campaigning for precisely that.

    ELECTION 2015: Labour bid to get tough on legal highs

    Yeah because every single person in the party shares the same view on everything 😉

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    jambalaya – Member
    I am glad it’s still a controlled substance.

    I do laugh at this, in what way is it controlled? It’s not controlled at all. You are lucky if the authorities control(confiscate) 2% of it.

    It’s an utterly pointless waste of time. There is no control, just a stream of money going to the black market (and getting wasted on police forces under the illusion that they control it).(the fact that this doesn’t register tells me that there are some pretty powerful forces coining it in.)

    yunki
    Member

    Frosty – They do if they’ve all taken enough ketamine

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Regarding the legal highs problem, this will only be solved by legalising traditional highs.

    Personally i wouldn’t touch them.

    Tallpaul
    Member

    I’m not sure the ‘alcohol & tobacco are legal so why isn’t everything else’ argument is particularly helpful.

    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?

    I certainly would.

    Criminalising those that continue to use them is certainly an issue. But not one that undermines the basic principle.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    We know what’s best for you.

    Well we apparently don’t, we keep **** ourselves up, so we seem to need someone to give us a bit of sense.

    dr_death
    Member

    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.

    ericemel
    Member

    Including alcohol???

    Junkyard
    Member

    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

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    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?

    irc
    Member

    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.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/conviction-shows-scots-law-adapting-to-times-1.197366

    konabunny
    Member

    “On the one hand, the stuff seemed very moreish “

    dark lol

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon brassneck
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon bigjim
    Subscriber

    Oh dear some of you fuddy duddies are so out of touch. You should read this, especially if you are a parent

    http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/a-guide-to-spice-the-drug-thats-putting-british-students-in-hospital-218

    Premier Icon I_did_dab
    Subscriber

    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.

    tpbiker
    Member

    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

    aphex_2k
    Member

    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.

    sobriety
    Member

    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)

    Premier Icon D0NK
    Subscriber

    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

    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.

    jambalaya
    Member

    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.

    konabunny
    Member

    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?

    dirtydog
    Member

    I don’t care a dman what people do in their own homes but I do care if they drive while smoking.

    Why?

    Premier Icon chrismac
    Subscriber

    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.

    ahwiles
    Member

    dirtydog – Member

    Why?

    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…

    grum
    Member

    Not normally in favour of prohibition but hopefully this might stop all the millions of people at festivals constantly caning those **** 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?

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    This has got to be one of the dafter pieces of legislation 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.

    grum
    Member

    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.

    CaptJon
    Member

    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 🙂

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    What about glue, meths, petrol, solvents?

    What about them? Have tried running your car on spice?

    konabunny
    Member

    “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).

    doris5000
    Member

    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. 🙁

    Junkyard
    Member

    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”.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    doris5000 – Member
    their only choice is megaskunk

    😆

    you can use less of it!

    Tallpaul
    Member

    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:

    http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_235969_EN_A2%20Poster%20Psychoactive%20Substance%20V07_web.pdf

    ahwiles
    Member

    seosamh77 – Member

    you 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.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon D0NK
    Subscriber

    Because the govt argues that the reason it bans smack/mdma/etc is because they are dangerous. So it follows….

    that’s not great reasoning TBH

    if you’re a dopey teenager like i was

    ah right. Yeah ok, fair enough.

    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!

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 202 total)

The topic ‘A ban on 'legal' highs, good!’ is closed to new replies.