1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Psychoactive substance ban.

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Corky42, 29 May 2015.

  1. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Maybe like most people when I first heard about this I thought it sounded like a good thing, but after a few days I started to think about the negatives of such a ban, what's the flip side of what appeared to be a positive thing.

    Well it turns out that once you dig a little deeper it may not be the great idea that the media is portraying (TV).
    Things like making research into psychoactive drugs next to impossible, or have they just said they want to ban everything: the idea that the people are free and the government must justify its intrusions seems to be turned on its head.

    And lastly does this new ban even address the problem it's meant to address?
    If it's a ban on psychoactive substance: "that is, any substance intended for human consumption that is capable of producing a psychoactive effect." Then how does it address manufacturers labelling their products with 'Not for Human Consumption'?

    Would be interesting to know the opinions of others that have looked beyond the initial positive spin fed to the media.
     
  2. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    13,406
    Likes Received:
    2,079
    So that's potentially every substance known to man, including but not limited to - Tobacco, Caffeine, or Alcohol...
     
  3. Isitari

    Isitari Active Member

    Joined:
    6 May 2009
    Posts:
    367
    Likes Received:
    28
    Yup, don't worry (or do) they made clear exceptions for certain things like alcohol, medical use etc.
     
  4. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    That seems to be one of the problems to me, what they have said so far is this..
    "Substances, such as alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, food and medical products, would be excluded from the scope of the offence, as would controlled drugs, which would continue to be regulated by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971."

    Those are the exceptions that have been mentioned so far, although people are already noticing problems like Chocolate will be OK because of the exemption on food, but hot chocolate won't.

    I get the compulsion of wanting to do something to stop people taking so called legal highs but it seems a blanket ban isn't a solution, prohibition has been shown not to work in the past.
     
  5. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,272
    Likes Received:
    1,697
    It doesn't work, and there are plenty of examples from the Netherlands and Portugal that a more tolerant approach coupled with appropriate help for addictive behaviour is much more effective. But that is not what the public wants. They want the druggies in jail where they belong (as they say to each other in the pub, knocking back their tenth pint).

    This approach is embraced fully in the US, where someone can be sent to prison for possessing a bit of cannabis, where they promptly develop a hard drug habit, and acquire a lot of criminal skills and connections which will come in useful on the outside because a prison conviction certainly has ruined any prospects of going straight for life.

    Remember: the majority of people voted for the Tories; they voted for their philosophy on mass surveillance, censorship, illegal drug use, benefits and the NHS. We are getting exactly what the people want.

    " This is what you want; this is what you get" --Public Image Ltd.
     
  6. Yadda

    Yadda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2003
    Posts:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    49
    If kids can no longer buy this stuff from the high street, I predict a dramatic fall in the number of "my mate on Nuclear Spice in the park LOLZ!" vids on YouTube, bless 'em.
     
  7. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    To be fair less than 4 in 10 people voted for what we got so I wouldn't really call that a majority of people.

    I do find it worrying though that we seem to be turning our backs on centuries of legal basis upon which the UK has operated, I think the second link I posted in my OP sums up what seem to be happening...
    Emphasis added.
     
  8. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,272
    Likes Received:
    1,697
    But less than 7 out of 10 people turned out to vote. The rest obviously didn't care what they got.
     
  9. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Just because 3 out of 10 people didn't vote still doesn't mean the majority of people voted for the Tories (imo).
     
  10. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,272
    Likes Received:
    1,697
    No, but the majority got what they asked for (IMO).
     
  11. law99

    law99 Custom User Title

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    2,382
    Likes Received:
    59
    Drugs.

    But as someone who is a long term sufferer of psychosis induced by drugs, I can tell you that I don't support a ban on psychoactive drugs.

    If I didn't feel the will to escape from life, without genuinely ending it, I wouldn't need to. There is still hope, despite it's clearly in the eye of the beholder.
     
  12. Waynio

    Waynio Relaxing

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    211
    Prof Nutt safer alcohol sounds interesting, possibly life saving for alcoholics, should come about like vaping did for smokers.
     
  13. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Something that the new rules would probably prevent had vaping been invented after such a blanket ban.

    Probably more or less, it seems there's not much difference between the big two when it comes to treating everything and everyone as guilty, and the majority of Jo public probably has more important things to worry about than such an abstruse subject like the presumption of innocence, about the burden of proof being on the accuser and not the other way around.
     
    Last edited: 31 May 2015
  14. Canon

    Canon Reformed

    Joined:
    19 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,961
    Likes Received:
    246
    It's pretty obvious this type of control over such substances is going to be negative. Slightly unrelated but if you look at what is currently happening in some states in the US with cannabis not only being available for medicinal purposes but decriminalized. From an outsider, the financial possibilities for the states in question is a remarkable step forward, that's just one substance and it could really have a drastic effect on tax income for the states and how much tax revenue can be generated for public spending.

    Even those that have strong feelings against the social aspects of psychoactive substances can't rule out these possibilities as being a step in the right direction. Safeguards are certainly required for the likes of minors and that's something that's going to have to be ironed out in great detail and it would be wrong to rush something like that. As for the social implications, as a non-user of any currently illegal or otherwise 'psychoactive' (considered recreative drugs at least) but somebody who has in the past used such substances, in the right environment I see yet again great possibility, I know for a fact that when used correctly, cannabis can be deeply introspective state inducing substance, which is noted in thousands of cases, people having their lives thrust infront of them whilst under the influences and rethinking negative aspects of their lives, getting things in order. Likewise for other substances, DMT, LSD, and some varieties of mushrooms. Of course it can be abused and misused but that's where we need to put in the work, fast food is abused, alcohol is abused, tobacco is abused and not only do we know the negative results of these products on our health, well being and mental state but the only positive to be gained is indeed financial to a certain degree and we also have the examples played out infront of us, obesity, alcoholism, lung cancer.

    As for hemp production stemming off from legalisation, I've heard remarkable claims made about the versatility of hemp as a building product, I've even once heard that the fenders on Henry Fords first car where constructed with hemp. Make of that what you will.

    I say this being a non user and have no interest of using in the future and just trying to look at such things objectively.
     
  15. Ending Credits

    Ending Credits Bunned

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    5,270
    Likes Received:
    222
    While I agree the current drugs policy is draconian, I can't really get too upset about the banning of legal highs which are almost invariably more dangerous and unpredictable than their controlled counterparts.

    That said, the scope of this ban seems far too broad. Not to mention that decriminalisation and legalisation of certain drugs would arguably mitigate the use of untested legal highs just as well.
     
  16. Ozzie

    Ozzie Fork 'andles I wanted

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2013
    Posts:
    718
    Likes Received:
    12
    People have always take drugs of some kind and will continue to do so whether legal or not.
     
  17. Ozzie

    Ozzie Fork 'andles I wanted

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2013
    Posts:
    718
    Likes Received:
    12
    Making anything illegal does not stop people from obtaining it but hands the supply chain over to criminals to profit from.
     
  18. [PUNK] crompers

    [PUNK] crompers Dremedial

    Joined:
    20 May 2008
    Posts:
    2,909
    Likes Received:
    50
    Why do legal highs exist? Because cannabis, cocaine, heroin, LSD etc etc are all illegal.

    Perhaps if a more pragmatic view was taken with the drugs we know about we wouldn't have people in laboratories inventing new chemical compounds that we have no research on and have no idea what the effects on the body are.

    And then what do we do? Ban these new substances and in turn more are invented exacerbating the problem.

    Making legal highs illegal will just mean there are a hell of a lot more plant fertilisers on the market in very shiny packets. Its time we took a more realistic approach to the problem in my opinion, can't see it happening in my lifetime though.
     
  19. Ozzie

    Ozzie Fork 'andles I wanted

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2013
    Posts:
    718
    Likes Received:
    12
    can't see it happening in my lifetime though.

    No it won't be nor in anyone elses lifetime unless the underlying reason for taking drugs other than for medical purposes can be established and dealt with. We cannot all feel good all of the time or there would be no comparison between the two, some choose to use drugs enhance their feelings of goodness. I am not condemning I believe it is part of human nature.
     
  20. Ozzie

    Ozzie Fork 'andles I wanted

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2013
    Posts:
    718
    Likes Received:
    12
    Further problems will of course occur when addiction sets in and the user has to take them to feel "normal" hence the controls on the ones more likely to cause that. I am not suggesting that Boots sell Heroin over the counter but there have always been drugs and people willing to take them without realizing the consequences and will continue to do so in the future. These are not stupid people, I enjoy a drink on occasions and if it were made illegal would obtain it from some where illegal.

    It is illegal to exceed the speed limit, does it stop people doing it NO.
     

Share This Page