You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32919712
Theyv'e been causing mayhem in our prisons for a while now, I've seen loads of prisoners have very adverse effects, often with the need for paramedics/ambulance attendance. (not just in prisons either) Just hope this has some impact.
I too look forward to the day when so-called "legal highs" are as rare as cannabis.
I look forward to the day when cannabis is legalised and easily available.
Are they banning alcohol then?
I too look forward to the day when so-called "legal highs" are as rare as cannabis.
Cannabis... rare?!
Do you live in the Scottish Highlands??
Cannabis... rare?!
I think that was his point.
Wouldn't want to be framing that legislation.
Cannabis... rare?!
[url= https://twitter.com/annakendrick47/status/469232089477701632 ]Sarcasm never comes across in print. Which I love. [/url]
Far too many of the kids at my school are taking legal highs,I would suggest they are easier to get hold of than E's(still and just)
Ban everything. Don't go anywhere. Do as you're told. Shut up. Sit down. Be quiet.
We know what's best for you.
[img] 
[/img]
excellent. blanket ban.
steer well clear of those synthetic cannabinoids. a month's supply for recreational use (was the blueberry flavour one) put a friend off work for several months and needing the services of a shrink. can't have anything blueberry flavour at all now since it triggers something psychological. probably about a year to get back to normal after trying out a new supply after the man let him down.
the real thing is far safer.
Jesus is my high.
Coffee, cigarettes, cough sirup etc etc etc? So these are fine and other stuff not ? Really?
What would you label as a legal high?
The whole legal highs thing was a bit of a double edged sword..
On the one hand, the stuff seemed very moreish and it was quite comforting to know that the scrotiest scrotes could always be found queuing outside the local smart shop..
On the other hand, it was messing up nice kids, the drug dealers were suffering financial ruin and raves were getting pretty weird.. I'll be interested to see what effect a return to wholesome free range illegal drugs has on society
I'm looking forward to seeing how they'll continue to make nitrous oxide legal for whipping cream and making cars go faster, while preventing anyone from inhaling it.
I'm increasingly smelling skunk coming out of the windows of economy hatches as they pass me on my evening rides in the country. I don't care a dman what people do in their own homes but I do care if they drive while smoking.
It was clearly overdue, people have been buying and taking any old random chemicals of unknown quality, strength or provenance, and causing untold damage.
At the same time, what's clearly needed is a quantifiable source for recreational drugs that are inherently as safe as existing pharmaceuticals, which does not fund criminality. Legalise E and pot and all this bath salts crap goes away!
I agree with ninfan. Prohibition is ridiculous. All it does is affect quality and leads to these legal high.
Drugs aren't going away.
I don't care a dman what people do in their own homes but I do care if they drive while smoking.
Same issue as drink driving, just deal with it the same way. I actually think the criminalisation of drugs promotes drug-driving. Users probably use the rationale that since they're doing something illegal anyway, breaking one more law isn't going to make a lot of difference.
Are they going to ban glue and other solvents too?
Does a decent uplift session, say Morzine or Les Gets, count as a legal high?
We need to address this adrenaline junky problem.
And my 4 year old seems to get high just before bedtime. Do I ban bedtime or ban sleepiness?
Seriously though, how are you going to define and catagorise legal highs? And won't they be illegal highs anyway?
I understand the sentiment, but I doubt it's workable.
Seems sensible to me I've had countless cases of various effects from short term use of 'spice' and other versions. Some of which would have been fatal if they hadn't received treatment quick enough.
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
[quote=ninfan opined]It was clearly overdue, people have been buying and taking any old random chemicals of unknown quality, strength or provenance, and causing untold damage.
At the same time, what's clearly needed is a quantifiable source for recreational drugs that are inherently as safe as existing pharmaceuticals, which does not fund criminality. Legalise E and pot and all this bath salts crap goes away!
THIS
We cannot stop folk doing drugs so lets make sure they do it safely [ most of the banned ones are at least as safe as fags and alcohol - ok that is setting the bar pretty low]
the other issue is that every school in the country will have a drug dealer as they are illegal and criminals tend to have poor morals. Legalising them means we can control the supply
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.
We need to protect folk banning does nothing in this respect.
I'm looking forward to seeing how they'll continue to make nitrous oxide legal for whipping cream and making cars go faster, while preventing anyone from inhaling it.
Ignore the nitrous for cars (and anything else that's not food or medical grade). It's got stuff in it that makes you chunder.
Makes handy rocket propellent (well oxidiser). Sparklet bulbs cost peanuts.
Natty stuff, Drac. Some of the compounds used are capable of blocking receptors completely, unlike the perturbation from a blend of natural cannabinoids, some of these synthetics are simply blocking off brain functions in the users.
Fudge to prohibition of natural plants!
This reminds me, decision time: Happiness or Sweet Deep Grapefruit for the first of the day (on my way out to doss around in Cornwall) they're both organic, it's a hard one! 😆
At the same time, what's clearly needed is a quantifiable source for recreational drugs that are inherently as safe as existing pharmaceuticals,which does not fund criminality.
That would be nice.
Legalise E and pot and all this bath salts crap goes away!
You lost me there, people don't suffer side effects from the other stuff in E's and pot, they suffer heart attacks because of MDMA, and become psychologically damaged due to THC. The contaminants might make things worse, but you're unlikely to get them through any kind of FDA/NICE style approval process.
Personally I still think it's like speed limits, everyone likes to think they're not going to be the one that crashes, but when it goes wrong it's the rest of the country that picks up the tab to keep them fed through a tube for the rest of their life.
I had a front row seat to my flatmate go from a 4xA's at A-levels and heading for a 1st in Maths and a regular feature of nights out in the local Indie dives, to dropping out and stacking shelves in Co-Op and staying home mostly. Yes legalise it, the taxman could have taken £20 in tax from an ounce, I'm sure that will cover the economic impact of him probably never earning out of the tax free allowance compared to what he would have gone on to do.
Speeding, mass gun ownership and drugs are all great fun, but illegal because they're dangerous and it's human nature to want to have fun.
Yes good move. On canabis I have seen a couple of people have serious phycosis as a result of heavy smoking of it, I am glad it's still a controlled substance.
the real problem is that it gets posted from abroad, and Royal Mail are obliged to deliver (even if they do safely destroy Rockshox by selling them on eBay before the postie gets killed by a deflated bicycle component). can HM customs (or whatever they call them now) labradors sniff out 10000's of synthetics?
yes but TBF it's the law makers who set the bar at that height.We cannot stop folk doing drugs so lets make sure they do it safely [ most of the banned ones are at least as safe as fags and alcohol - ok that is setting the bar pretty low]
Not tried any but get the impression that legal highs are more dangerous than your traditional illegal ones - even after they've been mixed with talcum powder, rat poison etc
Drug laws are about as silly as englands access laws, cheeky trails all round.
you're unlikely to get them through any kind of FDA/NICE style approval process.
Well if we can get tobacco and alcohol through I am sure we can get these through - I know they dont use that process as they would fail
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.
illegal because they're dangerous and it's human nature to want to have fun.
I think thinks than endanger others should be illegal when the danger is just to you then its your choice - see MTB, base jumping, climbing for examples
I have seen a couple of people have serious phycosis as a result of heavy smoking of it,
We all have as we have all seen folk have issues from alcohol or gambling or tobacco etc
Few would argue there are no risks to drug taking [ or indeed any activity including cycling] but we need to debate how large the risks are and whether folk should be allowed to chose for themselves
Can I just go on record as saying i have never done a legal high in my life 😉
😆ninfan opined
Nice to find common ground in the chat forum every so often.
I have had a professional interest/concern in drugs through the class b/class c/class b years, and certainly some of the problems we have seen arise from the illegality of drugs. I mean particularly legal highs which would have no market at all if there was a safe legal market for more 'predictable' ones. The first object of making a legal high is the dodging of the law, the effect on your brain and body is secondary. I have never seen drug-induced psychosis and rapid loss of concsiousness quite like the cases in more recent years on legals. However, similar thoughts here about the rise of very thc-heavy skunk grown in the uk, and the shockingly poor and adulterated cocaine and heroin which is dangerous because of the nature of the supply chain as much as the pure chemical itself.
I got a really really good idea! Lets tackle a medical issue by making something illegal, that will solve the problem.
Is mdma dangerous though?
Don't the stats show that it's far far safer statistically han many prescription drugs?
You lost me there, people don't suffer side effects from the other stuff in E's and pot, they suffer heart attacks because of MDMA, and become psychologically damaged due to THC. The contaminants might make things worse, but you're unlikely to get them through any kind of FDA/NICE style approval process.
One word
Dosage
All sorts of drugs are disastrously damaging if you are unable to gauge your dosage - imagine the carnage if products containing paracetamol didn't say how much was in them, so you couldn't tell 200mg tablets from 1000mg! As for FDA/NICE, why not? After all, I must have imagined working on extensive pre-clinical trials of medical grade cannabis oil at a large CRO several years ago...
They're not 'intended for human consumption' now they're marketd as all sortdsof crap (which they in fact are) care to buy some bath salts sir? Whatever you dont eat them >wink<.
Pissing in to the wind. You may as well try and ban [Oops swear filter] - 'manually relieving oneself'.
Where has the apparently widely held notion that legal highs are safe come from ?
There is nothing natural about many of the psychoactive compounds targeted by this legislation.
It strikes me that there is an almost romanticised, 60's kinda free love view of acid/pot that is now applied to almost all recreational drug use.
I'm also bemused by the belief that the state wants to control these chemicals for reasons other than public health.
fr0sty125 - MemberI got a really really good idea! Lets tackle a medical issue by making something illegal, that will solve the problem.
About 3 weeks ago as an active member of the Labour Party you were campaigning for precisely that.
[url= http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/12887607.ELECTION_2015__Labour_bid_to_get_tough_on_legal_highs/?ref=rss ]ELECTION 2015: Labour bid to get tough on legal highs[/url]
but, but they're doing something.Pissing in to the wind. You may as well try and ban
Just being seen to be doing something rather than actually fixing the problem seems pretty common.
if they were really bothered about health they'd be looking at legalising and regulating proper drugs. Yes I'm sure a lot of politicians hate to see people going batshit on legal highs but what they are doing won't in anyway fix the root problem.I'm also bemused by the belief that the state wants to control these chemicals for reasons other than public health.
@ Yunki depends on your definition of dangerous [ my info is a number of years out of date to be clear] i just rechecked [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/drugs/survey/ ]good source here[/url]
Most deaths were as result of some other "side affect" - water retention, over heating/hypothermia, with 1 being an allergic reaction
Total death number in the circa 20 per year - when one considers that millions of pills have been consumed [ by hundreds of thousands] that is pretty low.
Its not that risky but it is not without risks
Alcohol death rate per user is higher...much higher 1 in 1000 v 1 in 20000 ish
As for "medicine" it will depend on the medicine and just how risky
IMHO that will be an abuse of stats as some folk die from the medicine but the alternative is a much quicker death - see cancer treatment for examples
I'm also bemused by the belief that the state wants to control these chemicals for reasons other than public health.
Why are alcohol and tobacco, the greatest killers of users, still legal then if it is a health based decision making process?
Kids asked me this...there is no answer when you look at the facts/risks/deaths.
Cannabis Legalisation is working out great in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington.
ernie_lynch - MemberAbout 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 😉
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.)
Frosty - They do if they've all taken enough ketamine
Regarding the legal highs problem, this will only be solved by legalising traditional highs.
Personally i wouldn't touch them.
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.
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!