You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
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.
^ I understood, from reading a forum, that one of the biggest threats to medical staff and patients is that the person who has taken it doesn't always know what it is, nor do the medical staff, which makes treatment in some cases difficult.
I read an account of an american paramedic being handed a plastic baggy with whatever chemical was in there, structure diagram and forumla on the front by the victims friends, and being expected to know what it was and waht the effects were.
Going back a couple of years, I can recall reading about people not knowing their blood vessels had been constricted until a few days afterwards when toes went purple/black or limbs went numb.
What difference would legalising cannabis actually have on 'legal highs'. It's so easy to get a hold of it may as well be legal, it takes more effort to buy paracetamol sometimes!
Legalising cannabis would have no effect. Alcohol and coffee are legal and people still take MDMA, weed, coke and 'legal highs'. Legalising one more off the list of drugs won't stop people trying others. And we'd end up footing the bill for 'dont drive on dope' ad campaigns in adition to the cash wasted on anti drink and smoking adverts.
TINAS - instead of just spouting random forthright opinions based on very little, you could look at the effect of decriminalising/legalising drugs in countries where they've already done it. Colorado has received a massive tax bonanza since legalising pot.
But no you're right - no point just legalising pot - legalise all drugs and treat them as a medical not criminal issue, like in Portugal (where it has been greatly successful).
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.
If staff are suspicious of a prisoner using any kind of illegal substance (apart from 'spice') we just stick an information report in & hopefully they'll be given a target MDT (mandatory drug test) within a few days. Cannabis can be detected up to 30 days after use. Theyr'e using spice because of the different chemicals & the frequency theyr'e changed, it can't yet be tested for. Which is why they use it over anything else nowadays.
If a prisoner is high on spice & healthcare confirm it, he's immediately downgraded to Basic IEP level (no telly, limited gym & funds to spend on canteen & worst of all.....he can't wear his own clothes!
Still gets pudding though.
I'm all for sacking off these 'orrible chemical concoctions and legalising the good stuff.. But there seems a fair few folk, tinas et al, that think prohibition is actually a good thing..
As someone asked earlier in the thread, can you list any (real) benefits of prohibition?
I would vote for prohibition if it could actually be enforced simply for the sake of the children.
Adults can do what the want but when I see a group of kids smoking weed on a Wednesday afternoon it upsets me a little, this is from someone who did puff, LSD Es from 12 years old.
If that same bunch of kids saw me drinking a tinnie in the street on a Wednesday afternoon they would call me a pisshead.
Prohibition makes it much more likely kids will use as the supply is in the hands of drug dealers whose moral are less robust than the average shop/chemist/off licence.
Secondly we have prohibition and a 40 year "war on drugs" and this was when you witnessed it , clearly it does not work.
Do least harm. that is not achieved with the current set up
Prohibition makes it much more likely kids will use as the supply is in the hands of drug dealers whose moral are less robust than the average shop/chemist/off licence.
Secondly we have prohibition and a 40 year "war on drugs" and this was when you witnessed it , clearly it does not work.
Do least harm. that is not achieved with the current set up
That's why I said if it could actually be enforced.
My point is it cannot. Does this mean we both oppose prohibition?
I might as well say if I could fly i would be a bird
Kids easily get a hold of cigarettes and alcohol easier than dope, so I'm not sure that's a good reason to make it legal. As it'll just make it easier to buy than it is now.
Kids easily get a hold of cigarettes and alcohol easier than dope, so I'm not sure that's a good reason to make it legal. As it'll just make it easier to buy than it is now.
It would be interesting to see if anyone had done a study on the harm caused when something is more readily available but of a known quality (ie if drugs were legal) against harder to get a hold off but unregulated (illegal drugs). For instance, would be see less deaths due to say, ecstasy if it were legal and of a known quality but with more people taking it than the current situation.
The harm caused to societies due to the criminalisation of narcotics goes a little bit further than the pill poppers of a weekend in the towns and cities of the UK. Have a look at the number of people who are killed in Mexico on a daily basis by the coke cartels. Historically, have a read on the affects of prohibition in the U.S. In the 1930's.
Current prohibition laws on certain drugs were made by the FBI when they abandoned the prohibition on alcohol and the rest of the world follows suit ( circa 1937 IIRC). To say they are outdated now is an understatement IMHO. As someone has previously posted, it would seem that there are a number of people in positions of legislative power who do not see it being in their interests to change this. That our respective administrations wax lyrical about their raisin d'être being to protect society against the evils of terror et al, they fail massively by refusing to regulate and control recreational and other currently illegal chemicals. Conscious negligence.
I sometimes wonder if their fear is that the already powerful pharma lobbyists would become even more wealthy and powerful if these controlled substances were to be taken away from the black market.
Another take on this legislation.
David Nutt, former government chief drugs adviser, says banning of legal highs has already been destructive to Parkinson’s and anti-smoking research
Ban them and drive the supply underground, it's certainly worked for mephedrone and its analogues as such things are no longer available are they? :roll:.
It's a typical knee jerk reactionary policy with no understanding of how the [i]illegal[/i] market works, the minute they are banned the price will rocket like what happened to meph and dealers will have the sense to have stockpiled substantial amounts, then they'll be disseminated amongst those who can shift them. Certain folk will make a fortune and kids/adults will not be any safer.
Kids easily get a hold of cigarettes and alcohol easier than dope, so I'm not sure that's a good reason to make it legal. As it'll just make it easier to buy than it is now.
What makes you think this?
Do you really think off licences are more sloppy and less moral with the supply than a drug dealer?
Have you actually asked any kids this question?
I accept they can get hold of fags and alcohol but if you think they are easier than weed then its certainly not the case where I live. There will probably be one dope dealer in every school. I doubt there are more selling alcohol - possibly fags though to be fair.
Personally I would rather trust supply to a regulated industry with enforced restrictions than criminal drug dealers
Indeed - No drug known to humankind has ever been made safer by handing over its production and distribution to criminals.
Kids easily get a hold of cigarettes and alcohol easier than dope, so I'm not sure that's a good reason to make it legal. As it'll just make it easier to buy than it is now.
What on earth makes you think that? When I was at school it was really hard to get booze as the local shops were wise to who was 18 or not and who was clearly attempting to buy booze for underage kids. Was a rare treat to successfully get hold of some diamond white.
On the other hand a £5 bit of grotty plastic and petrol-filled soap bar hash took between morning break and lunchtime to order and procure, no questions asked, no fake ID needed, no chance of getting rumbled.
There is not a school in this country where the pupils won't easily be able to score some dope from some dodgy dealer. It's this false idea that it is hard to get hold of that puts parents so out of touch with reality.
Christ this Old Rosie is strong apple juice, I'm off my face!
Drac - ModeratorKids easily get a hold of cigarettes and alcohol easier than dope, so I'm not sure that's a good reason to make it legal. As it'll just make it easier to buy than it is now.
Disagree with this too, as a runty kid I couldn't even get sold drink in the really dodgy local shop, but a lump of soapbar took absolutely zero effort. It was harder getting the tobacco.
(and the weed we bought, was awful toxic crap, it's the rubber in it that gets you off)
This thread is why I am slowly turning into a raving libertarian of the deep south variety (non religious though....of course).
Have you actually asked any kids this question?
Yes, part of safeguarding is to ask who supplied the substance that they have taken.
Disagree with this too, as a runty kid I couldn't even get sold drink in the really dodgy local shop, but a lump of soapbar took absolutely zero effort. It was harder getting the tobacco.
You see this is the difference you're basing it on no experience what so ever other than yourself. I'm basing it on over 20 years of working in frontline healthcare. They take their parents tobacco, alcohol from the cabinet or get someone to buy it for them from a shop. Dead easy.
You are basing this on the fact that folk who get stoned dont need medical help ,so you never have to treat them, but pissed up kids needs medical assistance.
I bet you almost never deal with anyone who has taken too much weed compared to someone who is pissed and injured themself and has to go to hospital. All this shows us is that weed is "safer"
As for us basing it on what we did are you really trying to claim that FEWER kids try drugs today than 20 years ago? Really ? You want to try and argue this? Its just not true and it is not what the statistics show
I suppose its possible that more are trying it and its also harder to get hold off but that seems unlikely.
As ninfan notes
No drug known to humankind has ever been made safer by handing over its production and distribution to criminals.
No never claimed kids are doing fewer and can't see where you'd even get that from.
I've had kids ill on weed yes but more so alcohol, you know the one that is really easily to get hold of. But again I never claimed which is worse but I have seen some seriously ill people with spice type legal highs. Which if I recall correctly is what I was talking about.
Bring in random drug testing for the House of Commons & Lords.
I suspect drug laws would become more practical almost overnight.
The hypocritical gits are costing lives
[url= 
]Off his head[/url]
Bringing it back to the original article. Isn't the point of this a little moot?
Lots of these so called legal highs are not sold for human consumption, so the current work around for sales would continue?
How can you ban a legal high, the whole point of calling it a legal high is that the contents are by definition legal.
How can you ban a legal high, the whole point of calling it a legal high is that the contents are by definition legal.
They by pass the current laws to make them legal doesn't mean they are harmless.
Lots of these so called legal highs are not sold for human consumption, so the current work around for sales would continue?
No, the draft bill uses the phrase[i] "knows, or is reckless as to whether, the psychoactive substance is likely to be consumed by some other person for its psychoactive effects."[/i] - and it would be pretty clear to police, magistrate or a jury what was going on with 'bath salts' or 'plant food', 'incense' etc.
They by pass the current laws to make them legal doesn't mean they are harmless.
I never stated nor inferred that they were.
Drac - ModeratorI've had kids ill on weed yes but more so alcohol,
Well you would, wouldn't you, on account of one is far more likely to make you ill, and one is more likely to be abused.
And no, not just basing this on my own personal experience.
Well you would, wouldn't you, on account of one is far more likely to make you ill, and one is more likely to be abused.
Do you reckon.
Both are really easy to get a hold off. The law has no baring on availabilty to teenagers.Drac - Moderator
No never claimed kids are doing fewer and can't see where you'd even get that from.I've had kids ill on weed yes but more so alcohol, you know the one that is really easily to get hold of.
It's actually one of the most convincing arguments for legalisation is that prohibition is utterly ineffectual in stopping supply.
Both are really easy to get a hold off. The law has no baring on availabilty to teenagers.
Yes but alcohol far easier as most houses have it in stock.
Drac - Moderator
Yes but alcohol far easier as most houses have it in stock.
So how would the legality affect weed and other substances, given that you accept legality has no effect of supply? Why would people suddenly stock pile more, currently illegal, substances than they already do?
I also doubt teenagers biggest source for alcohol is their parents cupboard. Most will know what they have and if it's been raided by their children.
The ability for children to get a hold of substances from their parents is a parenting issue for me, not a legal issue. Not a convincing argument for continued prohibition at all. If parents are having problems with their children raiding their supply, they should stop re stocking it.
but I have seen some seriously ill people with spice type legal highs. Which if I recall correctly is what I was talking about.
Thanks for reminding everyone Drac because it's what my OP was about! Personally I'm not arsed about the effects of weed/alcohol/tobacco etc, long or short term but no-one apart from the people who produce 'legal highs' actually know what's in them let alone the long term effects.
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.
I also doubt teenagers biggest source for alcohol is their parents cupboard. Most will know what they have and if it's been raided by their children.
Doubt as much as you want but that's exactly where most get it from and you may be shocked to hear that some parents don't really care about where it's gone. There's a whole big world out there past your front door.
There's also a whole big world outside of your callouts! 😆
legislating against adults just because teenagers might do something is ridiculous
Thanks for reminding everyone Drac because it's what my OP was about! Personally I'm not arsed about the effects of weed/alcohol/tobacco etc, long or short term but no-one apart from the people who produce 'legal highs' actually know what's in them let alone the long term effects.
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.
Totally understand where you're coming from on this, having to deal with the fallout etc. I guess most posts here are talking about the futility of banning drugs/prohibition. These legal highs [i]are[/i] dangerous because there isn't the decades of data that there is with other more well known recreational drugs, and they wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the prohibition of the illegal drugs that they imitate. But I guess if prohibition is effective, all your inmates will now no longer partake seeing as they're illegal and everything?
legislating against adults just because teenagers might do something is ridiculous
Yes as adults never take ill.
Can I see a source for your claim that most teenagers get it from their parents please?
Drac - Moderator
legislating against adults just because teenagers might do something is ridiculous
Yes as adults never take ill.
I'm not arguing they don't, but they are capable of making decisions on their own about how they **** themselves up.
Yup you really don't get it.
So far no one has agreed with you so there are a lot of us not getting it.
Spell it out then?Drac - Moderator
Yup you really don't get it.
But I guess if prohibition is effective, all your inmates will now no longer partake seeing as they're illegal and everything?
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) 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?
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.
It would kill the synthetic market.Drac - ModeratorSo 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.
No-one is arguing that it isn't.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.
A plaster on a hatchet wound springs to mind here.Drac - Moderator
Sounds a better idea squirrel but these dangerous ones do need banned.
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.