UK Psychoactive Substances Bill Postponed indefinitely

[Tranced]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...cerns-law-enforceable-psychoactive-definition

I've just received an email from a friendly vendor informing me that (contrary to current government claims that it will come into law some other time during the spring ?!), the bill will be postponed until January.

This makes a lot more sense to me because the bill is absolutely full to the brim with illogical fallacies.

Anyway, the point in posting in this forum is that this gives vendors another year to to attempt more, novel substances, and even extend the life of some of the newer lysergamides which they weren't going to resynth.

So yeah, thank god for the bumbling UK government. This is another good article linky

Sounds like the whole thing will fall through to me.

I mean, as if they allowed poppers protection from the bill. I love poppers but they're definitely psychoactive. Can't they just bring back the original Amyl Nitrite then? At least that stuff was good.

Either way, good news for people like us.

 

[IamMe90]

Wow, this ban is fucking atrocious.

So a "psychoactive substance" is defined as a substance which "...produces a psychoactive effect in a person if, by stimulating or depressing the person’s central nervous system, it affects the person’s mental functioning or emotional state"

So almost every fucking drug that exists. This is so broad it's crazy. I get that there's a list of exempted substances (I couldn't find a link to a list of "schedule 1" substances that are exempted though; Wiki says the UK schedules are titled A, B and C), but wouldn't this necessitate legislative amendment every time a new psychotropic compound is developed for medical purposes?

Also, the Guardian article says that act aims to ban substances intended for human consumption. In that case, isn't it analogous (no pun intended, lol) to the somewhat irrelevant federal analogue act here in the US? AKA won't vendors (successfully or not) just attempt to bypass the law by continuing to provide NFHC disclaimers on their products and websites? I didn't have the time (or motivation) to slog through the entire bill though, so this could just be the Guardian inaccurately paraphrasing the bill.

Anyway, yeah, I hope this thing dies a painful death in gridlock.

 

[Domicrow]

Thank God I was worried about that. Hopefully the whole thing gets replace with a legalization bill ?

 

[ImDirtyDan]

Lolol one day my friend

 

[psood0nym]

The UK government would apparently like to say "It's illegal if it's a chemical that provides the sort of enjoyment that we demand our citizens obtain through the breeding of new workers, consumerism, or established religion” … but of course they can't say that since it sounds monstrously oppressive.

The overwhelming majority of serious problems caused by the end users of recreational drugs are wrapped up with addiction and daily dependence, not with the exploits of weekend warriors or basement shamans. Ignoring realities like 1.) the inherent human appetite to alter one's consciousness, and 2.) the existence of semi-responsible use, and going on to legally carpet bomb society with absolutist policies like what's been attempted here will inevitably cause enormous collateral damage. An effective drug policy needs to be friendly to the “mostly harmless” drug user.

It's clear most of the powers that be find absolute legalization/decriminalization untenable. But there are largely ignored middle paths through drug policy that account for the possibilities of mostly-harmless use without denying that drug addiction and dependence causes serious societal harm. For example we could do something like pair an existing ID card with a credit card and allot a certain amount of personal credit weekly for legal recreational drug purchases. How much credit? I don't know, that would need to be studied, but enough to party on the weekends but not so much a person can spend a part of every day high would would be within a range that would cover a lot of “mostly harmless” consumer demand.

An effective and ideal harm reduction policy would make the legal stock of recreational drugs (everything from dope to DPT) pure and dirt cheap to undersell and undermine the black AND gray markets while simultaneously working to prevent truly problematic use. No new user starts off deciding to become an addict, so why not create a system where it's easy and cheap to use only occasionally while keeping it legally dangerous and expensive to gratuitously overuse? Why not structure a regulatory system that helps users maintain the non-problematic moderate usage patterns most of them naturally begin with and would like to keep up with?

Initially illicit markets would persist alongside a legal market regulated in this way in order to supply the heavy demands of addicts, but on average and over time newcomers to drugs who, naturally, only use occasionally would be financially and legally incentivized to stick with a pure cheap legal source. For most of these people there would rarely be an opportunity or a reason to buy a large stock of their drug of choice, from any market, and start a pattern of daily use. As the undersold illicit markets shrunk it would become increasingly difficult for the average recreational drug consumer to transition from occasional user to addict.

We can't legislate away people's natural appetites, nor should we legally indulge such appetites unconditionally. It's well within our means to walk a middle path that addresses the legitimate concerns of each side and nourishes a healthy body politic.