Why the Psychoactive Substances Act is much better than anyone will admit

[neversickanymore]

Why the Psychoactive Substances Act is much better than anyone will admit
Leo Barasi
25 may 2016


Under the Psychoactive Substances Act it will not be a criminal offence for someone to possess for their own consumption recreational drugs too dangerous to be legally sold to the public.

m Thursday, it may be illegal for churches to use incense. They should be safe from prosecution though, because, as the policing minister was forced to clarify, the mind-altering effects of holy smells aren’t the intended target of the Psychoactive Substances Act, which comes into force this week.

Incense-wafters aren’t the only ones wondering whether they will be criminalised by the Act. Its loose definition of psychoactive substances has been ridiculed for apparently banning, among other things, flowers, perfume and vaping.

Anyone writing about drugs can save time by creating a shortcut to insert the words “the government has ignored its advisors” and this Act was no exception. The advisory council repeatedly warned the government that its definition would both ban things that it didn’t mean to prohibit and could, at the same time, be unenforcable. You can guess how much difference these interventions made.

But, bad though the definition is – not a small problem when the entire law rests on it – the Act is actually much better than is usually admitted.

Under the law, it will not be a criminal offence for someone to possess, for their own consumption, recreational drugs that are considered too dangerous to be legally sold to the public.

That sounds like a mess, and it is. But it’s a mess that many reformers have long advocated for other drugs. Portugal decriminalised drug possession in 2001 while keeping supply illegal, and its approach is well-regarded by reformers, including the Liberal Democrats, who pledged to adopt this model in their last manifesto.

continued with links here http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-substances-act-much-better-anyone-will-admit

 

[belligerent drunk]

That sounds like a mess, and it is. But it’s a mess that many reformers have long advocated for other drugs. Portugal decriminalised drug possession in 2001 while keeping supply illegal, and its approach is well-regarded by reformers, including the Liberal Democrats, who pledged to adopt this model in their last manifesto.

I don't see the point in this analogy. Portugal decriminalized drug possession, meaning that it was a felony before the change, but only a minor offence after. Whereas in this situation, the substances affected were not illegal to start with. I understand that they're trying to say that they're going after the distributors, not the consumers, but the piece I quoted just delivers a moot point.

 

[Eveleivibe]

Thanks for sharing this, NSA. I feel that this is going to bring on mass confusion to many people because the other drugs are still illegal n it's only the current "legal highs" (research chemicals) that are being made illegal to sell yet legal for personal use. I really do not see how this will work to be honest. As well as that, there are many questions people are unsure of such as "if caught when any of these substances, how much of a substance is considered personal use? n how much before a substance is considered as intent to supply?" If a person os caught with, for instance, a bag of white powder, how can they tell if it's an RC n ok or a controlled drug?"
Personally I think they should decriminalise all drugs but unfortunately I don't think that's going to happen.

Evey