Daily Hansard - Westminster Hall: Controls on Legal Highs

[7zark7]

Westminster Hall
Thursday 9 September 2010
[Mr Philip Davies in the Chair]

Controls on Legal Highs

In securing the debate today, I wish to address the issue of so-called legal highs, which are new psychoactive synthetic substances. The coalition Government will not lose sight of the harms caused by all drug use. Within our objective of making society a safer place for young people, we need to be responsive to such new threats and new harms. Over the past 18 months or so, there has been a proliferation of so-called legal highs, which are often drugs with a similar molecular structure to a controlled drug, but they have been deliberately altered by unscrupulous manufacturers to subvert our laws by producing an entirely new compound which, although the pharmacological effects may be similar to or greater than the controlled drug, are not already controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.



Rest of debate is here (quite a read!): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100909/halltext/100909h0001.htm

 

[MONSTA!!]

Oh fuck off!

 

[chasing_s]

interesting the latest troublesome version of ivory wave appears to desoxypiperadol

 

[edgarshade]

James Brokenshire

On the specific point about the Portuguese model, we are against that proposal. The Government are determined to prevent drug use and strengthen enforcement against supply, which is why we are asking experts for their views on a range of issues, so that users are strongly encouraged to address their dependency. That wider debate and consultation is taking place, but we are not looking at the Portuguese model, and do not think that it is the right way forward.

My impression:
Preventing drug use is the goal. Not reducing harm. It doesn't matter what the drug is or how safe or harmful it is. It doesn't matter if it is being used responsibly or problematically. They just absolutely have to prevent it from being used at all costs.

Mr Burrowes

The Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010 will further curb the threats posed by head shops and psychoactive substances. Under the new provisions, the sale or supply of substances that may not be specifically proscribed under Ireland's Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, but which have psychoactive effects, would be a criminal offence.

I just knew they'd be eyeing up what Ireland have done. I'm just curious, is it still possible to buy nutmeg over there? That's certainly psychoactive if you down enough of the stuff.

Is any "legal high" product still available there such as Krantom or Peruvian Torch? Are the Irish government only stomping on potentially dangerous products or just doing what the local breweries are asking them to do i.e. banning everything that isn't alcohol?

 

[7zark7]

Good picks there, edgarshade. Your insight is very welcome here

I noted the 'prevention of drug use' line when I started reading through it. It confirms what we all knew; that the Government don't want us doing any drug, unless they are profiting form it.

My understanding of the word 'psychoactive' is any substance that acts on the central nervous system (CNS). This includes a huge range of drugs - many of which are used everyday by millions of people, both recreationally and medicinally. Caffeine and asprin supply a criminal offence?

 

[7zark7]

Tom Brake MP

This debate is focused on legal highs, but hon. Members will be aware that a wider drugs consultation is under way that looks at that issue, for which the closing date is 30 September. I hope that it will be possible for us, not now, but over the coming months and years, to have a more open and frank discussion about tackling drugs. All hon. Members here today know that the subject is difficult for politicians to address, because sometimes the most effective solutions as suggested by the evidence may not be politically acceptable, but we must address the problem in an evidence-based way. When people such as the former president of the Royal College of Physicians says that a blanket ban is not necessarily the most effective way of tackling the drugs issue, we must consider that and assess the implications, if any, for Government policy. We must find a way of creating space in which it is safe for politicians to debate these matters and to rely on what evidence-based solutions might recommend.

Fair play to this guy for having the guts to approach a prickly subject like this.

 

[FacedAgain]

Here here!

 

[edgarshade]

Good picks there, edgarshade. Your insight is very welcome here

I noted the 'prevention of drug use' line when I started reading through it. It confirms what we all knew; that the Government don't want us doing any drug, unless they are profiting form it.

My understanding of the word 'psychoactive' is any substance that acts on the central nervous system (CNS). This includes a huge range of drugs - many of which are used everyday by millions of people, both recreationally and medicinally. Caffeine and asprin supply a criminal offence?

Thanks 7zark7

I'm not sure they know what 'psychoactive' means themselves. They probably intend it to mean any substance that people might take for the purpose of getting high. It would save a lot of confusion if they just referred to illegal and legal recreational drugs as being "highs", not "legal highs" and not just "drugs". Then they could communicate exactly what they have in mind, "We don't want any of you guys taking any kind of 'highs'!"

They don't seem to make an exception for alcohol but seem to talk of "drink" problems as something to also be reduced. However this stance isn't reflected in their behaviour since most of them probably do drink and are happy if the drinks industry reports a profit.

 

[edgarshade]

Tom Brake MP



Fair play to this guy for having the guts to approach a prickly subject like this.

Here is the consultation if anyone hasn't seen it yet. No need to fill in all the boxes since the questions are quite loaded. For questions regarding re-offending I just replied to the effect that it is the illegality of drugs itself which is making it necessary to convict drug users.

I would really appreciate a more open-ended consultation that actually seeks to discover how and why responsible people takes 'highs' responsibly, like most of us do. Maybe they could also talk to Head Shop staff and understand their aims and objectives instead of just "tackling" them with crack-downs.