Drug law shake-up aims to curb ‘legal’ highs [UK]

Public//Enemy

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
1,107
A fundamental change in drugs law that would criminalise the act of selling or manufacturing recreational drugs rather than outlawing the substance itself has been proposed by the Scottish government, and is being studied by officials in Edinburgh and London, The Times can reveal.

The proposals are aimed at targeting the growing use of legal highs such as mephedrone, or “meow-meow” — a plant food that can be bought over the internet and which has a similar effect to Ecstasy or cocaine.

Police and ministers are increasingly concerned that criminals are able to stay one step ahead of the law by creating pharmaceutical combinations outside the latest illegal drug classifications.

The proposed changes to criminalise the sale of drugs rather than the substance itself is based on the traditional mens rea principle of Scottish law, which seeks to establish intent rather than the act itself.

If new legislation can be agreed between Holyrood and Westminster, it would apply throughout the UK, and not just in Scotland.

Fergus Ewing, Minister for Community Safety in the Scottish government, told The Times: “It’s plainly obvious that if drugs can be manufactured to bypass the law then the model of criminality is one that needs to be looked at.

“The current model criminalises the substance. We really need to have a model which criminalises the activity and the intent behind the activity.

“After all, the whole basis of Scots criminal law is that there is a mens rea — a mental intent to do harm or to cause benefit at the expense of others in a way which is unacceptable.

“The method of making law by defining everything is not the traditional approach in Scotland. The mens rea [in drug dealing] is making profit out of the sale of a substance, whether that substance at the moment has a legal use — plant food, in the case of mephedrone — or an illegal use.”

Officials in Mr Ewing’s department are working with the Home Office to consider how the law could be changed.

The move comes as pub and club bosses in Aberdeen took steps to ban mephedrone, a “legal high” substance containing amphetamines. The trade body representing them said yesterday that anyone caught with the drug would be banned from their premises.

A woman died at a house in Dunfermline last month after she was thought to have taken the drug.

Mephedrone, or its many derivatives, is also causing serious concern on Tayside, where use of the drug has soared in recent months among schoolchildren. At least five users in the Dundee area have suffered nonfatal overdoses in recent months. Known by its slang names “meowmeow” or “bubbles”, the drug is in the process of being banned under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Mr Ewing, who has written to the Home Office making it clear that mephedrone should be added to the list of banned substances, said that the matter of illegal drugs was reserved to Westminster, and he sought to avoid making it a party political issue.

“We should work with the UK Government to look at other potential solutions,” he said. “Exactly what those are is for legal draughtsmen and lawyers to come up with, but I don’t think it’s beyond the wit of Man to devise and provide a different model of making illegal what one can see is plainly a pernicious and evil trade.

“It’s an honest recognition that the law, as is blindingly obvious to everyone who is involved in the field, has not kept pace with the chemical ingenuity of organised criminals. It seems to me that logically we have to look again at the Misuse of Drugs Act with a view to finding a method where we are ahead of the organised criminals.”

Otherwise, Mr Ewing said, it had to be accepted that once one substance was banned, the criminals would simply bring forward another.

Current thinking is that the new definitions will criminalise the sale of anything in situations where it can be “reasonably expected” to be used as a hallucinogenic or intoxicant by human beings, regardless of what its other uses are.

The Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement Agency has written to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs also suggesting that the activity of selling drugs than rather just the substance should be criminalised.

Mr Ewing said he was concerned that young people who took recreational “highs” could be drawn into more problematic drug use. He said: “There are a large number of recreational users, who might have been regular cannabis users but now might be taking cocaine or legal highs.

“Those who start off by taking one drug may then go on, perhaps egged on by dealers, to try others and I think that’s just part of the facts of life.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7029753.ece
 
They call it a "model of criminality"...
But it is only criminal because that is how they define it!

No recreational drug sales? What about caffeine, alcohol, tobacco, and sugar? Can they define drugs to not include these substances?

Citing the often discredited gateway theory like idiots.

Small-minded, conservative, fuckers.
 
This is funny, they cause the problem and propose more laws to push the problem under a rug.. I wonder how many people would be ODing now if thy could legally take good ole SAFE e.
 
They call it a "model of criminality"...
But it is only criminal because that is how they define it!

No recreational drug sales? What about caffeine, alcohol, tobacco, and sugar? Can they define drugs to not include these substances?

Citing the often discredited gateway theory like idiots.

Small-minded, conservative, fuckers.

To be honest I have seen this coming for a long time, I posted in some old thread that if the legal highs market continued to expand eventually countries would just criminalize any substance intended to intoxicate. I expect other countries are going to propose this same strategy very soon.

And caffeine, alcohol, tobacco, and sugar are all approved for sale by the local version of the FDA. So it will be a simple matter to draft the law that FDA approved substances/foods are exempt.

I don't approve of this, but think it is probably inevitable.
 
What I dont get is what happens to the likes of ketamine?

Would that make it legal to posses as its a medicine? xP

What about all those other RX meds?

...they went there fucking cake and eat it dont they ! xP

...*cough* Bluelight political party *cough*
 
"...I don’t think it’s beyond the wit of Man to devise and provide a different model of making illegal what one can see is plainly a pernicious and evil trade."
... What, you mean like Booze n Cigs? No? Oh... Didn't think so...
a plant food that can be bought over the internet
Are you still really that naive?

:| **Slams head against the wall** :|

I, like garuda, assumed something like this would happen at some point, as there's only so much idiocy that politicians can have (I know, unbelievable but true) until they think "Wait a minute.. why not tackle this from the seed instead of taking another twig off?"... Which they've just gone and done.

Ah well, was good whilst it lasted. I don't think they'll be able to tame the net as a means of acquiring substances though ;)
 
If this law went threw... surely you could sell "Artistic Collectors Editions of Drugs throughout the world"

There is no bloody way you want to eat a collection of exotic substances which cost an earth, it is a collection after all ;) framed n signed n all that !
 
Police and ministers are increasingly concerned that criminals are able to stay one step ahead of the law by creating pharmaceutical combinations outside the latest illegal drug classifications.

So people who are not breaking the law are still criminals? W.T.FUCKING.F!!??


Jesus fuck. Just looking through that article makes my blood boil. I don't think there is one sentence or paragraph that I can't pick fault with. :X
 
**Gives zark a Horlicks and sits him down**
I know man I know lol.. Fuck..

As always - "Gernalizum at itz bestestest" 8)
 
If this law went threw... surely you could sell "Artistic Collectors Editions of Drugs throughout the world"

There is no bloody way you want to eat a collection of exotic substances which cost an earth, it is a collection after all ;) framed n signed n all that !

This is my current favored legal argument. You don't want to call them drugs, but you can easily claim you collect unregulated chemicals just like baseball card collectors collect baseball cards.
 
**Gives zark a Horlicks and sits him down**
I know man I know lol.. Fuck..

As always - "Gernalizum at itz bestestest" 8)

haha! Thanks for the virtual liquid relaxation - this story has been bounding around my head, bugging the hell out of me all evening! ;)
 
=D Yer welcome man. I don't blame you. Some days I can let rubbish journalism like this roll off me like water off a duck's back, other days I get well pissed off =D
 
“After all, the whole basis of Scots criminal law is that there is a mens rea — a mental intent to do harm or to cause benefit at the expense of others in a way which is unacceptable.

"and your honor, i can attest that i had no intent to do harm selling drugs, i just wanted to have a good time and so did everyone i sold to. And none of them felt me making the money was done in an unacceptable way. Therefore, according to the principle of "mens rea", you must pronounce me innocent"

somehow i dont see that argument winning in court ;)

Current thinking is that the new definitions will criminalise the sale of anything in situations where it can be “reasonably expected” to be used as a hallucinogenic or intoxicant by human beings, regardless of what its other uses are.

so if i have a collection of chemicals (using the collector argument), what would satisfy the "reasonably expected" part? the fact that i have them? or the fact that im young? is it because i is black ?

“There are a large number of recreational users, who might have been regular cannabis users but now might be taking cocaine or legal highs.

“Those who start off by taking one drug may then go on, perhaps egged on by dealers, to try others and I think that’s just part of the facts of life.”

i know for a fact all pot smokers drink water, therefore water leads to pot smoking, and as a pot smoking person can be reasonably expected to use other drugs, does that not mean that anyone who drinks water can be reasonably expected to use drugs to? dont look at me that way, im just extending your logic, minister. and dont get me started on you saying "perhaps" and then labeling that "perhaps" a "fact of life".
 
This is my current favored legal argument. You don't want to call them drugs, but you can easily claim you collect unregulated chemicals just like baseball card collectors collect baseball cards.

Can you convince the judge or jury though, hell GBL actually had many, many legit non drug uses as a solvent and electrolyte and there were successful prosecutions under the analog act in the USA I believe.
 
It depends on the circumstances. If you don't make it possible for them to discover gelcaps and pot pipes and weed and nitrous chargers in the same room as your 'exotic chemical collection', and you don't have prior arrests for drug crimes, you could easily convince a jury. In order to be found guilty under the Federal Analog Act, the prosecution would have to prove your intent to consume it or distribute it to people for consumption. If you present a statement in your favor to the effect of, "They seized my exotic chemical collection, I had no plans on ever ingesting these dangerous substances." the prosecution has to bring forth evidence to prove you wrong.

A jury is instructed to delibrate on the facts, and your testimony that it's a collection for artistic/hobbyist purposes is a fact. Where might the prosecution get any evidence to prove you wanted to eat it?
 
This really isn't very surprising but it is shit. Its ridiculous to extend this war on drugs further, while I do think alot of RC's are far from safe what happened to individual choice? This is essentially an outright ban on intoxication from anything other than alcohol. What a joke.
 
Top