• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

New RCs in the UK Ver.3 - Get your disappointment in here

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let us know looking forward to what it might be! tho the spermy smell sounds a lil worrying...

Samhain, they aren't branded chmicals like a3a or jgg or any of that shite. they are legit chemicals like methiopropamine, amt, methoxetamine etc. I know that one of them is rti-126 but its project 6 or summin and isn't supposed to be out until dec 2011.

One chemical which i have on the way is 4-fa. I have looked into it quite a bit but reports seem to vary a fair bit.
 
If it's not coming out until Dcember 2011, Parliament will have made all legal highs illegal by then, they seem to think they'll have changed the law by September.
 
^I very much doubt they will have made all legal highs illegal by then. Butane and nutmeg are probably here to stay.
 
VolcanoPreston said:
If it's not coming out until Dcember 2011, Parliament will have made all legal highs illegal by then, they seem to think they'll have changed the law by September.
Click to expand...

I'm hearing more and more about this blanket-ban law coming into effect. People will find ways round it. We'll get a whole host of drugs developed in completely different ways that beat the legal system. If there's money to be made, shrude businessmen will make it.

I take it 6-APB, methiopropamine, methoxetamine and the likes will all become illegal with the change in law? Shame....
 
The relevant bill would give the Home Secretary the power to enact year-long temporary bans. It is the creation of a power, not the banning of any substance.
 
People will find ways round it. We'll get a whole host of drugs developed in completely different ways that beat the legal system
Click to expand...
Not if they use the same kind of language they did for the synthetic cannabinoid ban. Say they wanted to ban methoxetamine and any other similar drugs, they could write a catch-all clause based on chemical structure (any compound structurally derived from cyclohexylamine through addition of an aryl moiety, whether or not further substituted at the nitrogen atom or on the aromatic ring or something) , and someone would probably find a way around it. Or, they could just ban any synthetic NMDA antagonist. Boom. You've effectively outlawed any recreational dissociatives, regardless of structure. No wiggle room.
 
Yerg said:
Or, they could just ban any synthetic NMDA antagonist. Boom. You've effectively outlawed any recreational dissociatives, regardless of structure. No wiggle room.
Click to expand...

Well yerg, lets hope this doesn't happen. It would cost them more in the long term having to charge all these 'criminals' using methoxetamine and dxm. lets not start a debate on the govt but my god if they just sat down and thought logically about it rather than making decisions based on the sun and the daily fucking mail.
 
Yerg said:
Not if they use the same kind of language they did for the synthetic cannabinoid ban. Say they wanted to ban methoxetamine and any other similar drugs, they could write a catch-all clause based on chemical structure (any compound structurally derived from cyclohexylamine through addition of an aryl moiety, whether or not further substituted at the nitrogen atom or on the aromatic ring or something) , and someone would probably find a way around it. Or, they could just ban any synthetic NMDA antagonist. Boom. You've effectively outlawed any recreational dissociatives, regardless of structure. No wiggle room.
Click to expand...

Ahh...shit.

Well once the law comes into effect, maybe the Home Secretary won't immediately ban every legal high we have going. Provided the industry keeps a low profile (which it most probably won't), we might be able to keep going for a little while longer. Say 6-APB for instance. Seems to be relatively safe. No infamous incidents or deaths from it. No real reason for it to enter the public/government's eye. No legitimate reason why it should get banned.

The only serious danger is whether the government decides creates a blanket ban to clamp down on all the rouge traders selling fake product. Bad vendors give the government the perfect excuse to ban everything. It'd look like they did it in the interests of harm reduction.
 
JSPete said:
Say 6-APB for instance. Seems to be relatively safe. No infamous incidents or deaths from it. No real reason for it to enter the public/government's eye. No legitimate reason why it should get banned.
Click to expand...

If only drug policy were based on actual harm. In 1974, drugs which had never seen the light of day in this country were banned. Nothing's changed unfortunately.
 
SamhainGrim said:
If only drug policy were based on actual harm. In 1974, drugs which had never seen the light of day in this country were banned. Nothing's changed unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see on what grounds they banned those drugs. I can't even think of a decent enough excuse. Policy change pleeaase!
 
as has been shown time and time again drug laws in this country are based on twisted christian morality and knee-jerk idiocy rather than any logical or scientific reason
 
I have a suspicion the next one fluffybudz is talking about might be NBOME-Mescaline (had to resist the urge to type NOBME there).
 
^You can't post it. We don't let people discuss sources at all in CD, but I don't know how EADD works with regards to this kind of thing.
 
Ive been a member of this website for nearly a year now, and as far as im "aware", no sourcing is allowed or posts/links related on this site in that manner.

Well just neeed confirmation of this.

Dee
 
You're definitely not allowed to post a link or name the site. If it was my forum, I'd tell you to stop talking about vendors at all, but it's not my forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top