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


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler | Pissed_and_messed

NPS Act V1. Blankets? Just Say No!

If you were able to show the rest of society you had an ounce of self control to go with that gram of mystery powder, then just perhaps they would have turned a blind eye.

No doubt.. Things like 2-CB, 2C-T-7, 5-MeO-DMT or DXM were sold throughout the 90s and later without much incident. Some dodgier experimental drugs rolled out of The Nexus (such as the cathinones), but the distribution didn't yet have the relentless commercial push behind it that came with the meph boom.
 
I can recall the folk who hammered the shit out of mushrooms/LSD and went completely bat shit crazy. Healthy. As I said, and you agreed, people are the problem, not drugs so treating drugs as the problem is futile, people need treating..

I didn't realise mushrooms and mephedrone were legal in OZ due to how restrained you lot over there are 8) How many people died from weed? Still illegal. The harm a drug does doesn't come into the decision of legislation, they just ban it regardless.
 
No doubt.. Things like 2-CB, 2C-T-7, 5-MeO-DMT or DXM were sold throughout the 90s and later without much incident. Some dodgier experimental drugs rolled out of The Nexus (such as the cathinones), but the distribution didn't yet have the relentless commercial push behind it that came with the meph boom.

I thought they'd all been illegal for decades lurching.
 
This is less about them criminalizing or punishing fun-havers and more about stopping the influx of increasingly desperate untested synthetics...
 
This is less about them criminalizing or punishing fun-havers and more about stopping the influx of increasingly desperate untested synthetics...

They're only increasingly desperate because they're banning the earlier ones tho.
 
I thought they'd all been illegal for decades lurching.

I can assure you that 2C-B and 2C-T-7 were sold as RCs/legal high, even in headshops, in the 90s.

DXM also was sold as a legal research chemical throughout the 90s-00s (mostly online at sites as Wanman, Plateau Labs etc) .
 
Last edited:
Some people can't show restraint on substances so make them illegal so they should be made illegal- great points OTW and Lurching. That's been proven to cure all ails previously :D

What about freedom of choice and simply personal freedom to do what u want to your own body. We need to ban laptops and burgers- people are killing themselves by overdoing it on this stuff.

Read my post. I said that the barrelscraping and commercialization of RCs should be slowed down. I then said that banning "probably isn't the right way to do it".

So don't attribute that point to me.


And freedom of choice? Please.. you are being led as much by the profit margin of Chinese labs and some half-assed SAR research as by your own choice... hey look, a new flavor, throw it in the shopping cart...
 
the profit margin of Chinese labs

Remember the tragic chinese gentleman who fell into the chemical vat when they were making mephedrone and died - all they retreived of him were his brogues. I believe they still released the batch in his honour.
 
Stupidly I fundamentally agree with you -- and I'd also enjoy that sort of utopian freedom -- but I'm playing devil's advocate because I think neither banning nor leaving the RC market in its current state is wise in the long term. Don't have a clear solution though.

NSFW:
8(
NSFW:
=D


Perhaps we'll see karma sorting it all out. They are apparently already falling into vats of meph ;-)
 
I too agree that the Legal Highs scene was/is out of control. I can't say I agree with a blanket ban but I do see the point that a free-for-all is hardly healthy.

Got any lawyers here? I wanna find some new loopholes, if we assume the "Not For Humans Consumption" loophole has been closed, we need some new ones.

from - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2015-2016/0002/lbill_2015-20160002_en_2.htm

Here is part of the Bill -

Section 3

SCHEDULE 1

Exempted substances

Controlled drugs

Controlled drugs (within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971).

Medicinal products

Medicinal products for which either of the following is in force—

(a)a marketing authorisation;
(b)an Article 126a authorisation.10Terms used in this paragraph and in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012
(S.I. 2012/1916S.I. 2012/1916) have the same meaning in this paragraph as they have in those Regulations.

Investigational medicinal products.“Investigational medicinal product” has the same meaning as in the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1031S.I. 2004/1031)
(see regulation 2 of those Regulations).

Homoeopathic medicinal products.“Homoeopathic medicinal product” has the same meaning as in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (see regulation 8 of those Regulations). Traditional herbal medicinal products.“Traditional herbal medicinal product” has the same meaning as in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (see regulation 8 of those Regulations).

Alcohol

6 - Alcohol or alcoholic products.

In this paragraph—
“alcohol” means ethyl alcohol, and
“alcoholic product” means any product which—
(a)contains alcohol, and
(b)does not contain any psychoactive substance.

Nicotine and tobacco products

7 - Nicotine
Tobacco products.In this paragraph “tobacco product” means—
(a)anything which is a tobacco product within the meaning of the
Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 (see section 1 of that Act), and
(b)any other product which—
(i)contains nicotine, and
(ii)does not contain any psychoactive substance.

Caffeine

Caffeine or caffeine products. In this paragraph “caffeine product” means any product which—
(a)contains caffeine, and
(b)does not contain any psychoactive substance.

Food

Any substance which—
(a)is ordinarily consumed as food, and
(b)does not contain a prohibited ingredient.In this paragraph—“food” includes drink;
“prohibited ingredient”, in relation to a substance, means any psychoactive substance—
(a)which is not naturally occurring in the substance, and
(b)the use of which in or on food is not authorised by an EU instrument.

Section 36

SCHEDULE 2

Search warrants

Part 1

Search warrants: applications and safeguards

Applications for warrants

1(1)An application for a search warrant may be made without notice being given to persons who might be affected by the warrant.
(2)The application must be supported—
(a)in England and Wales, by an information in writing;
(b)in Scotland, by evidence on oath;
(c)in Northern Ireland, by a complaint on oath.
(3)A person applying for a search warrant must answer on oath any question that the justice hearing the application asks the person.

2(1)A person applying for a search warrant must—

(a)state that the application is made under section 35 of this Act;
(b)specify the matters set out in sub-paragraph (2) or (3) (as the case may be);
(c)state what are the grounds for suspecting that relevant evidence is on the premises;
(d)identify, so far as is possible, the offence to which the relevant evidence relates.
(2)If the person is applying for a specific-premises warrant, the person must specify each set of premises that it is desired to enter and search.
(3)If the person is applying for an all-premises warrant, the person must specify—
(a)as many of the sets of premises that it is desired to enter and search as it is reasonably practicable to specify;
(b)the person who is in occupation or control of those premises and any others that it is desired to enter and search;
(c)why it is necessary to search more premises than those specified under paragraph (a);
(d)why it is not reasonably practicable to specify all the premises that it is desired to enter and search.20In this sub-paragraph “all-premises warrant” has the meaning given by
section 35(3).
(4)If the person is applying for a search warrant authorising entry and search on more than one occasion, the person must also state—
(a)the ground on which the person applies for such a warrant, and
(b)whether the person seeks a warrant authorising an unlimited number of entries, or (if not) the maximum number of entries desired.

Safeguards in connection with power of entry conferred by warrant

A search warrant authorises entry on one occasion only, unless it specifies that it authorises multiple entries.
4(1)A search warrant must—
(a)specify the name of the person who applies for it;
(b)specify the date on which it is issued;
(c)state that the warrant is issued under section 35 of this Act;
(d)specify each set of premises to be searched, or (in the case of an all-premises warrant) the person who is in occupation or control of premises to be searched, together with any premises to be searched
that are under the person’s occupation or control and can be specified;
(e)identify, so far as is possible, the offence to which the relevant evidence suspected to be on the premises relates.
(2)In sub-paragraph (1)(d) “all-premises warrant” has the meaning given by section 35(3).

5(1)Two copies must be made of a search warrant that specifies only one set of premises and does not authorise multiple entries.
(2)As many copies as are reasonably required may be made of any other kind of search warrant.
(3)The copies must be clearly certified as copies.

Part 2

Execution of search warrants

Warrant to be executed within one month

Entry and search under a search warrant must be within one month from the date of its issue.

All-premises warrants

7(1)In the case of an all-premises warrant, premises that are not specified in the warrant may be entered and searched only if a relevant enforcement officer of the appropriate grade has authorised them to be entered.
(2)An authorisation under sub-paragraph (1) must be in writing.
(3)In this paragraph—
“all-premises warrant” has the meaning given by section 35(3);
“relevant enforcement officer of the appropriate grade” means—
(a)a senior officer (see section 12(7)), or
(b)in the case of a search warrant issued on the application of an officer of a local authority, a person designated by the local authority for the purposes of this paragraph.

Search of premises more than once

8 (1)Premises may be entered or searched for the second or any subsequent time under a search warrant authorising multiple entries only if a relevant enforcement officer of the appropriate grade has authorised that entry to the premises.
(2)An authorisation under sub-paragraph (1) must be in writing.
(3)In this paragraph “relevant enforcement officer of the appropriate grade”
has the same meaning as in paragraph 7.

Time of search

Entry and search under a search warrant must be at a reasonable hour unless it appears to the relevant enforcement officer executing it that the purpose of a search may be frustrated on an entry at a reasonable hour.

Evidence of authority etc

10(1)Where the occupier of premises to be entered and searched under a search warrant is present at the time when a relevant enforcement officer seeks to execute the warrant, the following requirements must be satisfied—

(a)the occupier must be told the officer’s name;
(b)if not a constable in uniform, the officer must produce to the occupier documentary evidence that the officer is a relevant enforcement officer;
(c)the officer must produce the warrant to the occupier;
(d)the officer must supply the occupier with a copy of it.
(2)Where the occupier of premises to be entered and searched under a search warrant is not present at the time when a relevant enforcement officer seeks to execute the warrant—
(a)if some other person who appears to the officer to be in charge of the premises is present, sub-paragraph (1) has effect as if a reference to the occupier were a reference to that other person;
(b)if not, the officer must leave a copy of the warrant in a prominent place on the premises.

15 Extent of search

11A search under a search warrant may only be a search to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.

Securing premises after entry

12A relevant enforcement officer who enters premises under a search warrant must take reasonable steps to ensure that when the officer leaves the premises they are as secure as they were before the officer entered.Return and retention of warrant

13(1)A search warrant must be returned to the appropriate person (see sub-paragraph (2))—
(a)25when the warrant has been executed, or
(b)on or before the expiry of the period of one month from the date of its issue, if the warrant is—
(i)a specific-premises warrant that has not been executed,
(ii)an all-premises warrant, or
(iii) warrant authorising multiple entries.

(2)The appropriate person is—
(a)in the case of a warrant issued in England and Wales, the designated
officer for the local justice area in which the justice of the peace was acting when issuing the warrant;
(b) in the case of a warrant issued in Scotland, the sheriff clerk for the sheriff court in which the sheriff was sitting when issuing the warrant;
(c)in the case of a warrant issued in Northern Ireland, the clerk of petty sessions for the petty sessions district in which the lay magistrate was acting when issuing the warrant.

(3)The appropriate person must retain a search warrant returned under sub-paragraph (1) for 12 months from the date of its return.
(4)If during that period the occupier of premises to which the search warrant relates asks to inspect it, the occupier must be allowed to do so
(5)In this paragraph “specific-premises warrant” and “all-premises warrant” have the meaning given by section 35(3).

Section 52

SCHEDULE 3

Providers of information society services

Part 1

Offering to supply a psychoactive substance

Domestic service providers: extension of liability

1(1)If—
(a)a service provider established in a particular part of the United Kingdom does anything in an EEA state other than the United Kingdom in the course of providing information society services,
and
(b)the action, if done in that part of the United Kingdom, would constitute an offence under section 5(2),the service provider is guilty in that part of the United Kingdom of such an offence.

(2)Nothing in this paragraph affects the operation of paragraphs 3 to 5.
Non-UK service providers: restriction on institution of proceedings

2(1)Proceedings for an offence under section 5(2) may not be instituted against a non-UK service provider in respect of anything done in the course of the provision of information society services unless the derogation condition is met.

(2)The derogation condition is that taking proceedings—

(a)is necessary for the purposes of the public interest objective,
(b)relates to an information society service that prejudices that objective
or presents a serious and grave risk of prejudice to that objective, and
(c)is proportionate to that objective.

(3)In this paragraph—
“non-UK service provider” means a service provider established in an EEA state other than the United Kingdom; “the public interest objective” means the pursuit of public policy.

Exceptions for mere conduits

3(1)A service provider does not commit an offence under section 5(2) by providing access to a communication network or by transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a recipient of the service, if the service provider does not—

(a)initiate the transmission,
(b)select the recipient of the transmission, or
(c)select or modify the information contained in the transmission.
 
Last edited:
Chewing Gum to be banned following death of chewing gum addict ;)

Samantha Jenkins, who lived with her family on Parkview in Felinfoel, was just days away from celebrating her 20th birthday when she collapsed and slipped into a coma on June 3, 2011, dying three days later.

Colin Phillips, acting senior coroner, apologised to the family at the inquest, held in Swansea's civic centre yesterday, for the fact that it had taken four years to rule on the death.

Dr Paul Griffiths, a pathologist at Morriston Hospital, gave the cause of death as being a cerebral hypoxia caused by convulsions and electrolyte depletion.

The inquest heard that initially doctors in A&E suspected an over dose but it was soon realised the patient, who was experiencing a series of seizures and convulsions, had a severe magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium deficiency.

The deceased was said to have consumed excessive amounts of chewing gum, 100s of empty wrappers were later found in her hand bag, over a long period.

Dr Griffith even reported finding "4 or 5 bright green lumps" which turned out to be chewing gum. He said: "I had to smell them to see what they were and they smelt of mint."

The deceased's mother, Maria Morgan, is calling for warnings to be placed on packets of chewing gum claiming the additives may be to blame. She said: "I just want answers for my beautiful little girl so that maybe the public response could mean changes in awareness of these additives

The coroner said studies had shown the sweeteners used in chewing gum to be safe but in recording a narrative verdict he mentioned chewing gum could have played a role in the electrolyte depletion.

Dr Griffiths later added that there had only being two such cases mentioned previously, in the British Medical Journal and neither case was fatal.

He said: "In normal amounts chewing gum is fine. The most we can do is flag it up."

from- http://www.southwales-eveningpost.c...elated-death/story-26443224-detail/story.html
 
Already gone from all UK vendors :(

It's still available in my go-to UK store. There's always that popular US store who are happy to ship to the UK, and it's cheaper than most UK stores with shipping cost included.
 
The thing is, this is all one and the same huge mess; and it is entirely due to prohibition.

For crying out loud, read some (pre-)history: Humans had been cultivating plants to get high on for hundreds if not thousands of years before they thought of applying the same principles to cultivate plants for food. And understand fully the implications of that sentence. It is my contention that getting high is a basic, necessary bodily function. Like going to the toilet, or having sex, only less talked-about in polite conversation.

And of course chemistry is deterministic. The right two molecules collide with enough force and at the correct angle, and the -- entirely predictable -- result is different molecules and energy. You don't necessarily care about the broken-off bits (though this is where you have to be careful in living organisms; you don't want toxic by-products from your drugs). By altering a molecule ever so slightly, you can evade a ban on a named substance, yet the new molecule still behaves similarly-enough to the banned one as far as the body is concerned -- either the change was in a bit that broke off, or it didn't alter the molecule so much that it would no longer react with whatever in the body it was supposed to react with.

Last time I checked an RC vendor's site, there seemed to be a huge "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" attitude going on -- they knew exactly what people were doing with the stuff despite being warned not to. (And also, honestly, how freaking hard is it to provide an option to grey out, or just not even display, out-of-stock items in the menu list? You can check the stock levels in one database query on the front page, and save potentially many future queries as visitors click in to view items and find them out-of-stock. You don't need much HDD space to store some extra, greyed-out images anyway; it's more efficient than converting them to greyscale on-the-fly by piping through `convert`. Right, I'm going to quit talking shop now .....)

Abstinence-only education -- the establishment concept of "better they die than get high" -- has just worsened the mess. Kids see real people taking drugs and not living anything like the propaganda horror stories they were shown about drugs, and conclude that The Authorities have it wrong: Drugs can't be all that bad. Consequently, they can miss the important bits; like how sometimes the only thing that stops you overdosing is the rate at which your body decomposes the drug, and some drugs can't be discontinued suddenly without ill effects.

The drugs that were banned in the early 20th Century -- cannabis, cocaine and opiates -- were by no means perfectly safe, but we at least knew how dangerous they were and how to deal with the effects. Similarly the phenylethylamines and others that were discovered, and banned, in the 20th Century. You know what you're up against with traditional, illegal drugs.

But despite the allure of getting one over the law, these functional analogues of banned substances haven't been properly safety-tested -- the vendors even say so much. They carry all the risks of the substances they are similar to, plus some more of their own. Synthetic cannabinoids can be metabolised faster than weed or hash smoke. Decomposition products may be toxic in their own right. RC benzodiazepines are still benzodiazepines, and as such still can't be expected not to cause problems if discontinued suddenly.

Until we recognise that people are not going to stop getting high, things are just going to get worse.
 
Until we realise that there is a healthier way to get high than shuffling untested and almost unknown chemicals the less people are going to become addicted and try and finger fuck their cats.

Opening up the drug market has done nothing more than increase the vulnerable to such drugs. There will always be people who take it too far, however making it a free for all has only caused more problems than prohibition.

If you take research benzos to such a degree that you are now at risk of serious unhealthy withdrawal, you do not deserve access to such drugs.
 
Opening up the drug market has done nothing more than increase the vulnerable to such drugs. There will always be people who take it too far, however making it a free for all has only caused more problems than prohibition.
Well, yes. People got poisoned by dodgy flour additives. The response to that was to pass and enforce laws saying what you could or couldn't put into bread. If they had banned bread altogether, people would still be eating bread -- and still be getting poisoned by dodgy flour additives.
If you take research benzos to such a degree that you are now at risk of serious unhealthy withdrawal, you do not deserve access to such drugs.
Prohibition, and abstinence-only education, are precisely why people have started taking RC benzos to dangerous levels.
 
Until we realise that there is a healthier way to get high than shuffling untested and almost unknown chemicals the less people are going to become addicted and try and finger fuck their cats.

Opening up the drug market has done nothing more than increase the vulnerable to such drugs. There will always be people who take it too far, however making it a free for all has only caused more problems than prohibition.

If you take research benzos to such a degree that you are now at risk of serious unhealthy withdrawal, you do not deserve access to such drugs.

If you had ever had any pychological issues that were being ignored by your doctor you might find yourself in a similar positions. There but for the grace of God. I've had sleeping problems for twenty years & have consistently been unable to get prescibed for it. Twenty years. I'm very grateful for the occasional good nights sleep afforded by Etizolam,

I dispute that only vulnerable have an increased access to drugs. I don't consider myself vulnerable in any way.

Although the jury is out on the High Street Legal High thing, RC's bought through quasi-legal sites all over the planet are going to continue to wreak havoc. Pushing the whole business under the carpet & into the shadows is hardly likely to reduce harm. However, I accept that if the law change reduces or completely halts the sale of High Street Legal Highs, that might actually be a good thing...

The parents of a 13 yr old boy were on TV the other morning. The danger associated Legal Highs was epitomised by their story, but no-one, not interviewer nor parent, seemed in the slightest bit interested in asking WHY a 13 yr old kid would be interested in getting "high" in the first place. Until that question is answered, we'll still have hundreds of kids a year falling foul of hugely dangerous but incredibly easy-to-get-hold-of psychoactive chemicals like glue or duster, now that they can't get comparatively safe drugs such as Synthetic Cannabinoids....

I'm in favour of whatever reduces the availablity of harmful drugs to kids but I fail to see how driving the entire scene into the dark is going to do anything other than increase the harm from drugs. When this experiment begins, we'll begin to find out.
 
Last edited:
Top