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


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

NPS Act V1. Blankets? Just Say No!

more comment, from - http://thedomesticextremist.co.uk/t...ces-bill-are-the-lunatics-running-the-asylum/

The Psychoactive Substances Bill – Are The Lunatics Running The Asylum?
By Deej Sullivan

One of the biggest talking points from the Queen’s speech has been the announcement of new legislation which will ban so-called legal highs (or Novel Psychoactive Substances).

The Psychoactive Substances Bill will outlaw the production and distribution of these substances, with a penalty of up to seven years in prison for anybody caught breaking the law. However, the problem with NSP’s (from the government’s perspective) has always been that as soon as you ban one, another appears. Chemists around the world are constantly tweaking molecular structures to get around laws which up until now have only targeted specific chemicals.

Now though, it would seem the government have gone full cockwomble.

Their new plan to fight the ‘menace’ of legal highs is to ban, well, everything. The draft legislation, which is available to read here, effectively outlaws anything psychoactive. A psychoactive substance is defined in the Bill as any substance which (a) is capable of producing a psychoactive effect in a person who consumes it, and (b) is not an exempted substance.

The exempted substance bit is important here, because their definition of a psychoactive effect is as follows – a substance produces a psychoactive effect in a person if, by stimulating or depressing the person’s central nervous system, it affects the person’s mental functioning or emotional state.

So that’s alcohol out then, and tobacco, and tea, coffee, sugar, nutmeg, and certainly chocolate and catnip. Not to mention pharmaceutical drugs. But of course all of these, and others, will be exempted from the new law, despite the fact that tobacco caused an estimated 101,000 deaths in the UK in 2010 (18% of all deaths that year). Alcohol accounted for a further 8,790 deaths, and pharmaceutical drugs killed almost 2,500.

That’s around 112,000 people who died in this country in one year, as a result of using the very drugs that have been exempted from legislation purportedly designed to protect us from harm.

Alcohol - Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's safe.

This is yet another clear example of the hypocrisy and stupidity of our national drug policy. Cameron and his cronies continue to crow that ‘just because something is legal, that doesn’t mean it’s safe’. Which is true of course, but to say that, and then refuse to include the two most dangerous and deadly legal highs of all in the discussion reveals their true intention – which is to force through legislation based on popularity, rather than on evidence.

Because the evidence couldn’t be clearer: Banning drugs has never worked and will never work. Even before this kind of blanket ban was being considered, the government tried to clamp down on legal highs by banning individual drugs, like mephedrone for example. The only thing such bans achieved was to push the market underground and into the clutches of organised crime. Mephedrone is still sold in huge quantities all over the country – all that has changed is that it is now more dangerous than ever.

Moreover, the banning of many previously legal synthetic cannabinoids has led to the creation of brand new, untested and in many cases far more dangerous versions of those drugs. If we hadn’t attempted to ban our way out of the problem in the first place, many of the compounds which have been linked to injury and death would simply not exist. Instead they will now, like Mephedrone, end up on the black market.

The Home Office themselves provided us with some of the clearest evidence yet that banning drugs is an utterly pointless and futile way to reduce not only their harm, but also the rate at which they are used. In October of last year, they finally released a report which had been buried by the then-coalition government for months. Drugs: International Comparators drew on the evidence from the drug policies of 11 different countries and compared them to our own. These countries included Portugal, which decriminalised all drug use 14 years ago.

Sweden take a zero tolerance approach to drugs, Portugal have decriminalised them all.

The findings were not particularly startling to those of us who follow drug policy, but were a damning indictment of our current prohibitionist stance in this country. The main finding from the report, which was repeated many times in the aftermath of its release was this – punitive drug policies have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the rates of drug use in a country.

Ironically enough, but perhaps fittingly, another report was released on the same day. In this report – the New Psychoactive Substances Report – the authors called for the ban on legal highs which is now about to be implemented. The Drugs Minister at the time, Norman Baker, went on the record to say that he wanted to ‘destroy headshops’. So in essence what the government were saying was “banning things doesn’t work, so let’s ban some more things”. Nothing like sending a clear and consistent message about drugs, is there?

To get back to the Psychoactive Substances Bill then – it is clear that the bill itself has no basis in logic or evidence. If it did, instead of a blanket ban on everything, we would see regulated markets not only for current legal highs, but also for currently illegal highs. However, it looks like it will be passed into law regardless, so we might as well try and understand it a little better.

Like most pieces of drug policy it is – probably deliberately – rather vaguely worded. It is unclear at present for example, whether mild psychoactive plants such as Kratom, Calea Zacatechichi, Blue Lotus, etc., will be outlawed, or whether they will be exempted. If they are to be banned, then the lunatics really will be running the asylum. These are plants that have been used for thousands of years, plants which have been sold in the UK for decades without any problems. They are many many times safer than alcohol or tobacco or even caffeine.

Blue Lotus - About to be banned for our own protection?
The Psychoactive Substances Bill does state that ‘Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products’ will be exempt from prohibition, and that these products are defined as medicinal products whose only active ingredients are herbal substances or herbal preparations (or both).

So clearly there is some scope for such herbal products to be exempted from the laws, which is at least one slight silver lining in an otherwise ludicrous piece of legislation. But in reality, the passing of this law will be yet another giant leap backwards for scientific, evidence based drug policy in this country. Our leaders long ago lost sight of what effective drug policy should be – a policy which uses evidence and logic to put the safety of the people first. Instead of that, they seem more determined than ever to make the kind of grandstanding policy decisions which appease the Daily Mail but waste millions of pounds of taxpayers money without having any positive effects.

By Deej Sullivan
 
Is that official? Check the definition of psychoactive substance in there. That definition certainly contains chewing gum.

(1) In this Act “psychoactive substance” means any substance which—

(a) is capable of producing a psychoactive effect in a person who consumes it, and
(b) is not an exempted substance.

(2) For the purposes of this Act a substance produces a psychoactive effect in a person if, by stimulating or depressing the person’s central nervous system, it
affects the person’s mental functioning or emotional state; and references to a substance’s psychoactive effects are to be read accordingly.
 
There is a silver lining (as already mentioned), and that's that people will hopefully just take the tried and tested illegal drugs, rather than guinea pigging random shite, especially seeing how easy it is to acquire whatever you want online, these days. I was briefly concerned about nitrous, but that shouldn't be affected, as long as you promise it's for making whipped cream. What will the media moan about, though, once (if) this happens? Back to reefer madness, and 'Just one E can kill'? Legal highs have been the media's wet dream, so I'm interested to see what they'll exaggerate/lie about next.
 
why is alcohol specifically exempted, it's a legal high according to their definition. Perhaps someone will invite them to prove why the legal high alcohol should be exempted from the ban whereas the legal high methoxetamine would not be exempted? I'm sure the facts and figures would be enlightnening as to which poses the greatest harm to the 'hard-working' citizen.


utter crock of shit.

read a comment soemwhere recently along the lines of 'nothing will change until the government rediscover why 'benefits' used to be called 'social security'.
 
Imagine our government saying 'Fuck it, we don't need the revenue from alcohol and tobacco, we should definitely ban those two killers'. It's laughable. It's always money over health, not the other way around. If I'm right, the alcohol companies helped fund Red Bull and anti-ecstasy adverts. A blanket ban is the government's 'solution' to watching their alcohol profits plummet. I've lost count of the amount of people that have said to me 'Why do people drink, when you can feel like this?'.

Another thought; are e-cigs and liquids affected by this? That's already on the cards, anyway. Fuck this country.
 
The key word in this bill would seem to be 'new' - as in New Psychoactive Substances'. This is how the likes of alcohol, tobacco and coffee can remain exempt. Be interesting to see how they define 'new' though - or even 'psychoactive' for that matter... :\
 
This bans kratom, peyote, amanita muscaria, catnip.

I wonder, does it ban green tea too, because of its theanine content?
 
its 'novel' not 'new'
Well I agree that it was originally 'novel', but seems to have changed to 'new' at some point. Besides, 'novel' is simply a synonym for 'new' so the point is still valid
 
Very true....I've used Etizolam, Diclazepam & Clonazepam fairly heavily and the Doctors sure as hell won't offer a taper down dose program. I believe Diclazepam has a longer half-life so if they are going to be banned I shall stock up and taper myself down. You DO NOT want to experience benzo withdrawals....
 
We're all in possession of DMT anyway aren't we?

It's always been (AFAIK) technically not possession if you just have it in your system.

I find the bill ridiculous in the extreme, the legislation that went before just served to remove the 'better' RCs from the market and force suppliers to tweak the formulas for the sake of it. In truth the whole market grew up from current prohibition, who the fuck would take MPA if they could get quality amphetamines ? Meph may an exception hence it is now a popular illicit substance.

Since you can still obtain Mephedrone, MDPV and the rest I fail to see why we are spending huge amounts of public money creating yet more ultimately ineffective laws, just more BS for the Daily Mail readers with a total disregard for genuine public health.......fuck them....fight the power
 
It's always been (AFAIK) technically not possession if you just have it in your system.
Quite right. Also, ingesting it actually counts as destroying it.
fuck them....fight the power
Q.F.T.

Didn't the Conservative party use to be about not interfering with individual liberties, about letting people make their own choices, about the idea that anything not specifically forbidden is permitted? 8( This bill subverts that entirely. The old Conservatives must be spinning in their graves.

(Side note; how likely is it that this bill could get defeated in the House of Lords?)
 
Quite right. Also, ingesting it actually counts as destroying it.Q.F.T.

Didn't the Conservative party use to be about not interfering with individual liberties, about letting people make their own choices, about the idea that anything not specifically forbidden is permitted? 8( This bill subverts that entirely. The old Conservatives must be spinning in their graves.

(Side note; how likely is it that this bill could get defeated in the House of Lords?)

You can't even trust them to hold true to the principles the parties were built on anymore, I always voted Labour but this time I actually read the manifestos, their housing policies were the final straw, building more houses for people to buy ...WTF....and we got into this financial mess how ? and Milliband was supposed to be a socialist. I would never claim to be well informed in terms of politics but I understand the basic principles of socialism and having grown up in the 70s recall the good and bad of this countries last true efforts to moving that way.

What we have now isnt an improvement IMO, our political system is worthless and incapable of making true radical change, it just drifts further to the right creating a less caring and fair country, all sold out so a minority can live in what they think is fulfilling luxury ....I genuinely grieve for what we could be but no longer believe a political party will ever deliver it. That said the current system is so flawed and broken, it seems as the world economy gets bigger the flaws get ever larger, I hope we evolve beyond it to some thing more befitting of the opportunity we have to create something that could be so much more.

what a fukin shambles (small 's')
 
This bill symbolises perfectly the gov's desperation regards drug policy. They have no fucking idea what to do any more. They prohibited the use of relatively safe drugs such as LSD, MDMA and Psilocybin, so folks started to experiment with chemical alts. Now we're faced with a molecular psycoactive explosion that can't be controlled in the classical world. The quantum is well and truly here to stay.

What to do with the monster the gov have created (?) Nobody knows - that's why this terribly vague, almost manic, Bill has been drafted. Medusa has arrived. Deal with it!
 
The only way any government could ever hope to get away with ending the madness of prohibition, would be to include it in their final package of bills before a General Election that they knew they were not going to win, as part of a "scorched earth" policy to make things as difficult as possible for the incoming party.

Now, by 2020, we may very well wind up with an un-re-electable government .....
 
Would be easier to just allow one or two more recreational drugs to keep the uncleanness masses happy.

Distraction with MDMA or mushrooms then no one would give a shit if their pensions are halved at 75
 
Top