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

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

NPS Act V1. Blankets? Just Say No!

smackydowners said:
they aren't banning legal highs because they necessarily give a fuck, it's just trying to look good to those that don't understand the futility of prohibition and getting their vote.
"FUCK ALL OUR KIDS ARE DYING FROM SPICE OD'S!!! OOH THE TOREYS HAVE BANNED IT, problem solved. god bless st. david camaroon."
and then once they're illegal, they can get about as much media coverage as heroin OD's - none.

that's one angle, anyway. simple posturing.
Click to expand...

^ this

They dont give a shit about our welfare
 
Then don't give a shit about their laws.

The sky isn't going to fall down because a small fraction of the community have hooked themselves on home delivery benzos, just as thousands of housewives didn't drop dead when mummy's little helper was taken down from over the counter in the 50's

Laws exist to protect the 5% of idiots who can't protect themselves. I'd still choose to wear a motorcycle helmet even if given the choice. Governments react to public opinion, that's how they maintain their salaries. If you gave the public reason to believe that all drug use is of any value to the community., they would legislate to legalise. Until such time stop moaning, smile, tip your hat and source your drug of choice the old fashioned way.
 
I sympathise because usually they were desperate to self medicate in the first place. I have no sympathy if they don't take the next 12 months to taper off them
 
This has probably been mentioned elsewhere on the thread, but the reason for laws like the one being proposed are not to stop people taking them, it's to criminalise or tax those who do. If the purpose was to stop use, then by now then would have legalised and regulated these substances. This has been shown to be the most effective way of obtaining the solution.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the reason the “Drug Laws” continue is because it creates a great deal of control over the population, especially those who are poor and suffer from addictions and other mental health problems.

All that's going to happen with this ban is a huge increase in use of certain substances now deemed to be research chemicals (mcat use increased after it was banned for example). It will also put previously banned substances in recent years on the same level of accessibility as anything else. 1P is arguing being used more now than AL-LAD, but will that be the same once the ban comes in?
 
Last edited:
We cannot change laws to make drugs safer, but we can change laws to make drugs use safer. Why we do not do so, if concern for drugs users is genuine..?

Taking Legal Highs off the Highs Street may ease the harms associated with their use, but it will do nothing to stop drugs use per se. In fact, I'm sure many Legal Highs users will be compelled to use illegal drugs as a result of the Psychoactive Substances Act. I fail to see how this will reduce harm.
 
Are you suggesting that the majority (if any?) of the current legal highs safer than the traditional drugs they have replaced? If so, which ones are you suggesting should not be banned?
 
Then why such a big sook and moan about legislation that is pretty much universally being introduced around the world?

I remember the first time we imported 4mmc legally from Israel almost 15 years ago. At the time we were stoked that it was almost as good as MDMA, but not quite there. We were under no illusions that eventually the laws wouldn't catch up with us and ban it. No big deal, most of us had been using illegal drugs our whole lives. Sure it would be nice to buy a gram at the local off license but we are realists.

Fight the battles you will actually win. Change public opinion and you might actually have half a chance.
 
Moaning cos its a bit of a cunt not having kratom, that's the only thing i give a fuck about. People that were taking RC benzo's will just obtain vals. Drugs recovery system is so input and output based your better off on vals if you expect help. U aint getting anything to help you get off kratom you're gonna have to CT or taper, doctors don't know what kratom is i've seen 2 that had never heard of it, turning point didn't have a clue about it either. Unless you piss positive for gold standards you're fucked. Was the same with the other guy who struggled to get help on this forum for RC benzo's cos like I said it's input and output based.
 
It didn't, that's the whole fuckin point... They're spending christ knows how much on these news laws when it's not going to make one iota of difference. It would be better spent revamping the whole system, so it does reduce harm.

I don't think anyone cares that much that RC's are on the out legally, the point is that they're not addressing the real problem. Prohibition never saved anyone, these clowns think it will. Will this law stop the use of drugs, how will it educate, how will it do anything at all??
 
Si Dread said:
Taking Legal Highs off the Highs Street may ease the harms associated with their use, but it will do nothing to stop drugs use per se. In fact, I'm sure many Legal Highs users will be compelled to use illegal drugs as a result of the Psychoactive Substances Act. I fail to see how this will reduce harm.
Click to expand...
Well, if the illegal drugs they start taking after the ban turn out to be less dangerous than the legal ones they used to take beforehand, that will be a bit of harm-reduction, I suppose.

What this situation is doing even existing in the first place -- illegal substances being safer than legal ones -- is another matter for another day .....
 
qVNgoUy.jpg


if people can take legal highs without coming into contact with black market dealers who might wave heroin and crack in their faces, that is a good thing. This ban will turn people over to the black market and that will have negative consequences not just for individuals but families and communities.
 
One Thousand Words said:
Are you suggesting that the majority (if any?) of the current legal highs safer than the traditional drugs they have replaced? If so, which ones are you suggesting should not be banned?
Click to expand...

My argument is simply that the Legal Highs/Drugs problem is considerably more complicated then either you or the Home Office appear to appreciate.

Some RC's are almost certainly safer than their illegal equivelent, often simply because the user would have a more accurate idea of dosage & contents if a compound were sourced legally. Some chemicals such as Al-Lad, unfortunately already banned, I felt was a safer alternative to LSD, for reasons that, again, are quite complicated.

In five years time we'll probably find out that it was the drinks industry lobbies that got this legislation pushed through! I doubt it's escaped them that RC's as well as illegal drugs eat into their recreational alcoholic substance profits...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top