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

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

NPS Act V1. Blankets? Just Say No!

psykoman said:
I'd have to disagree when you said that addiction to cannibals is highly unlikely. I know loads of people that go out there minds if they don't have a joint first thing in the morning.
Click to expand...

No hyperbole there I'm certain.

Can you do us a favour Psyko? Can you bring them all to Bluelight so we can discuss this? It's just that I've been around cannabis users since 1980, which, I'm sure you can appreciate, is a long time and means I've known hundreds (some of them are even members of Bluelight so they're here already). And I don't know one who goes "out of their minds if they don't have a joint first thing in the morning".

Are your friends filling up the psyche wards as we speak? Or are you exaggerating, consciously or unconsciously, just a.....teeny, weeny little bit?

At the very least, if you're telling the truth, and I'm telling the truth, our two mutually exclusive experiences suggest you have to look for other variables for your mental* friends.

* Mental is the definition of "out of their minds", I'm not being derogatory.
 
So, when is this ban coming in to place, anyone know? Most sites seem to still be up and runnning. I've panic bought 100 etizolam and 100 clonazolam incase its soon, all I could afford. But if its not in place by pay day then damn I'll get 1000 of the fuckers.
its a shame, the government have gone the complete wrong way about this, but hey ho, when did prohibition stop any drug reaching the black market.

I wonder how it will effect nitrous oxide, surely catering companies still need the shit haha.
 
psykoman said:
I'd have to disagree when you said that addiction to cannibals is highly unlikely. I know loads of people that go out there minds if they don't have a joint first thing in the morning. Yes it's not physically addictive but neither is cocaine. I used to be psychological addicted to cannabis for 6 years.

Or did you mean that it is not addictive in a way that is harmful like alcohol or cocaine?
Click to expand...

I said that even if cannabis were as addictive as alcohol (which by all accounts appears almost twice as adictive as the dreadfully addictive cocaine) it would not cause the level of harm associated with alcohol because it is quite simply a much less unhealthy substance to imbibe, unless smoked along with tobacco. Addiction to cannabis seems quite likely but harm derived from the addiction, less so. Just my opinion of course.
 
David Nutt has some issues with the planned new legislation that it may be useful to include in any communications with politicians. I wrote to one of my Baronesses & received a written acknowledgement of my concerns through the mail. If enough of us write to enough of our Lords & Baronesses, the kind of scorn poured on the governments plans by some of those present at the last reading might increase in volume enough to delay or in some other way slow the progress.

I followed this link left by Transform to find a Baroness concerned with health issues, offered my concerns about the new law & the risks that it might drive NPS users into the hands of illegal drugs dealers & that I failed to see how this would reduce harm - https://www.writetothem.com/about-lords

The DrugScience stakeholder group met on Thursday 1 June, and the major item for discussion was the new Psychoactive Substances Bill. The Bill will have its second reading in the House of Commons on Tues 9th June.

The following points were made and are presented here for public information and dissemination.

Interested parties are welcome to use these to lobby their MPs to vote against the Bill.

DrugScience would be pleased to have feedback with other considerations we may have overlooked – send to info @ drugscience.org.uk and d.nutt @ imperial.ac.uk

1 Issues of principle

1.1 The implementation of a new law with such wide-ranging impact is disproportionate to the challenge of new psychoactive substances, which is a health issue, and a lesser one relative to other drug-related problems. It will surely be a major concern to many citizens.

1.2 The principle of banning any psychoactive substances that might become available in future, with no evidence of their harmfulness, is a fundamental change in the way the UK law works. This sets and extremely worrying precedent for future legislation.

1.3 This Bill makes no discrimination between drugs carrying very different capacities to harm. People will be equally threatened by prosecution in relation to substances with risks equivalent to that of coffee or heroin. This undermines the basic principle of proportionality in UK law.

1.4 The main target of this bill is to close down "head shops" but this has already been shown to be possible through other approaches.

1.5 We already have the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 that can deal with this issue – and indeed has done so successfully in the past decade as indicated by the fall in deaths from truly “legal” drugs in this period to now probably less than 5 per year at present. Higher figures quoted regarding deaths from so-called new psychoactive substances (NPS) are from drugs that are illegal and are generally NOT sold in "head shops"

1.6 Another set of regulations will be needed that will become conflicted with the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, leading to confusion in the minds of the public and the police as well as being wasteful of public resources.

1.7 The proposed ban on N2O is particularly perverse and unnecessary. Laughing gas has been used for several centuries by some of the greatest scientists (Davy) philosophers (James) and poets (Southey, Coleridge). There is minimal evidence of harm from the recreational use of N2O balloons. The media term “hippy crack” should not be taken to suggest any true similarity to the risks of cocaine!

2 Issues of fact

2.1 The evidence used to pursue the ban – supposed increase in NPS deaths to 97 in 2013– is flawed in that almost all of these are ALREADY illegal so why would a ban on less harmful substances be of any use? (see King and Nutt 2014 Lancet)

2.2 The illegal drugs leading to deaths are not sold in “head shops”. In fact it is possible that “head shops”, which tend to sell relatively low risk substances, have contributed to the current situation where there are less than 5 deaths from truly “legal” NPS each year.

2.3 The Irish experience shows deaths go up when the market is driven underground by head shop closure as there is less quality control and NPS use increases (9% of Irish youth have used NPS – the highest rate in Europe) and deaths rise. Expert opinion and experience suggests this is because the ban of "head shops" will drive the market underground into the arms of dealers and the internet. This will result in more harms and deaths as quality control will drop ("head shops" need to ensure their clients are not harmed so they return), more dangerous drugs such as heroin will almost certainly be sold alongside NPS and there will be no source of education on responsible use.

2.4 The main purpose of this new law would appear to be to ban "head shops" for social reasons. Such ends could easily (and have already in some towns) been achieved by other mechanisms such as local trading regulations.

2.5 The proposed Act is therefore unnecessary and the proposed penalties disproportionate to the real harms of legal highs.

2.6 It will nudge individuals who wish to enjoy the recreational effects of drugs to use alcohol. We know that at least 85% of the population like to use recreational substances since that proportion drink alcohol. Alcohol is responsible for 22,000 deaths per year so is more harmful than almost all illegal drugs. As well as presenting this major moral dilemma driving use to alcohol, the proposed law will preclude the development of new safer alternatives to alcohol and other recreational drugs.

2.7 Despite the claims of the Local Government Association that this Bill follows the recommendation of the expert group on NPS in fact it goes much further than their report for they recommended that substances that are not harmful or have minimal harm are NOT drawn into this bill. Not all psychoactive substances are harmful, and some have clear benefits.

Specific concerns

3. Problems with definitions

3.1. What does psychoactive mean? – will it include antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs? Will negative psychoactive effects also be covered (eg opioid receptor antagonists such as naltrexone that are useful medicines but can produce anhedonia, dysphoria and nausea for example).

3.2 How will the exempted substances be defined? e.g. Will alcohol be ethanol solutions – will coffee be based on chemical caffeine content – tea on having theophylline? (in which case what about herbal teas?). Many popular products contain guarana or ginseng both of which may have mild psychoactive effects. Many other widely-sold drinks contain potentially psychoactive substances, e.g. energy drinks such as Red Bull have taurine along with caffeine. Tonic water has quinine.

3.3 Who will decide whether a drug is psychoactive – the police making the prosecution? And where will the expert guidance come from?

3.4 It is critical that the definition of psychoactive be based on the effects in living humans. Many useful medicines resemble abused psychoactive drugs in the “test tube” but do not have psychoactive (e.g. loperamide, a potent opioid agonist that was developed for pain but didn’t work as it didn’t enter the brain so is now used to treat diarrhoea). Some cathinone preparations are effective antidepressant, anti-smoking and anti-obesity agents, despite not having immediate psychoactive activity. But innovation using newer cathinones has been stifled by the recent control of many new and as-yet –to be –made under the recent cathinone amendments to the MDAct1971. Similar and potentially worse impediments to innovation can be expected if this new bill is passed.

3.5 Will dosage influence illegality? Will low (non psychoactive) doses be exempt from any controls to allow forensic and other labs to hold standards for assay purposes?

4. Likely perverse and unplanned negative effects of the law

4.1 Experience with other drug laws and regulations tells us they often have a negative impact on research and development activities in universities and pharmaceutical sites. It is therefore imperative that ALL research establishments are exempted from this ban

4.2 We welcome the plan to exempt doctors – but the bill needs modifying to ensure that ALL medicines in the pharmacopeia are exempt – not just those with Marketing Authorisations (MA) as presently construed. Drugs with MA are not the totality of medicines that doctors can prescribe. (note; a Marketing Authorisation (license) is given by the MHRA to companies to allow them to market (sell, advertise, etc) their products, it does not define the use of such drugs, just what claims can be made by the company when they are marketed. A doctor working for the benefit of their patients and with knowledge of the efficacy of a drug can use drugs outside their MA; this is because many drugs with established uses are too old to have been through modern testing but are still useful medicines)

4.3 The same issues are raised with aromatherapy chemicals.

4.4 Will dietary supplements be exempt?

4.5 And lighter fluid refills (butane) and other solvents?

4.6 Camphor-containing inhalants have proven psychoactive properties

4.7 Even petrol when sniffed is psychoactive

5 Recommended amendments

5.1 Delay the Bill until there is good evidence that this approach can work by reviewing the Irish data

5.2 The NPS Bill be cut down to what it was intended to achieve i.e. control the IMPORTATION and SUPPLY of NEW HARMFUL psychoactive substances by professional drug suppliers and dealers who are set to make large amounts of money from this trade

5.3 if the Bill does progress then there should be specific exemptions for

5.3.1 all medicines whether they have an Marketing Authorisation or not (see section 4.2 for explanation)

5.3.2 all research pharmaceuticals being used to developed new medicines or progress neuroscience research

5.3.3 all doctors

5.3.4 all bone-fide research scientists

5.3.5 Low (non psychoactive doses) should be exempt from any controls to allow forensic and other labs to hold standards for assay purposes.

5.4 Decisions on whether a drug meets the criteria for being significantly psychoactive to be controlled under a new Act be made by a new committee comprising experts nominated by the Royal College of Psychiatry, the British Pharmacological Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences.

5.5 Systematic evidence gathering of the effects of the new law be made part of the Bill. This must include monitoring deaths and other harms from ALL drugs, not just NPS to endure that any diversion of use into other substances is rapidly detected.

5.6 The impact on British research and productivity must be formally and annually monitored via appropriate bodies, e.g. the British Pharmacological Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences working alongside BIS.

5.7 Entertainment premises should be exempt from liability from their customers’ use of psychoactive substances. If the owners or directors of premises are liable under this Bill - this could have a severe and negative impact on many venues crucial to the night-time and social economy in the UK including: clubs, pubs, bars, and music festivals.

5.8 This Bill as drafted could also have a severe and detrimental impact on all those providing services for people who have multiple vulnerable needs and are more likely to take substances - leading to a situation where Directors of Services are liable for any instances of psychoactive substance use or supply on their premises including: prisons and mental health wards.

David Nutt on behalf of DrugScience June 7, 2015
Click to expand...

from - http://drugscience.org.uk/resources/psb2015/
 
IMO should there be some regulations on harmful substances?.Or potentially harmful?.I do beleieve some restrictions be placed on the harmful chems pumping out of who knows what chemistry set and onto the internet it goes.Then again. where is the line drawn?
Tobacco,Alcohol and acetaminophen have killed more people then war and disease in history put together.Why are they accepted and even encouraged?
I think people need to be more informed when surfing for the legal high.Do research.Please ask before you put it into your body.
Where's the responsibility? Any answer at all would cause debate.
 
Do you have a source to back up your statement about fags, booze and paracetamol killing more people than disease and war ?

I'd be surprised if they have even beaten flu.
 
Yeah of course it's over exaggerated but I definitely fealt a addiction to cannibals when i used it daily for 6 years when I didn't have any I'd be a grumpy good for nothing waste of space and could only think about getting high. Ob it's not a touch on anything else but to say it's not addictive at all I don't agree.
 
Si Dread said:
I said that even if cannabis were as addictive as alcohol (which by all accounts appears almost twice as adictive as the dreadfully addictive cocaine) it would not cause the level of harm associated with alcohol because it is quite simply a much less unhealthy substance to imbibe, unless smoked along with tobacco. Addiction to cannabis seems quite likely but harm derived from the addiction, less so. Just my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree.
 
Tangerine Dream said:
Blanket sounds too cozy/warm/good. We need a term that encapsulates how bogus this shit is.
Click to expand...

BULLSHIT BAN

If we could actually have a ban on bullshit us drugs users would take an awful lot less shit in the media & society as a whole. Because the straights fucking prohibition angle is wholly & entirely based upon da boolsheeeet!

A ban on "legal highs" in the Republic of Ireland has been extraordinarily effective in wiping out the industry, police have said.

The blanket ban, known as the Criminal Justice Psychoactive Substances Act, was introduced five years ago.

Before the law was passed, there were about 100 so-called "headshops" selling legal highs across the state, but that number has since been reduced to zero.

"The headshop industry is gone," Det Supt Tony Howard told the BBC.

He is a member of the Garda (Irish police) Drugs Unit, which has been responsible for enforcing the new legislation.

"We were worried because we saw a whole generation of young people starting to experiment with these new psychoactive substances, and they'd generally be people who wouldn't have otherwise engaged in the misuse of drugs," he said.

"They thought it was safe because of the perception that these were legal highs."

When the blanket ban took effect, it became illegal to advertise, sell, supply, import or export psychoactive substances in the Republic of Ireland.

Tobacco, alcohol, caffeine and medicines have been excluded from the ban.

Before the legislation came into force, the sale of legal highs appeared to be a very lucrative business.

When one Dublin city centre headshop was burnt down in an arson attack, firefighters found a safe in the charred rubble of the building that contained 450,000 euros (£330,000).

As the sale of psychoactive substances was not illegal at the time, police had to hand the cash back to the owner of the safe. As a result of the ban, that would not happen now.

Det Supt Howard said many of those who operated the headshops quickly complied with the new law.

"Essentially the industry themselves realised that the legislation was quiet strong and they actually co-operated with us and handed us over any residual product which they had," he said.

So, should the UK follow the Irish government's lead and outlaw legal highs?

It may have taken the headshops out of the high street but not everyone believes the ban is the most effective way to protect drug users.

Tony Duffin, director of the Ana Liffey Drug Project in Dublin said there was still "huge harm" associated with the substances formally sold by headshops.

He said many recreational users are now buying psychoactive substances over the internet instead, and more regular users just go to drug dealers.

"I'm aware that, in New Zealand, they are currently rolling out legislation to regulate headshop drugs. So I think that, in terms of the UK, they would do well to look at all the options on the table in terms of drug policy," Mr Duffin said.

"It's not always about prohibition."
Click to expand...

from - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-eur...s_source=twitter&ns_linkname=northern_ireland
 
psykoman said:
Yeah of course it's over exaggerated but I definitely fealt a addiction to cannibals when i used it daily for 6 years when I didn't have any I'd be a grumpy good for nothing waste of space and could only think about getting high. Ob it's not a touch on anything else but to say it's not addictive at all I don't agree.
Click to expand...

I think being an addicted cannibal for 6 years is a bit more concerning than drug use, obviously the government doesn't agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top