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

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

NPS Act V1. Blankets? Just Say No!

Eveyvibe said:
That's not enough time surely? What about people on RC benzos that risk seizers, death or uproar to the NHS?
Click to expand...
Better they die, than they get high -- that's the Government's attitude, if you take drugs (other than alcohol and nicotine, which are different) then you are sub-human filth. There'll be a few horror stories in the Daily Mail, spun as though the ban came just in time before anybody else died from taking RC benzos (relying on the reader's ignorance that it was in fact the sudden discontinuation that killed or maimed them. Good word that, maimed. You can really scare people with the threat of a good maiming.) And they will be held up as a warning to anybody else: drugs kill, so don't do them, OK, kids?

The time I nearly died of hyponatraemia, which might or might not have had something to do with the consumption of stronger than usual amphetamine sulphate in high-twenties temperatures, the thing that kept me alive was the determination not to become another drug statistic. I had to stay alive just in order to point out, if I did die, that it hadn't been the speed that had killed me, but the failure to replenish electrolytes being lost through perspiration.
 
To be honest drugs would be better legalised. It would rid the drug dealers n dodgy gangs (a major one was sentenced a few weeks back for selling Cocaine across North Wales, got ten years (luckily the I go to for waxing got off, she was accused of money laundering but she's ok really n has a small child).

Because how people have not died from drugs? But from things they were cut with? Or the ways in which they took them bevause they've not the proper access to paraphillia (bar a few places but does everyone know of them?)

More awareness of does, purity, better regulated, less paranoia, less chance of newer chemicals been made as let's face it they're made cause others gets banned.

Alcohol is a bad drug but is legal. Look what it does to people, look how I acted here other night - and others on it. It makes people aggressive, look older, is addicting yet it's socially acceptable.

I can't really read the Daily Mail n am glad to be honest. My Dad reads the daily mail n unfortunately my parents are against drugs n think the same stigmatic ideas that so many have.

Holland has legalised drugs. What are their death / survival rates?

Evey
 
BecomingJulie said:
Better they die, than they get high -- that's the Government's attitude, if you take drugs (other than alcohol and nicotine, which are different) then you are sub-human filth. There'll be a few horror stories in the Daily Mail, spun as though the ban came just in time before anybody else died from taking RC benzos (relying on the reader's ignorance that it was in fact the sudden discontinuation that killed or maimed them. Good word that, maimed. You can really scare people with the threat of a good maiming.) And they will be held up as a warning to anybody else: drugs kill, so don't do them, OK, kids?

The time I nearly died of hyponatraemia, which might or might not have had something to do with the consumption of stronger than usual amphetamine sulphate in high-twenties temperatures, the thing that kept me alive was the determination not to become another drug statistic. I had to stay alive just in order to point out, if I did die, that it hadn't been the speed that had killed me, but the failure to replenish electrolytes being lost through perspiration.
Click to expand...

aint that true they would like it if we all just od

i think this so called rethink is more to do with the loss of taxes they will have to put up with i mean we spend loads per day on the shit and that's one hell of a chunk change to lose
 
Don't know if posted before, but here's Brian Paddick in the Lords:

We on these Benches are as concerned about the harm caused by people misusing drugs as the Government and the Labour Party are. We believe that there should be a health-based approach, aimed at reducing harm caused by drug misuse, rather than a legalistic approach that is likely to further criminalise drug users. Successive Governments have gradually eroded the link between criminal penalties and the harm caused by drugs by ignoring the scientific evidence and the advice that they have been given, to the extent that the drug laws in the UK are no longer considered by many people to have any credibility. The Bill, by failing to differentiate between dangerous psychoactive substances and those that are harmless, and by criminalising the production and supply of these substances but allowing simple possession, adds to that confusion and further undermines the credibility of UK drug laws.

As drafted, the Bill is far too broad and indiscriminate, further undermining credibility and efficacy in reducing harm. Legal minds far greater than mine have speculated on whether producing and supplying scented roses, or perfumes that evoke a sense of well-being or romance, could be illegal under the Bill. Those who claim that simply sniffing such substances falls outside the scope of the Bill clearly need to go back to school to learn some simple biology and chemistry. If you sniff something, you are inhaling it; you are taking molecules into your system, exactly as described in the Bill.

As drafted, the Bill would not outlaw simple possession of new psychoactive substances that come on to the market, which could potentially be far more toxic than drugs currently listed as class A under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Government may well reply—I think that the Minister alluded to this in his opening remarks—that if that is the case, they could be temporarily banned and then designated as controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. That course is available to the Government now, without the need for the Bill. My understanding was that the whole purpose of the Bill was to get away from manufacturers constantly changing the formula of psychoactive substances to avoid a drug being banned, yet it does not criminalise possession of what are potentially very dangerous drugs, which could quite easily change in formula in the way that the Bill is designed to eradicate. Either the Government want to send a very strong message that these substances are dangerous, which they may or may not be—in which case, why is possession not a criminal offence?—or they want to say, “Well, actually, these drugs are not as dangerous as controlled drugs”, when in fact they may well be.

As the Bill allows possession of new psychoactive substances while possession of drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act is a criminal offence, the police will be faced with situations that make enforcement very difficult, if not impossible. If the police suspect that I have EX-1, a synthetic imitator of real ecstasy—I hasten to add that an internet search taught me that—in my possession for my own use, the Bill does not give the power for the police to stop, search or arrest me because to possess the substance will not be a criminal offence. However, if the police suspect that I have a real ecstasy tablet in my possession, they can stop, search and arrest me because it is a controlled drug. How are the police going to know? Some will say, “They will assume that it is a controlled drug, and search and arrest you anyway”. So what if I tell the officer that I have nothing illegal on me, that the tablet is indeed a legal EX-1, that they have no grounds to search and arrest me and that if they do, I will sue them? What if the tablet turns out to be legal to possess? Where does that leave the police? What if the police officer backs off because of my assurances, but the ecstasy tablet that I have is in fact a real one? The Bill, quite clearly, has not been thought through in terms of its practical application.

At the moment, I can buy legal highs from a head shop on the high street. It is acknowledged in the briefing given by the Government on the Bill that, contrary to what the Minister said in his introduction, many of these head shops are well run, with those that manage them being very keen to comply with the law. At the very least, I can be pretty sure that what I am buying is not a dangerously addictive class A drug.

If things go badly wrong once I have taken a legal high purchased from one of these head shops, someone can go back to the head shop where I bought it and at least have some idea of what I have taken, and action could be taken to ensure that others are not similarly affected.

Many people buy legal highs now. They like what they do to them, and their use is increasing. If the Bill passes, the only way they can get psychoactive substances and be sure that they are not breaking the law is to go to a local drug dealer. Many of these street dealers have no incentive to ensure the quality of the drugs that they sell, because they could just disappear overnight if things go wrong. The chances of tracing and establishing what drug I had actually been given, were things to go badly wrong, would be much lower.

These drug dealers could just as easily sell me highly addictive class A drugs, and indeed they may have a vested interest in misleading me by giving me a highly addictive class A drug instead of the legal high that I asked for; the high is likely to be greater, and if I get addicted, I could become a regular client. It would make no difference to the dealer, if he were to be caught, whether he was supplying controlled drugs or other psychoactive substances—a long term in prison would await.

We are likely to criminalise many more people as a consequence. If you order psychoactive substances online—we have heard evidence this afternoon about how Irish online sites closed down with the introduction of their legislation—the chances are that the website you are ordering from will be based abroad. Even if you are buying psychoactive substances only for your own personal use, you will be guilty of the criminal offence of importing drugs. If you buy a few tablets to share with your mates on a night out, again you will be guilty of a criminal offence. A lot more people are going to end up with a criminal record as a result of the Bill, even if their primary intention is just to consume the drugs themselves.

The genie is out of the bottle. Many people take legal highs, and they will continue to get hold of them one way or another—whether head shops disappear from the high street or not—or they will simply switch to far more dangerous controlled drugs. The reason that millions of people break the law by taking controlled drugs is that, quite rightly, they see that our drug laws lack credibility. I have never heard a discussion among young people about to go on a night out as to which class a particular drug belongs to, and therefore which drug they are going to take on that basis. The Bill, as currently drafted, as I have said, further undermines the credibility of the drug laws in this country.

We need a new approach: a health-based approach that will genuinely reduce the harm caused by drug misuse and that has credibility among those who misuse drugs, not just an approach that appears to have credibility among politicians who do not really know what they are talking about. We need a system that differentiates between the psychoactive substances that cause most harm and those that are relatively safe—at least as safe as smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol [you wot?] —and we should control and regulate the supply of those relatively safe substances as we do with tobacco and alcohol. To do anything else would lack credibility, particularly in the eyes of young people.

If someone is caught in possession of harmful psychoactive drugs for their own use, controlled or otherwise, and they are a social user, they should have their drugs seized and be placed on an education programme. If someone is caught in possession of harmful psychoactive drugs, controlled or otherwise, and that person is addicted, they should be placed on a rehabilitation programme. If they refuse to co-operate, they should be given a civil fine. Such an approach would be much simpler and far more effective in dealing with this problem than giving thousands of young people a criminal record that could ruin their life chances because they made stupid mistake.

It is time that we started treating those who misuse drugs as victims of drug dealers rather than as criminals. It is time that we confronted the fact that criminalising young people for possessing substances only as harmful—or less harmful—than alcohol or tobacco lacks credibility.

Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab): For the avoidance of doubt, is the noble Lord saying that the Liberal Democrats so oppose the essence of the Bill that they will either vote against it or propose wrecking amendments?

Lord Paddick: My Lords, we do not propose to wreck the Bill. Clearly, we cannot allow head shops to continue operating as they do now—purporting to sell substances that are harmless when they are far from harmless, or trying to get around the law by saying in very small print on the back of the substances that they are not fit for human consumption. However, the dangers in the Bill as drafted are to make the drug laws even more of a laughing stock than they are currently.
Click to expand...

I don't like the idea of being classed as a 'victim' or be forcibly 'rehabilitated' because i decide to take drugs - though i suppose it should be better than being a criminal (in theory).
 
Last edited:
Vurtual said:
I don't like the idea of being classed as a 'victim' or be forcibly 'rehabilitated' because i decide to take drugs - though i suppose it should be better than being a criminal (in theory).
Click to expand...

Yep, this is why the Portuguese method is far from perfect.

Legalize occupy, kick the Tories out.
 
My feelings on portugal exactly. Medicalising any and all drug use smells a bit too much like soviets putting people in mental hospitals for wrong political thinking (or the current american equivalents) - 'We have evidence that you enjoy taking drugs. You willl now be sent to the readjustment centre to correct you.'
 
mydrugbuddy said:
I gave it another go over the weekend, it really is far easier using stem and vein, because it acts as an antagonist it speeds up lowering of tolerance and recovery time by at least 50%. Because of its totally different properties to 'normal' kratom i massively overdosed at work this morning, not realising i would have no tolerance, taking my usual 10g of morning kratom in the form of stem and vein i was stressed to absolute fuck and jittery as hell, was thinking of driving home at lunch to get some benzos but i cant afford to put a foot wrong after already receiving a formal warning for bad timekeeping. I made the weekend with no problems, so the stress must have been sitautional. The day also seemed endless, they fly by on kratom, im gonna struggle to stick to any quit attempt until i absolutely have to do it. It feels like it will be totally managable, will just need to get used to time moving much slower again. When there's an easy option i find it very difficult to resist, and take the more difficult option instead. I could save a fortune if i stuck to stem and vein and completed a taper on it, i reckon at work id only need a gram or 2 in the morning, and it lasts for hours, maybe another gram or 2 in the afternoon, reminds me what it was like to have no tolerance. IIRC the worst of the WDs start to kick in on day 4 or 5, i could do with 2 months off work, shame the world doesnt work like that.:o

Ive quit several month run cold turkey a few times, its not bad physically, but mentally its tough, and the slow endless days where you're not interested in anything, nothing is enjoyable or fun, or cant be bothered to do anything; symptoms of depression i believe, i guess some sort of rebound is inevitable, i dont think ive managed to go longer than 4 or 5 weeks when i have quit. It just doesnt make sense to be miserable when you can feel good. I spose my longer term thinking should be telling me that after a couple of months my natural endorphins will start kicking in again. I beleieve that they will. Knowing this makes me a fuckin idiot. I'll go on spending good money to avoid those gloomy 2 months as long as possible, im not convinced time will ever pass so quickly once i quit kratom.
Click to expand...

Yeah i know what's it's like mentally not taking codeine, on a rare occasion i would have to go into work the other year with a days break this was when i was on 600mg a day. The second day was always dreadful, cant be fucked people and spent the entire day miserable, yawning and obsessing over it. will be the same shit with kratom
 
Just watched a riveting 20 minute part of the debate live from the House of Lords:\ At this stage the Lords are tying themselves up in knots trying to arrive at defintions and appropriate wording. Debating for instance how significant the psychoactive effect has to be otherwise chocolate could be banned, and they will have to draw up a list of exceptions and exemptions, also one idiot asked whether a genetically modified plant is synthetic:| (These Lords must have too much time on their hands for all this dilly dallying and totally irrelevant questions and 'points'.)

The most interesting thing i picked up was that there is a proposal to limit the bill to synthetic psychoactives. Allthough they will probably amend that to synthetic psychoactives plus named "traditional remedies" like opium and its' derivatives for example. The "debate" or old fogeys way of passing their time continues in the house of lords at 8.28 this evening. No one seems to be taking the whole thing in the least bit seriously, they seem to be treating it merely as an amusing game of words if they haven't got anything more interesting to do today.:|

It was also stated that it might be prudent to wait a bit longer and study closely what happened in Ireland following the blanket ban. FA is the answer, people just ordered their legal highs from mainland UK or N Ireland vendors instead. Which is precisely what will happen if the UK wide ban is implemented. The European vendors and 'dark web' vendors will see a huge boom in trade, and many more people will go back to the 'old school' traditional 'street drugs'. The whole thing is not going to stop anyone who is determined to carry on taking drugs from doing so.

Perhaps it will end things for a small fraction of current users, but the impact wont be much more than that, apart from potentially criminalising and hospitalising, maybe even causing the deaths of some users that have become addicted to their LH of choice (benzo users are the obvious example, if they/we fail to plan ahead things could end very badly indeed.)

I dont think I'll be able to stand it for long this evening, unless they get someone snappy and to the fucking point in there. At this rate it will take them years to decide on a definition of "significant psychocative effects" and "synthetic psychoactive" let alone the thousands of other clauses that will make up the Bill.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top