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

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

NPS Act V1. Blankets? Just Say No!

[UK Psychedelic BAN 2016]

Very bad news for everyone guys.


UK is approving a BAN on ALL RC's, and if you go to the vendor website's you'll see everyone will close their shop. Possession is not a crime, but producing and selling will be. The law will be effective from April.

Are you angry? :X I am, a lot.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ces-ban-end-brain-research-britain-david-nutt

That's one of the main arcticles, i can't include shops' screengrabs.

This is the link to the official law page:

https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=...yy_6Ak5HsPb-qq1R13v_vQ&bvm=bv.116274245,d.bGg
 
The queen has to sign it into law

If someone were to remove the queen, the UK would be embroiled in multiple claims to the throne and plenty of acts would go unsigned.

As I've said though, starting a religion would tie up all drug laws for quite some time. All we need is regular gatherings (House parties, raves, etc) and clearly listed tenets after that it's really just a matter of the paperwork being done and voila, if the police stop you for possession it becomes a hate crime. If they want to make warped and twisted laws I say it's our right to show them how warped and twisted said laws are by using them against the state.
The temple of the true inner light (based in New York) uses DPT as a sacrement since around 1980.

A polytheistic church with many gods can have many sacrements pertaining to each god. If you look at Mormons, they sprung up out of nowhere with a very small book of Mormon and are now a well recognised large religion.

Not to mention that the law is very broad about what a 'church' has to be. Essentially it's regular worship, usually in groups with a core set of tenets and sacraments.
You could even argue that internet message boards are where people gather to worship.
 
Last edited:
Royal Assent is a mere ceremonial formality in our legislative process. If the monarchy were to refuse to approve a law passed by the legislative chambers, there would be a shit storm. If we removed the monarchy, they would most likely replace it with another ceremonial role such as a president.
 
bropiate said:
The queen has to sign it into law

If someone were to remove the queen, the UK would be embroiled in multiple claims to the throne and plenty of acts would go unsigned.

As I've said though, starting a religion would tie up all drug laws for quite some time. All we need is regular gatherings (House parties, raves, etc) and clearly listed tenets after that it's really just a matter of the paperwork being done and voila, if the police stop you for possession it becomes a hate crime. If they want to make warped and twisted laws I say it's our right to show them how warped and twisted said laws are by using them against the state.
The temple of the true inner light (based in New York) uses DPT as a sacrement since around 1980.

A polytheistic church with many gods can have many sacrements pertaining to each god. If you look at Mormons, they sprung up out of nowhere with a very small book of Mormon and are now a well recognised large religion.

Not to mention that the law is very broad about what a 'church' has to be. Essentially it's regular worship, usually in groups with a core set of tenets and sacraments.
You could even argue that internet message boards are where people gather to worship.
Click to expand...

:sus:
This is suspiciously well thought out.
 
That would take time.

I really do stand by the idea of starting a religion because what a religion can be is so broad reaching and trying to stop people practising a religion in a certain way suddenly becomes a hate crime.

For example in Judaism after the brit milah (cricumcision ritual) the mohel can perform another ritual called the metzitzah b'peh; this is where he places the infant's penis into his mouth and sucks on it until it stops bleeding, it's not been banned despite at least two infants dying of herpes infections in New York alone. If you are religiously free to perform what amounts to fellatio on an infant (potentially killing them in the process) taking drugs as a way of worshipping a deity/number of deities shouldn't be that hard to create.

I'm pretty sure with this new act they exempted 'church proceedings' from the act so having the religion created is all that needs to be done.
 
Don Luigi said:
Royal Assent is a mere ceremonial formality in our legislative process. If the monarchy were to refuse to approve a law passed by the legislative chambers, there would be a shit storm. If we removed the monarchy, they would most likely replace it with another ceremonial role such as a president.
Click to expand...

On having this script placed in front of her, the Queen, who is reputedly a huge fan of research chemicals and in fact has a special research chemical laboratory in each one of her residences, will surely refuse to sign it. And who can really stop the Queen?
 
The fact that we've only known about it for six months is what really gets to me.
"We're going to make this blanket ban more thought out and better than the previous ones that fell flat on their faces"
Five months later, one month before it's written into law and they are still making amendments to it.

No doubt the death toll will be higher after the ban than before since our government doesn't understand that actions have unforeseen consequences.

In the meantime I might make a thread to see how many people would be on board for founding a religion. I doubt they'll like it when they have their own legislation used against them.
 
bropiate said:
The fact that we've only known about it for six months is what really gets to me.
Click to expand...
Is this thread itself not ten months old? Also, there was no previous blanket ban, only bans on specific substances that attracted media attention, usually in connection with deaths and / or hospitalisations. The blanket ban is a response to the continuous tweaking of banned substances in order to circumvent the law, not a more 'thought out' alternative to previous bans. Basically, the aggressive marketing of these chemicals, their frightening accessibility, and the ensuing media chaos are to blame.
 
The legislation was drafted by Theresa May on the 30th of October (I think, definitely late October anyway).
She refused to listen to the ACMD (which is technically illegal when making a law that involves the banning of drugs) and instead used her own panel of hand picked 'experts' who were sure to rule 'yes' on ban all drugs.
As for the press, coming up to the ban I've not seen one single article in support of it, simply go to google news and type in "psychoactive substances bill" and the Daily Mail to the Guardian will be complaining about it.
Essentially it's about Theresa May, her huge ego and the fact that she thinks that she knows what's best for the entire UK population. It is a law based on ideology, not protecting people. Scientifically the law is equivalent to a book burning since lots of pharmaceutical chemists now may not be able to work on novel antidepressants, substitution medication and even decongestants for fear of creating a psychoactive compound.

Hopefully when the (unfortunate) death toll starts piling up and 'legal highs' become part of organised crime the bill will come crashing down. After that it would be nice to put Miss May in front of a jury of her peers and put her on trial for the deaths and harm caused by her ridiculous legislation.

As for the sentencing; I wish online vendors would show some backbone and refuse to stop selling since to be convicted of a crime the crime has to be against public interest and during the 1999 trial over the legality of poppers a jury found poppers to be perfectly okay since they caused little to no harm.

In the meantime starting a religion would be the best way to get the upper hand with these people, if I have the time I'll start a thread on it.
 
Personally I blame it all on Shameless. Upper crusty toffers probably thought they were watching a documentary and decided the best thing to do was sell off all the social housing stock and ban all their drugs. (Drugs? What's wrong with a fine Cognac and a good Cuban?) As for religion I'm a former disciple who (would've) worshipped between the feet of Saint Janis of Joplin and her lysergically sweetened devotions of the cunninglingus variety (oral tradition). A mouthful in more ways than one ;)
 
It's looking like the pure 'noids powders are gonna be available at virtually giveaway prices in the run up to the ban. I suspect they are very much a niche market thing, with most people who do use 'noids buying the pre-made blends, whcih are about 10 times more expensive than making your own blends. The profit market on these blends must be astronomical for the vendors. 8o

It's so much better VFM to make your own blends literally for pennies, and not at all difficult to do. Plus you can make them to the strength you choose and use the smokeable herbs of your own preference. I definitely will not be buying anymore though as i still have a little (all i need) from the fire sales that went down during the banning of the 2nd generation of 'noids. Or was it the 3rd generation:sus: Fuck knows, it's so hard to keep track of how many generations of noids have been banned and how many subsequent ones immediately replaced them. The whole thing has been a total farce. :|
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top