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

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

The Psychoactive Substances Act - Update: Illegals R Us

steewith2ees

steewith2ees

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 9, 2013
Messages
5,676
Location
the piss artist formerly known as stevesircull (th
With regards to the the RC Industry,I know that there are no black and white solutions to the indiscriminate distribution of what we know are potent drugs, as some of the chemicals that they sell have significant risks attached to their use.

I can see the logic when people say 'they should have never sold benzodiazepines freely' or that 'we dont know the long term effects of repeated 5 day binges on 3-fluorophenmetrazine'

But the controlled drugs we have grown up with have had similar risks attached to them, possibly risks that we were not aware of when we started taking them, despite the fact that some of the risks have been long understood for over a century.

But it is my firm belief that the Psychoactive Substances Act, which gained Royal Ascent on the 28th January is a disgusting, nonsensical, scientifically illiterate, puritan, Victorian piece of reactionary right wing legislation that has no place in an educated, supposedly progressive society. It offends my nature that such further measures be taken to limit what we are and are not allowed to put into our bodies, regardless of the harm they might cause. Statistically speaking, this act of parliament will save possibly a few hundred lives, which is a ridiculously small number of individuals to use when justifying the use of the law to restrict Tens of millions of peoples rights

Not only will this Act ban existing drugs, but it will ban any drug that is created in the future that is capable of producing a psychoactive effect. If the aim of the law is to protect us from harmful things, how can you assess something THAT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST YET AS BEING HARMFUL?

So, without going into the ins and outs of the Act, or which drugs should and should not be controlled, I just want a general feeling across the board as to what folk think in general about what I believe is the most disgusting action the government has taken since they upgraded Cannabis back to class B (this was justified by the government at the time as potentially preventing up to 50 cases of mental illness a year.....) yet they still sell their taxable poisons which kill hundreds upon thousands of UK citizens a year, something which undermines any proportionality they could ever ague about rubbish like this Act.

The Psychoactive Substances Act - Yes (a good thing) or No (a bad thing). Feel free to elaborate but I dont want any fence sitters, regardless of how unpredictable Flubromazolam can be or How Dangerous NBombe psychedelics are - Please start your post with a simple yes or no.

Remember, if all drugs were freely available people wouldn't even entertain the riskier ones such as those I have described above.

I really need to know if EADD is on the right wavelength as I intend to get political about this while Im still young and impulsive enough to.
 
While on a personal level i couldnt care less since i dont buy RCs (tried one or two a while back and didnt like them) but on a wider level i believe humans should have sovereignty over their own bodies as long as they dont harm anyone else. (extremely vulnerable groups as a possible exception). On the whole i think a bad thing.
 
No, license and regulate the drugs that have a known history of use and nobody will want the more obscure, unknown and potentially dangerous ones anyway.
 
I have to be that guy: I'm really not able to give a yes or no answer because it isn't that simple.

I firmly believe that drug education, pharmacology, harm reduction and mental health issues and their treatment should be taught on a wide scale right across the population to allow assessment of the risks presented and to allow an informed decision based on personal reflection and responsibility farrrr before we throw people in prison for not knowing...
 
I've heard the leading lights in drug research in Britain claim that the biggest problem with drugs is the Misuse of Drugs Act which has cause untold harm and has not stopped drug use, in fact its only created more. Yet people who are supposedly educated are in favour of more faulty legislation instead of education - CUNTS.

The legality of a drug has never stopped me using it, (and I'm sure doesn't stop many on here). I've been in a few dodgy situations sourcing them but again that's due to the MoD Act as opposed to the drugs themselves.

This can only be very bad.
 
Sprout said:
I have to be that guy: I'm really not able to give a yes or no answer because it isn't that simple.

I firmly believe that drug education, pharmacology, harm reduction and mental health issues and their treatment should be taught on a wide scale right across the population to allow assessment of the risks presented and to allow an informed decision based on personal reflection and responsibility farrrr before we throw people in prison for not knowing...
Click to expand...

Of course you suggest nothing but the right direction, but Im asking, will this Act be a good thing for the population, considering that 'assessment of the risks presented' and anything else approaching an intelligent debate is never going to happen in my life time?

The drug debate is not black and white, of course the issue is far from simple but the act has been passed now and is available to read in all of its ridiculous, hypocritical, non - scientific juvenile entirety.

All im asking is that Is the Psychoactive Substances Act a good thing for the UK population - Yes or No?

If they hadn't wasted their time composing this cuntcrust of document then they might have had the time to take all the sensible steps you have advised above.
 
I believe that overall it's a bad thing. Not particularly because I believe RCs are a good thing (though there is one I will miss), but for the overall implications regarding research into potentially beneficial medicines. Plus the fact it makes the likelihood of relaxing controls on cannabis and other 'classics' even more unlikely.
 
It would be a good thing if their illegal counterparts were made illegal. But all this will do is push the poor sods who do take it onto even more unknown and harder to pronounce drugs.
 
No.

Politically it's an unholy hybrid between a shitty protest and sticking their heads in the sand. Gutless, thoughtless and highly damaging.
 
steewith2ees said:
Of course you suggest nothing but the right direction, but Im asking, will this Act be a good thing for the population, considering that 'assessment of the risks presented' and anything else approaching an intelligent debate is never going to happen in my life time?

The drug debate is not black and white, of course the issue is far from simple but the act has been passed now and is available to read in all of its ridiculous, hypocritical, non - scientific juvenile entirety.

All im asking is that Is the Psychoactive Substances Act a good thing for the UK population - Yes or No?

If they hadn't wasted their time composing this cuntcrust of document then they might have had the time to take all the sensible steps you have advised above.
Click to expand...

The Act itself as an aside from the wider politico-socio-economic factors and consequences is perhaps the most arse backward piece of bullet-hole ridden sensationalised, scaremongering, subjugating, stupid and senseless piece of shit I've ever known.
We have now violated the very core principles of regime dictated control of chemicals. A complete refusal to actually investigate the pharmacological and toxicological properties of the largest and most rapidly expanding pharmacopoeia ever known. The refusal to grant academic funding to study the potential uses, dangers, implications and side effects allowed the beast that is the RC trade to turn dark, twisted its original principles and formed an insidious shadow of what it could have been.
It is a violation of personal freedom, self education, niche exploration and the academic curiosity of the scientific community.
 
Sid said:
It would be a good thing if their illegal counterparts were made illegal. But all this will do is push the poor sods who do take it onto even more unknown and harder to pronounce drugs.
Click to expand...

Sid, I would appreciate a yes or no - is this law going to place the UK and its recreational drug market in a better position to what it is now.

I've heard folk suggest that this could be beneficial as those dealing in controlled drugs 'will finally have to get their act together' and start selling high purity quality products. Never going to happen. At the moment we have alot of RC's available legally, admittedly most of which are shit, but there are a couple that are just as good as any controlled drug Ive ever used (3-fpm and the astoundingly impressive 1-P LSD) and you couldn't ask for a better range of benzodiazepines. As I have repeated many times on this forum, I have found the effects of Flunromazepam, Clonazolam, Nifoxipam and Pyrazolam comparable to best pharmaceutical benzodiazepines I have ever taken and in most cases they were as good and in some occasions superior to certain pharmaceutical benzos I have taken such as oxazepam and chlordiazopoxide.

(NB//as those of you who read my posts know that I enjoy these drugs more than is probably considered wise - As the worlds biggest neurotic I have a particular fondness for the pyschological safety net of being in possession of a few hundred benzodiazepines,) something I became accustomed to as a nurse but subsequently could no longer do after I lost my job), and how much I love the typical 'benzed' feeling, where you feel like your brain is wrapped in cotton wool.

The RC scene has allowed me to amass a healthy selection of the best benzodiazepines the market has to offer - the only two I did not stock up on were pyrazolam - which despite being a superb drug is too expensive considering how short its duration of action is - and flubromazolam, which I find to unpredictable to use for any reason.

Sorry about derailing my own thread with a benzo tangent, but anyone with a brain who chooses to piss around with drugs knows how addictive benzos are, and should know the contra-indications when it comes to mixing them with other depressants. To those who say, these things should not be available because they are addictive , needs to realise that some people are already addicted and that preventing further access to these drugs is going to be no benefit to anyone.

And to those who trot out the ol' 'well we knew that the blanket ban was coming in April so no one has the excuse to not have used the time for a tape;r needs to learn about addiction. It isn't something that folk can just deal with because of an externally imposed deadline from the government that does not take into account the things that human beings have to deal with in the real world. Anyone with an addiction can only sort it out when they are ready, and for those addicted to the RC benzos - what harm would it create to simply allow them to maintain their addiction untill they are ready to detox themselves (the NHS could save thousands on drug treatment - they could just advise folk to get some Chloro - Diazepam and a copy of the Ashton Manual).

I love benzos. Rant over

I apologise if their are glaring errors on this post but im nodding out and can not continue to use the computer.
 
Last edited:
It is drug dealers cornering the market under the guise of health care. ALL RESEARCH SHOWS ALCOHOL AND NICOTINE ARE WORSE THAN MOST OTHER DRUGS.

Yet the British Govt. have decided to allow these terrible drugs to continue to ruin peoples lives they are a scourge, (follow on with usual Tory anti-drug rhetoric).


Cunts.
 
I think it's a pretty bad thing.

I also have no idea how such a complete vague mess of a legislation is actually going to pass through. Especially due to the complete lack of research, and an overall great deal of vulgar, arrogance and ignorance toward anyone, and everyone who expressed concern on the dangers this bill may cause.

The bill seems more likely to do more harm, than any good. I don't think this bill was even written with any intention on reducing the harm that drugs can have on a persons life.

We actually had a chance to monitor, control and reduce harm by making the RC industry government controlled.
 
I think it's a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not entirely keen on the whole RC scene either; but of all the possible ways of dealing with it, this sort of scattergun response has to be one of the worst. Not that I expected anything better from a government that subscribes to the notion that getting high is bad per se -- I just think that that there is the real underlying problem. (I'm not even convinced that there isn't already some way to use existing laws; such chemicals are sold strictly for in vitro research purposes only, and anyone using them in vivo would be in breach of terms of sale ..... but hey, why enforce the laws you've got, when you can just pass some shiny new ones?)

But if it were up to me, Etizolam would be [spoil]P[/spoil] (pharmacy only) in 400 µg. tablets divisible into two; on the basis that it being obtained under the supervision of a qualified pharmacist, who would not be too out of place asking you Aren't you taking a lot of these lately? and accompanied by graphic warnings about physical dependence and a practicable reduction schedule (hence the presentation; 200 µg. should be a safe level at which to jump off) is still preferrable to the likely alternatives, viz. use of alternative grey-market substances with a slower transit time and hence worse physical effects or black-market diverted prescription medicines. Only being available in pharmacies would also reinforce the message that it deserved respect.
 
Could the very same logic not be applied to vast number of RC psychotropics though?
200mg MPA a week in 20mg capsules?
14mg Diclazepam per week at 0.5mg doses for therapeutic anxiolysis?
 
Almost certainly; Etizolam was just one example -- and diclazepam was precisely what I was alluding to with longer-lived grey-market alternatives. That would just mean accepting the research that has been conducted, despite the circumstances under which it was conducted .....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top