UK - How legal highs could be brought down to Earth

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
Guardian

Ian Birrell
The Guardian, Saturday 26 April 2014

With reader comments
The UK should follow New Zealand's lead on new drugs. But it will need courage to do so.

Just down the road from my house are shops that demonstrate the absurdity of our drug laws. The shelves are filled with paraphernalia such as pipes and bongs used for smoking cannabis, alongside the scales and "stench-proof" plastic bags popular with dealers. Behind the counter are sachets offering luridly packaged packets of Amsterdam Gold, Herbal Bush and Mayan Dream.

These are among 70-odd synthetic versions of cannabis to have cropped up in recent years. They are significantly more dangerous than natural cannabis, stronger and with far higher rates of hospitalisation; they have even been linked to the deaths of young users. Aficionados find them less enjoyable, according to research. Yet they typify how the market for legal highs is booming, accelerated by the absurdity of prohibition in a globalised world.

Politicians have learned nothing from the futility of their fight against conventional drugs – an abject failure that pours gold into the pockets of the globe's most vicious gangsters. So MEPs have just backed new rules cutting from two years to 10 months the time taken to assess and ban new psychoactive products. Britain, which has outlawed scores of new substances, believes Brussels is too weak; it wants to wriggle out of the European regulatory regime while a working party examines tougher controls.

More...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/26/legal-highs-uk-new-zealand
 
Bit behind the times there, Guardian.
Stating the bleedin' obvious - but a reasonable argument nonetheless.

A better idea - legalise cannabis and psilocybe mushrooms (as was briefly tolerated by legal loophole a few years ago).
Who would fuck with 25x-NBOMe chems or synthetics then (besides an adventurous, hopefully informed minority)?
 
^there's a lot of times (but definitely not most of the time) i would prefer synthetic cannabinoids. i smoke, am high for a half hour, and am basically sober. weed i smoke, get high a while, get tired a couple (or few) hours after that, it's a bigger time commitment.

and there's plenty of legal psychedelics i like more or less than mushrooms depending on the situtation.
 
^ both very good points.
Testing is the way to go with the plethora of synth 'noids. Some seem rather scary, and selling them on the condition that no dosage information be given is madness IMO.

4-sub-tryptamines should be available (and clearly labeled as such, with dosages, true contents and "medical grade" quality (none of this 'not for human consumption' shit) for adults to chose to purchase at any head shop.

I don't drink, and I'm always kinda stunned at all the *horrendous liquor* so openly sold in various places.
Blew my mind to see it in supermarkets in the US, to be perfectly honest. You don't see that where I live.

If booze can be openly and proudly sold and advertised without society crumbling at its foundations, why not psilocetin or JWH-250....or cannabis, or any number of things?
The danger is in the lack of regulation - and this "danger" is twisted to make the compounds in question seem to be where the danger lies.

'Tis a topsy-turvy world, I tell you.
 
Legal high manufactures are actually forbidden by law in most countries to say exactly what it is they are selling, how to take it, what to expect and what to do if things go wrong.

Its not just a lack of regulation, though some kind of safety testing standards would be useful. Its that the law has an intense attitude of prohibition, i.e. harm maximisation, even if the hammer slightly misses the nail prohibiting the substance in question. "Thou shalt not get high (except on alcohol)".
 
Top