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


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler

NPS Act V1. Blankets? Just Say No!

The main issue I have with a blanket ban (other than it being totally futile) - is the number of people that are physically dependant on RC benzos now and aren't able to stop without potentially having a life-threatening seizure...I'm sure some of them will go seek medical help if this goes through - but the majority will probably just be driven further underground.

'Progress', gotta love it.[/QUOTE

That's what happens when people start messing with unknown substance. They cause harm. People took them known the possibilities that these substances may one day be banned as it's what always happens. The government cant go on letting legal highs as they are dangerous.

Look at what's already happened? I've a friend on here addicted to benzos n other substances - tried getting help n had it refused because these RCs do not come up on drug test so this person is now having to pay lots of money n struggling to taper off with also trying to maintain a job.

I'm sorry to sound harsh but something needs to be done.

I've already mentioned in gibs about the 21 year old who died taking diet pilss. Whos going to take responsibility for her death??? For the pain n heartache that her family n love ones are dealing with? No one, because the stuff she took was "legal" n had "not for human consumption" on the package.

Evey

Evey

Evey, for someone who spends alot of their time on a forum driven by drug users who wish to share their experiences you seem to have little empathy for those that, for better or worse, continue to use drugs. The majority of users will admit that drug use is risky and potentially harmful, but anyone with an objective and informed view on the issue can surely see that 75% of the damage is caused by prohibition rather than the drugs themselves and no progress will ever come from adding yet more uninformed and moral driven laws onto the existing rubbish that causes as much suffering to society as the drugs themselves.

I gather you have managed to take control of a codeine dependacy - you have my admiration for winning the battle against what is a particularly addictive drug but your lack of objectivity into the whole mess makes your comment come across as high horsed at the very least. The majority of people who post in eadd tend to enjoy using drugs, even when its at a detriment to themselves, and not all of them are drug dependent. Why are the RC's that are so unpredictable and untested any more dangerous than the street drugs that have historically dominated the market, many of which are inconsistently dosed, dangerously adulterated or which suffer from the many issues which inevitably occur when buying such materials from criminals.

Ok so the RC scene has created alot of benzodiazepine addicts - but one form of drug treatment is maintenance which people can exercise themselves, with no extra burden on the current health service, as long as the status quo is maintained. Your advocation of this new legislation makes it clear that you would prefer to limit personal freedom and force these people into unnecessary suffering or draconian and insufficient statuatory services, whie the majority were managing (and even detoxing) themselves.

Im sorry to criticise your post Evey, its nothing personal, but with that attitude one asks why you dont concentrate on the recovery forums or why you choose to network with current drug users at all?
 
Presumably the adult woman who took too many of the pills that were clearly marked "not for human consumption" will be responsible for her death?

Ummmm NO? She had a MENTAL ILLNESS. She had an eating disorder which meant she was not thinking straight. She was VULNERABLE. Only 21, n these monsters took advantage of her for a quick buck. This needs to be stopped. People are able to purchase whatever on the internet n it needs to change. Something needs to be done.

People are dying right, left n centre. Tell me how many people on Bluelight have died now at the hands of these "research chemicals" / "legal highs?" Lets start with the possibly diphidine being the possible cause of knock's death? One of our beloved n best mods we've had, another with his whole life ahead of him.

I'm sorry if im coming off as harsh but someone needs to say it.

PS: our government have a duty of care n I'll be pleased if the laws get changed in this country to protect people. Especially VULNERABLE people.

Evey
 
Maybe the government should ban eating disorders and vulnerable people instead? It would be just as effective...

Edit: also mental illness and obesity ;)
 
Ummmm NO? She had a MENTAL ILLNESS. She had an eating disorder which meant she was not thinking straight. She was VULNERABLE. Only 21, n these monsters took advantage of her for a quick buck. This needs to be stopped. People are able to purchase whatever on the internet n it needs to change. Something needs to be done.

People are dying right, left n centre. Tell me how many people on Bluelight have died now at the hands of these "research chemicals" / "legal highs?" Lets start with the possibly diphidine being the possible cause of knock's death? One of our beloved n best mods we've had, another with his whole life ahead of him.

I'm sorry if im coming off as harsh but someone needs to say it.

PS: our government have a duty of care n I'll be pleased if the laws get changed in this country to protect people. Especially VULNERABLE people.

Evey

For starters, speculating on the death of a much loved and popular member if its not currently considered a flat fact is the worst kind of propaganda one could use to justify such a wide ranging and complicated issue.

Its no secret that there has been a ridiculous amount of board members who have passed away over the last 2 years. Though I woulnt dream of using any of these individuals just to prove a point, it appears that drugs were a contributary factor in at least some of these deaths, and it wouldnt be a stretch to speculate that the majority of them were controlled substances, either taken alone or in combination with other substances or alcohol NOT research chemicals taken in isolation
 
Last edited:
Lets start with the possibly diphidine being the possible cause of knock's death?


Poor guy, his death now being used for gossip and speculation, with "possibly" this and "possible" that and even the chemical's name spelled wrong :|
 
Poor guy, his death now being used for gossip and speculation, with "possibly" this and "possible" that and even the chemical's name spelled wrong :|

should read 'with the possibility etc etc' Cant even get the grammer right on such an upsetting and potentially offensive piece of speculation, never mind the name of the drug. Disgusting.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32844191

Typical as I've just found one I actually like, 1P-LSD and it's out of stock everywhere now :(

fucking no way thats going to cause nothing but an epidemic of people going insane from with drawls it wont pass there is to many other factors to take into account like the public health for a start of Christ just think of the benzos problem we have
 
fucking no way thats going to cause nothing but an epidemic of people going insane from with drawls it wont pass there is to many other factors to take into account like the public health for a start of Christ just think of the benzos problem we have

They wont see the benzo problem - we already have one and the system doesnt differentiate between whether the benzodiazepine of abuse is a pharmaceutical or a research chemical.
The benzodiazepines will just be put in a pile with all the other research chemicals - they're all just 'legal highs' and of course the government cant allow people to be intoxicated, unless its from alcohol of course.

The reason this is on the public agenda now is a perfect storm of a new government with queen speech in hand, plus a resurge in media sensationalisation due to the 5 lads hospitalised from the synthetic cannabis. Of course, if cannabis were already legal as it obviously should be, there would be no market for these frankly dodgy synthetic blends.

The ban will come, our only saving grace is that in order to make it watertight, it should take the politicians and lawers a hell of a long time to come up with such a complicated piece of legislation, and with more pressing issues to attend to (europe and the epidemic radicalisation of our young muslims) i would hope that it would be a good 18 months to 2 years before a 'blanket ban' is in place
 
us drugs users were getting along just fine when the only drugs worth taking were MDMA, weed, acid, speed & shrooms...

Although I find RC's fascinating, & the efforts by RC vendors to dodge the law admirable, a return to the classics wouldn't do much harm to the drugs scene should the government somehow manage to completely stamp out Legal Highs & online RC vending, & might even reduce the access to dangerous new chemicals by dumb kids...

The idea that the genie of Research Chemicals can be somehow jammed back into some stupid old box is patently laughable though. Mephs been banned for years & I smell it in public more now than ever. I smell it more than I smell weed, nowadays.

I'd be more concerned if I had a benzo habit but other than that, keep you toys in the pram for now folks!
 
With the darknet in full force I can't see much point in legal highs anyway.

Mind you, getting white powders off the darknet is still a lottery, much better getting LSD.
 
That's what happens when people start messing with unknown substance. They cause harm. People took them known the possibilities that these substances may one day be banned as it's what always happens.

RC benzos are benzos nonetheless, I wouldn't call them unknown substances. They aren't inherently harmful, depends how they're used.

True, people should have the foresight to think ahead in terms of these things getting banned one day - but people also don't set out to have a habit in the first place.

The government cant go on letting legal highs as they are dangerous.

A little research goes a long way.

I'm sorry to sound harsh but something needs to be done.

I agree

I've already mentioned in gibs about the 21 year old who died taking diet pilss. Whos going to take responsibility for her death??? For the pain n heartache that her family n love ones are dealing with? No one, because the stuff she took was "legal" n had "not for human consumption" on the package.

Well, she really should've done some research. She is responsible for her own death.
 
Last edited:
The main issue I have with a blanket ban (other than it being totally futile) - is the number of people that are physically dependant on RC benzos now and aren't able to stop without potentially having a life-threatening seizure...I'm sure some of them will go seek medical help if this goes through - but the majority will probably just be driven further underground.

'Progress', gotta love it.
That's what happens when people start messing with unknown substance. They cause harm. People took them known the possibilities that these substances may one day be banned as it's what always happens. The government cant go on letting legal highs as they are dangerous.
Lots of things do harm. Part of being an adult is weighing up how much fun you want to have against how much harm it is going to do you. (For instance, a three-hundred-metre vertical drop is going to give me just shy of eight seconds of intense pleasure, which is not worth what will most probably follow. Perhaps if I had seven seconds to live and an assistant to write he story up for me .....)

Now, drug prohibition messes with the risk/reward calculations. Because too many people rely on the Law of the Land as a code to live their lives by. And in their calculations, they are including a few years in prison along with the negative consequences of taking a few pills on a night out, rather than the more probable consequence which is simply not feeling 100% for the first half of the following day due to a combination of dehydration and tiredness. For these people, the allure of a product which promises to get them high without the inconvenience of being arrested is too strong.

Unfortunately, research compounds by definition have no toxicology data available. They are only legal because they have not been banned yet. Too many people think that they can get one over on the law, by choosing legal highs over illegal ones. They are, to my mind, just as much casualties of prohibition as anyone else.
I'm sorry to sound harsh but something needs to be done.
Yes, what needs to be done is for prohibition to end.
I've already mentioned in gibs about the 21 year old who died taking diet pilss. Whos going to take responsibility for her death??? For the pain n heartache that her family n love ones are dealing with? No one, because the stuff she took was "legal" n had "not for human consumption" on the package.
And yet she chose to ignore those warnings anyway. The real irony is that if she had taken illegal drugs, she probably would have survived. Although if she was taking diet pills, she probably had other issues anyway.

Remember, just because something is legal does not necessarily mean it is safe. And I'll take safe over legal any day.

Let's hope people will stick with traditional, illegal drugs when the trendy letters and numbers things are banned.
 
The end of the Reagan Era, I'm like number twelver
Old enough to understand the shit'll change forever
They declared the war on drugs like a war on terror
But it really did was let the police terrorize whoever
 
The Queen just said "psychoactive drugs". Almost as funny as listening to Gordon Brown trying to say mephedrone.

In fact, so incongruous was it, I missed what she bleedin' said about psychoactive drugs.
 
get a fookin job and pay my taxes you fookin plebs
 
Last edited:
Top