Following the well publicised ban on 'legal highs', including methedrone, it became clear the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs had had their advice prety much ignored for political, short-term gains. The deaths linked to methedrone had, in fact, had little or nothing to do with intake of the drug,.
As such, the previous governments ban on the drug was based not on evidence, but on the need to "look" tough.
People who set up websites to sell methedrone did so through on-line banking systems, in some cases paying tax on their earnings. After the ban, almost all popular websites ceased trading. This suggests the men selling the substance were well aware that to carry on was irresponsible.
Reversing the ban on 'legal highs' – sold openly at recent music festivals – would show the this Government trusted members of the public to source and use drugs for their own personal use. Websites which suggest these sorts of drugs often have 'reviews' of the safest, and least safe, allowing drug users to know which ones to avoid. The level of "self regulation" would surprise those on the outside.
Why is this idea important?
The previous government was confused on drug policy. It chased headlines by making cannabis a political football – reducing and increasing its Class as the wind blew. It followed up this mistake with 'legal highs', sacking one drugs advisor and ignoring those who remained.
It is important to treat people with maturity. A liberal society does not close the doors on members of the public to live their own lives without causing harm to others. It is important to reflect the truth on methedrone use – that serious harm and deaths were not as high as reported, that users do not cause as much violent crime as drinkers, that the Government was not acting in the best interests when it banned the substances originally.