The government should ban all ‘legal highs’ – Radical thoughts….

So the chemists have already created a dozen more powerfull alternatives to M-Kat/Meow-Meow and they are flooding the UK with it.

I think this is a ticking time-bomb. The new ACMD puppet Chairman Professor Les Iverson has already said it was difficult for these to be policed.

He said: "I don't want to get to a situation where I have to go to the home secretary every month and ask for something else to be banned.

"It's a new highly profitable industry. It's a game between the chemical manufacturers who are obviously quite smart chemists, internet dealers and the law."

Critics say banning a substance could cause bigger problems.

Michael Linnell, from the drugs charity Lifeline said: "What we're in danger of is that nobody knows what the law is. You can't just ban your way out of a problem because it could result in far more dangerous chemicals coming onto the market.

"We're now in a situation where people are snorting white powder and they have no idea what it is and the people selling it don't know what it is either."

Most of the legal highs are manufactured in China and imported to the UK where they are sold as "research chemicals" or plant food. Dealers are able to get round the law by making sure they state substances are not for human consumption.

Experts say MDAI, a synthetic chemical that replicates the effects of ecstasy, will be the next legal high to take off.

"People need to realise these are chemicals and not drugs. They've not been tried or tested for human use in any way and nobody has any idea of the health consequences.

"In the short term you could get heart palpitations or even vascular collapse but there is also a risk that in years to come we could discover these have even caused birth defects. That's how dangerous they could be."

While the chemists are still one step ahead of the law, the challenge for the government is how to ban something when you don't know what it is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/should_the_government_ban_lega.html

 

So the mad scientists are in an arms race with the prohibitionists with drugs users as the lab-rats in the middle.

How many of our children are going to be poisened by this chemical warfare – we may never know (it could be years for the effects to show up).

We all remember Thamidalide (even if I can't spell it) and that was supposed to be a tested drug – these are virtually untested.  Its like playing russian roulette but with plant food.

The goverment cannot keep increasing the "Banned drugs" list as it makes the misuse of drugs act even less credible than it is already…..

So here is my proposal…..

 

If a drug has not been tested then it should be placed in a "Under investigation" status and its sale should be prohibited – Personal possession should not be a crime.

If independent scientists can prove it is less dangerous than alcohol then it can be licensed for sale at chemists or licensed premises (with warnings & age restrictuions).

If there are subsiquent issues with addiction rates then it can be classified in the normal way.

However this is where my suggestion differes from the prohibitionist view.

 

PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK – IT REMOVES GOVERMENT CONTROL AND GIFTS IT TO ORGANISED CRIME.

You only need to look at alcohol prohibition in the USA in the 1920's to see that, except gangsters with tommy-guns have been replaced by inner city gangs with knives, Chinese chemical scientists,  oriental drug gangs with guns & slaves trafficked in to tend the crops . 

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT THEN.

If the real drugs were available legally then there would be no need for "legal highs" – Instantly you kill the "Legal highs" market overnight.

 

I don't mean a free for all, but a highly regulated legal framework.

There are plenty of scientific papers listing the harms of drugs (Heroin is always at the top, Alcohol in the middle and cannabis near the bottom).

So if they were all available with regulation rather than "banned" then the market would be in the  hands of responsible goverment scientists, the profits would be going to the state and the drug gangs & criminals will be out of work.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD CALL A RESULT.

Why is this idea important?

So the chemists have already created a dozen more powerfull alternatives to M-Kat/Meow-Meow and they are flooding the UK with it.

I think this is a ticking time-bomb. The new ACMD puppet Chairman Professor Les Iverson has already said it was difficult for these to be policed.

He said: "I don't want to get to a situation where I have to go to the home secretary every month and ask for something else to be banned.

"It's a new highly profitable industry. It's a game between the chemical manufacturers who are obviously quite smart chemists, internet dealers and the law."

Critics say banning a substance could cause bigger problems.

Michael Linnell, from the drugs charity Lifeline said: "What we're in danger of is that nobody knows what the law is. You can't just ban your way out of a problem because it could result in far more dangerous chemicals coming onto the market.

"We're now in a situation where people are snorting white powder and they have no idea what it is and the people selling it don't know what it is either."

Most of the legal highs are manufactured in China and imported to the UK where they are sold as "research chemicals" or plant food. Dealers are able to get round the law by making sure they state substances are not for human consumption.

Experts say MDAI, a synthetic chemical that replicates the effects of ecstasy, will be the next legal high to take off.

"People need to realise these are chemicals and not drugs. They've not been tried or tested for human use in any way and nobody has any idea of the health consequences.

"In the short term you could get heart palpitations or even vascular collapse but there is also a risk that in years to come we could discover these have even caused birth defects. That's how dangerous they could be."

While the chemists are still one step ahead of the law, the challenge for the government is how to ban something when you don't know what it is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/should_the_government_ban_lega.html

 

So the mad scientists are in an arms race with the prohibitionists with drugs users as the lab-rats in the middle.

How many of our children are going to be poisened by this chemical warfare – we may never know (it could be years for the effects to show up).

We all remember Thamidalide (even if I can't spell it) and that was supposed to be a tested drug – these are virtually untested.  Its like playing russian roulette but with plant food.

The goverment cannot keep increasing the "Banned drugs" list as it makes the misuse of drugs act even less credible than it is already…..

So here is my proposal…..

 

If a drug has not been tested then it should be placed in a "Under investigation" status and its sale should be prohibited – Personal possession should not be a crime.

If independent scientists can prove it is less dangerous than alcohol then it can be licensed for sale at chemists or licensed premises (with warnings & age restrictuions).

If there are subsiquent issues with addiction rates then it can be classified in the normal way.

However this is where my suggestion differes from the prohibitionist view.

 

PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK – IT REMOVES GOVERMENT CONTROL AND GIFTS IT TO ORGANISED CRIME.

You only need to look at alcohol prohibition in the USA in the 1920's to see that, except gangsters with tommy-guns have been replaced by inner city gangs with knives, Chinese chemical scientists,  oriental drug gangs with guns & slaves trafficked in to tend the crops . 

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT THEN.

If the real drugs were available legally then there would be no need for "legal highs" – Instantly you kill the "Legal highs" market overnight.

 

I don't mean a free for all, but a highly regulated legal framework.

There are plenty of scientific papers listing the harms of drugs (Heroin is always at the top, Alcohol in the middle and cannabis near the bottom).

So if they were all available with regulation rather than "banned" then the market would be in the  hands of responsible goverment scientists, the profits would be going to the state and the drug gangs & criminals will be out of work.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD CALL A RESULT.

Legal Highs; Another Reason Prohibition Has Failed; News From Today

The legal high market is clear evidence that the war on drugs has been lost.  Once more, this cannot be repudiated.  The ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) chaired by  Les Iverson, has spoken out today of how there is no infrastructure to cope with the current climate of chemists and imports from countries such as China.

These latest news stories lend their weight to the outcry to repeal the drug laws which are detrimental to society in every way.  The current laws are futile and are being exploited:   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10664537

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8834000/8834405.stm

http://news.scotsman.com/health/Scots-chemist-I39ll-flood-the.6425123.jp

Why is this idea important?

The legal high market is clear evidence that the war on drugs has been lost.  Once more, this cannot be repudiated.  The ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) chaired by  Les Iverson, has spoken out today of how there is no infrastructure to cope with the current climate of chemists and imports from countries such as China.

These latest news stories lend their weight to the outcry to repeal the drug laws which are detrimental to society in every way.  The current laws are futile and are being exploited:   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10664537

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8834000/8834405.stm

http://news.scotsman.com/health/Scots-chemist-I39ll-flood-the.6425123.jp

Sto[ the growing trend of legal highs by legalizing cannabis

Circa $354billion a year is what the drug trade is worth (u.n info) so it is obvious to all that people want drugs, i wont continue to state the obvious…

With kids these days searching for a high on next to no money it is no wonder these legal highs are appealing to youngsters, some of these youngsters react badly and the papers go off on a witch hunt and another substance is put on list making way for a new chemical mix to hit the streets. see a patern here?

Cannabis has a long HISTORY and CULTURAL following and is a safer alternative to many legal drugs being sold around the world.

By legalising cannabis people will not hold as much interest in the new chemical mixes being sold week in week out.

 

This safer alternative to many legal drugs sold world wide would cut the risk of people taking an unknown substance because "its legal and i wont get in trouble"

Why is this idea important?

Circa $354billion a year is what the drug trade is worth (u.n info) so it is obvious to all that people want drugs, i wont continue to state the obvious…

With kids these days searching for a high on next to no money it is no wonder these legal highs are appealing to youngsters, some of these youngsters react badly and the papers go off on a witch hunt and another substance is put on list making way for a new chemical mix to hit the streets. see a patern here?

Cannabis has a long HISTORY and CULTURAL following and is a safer alternative to many legal drugs being sold around the world.

By legalising cannabis people will not hold as much interest in the new chemical mixes being sold week in week out.

 

This safer alternative to many legal drugs sold world wide would cut the risk of people taking an unknown substance because "its legal and i wont get in trouble"

Declassification of Psilocybin & Psilocin producing fungi (Magic Mushrooms)

 

Clearly magic mushrooms are a mind altering drug and so should not be abused or misused, just like alcohol should not and that's why there are many laws surrounding alcohol. Similar laws should be in place with magic mushrooms. Just like with alcohol there should be a minimum age for consumption, for example 18 years, to purchase or consume them. Just as with alcohol, only shops licenced to do so, should be allowed, protecting the consumer, and helping to fund the government in fighting real crime.

Mushrooms should also be grown solely by licenced growers who's premises are checked to ensure they are being grown in conditions without potentially harmful contaminants and that only licenced species of mushroom are being sold.

finally, they should come with warnings and education, just as with alcohol. Warnings for the side effects, people who should not consume them, how they should be taken and situations it might be unsafe etc.

 If all these measures were put into place, the government could have complete control of the situation, taking it out of the hands of criminals, educating people of the risks rather than ignoring them and allowing individuals to continue a practice that has gone on for over 11,000 years

Why is this idea important?

 

Clearly magic mushrooms are a mind altering drug and so should not be abused or misused, just like alcohol should not and that's why there are many laws surrounding alcohol. Similar laws should be in place with magic mushrooms. Just like with alcohol there should be a minimum age for consumption, for example 18 years, to purchase or consume them. Just as with alcohol, only shops licenced to do so, should be allowed, protecting the consumer, and helping to fund the government in fighting real crime.

Mushrooms should also be grown solely by licenced growers who's premises are checked to ensure they are being grown in conditions without potentially harmful contaminants and that only licenced species of mushroom are being sold.

finally, they should come with warnings and education, just as with alcohol. Warnings for the side effects, people who should not consume them, how they should be taken and situations it might be unsafe etc.

 If all these measures were put into place, the government could have complete control of the situation, taking it out of the hands of criminals, educating people of the risks rather than ignoring them and allowing individuals to continue a practice that has gone on for over 11,000 years

Reverse ban on ‘legal highs’

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?

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.