Legalise Psilocybin Mushrooms

Section 21 of the Drugs Act 2005 outlaws fungi containing psilocin or an ester of psilocin (which would include psilocybin). This law was rushed without enough debate in the 'wash-up' period of 2005. This law should be repealed due to a complete lack of evidence and misunderstanding of the effects of psilocin and psilocybin.

Why is this idea important?

Section 21 of the Drugs Act 2005 outlaws fungi containing psilocin or an ester of psilocin (which would include psilocybin). This law was rushed without enough debate in the 'wash-up' period of 2005. This law should be repealed due to a complete lack of evidence and misunderstanding of the effects of psilocin and psilocybin.

LEGALIZE NATURAL PSYCHEDELICS ALREADY!!

Psychedelic and Entheogens should be legalized, since they who do not have the right to experiment with their own consciousness, are being stripped away of their rights at the most basic essential level.

Psychedelics (meaning "mind manifesting), and Entheogens (meaning "invoking the God within")

Psychedelics and Entheogens are referring only to natural substances that are found in nature, UNLIKE man-made artificially synthesized chemicals such Cocaine, Meth, Alcohol, etc.

Psychedelics to be legalized (to name a few): LSD, Psilocybin, Mescaline, Ibogaine

Why is this idea important?

Psychedelic and Entheogens should be legalized, since they who do not have the right to experiment with their own consciousness, are being stripped away of their rights at the most basic essential level.

Psychedelics (meaning "mind manifesting), and Entheogens (meaning "invoking the God within")

Psychedelics and Entheogens are referring only to natural substances that are found in nature, UNLIKE man-made artificially synthesized chemicals such Cocaine, Meth, Alcohol, etc.

Psychedelics to be legalized (to name a few): LSD, Psilocybin, Mescaline, Ibogaine

Repealing (or radically amending) the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

It is time that the UK government finally admitted that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is a failure. It fails to prevent drug use, it fails to adequately distinguish between the relative harms of drugs and it fails to protect society from the negative consequences of the illegal drug trade.

 

The Act does not make sense from any scientific perspective. Ecstasy 'mdma' (class A) is not as dangerous as heroin or cocaine. In fact the science shows that ecstasy is a relatively benign drug, with very few deaths compared to most Class A drugs and even alcohol and tobacco. Statistically ecstasy is safer than horse riding. Pretending that it is deserving of Class A status sends out the wrong message and makes a mockery of attempts to control drug use in a meaningful way. This is just one example of how the Act fails to adequately classify drugs. There are many more.

 

Criminalizing drugs does not prevent or deter use. This is a fact. What it does do is criminalize people who would otherwise be perfectly law-abiding citizens. Those drug users who do currently steal to fund their habits do so because of the fact that drugs are illegal and therefore expensive. Criminalizing drugs actually generates more crime.

 

Criminalizing drugs makes drugs even less safe by pushing production underground and denying regulation. This is one of the most worrying aspects of the Act. Governments should take responsibility for ensuring that if people do take drugs, those drugs are made by proper companies and subject to regulation.

 

The Act also denies the treasury huge sums of potential tax reciepts. The money raised through tax can be used to fund the NHS. Benefitting even non users.

 

Criminalizing drugs is highly punitive. It may seem normal now for drugs to be illegal, but actually its quite a new phenomenon. Human beings have used recretional drugs for millenia. Putting people in cells as 'punishment' for drug use is illiberal, whatever arguments are given for doing so.

 

I am not suggesting that drug use should not be regulated. That would be a silly position to take. Drugs can be dangerous, they can turn lives upside down. Thats why we need to make sure that we have a sensible system of control in place that does not force users underground into the hands of criminals. The Netherlands is a good template for how a new system may take shape. Or we could look at alcohol and tobacco. These are drugs, and the are regulated.

 

This is a matter of civil liberties. It is about us realising that drug users do not belong in prison. They are ordinary people who should be treated as such. Allowing alcohol and tobacco, and then incarcerating somebody for another drug, is plain hypocrisy. It is wrong.

 

If we dont change the law….there is only one winner….organised crime.

 

I would suggest recategorizing drugs into 'hard' and 'soft' categories according to scientifically proven evidence. The Advisory Council should be given authority over this.

 

Soft drugs should be legalised and regulated for sale in licensed premises.

 

Hard drugs should be available on the NHS through a GP.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

It is time that the UK government finally admitted that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is a failure. It fails to prevent drug use, it fails to adequately distinguish between the relative harms of drugs and it fails to protect society from the negative consequences of the illegal drug trade.

 

The Act does not make sense from any scientific perspective. Ecstasy 'mdma' (class A) is not as dangerous as heroin or cocaine. In fact the science shows that ecstasy is a relatively benign drug, with very few deaths compared to most Class A drugs and even alcohol and tobacco. Statistically ecstasy is safer than horse riding. Pretending that it is deserving of Class A status sends out the wrong message and makes a mockery of attempts to control drug use in a meaningful way. This is just one example of how the Act fails to adequately classify drugs. There are many more.

 

Criminalizing drugs does not prevent or deter use. This is a fact. What it does do is criminalize people who would otherwise be perfectly law-abiding citizens. Those drug users who do currently steal to fund their habits do so because of the fact that drugs are illegal and therefore expensive. Criminalizing drugs actually generates more crime.

 

Criminalizing drugs makes drugs even less safe by pushing production underground and denying regulation. This is one of the most worrying aspects of the Act. Governments should take responsibility for ensuring that if people do take drugs, those drugs are made by proper companies and subject to regulation.

 

The Act also denies the treasury huge sums of potential tax reciepts. The money raised through tax can be used to fund the NHS. Benefitting even non users.

 

Criminalizing drugs is highly punitive. It may seem normal now for drugs to be illegal, but actually its quite a new phenomenon. Human beings have used recretional drugs for millenia. Putting people in cells as 'punishment' for drug use is illiberal, whatever arguments are given for doing so.

 

I am not suggesting that drug use should not be regulated. That would be a silly position to take. Drugs can be dangerous, they can turn lives upside down. Thats why we need to make sure that we have a sensible system of control in place that does not force users underground into the hands of criminals. The Netherlands is a good template for how a new system may take shape. Or we could look at alcohol and tobacco. These are drugs, and the are regulated.

 

This is a matter of civil liberties. It is about us realising that drug users do not belong in prison. They are ordinary people who should be treated as such. Allowing alcohol and tobacco, and then incarcerating somebody for another drug, is plain hypocrisy. It is wrong.

 

If we dont change the law….there is only one winner….organised crime.

 

I would suggest recategorizing drugs into 'hard' and 'soft' categories according to scientifically proven evidence. The Advisory Council should be given authority over this.

 

Soft drugs should be legalised and regulated for sale in licensed premises.

 

Hard drugs should be available on the NHS through a GP.

 

 

 

Repeal Drugs Prohibition

The UK has long participated in the "Global War On Drugs". In spite of this, all research and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of currently illegal drugs is increasing.

Arguements are made pertaining to the health and societal aspects of drug use being detrimental to the country. This is almost always overstated and often detracts from rational discussion on the subject.

What is proposed?

  • The prohibition of all drugs currently illegal to posses or use should end.
  • Those who wish to purchase previously illegal drugs should be able to obtain them from licenced and reputable vendors such as chemists.
  • Registration could be implemented in order to allow analysis of purchasing patterns to identify those who are potentially at risk from any proven health concerns.
  • VAT to be applied to these sales earning the government much needed revenue.
  • Quality control to be ensured by those licenced to manufacture and supply.

Why is this idea important?

The UK has long participated in the "Global War On Drugs". In spite of this, all research and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of currently illegal drugs is increasing.

Arguements are made pertaining to the health and societal aspects of drug use being detrimental to the country. This is almost always overstated and often detracts from rational discussion on the subject.

What is proposed?

  • The prohibition of all drugs currently illegal to posses or use should end.
  • Those who wish to purchase previously illegal drugs should be able to obtain them from licenced and reputable vendors such as chemists.
  • Registration could be implemented in order to allow analysis of purchasing patterns to identify those who are potentially at risk from any proven health concerns.
  • VAT to be applied to these sales earning the government much needed revenue.
  • Quality control to be ensured by those licenced to manufacture and supply.