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.

Personal Responsibility

Our country is made a mockery of because many in the Establishment no longer think people can think for themselves; and therefore no one is responsible for their own actions.

If some breaks into your home in then you should have every right to defend it by any necessary means; and if someone breaks into a property and hurts themselves they should not ba able to sue the owner.

If you KNOW the law states the above then it is THEIR decision to enter the property and it is THEIR decision to take the concequences. 

Secondly is someone is a foreign national, who comes from a country that they may be tortured in, then if they commit a crime they should be deported – why?

Because if they KNOW the law then it is THEIR decision to comit the crime and THEIR decision to face the concequence.

Likewise when there is an icy path or road, people can decide whether or not to walk on the ice and risk falling over. Where it is someones choice to walk over ice they should not be allowed to sue. This same issue of personal responsibility can be applied across several other areas too.

Why is this idea important?

Our country is made a mockery of because many in the Establishment no longer think people can think for themselves; and therefore no one is responsible for their own actions.

If some breaks into your home in then you should have every right to defend it by any necessary means; and if someone breaks into a property and hurts themselves they should not ba able to sue the owner.

If you KNOW the law states the above then it is THEIR decision to enter the property and it is THEIR decision to take the concequences. 

Secondly is someone is a foreign national, who comes from a country that they may be tortured in, then if they commit a crime they should be deported – why?

Because if they KNOW the law then it is THEIR decision to comit the crime and THEIR decision to face the concequence.

Likewise when there is an icy path or road, people can decide whether or not to walk on the ice and risk falling over. Where it is someones choice to walk over ice they should not be allowed to sue. This same issue of personal responsibility can be applied across several other areas too.

Free The Naked Rambler

Why keep someone in prison for life, just because they refuse to wear clothes,

Stephen Gough, has been told, that he will spend life behind bars, if he refuses to wear clothes, and by life, they mean life, not a twelve year tariff, a whole life tariff, made up of short sentences, followed by a few seconds of freedom, before re arrest. 

This is an extremely imature attitude of the judiciary towards him, and attitude that reaks of "we are the toughest gang, you are going to obey us, you will never win, we will"

Make the judiciary grow up, send the guy on his way, and save us, the thirty thousand pounds a year it costs to keep the guy in jail, not to mention the re prosecution costs, every twelve months or so.

 

Why is this idea important?

Why keep someone in prison for life, just because they refuse to wear clothes,

Stephen Gough, has been told, that he will spend life behind bars, if he refuses to wear clothes, and by life, they mean life, not a twelve year tariff, a whole life tariff, made up of short sentences, followed by a few seconds of freedom, before re arrest. 

This is an extremely imature attitude of the judiciary towards him, and attitude that reaks of "we are the toughest gang, you are going to obey us, you will never win, we will"

Make the judiciary grow up, send the guy on his way, and save us, the thirty thousand pounds a year it costs to keep the guy in jail, not to mention the re prosecution costs, every twelve months or so.

 

Change laws on drugs

I believe that by legalising drugs would result as follows

1. Taking the control away from drug traffickers

2. Will have an reduce human trafficking because the financial rewards will be impacted ie drug trafficking to finances human trafficking – human trafficking finances drug trafficking

3. A potential source of tax

4. It will also ease the pressure on the nhs to treat patients with drug problems

5. One also control the quality and quantity of drugs

6. Control of price of drugs which cause also help to reduce certain elements of crime ie drug users who steal to finance  drug habits

But what also needs to go hand in hand with the change of law on drugs is a full and franks education on drugs for all .The public must know what are the effects of taking certains and it must explained in a factual manner and unbiased .

Why is this idea important?

I believe that by legalising drugs would result as follows

1. Taking the control away from drug traffickers

2. Will have an reduce human trafficking because the financial rewards will be impacted ie drug trafficking to finances human trafficking – human trafficking finances drug trafficking

3. A potential source of tax

4. It will also ease the pressure on the nhs to treat patients with drug problems

5. One also control the quality and quantity of drugs

6. Control of price of drugs which cause also help to reduce certain elements of crime ie drug users who steal to finance  drug habits

But what also needs to go hand in hand with the change of law on drugs is a full and franks education on drugs for all .The public must know what are the effects of taking certains and it must explained in a factual manner and unbiased .