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.
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?
Prohibition doesn’t work and you cannot keep banning new chemicals forever.
Criminals & terrorists are making a fortune from prohibition & killing people that get in their way.
If all drugs that we have scientific evidence for the level of harm they cause to the individual & society are legally available. With appropiate regulation based on the level of harm they cause then there would be no need for “Legal highs”.
We would be better off controlling traditional drugs that we have loads of scientific evidence about instead of having an arms race with drug producing scientists we have absoutely no chance of winning.
People will always take drugs and no amount of persicution from the government will stop that – so the state has a clear decission to make.
Protect the drug taking members of public by regulating a legal market or risk an unknown number of them being poisened by unknown chemical substances.