This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
It seems our elected representatives have managed to pass the most retarded piece of legislation in decades - a ban on anything that gets you high. Except alcohol, nicotine and caffeine. But including nutmeg, presumably?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2074813-youre-not-hallucinating-mps-re...
Great clip of that Tory guy admitting he uses poppers on this article.
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/01/21/could-psychoactive-su...
It's fair to say that the rise of new psychoactive substances (legal highs) is an issue, with ever more strange and dangerous chemicals being sold online as molecules get banned one by one (or family by family). But really, is this the best response we can come up with? There are so many options of policies on recreational drug use, many different models in many different countries, and stacks of data to analyse to uncover what the effects of different policy approaches are on use, addiction, harm and economics.
This isn't just scientifically illiterate policy-making, it defies any notion of considering evidence to bring about better outcomes. It is an unabashed declaration of stupidity: these people are thick.
Post edited at 19:38
18
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Nuts. Can we actually read the bill anywhere? Hansard is hopeless...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm160120/debtext...
Nuts. Can we actually read the bill anywhere? Hansard is hopeless...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm160120/debtext...
In reply to MG:
Yes, you read it right.
(1)In this Act “psychoactive substance” means any substance which—
(a)15is capable of producing a psychoactive effect in a person who consumes
it, and
(b)is not an exempted substance (see section 3).
(2) For the purposes of this Act a substance produces a psychoactive effect in a
person if, by stimulating or depressing the person’s central nervous system, it
affects the person’s mental functioning or emotional state; and references to a
substance’s psychoactive effects are to be read accordingly.
(3) For the purposes of this Act a person consumes a substance if the person causes
or allows the substance, or fumes given off by the substance, to enter the
person’s body in any way.
This is actually the most mad thing ever. Where the f*ck were the Lords? Or anyone with a f*cking brain. They've just banned nearly everything!
Yes, you read it right.
(1)In this Act “psychoactive substance” means any substance which—
(a)15is capable of producing a psychoactive effect in a person who consumes
it, and
(b)is not an exempted substance (see section 3).
(2) For the purposes of this Act a substance produces a psychoactive effect in a
person if, by stimulating or depressing the person’s central nervous system, it
affects the person’s mental functioning or emotional state; and references to a
substance’s psychoactive effects are to be read accordingly.
(3) For the purposes of this Act a person consumes a substance if the person causes
or allows the substance, or fumes given off by the substance, to enter the
person’s body in any way.
This is actually the most mad thing ever. Where the f*ck were the Lords? Or anyone with a f*cking brain. They've just banned nearly everything!
7
In reply to Jon Stewart:
You get a change in mood from eating pasta or dark chocolate, and from eating meat.
What about diets which are ment to help with depression?
It seems crazy.
You get a change in mood from eating pasta or dark chocolate, and from eating meat.
What about diets which are ment to help with depression?
It seems crazy.
Post edited at 20:15
5
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Makes me think there is a scary hole in the democratic process, as literally anyone with a brain would have stopped this being passed since it's overtly barking mad. Presumably a way has been found to bypass any scrutiny in either house by ensuring that the only people (or the majority at least) in the chamber that day had no interest in the substance of the legislation, and were only there to allow the government to make their asinine announcement that they had "taken a tough line on legal highs". God help us.
Makes me think there is a scary hole in the democratic process, as literally anyone with a brain would have stopped this being passed since it's overtly barking mad. Presumably a way has been found to bypass any scrutiny in either house by ensuring that the only people (or the majority at least) in the chamber that day had no interest in the substance of the legislation, and were only there to allow the government to make their asinine announcement that they had "taken a tough line on legal highs". God help us.
2
In reply to Timmd:
It doesn't make any sense in any way at all. All manner of substances that we consume have some effect on the nervous system, either stimulating or depressing it, changing our mood in one way or another. Try eating some hot chillies, or a soothing cup of warm milk. It's glaring insane to anyone but a complete idiot.
Edit: there is a bit exempting foods
Any substance which—
(a)is ordinarily consumed as food, and
(b)5does not contain a prohibited ingredient.In this paragraph—
“food” includes drink;
“prohibited ingredient”, in relation to a substance, means any
psychoactive substance—
(a)10which is not naturally occurring in the substance, and
(b)the use of which in or on food is not authorised by an EU
instrument.
> You get a change in mood from eating pasta or dark chocolate, and from eating meat.
> What about diets which are ment to help with depression?
It doesn't make any sense in any way at all. All manner of substances that we consume have some effect on the nervous system, either stimulating or depressing it, changing our mood in one way or another. Try eating some hot chillies, or a soothing cup of warm milk. It's glaring insane to anyone but a complete idiot.
Edit: there is a bit exempting foods
Any substance which—
(a)is ordinarily consumed as food, and
(b)5does not contain a prohibited ingredient.In this paragraph—
“food” includes drink;
“prohibited ingredient”, in relation to a substance, means any
psychoactive substance—
(a)10which is not naturally occurring in the substance, and
(b)the use of which in or on food is not authorised by an EU
instrument.
Post edited at 20:26
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I'm not suggesting it's good (because I don't think it is), but isn't this "(b)is not an exempted substance (see section 3)" quite relevant?
I'm not suggesting it's good (because I don't think it is), but isn't this "(b)is not an exempted substance (see section 3)" quite relevant?
1
2
15
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
So, if St. John's Wort helps alleviate someone's depression it's illegal, but if it doesn't, it's fine?
So, if St. John's Wort helps alleviate someone's depression it's illegal, but if it doesn't, it's fine?
5
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Seriously though, the real problem here isn't about certain things becoming illegal that are fine (e.g. Toryboy's poppers), the problem is that Parliament can pass legislation when even the most cursory glance at the relevance evidence screams out that the policy *causes* harm and *prevents* the reduction of harm. There just appears to be no scrutiny applied, and the motives are pathetically shallow:
Govt minister: "we want to look tough on drugs in the tabloids. Those voters hate drugs, we need to be seen to be doing something"
Civil servant: "will this do? All the evidence says that it'll cause loads of harm, and it's been a disaster where it's been implemented."
Minister: "yes that's fine, we'll find a way to get in through the House, cheers"
Seriously though, the real problem here isn't about certain things becoming illegal that are fine (e.g. Toryboy's poppers), the problem is that Parliament can pass legislation when even the most cursory glance at the relevance evidence screams out that the policy *causes* harm and *prevents* the reduction of harm. There just appears to be no scrutiny applied, and the motives are pathetically shallow:
Govt minister: "we want to look tough on drugs in the tabloids. Those voters hate drugs, we need to be seen to be doing something"
Civil servant: "will this do? All the evidence says that it'll cause loads of harm, and it's been a disaster where it's been implemented."
Minister: "yes that's fine, we'll find a way to get in through the House, cheers"
Post edited at 20:43
5
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I think so, yes.
It's basically a huge infringement of personal liberty (not that drugs policy doesn't satisfy that already). Without any consideration of harm, if you're taking any substance to alter you mood, it's illegal (or the sale etc of the substance is illegal, rather than possession).
The Misuse of Drugs Act was total bollocks, and the govt rode roughshot all over it by consistently ignoring and then politicising the ACMD (whose job it is to assess the harm caused by drugs) such that all they were allowed to say was "ban it!"; but this is just f*cking staggering.
> So, if St. John's Wort helps alleviate someone's depression it's illegal, but if it doesn't, it's fine?
I think so, yes.
It's basically a huge infringement of personal liberty (not that drugs policy doesn't satisfy that already). Without any consideration of harm, if you're taking any substance to alter you mood, it's illegal (or the sale etc of the substance is illegal, rather than possession).
The Misuse of Drugs Act was total bollocks, and the govt rode roughshot all over it by consistently ignoring and then politicising the ACMD (whose job it is to assess the harm caused by drugs) such that all they were allowed to say was "ban it!"; but this is just f*cking staggering.
Post edited at 20:51
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
At least they've finally given up all pretence of policy being evidence-based.
At least they've finally given up all pretence of policy being evidence-based.
13
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Why don't we just cut to the chase and have the tabloid editors sit in the Commons, writing the laws and passing them as they see fit?
Why don't we just cut to the chase and have the tabloid editors sit in the Commons, writing the laws and passing them as they see fit?
12
In reply to Jon Stewart:
That is one small slice of sanity in this.
> (or the sale etc of the substance is illegal, rather than possession).
That is one small slice of sanity in this.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Ridiculous.
The irony is that drugs clearly need to be "regulated" (i.e. age limits, quality controlled, monitored distribution, taxed, etc).
But making drugs "illegal" doesn't regulate them at all. In fact it makes them completed unregulated. They will still be just as available (hell, you can get 'em with relative ease in countries where they carry capital punishments). But just through the dodgiest, most dangerous route possible, ensuring harm and profit to criminal enterprises.
Well done parliament! Keep that good war on drugs going, we'll surely win in the end!
Ridiculous.
The irony is that drugs clearly need to be "regulated" (i.e. age limits, quality controlled, monitored distribution, taxed, etc).
But making drugs "illegal" doesn't regulate them at all. In fact it makes them completed unregulated. They will still be just as available (hell, you can get 'em with relative ease in countries where they carry capital punishments). But just through the dodgiest, most dangerous route possible, ensuring harm and profit to criminal enterprises.
Well done parliament! Keep that good war on drugs going, we'll surely win in the end!
6
In reply to Luke90:
Yes. As the article I linked says,
This is commendable, in as much as it is a step forwards from the usual approach of total prohibition. But it's also rather hypocritical. Those same MPs who have for decades supported the Misuse of Drugs Act, that piece of arcane and ineffective legislation which outlaws the more 'traditional' drugs - cannabis, cocaine, heroin, MDMA, etc - in every sense from personal use and possession all the way up to production, are now suddenly concerned with criminalising users.
> That is one small slice of sanity in this.
Yes. As the article I linked says,
This is commendable, in as much as it is a step forwards from the usual approach of total prohibition. But it's also rather hypocritical. Those same MPs who have for decades supported the Misuse of Drugs Act, that piece of arcane and ineffective legislation which outlaws the more 'traditional' drugs - cannabis, cocaine, heroin, MDMA, etc - in every sense from personal use and possession all the way up to production, are now suddenly concerned with criminalising users.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
There some unusual and hard to detect substances out there at the moment. I've come across a few cases of babies born to drug users were the metabolites in urine don't indicate high levels of amphetamine or opiate but the infant clearly exhibites server withdrawal symptoms. Very distressing to witness.
There some unusual and hard to detect substances out there at the moment. I've come across a few cases of babies born to drug users were the metabolites in urine don't indicate high levels of amphetamine or opiate but the infant clearly exhibites server withdrawal symptoms. Very distressing to witness.
In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:
As I said, new psychoactive substances present a real issue for policy makers. While evidence of harm from new drugs informs the debate, it doesn't support this abysmal policy.
As I said, new psychoactive substances present a real issue for policy makers. While evidence of harm from new drugs informs the debate, it doesn't support this abysmal policy.
In reply to Luke90:
I've never understood the way the law works on that. Its illegal to sell or possess drugs. But as soon as you have taken the drug you are considered no longer fall in to those categories and are now legal. So even though the war on drugs is ultimately to stop drug use, the using of drugs is actually entirely legal. Someone tripping balls is safe. Someone not under the influence of something but holding it is potentially marked for life with convictions and criminal records.
Shouldn't be surprised. Drug laws collectively are some of the dumbest we have. The 20th century's version of witch dunking, banning inter-racial marriages, or blasphemy punishments.
I've never understood the way the law works on that. Its illegal to sell or possess drugs. But as soon as you have taken the drug you are considered no longer fall in to those categories and are now legal. So even though the war on drugs is ultimately to stop drug use, the using of drugs is actually entirely legal. Someone tripping balls is safe. Someone not under the influence of something but holding it is potentially marked for life with convictions and criminal records.
Shouldn't be surprised. Drug laws collectively are some of the dumbest we have. The 20th century's version of witch dunking, banning inter-racial marriages, or blasphemy punishments.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Cool I'll have a banana.
You can't pick and eat magic mushrooms anymore, according to the law, I don't know if hospitals and places report anybody who goes in being freaked out and things though.
It's not a law that's going to stop drug money funding criminal gangs...
> Yes, see above. Food hasn't been banned - hooray!
Cool I'll have a banana.
You can't pick and eat magic mushrooms anymore, according to the law, I don't know if hospitals and places report anybody who goes in being freaked out and things though.
It's not a law that's going to stop drug money funding criminal gangs...
Post edited at 21:45
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Madness - Anyway, Hit me up for some quality cashew nuts or perfume or anything you like to taste or smell that is now illegal
Madness - Anyway, Hit me up for some quality cashew nuts or perfume or anything you like to taste or smell that is now illegal
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I tried 2 smoke 1 ov dem triangle incense tingz once innit. Burnt me feckin nose wen lightin it feckin dickhead.
I tried 2 smoke 1 ov dem triangle incense tingz once innit. Burnt me feckin nose wen lightin it feckin dickhead.
6
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Right I've smoked a full jar of my wife's nutmeg and I'm not high,and now she's mad at me because she wanted to make some ginger bread men.
Right I've smoked a full jar of my wife's nutmeg and I'm not high,and now she's mad at me because she wanted to make some ginger bread men.
2
In reply to Wsdconst:
Slow nutmeg man, in two days time you'll open the boot and a school of porpoises will swim out.
D
Slow nutmeg man, in two days time you'll open the boot and a school of porpoises will swim out.
D
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I think it's high time (get it !!) That we ban alcohol, causes more harm, costs the state shed loads and if it were discovered today it would be a class A substance. I work with people who have problems with drink and it's effects are horrendous. Not just on them personally but those around them. I also work with people who use heroin and I see far fewer problems.
Obviously this would never happen. .god forbid we take away our favourite drug ! So legalise and regulate, this might stop people trying to manipulate compounds to get around legalities and in doing so cause untold harm.
I think it's high time (get it !!) That we ban alcohol, causes more harm, costs the state shed loads and if it were discovered today it would be a class A substance. I work with people who have problems with drink and it's effects are horrendous. Not just on them personally but those around them. I also work with people who use heroin and I see far fewer problems.
Obviously this would never happen. .god forbid we take away our favourite drug ! So legalise and regulate, this might stop people trying to manipulate compounds to get around legalities and in doing so cause untold harm.
7
1
In reply to Wsdconst:
Wrong route of administration. Here's an account (not mine!) of what happens if you eat 4 whole nutmegs:
A few weeks ago I read that myristicin, from Nutmeg was a psychoactive, so, I ate four nuts at 4:30pm. For the first four hours I just got a little sweaty and felt wierd, but nothing annormal, suddenly, at 8:45pm or so, I started seeing things in an unreal way, I felt like being extremely stoned. A lot of ideas and thoughts moved through my mind. At 9:30pm I looked in the mirror and I notices my eyes were extremely red, nothing like they had been before, my mouth was very dry and I felt realy crazy, my head and parts of the body moved without me wanting to, I felt sudden chills out of nowere and had odd closed-eyed light visuals. Around 12:30 y felt terribly confused and very, very, very stoned. My stomach hurt and I had terrible nausea, I wanted it all to end, but I couldn't, the effects were controlling me, I couldn't do anything, so, I tried to sleep, but I couldn't... discomforting thoughts and convultions didn't let me sleep... I saw my thoughts pass by and I couldn't catch them. I managed to sleep around 2:00am. The next mornig I woke up at 9:00am and effects were still very intense, I wanted to die, I felt terrible, Everything was aufful and my eyes were still very red. That same day, around 7:00pm I felt suicidal, effects didn't go away and I thought to myselft they were never going to go away, but I managed to sleep and the day after I woke up feeling better. I felt that I hadn't done what I did the day before, It was a wierd confusing sensation.
My conclusion is that Nutmeg should not be used as psychoactive. The trip isn't worth the side effects.
> Right I've smoked a full jar of my wife's nutmeg and I'm not high,and now she's mad at me because she wanted to make some ginger bread men.
Wrong route of administration. Here's an account (not mine!) of what happens if you eat 4 whole nutmegs:
A few weeks ago I read that myristicin, from Nutmeg was a psychoactive, so, I ate four nuts at 4:30pm. For the first four hours I just got a little sweaty and felt wierd, but nothing annormal, suddenly, at 8:45pm or so, I started seeing things in an unreal way, I felt like being extremely stoned. A lot of ideas and thoughts moved through my mind. At 9:30pm I looked in the mirror and I notices my eyes were extremely red, nothing like they had been before, my mouth was very dry and I felt realy crazy, my head and parts of the body moved without me wanting to, I felt sudden chills out of nowere and had odd closed-eyed light visuals. Around 12:30 y felt terribly confused and very, very, very stoned. My stomach hurt and I had terrible nausea, I wanted it all to end, but I couldn't, the effects were controlling me, I couldn't do anything, so, I tried to sleep, but I couldn't... discomforting thoughts and convultions didn't let me sleep... I saw my thoughts pass by and I couldn't catch them. I managed to sleep around 2:00am. The next mornig I woke up at 9:00am and effects were still very intense, I wanted to die, I felt terrible, Everything was aufful and my eyes were still very red. That same day, around 7:00pm I felt suicidal, effects didn't go away and I thought to myselft they were never going to go away, but I managed to sleep and the day after I woke up feeling better. I felt that I hadn't done what I did the day before, It was a wierd confusing sensation.
My conclusion is that Nutmeg should not be used as psychoactive. The trip isn't worth the side effects.
1
1
In reply to afshapes:
I find myself thinking that anybody who works with people in mental hospitals due to cannabis might have a similar point of view too (I don't drink by the way). The mental health effects from too much weed, or from smoking skunk in anybody whom they're triggered can be pretty awful.
I agree about legalisation though.
> I think it's high time (get it !!) That we ban alcohol, causes more harm, costs the state shed loads and if it were discovered today it would be a class A substance. I work with people who have problems with drink and it's effects are horrendous. Not just on them personally but those around them. I also work with people who use heroin and I see far fewer problems.
> Obviously this would never happen. .god forbid we take away our favourite drug ! So legalise and regulate, this might stop people trying to manipulate compounds to get around legalities and in doing so cause untold harm.
I find myself thinking that anybody who works with people in mental hospitals due to cannabis might have a similar point of view too (I don't drink by the way). The mental health effects from too much weed, or from smoking skunk in anybody whom they're triggered can be pretty awful.
I agree about legalisation though.
Post edited at 21:30
1
1
In reply to Dauphin:
One of the drugs forums (Bluelight or DF, can't remember which) - just googled.
One of the drugs forums (Bluelight or DF, can't remember which) - just googled.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Oooo.... Love the dumb! Mind you, I can't help but be curious whether the likes of St John's Wart will now be illegal, or what will happen with 'mood changing' homeopathy. Will Holland and Barrett be clearing shelves as we speak, making a show of lorry loads of tiny little water bottles to be disposed of in outer space?
Oooo.... Love the dumb! Mind you, I can't help but be curious whether the likes of St John's Wart will now be illegal, or what will happen with 'mood changing' homeopathy. Will Holland and Barrett be clearing shelves as we speak, making a show of lorry loads of tiny little water bottles to be disposed of in outer space?
In reply to flopsicle:
I should think that homeopathy will be safe, since water is not banned, but pretty much everything else in Holland & Barrett is f^cked.
As has been pointed out by everyone, the only way to tell whether a substance is psychoactive is to try it and see whether, subjectively, you reckon it has altered your conscious experience. And this is hardly reliable, given the placebo effect, and the completely slippery nature of consciousness itself which makes it impossible to determine whether or not the substance caused whatever change it is that you report. I mean obviously with LSD or something it's pretty obvious what it was that caused you to start tripping balls an hour or so after putting the blotter under your tongue, but with something more subtle it's simply not possible to say whether it is or is not psychoactive. The whole thing makes literally no sense, it's illiberal and unenforceable. And this is screamingly obvious, yet our democratic process fails to notice. What a con.
I should think that homeopathy will be safe, since water is not banned, but pretty much everything else in Holland & Barrett is f^cked.
As has been pointed out by everyone, the only way to tell whether a substance is psychoactive is to try it and see whether, subjectively, you reckon it has altered your conscious experience. And this is hardly reliable, given the placebo effect, and the completely slippery nature of consciousness itself which makes it impossible to determine whether or not the substance caused whatever change it is that you report. I mean obviously with LSD or something it's pretty obvious what it was that caused you to start tripping balls an hour or so after putting the blotter under your tongue, but with something more subtle it's simply not possible to say whether it is or is not psychoactive. The whole thing makes literally no sense, it's illiberal and unenforceable. And this is screamingly obvious, yet our democratic process fails to notice. What a con.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...