Home

TheSinner.net

'Legal high' banned in UK

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

'Legal high' banned in UK

Postby d_24 on Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:50 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8427439.stm

Yup, a BBC news link commentary thread. Rare stuff.

What do people think of the banning of legal highs? Misguided state nannyism or justified prohibition of dangerous substances?
Before Bauer...There Was House
Image
d_24
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:21 pm

Re: 'Legal high' banned in UK

Postby lost_eden on Wed Dec 23, 2009 2:45 am

I've recently been experimenting with some of the (now illegal) 'cannabis alternatives', in particular smoking mixes containing JWH-018 (products like 'Spice' & 'Herb') as well as pure JWH-018. As somebody who has now had experience with both real cannabis & these synthetic alternatives, I think the government is right to outlaw them, but have the classifications wrong. Unless it's been changed back, cannabis (delta-5-tetrahydrocannabinol) is still Class 2, however in my own personal experiences, as well as others over at the Erowid vaults, JWH-018 ,which is now Class C, is substantially more dangerous & with much greater potential to cause harm. It's essentially impossible to overdose with THC, but with JWH-018 that's a very different matter - a pleasant THC-like high can quickly escalate into a terrifying full-on trip that almost had me calling for an ambulance.

So yes, ban them, but sort out the damn classifications.
lost_eden
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:04 pm

Re: 'Legal high' banned in UK

Postby RedCelt69 on Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:48 am

lost_eden wrote:a pleasant THC-like high can quickly escalate into a terrifying full-on trip that almost had me calling for an ambulance.

So yes, ban them, but sort out the damn classifications.


I once very nearly had an ambulance-calling situation involving running with scissors. Let's ban scissors. And running.

At the risk of sounding like a Libertarian, the more a state bans, the less freedom its citizens have. Including the freedom to die after doing stupid things. It would be a dull world without the Darwin Awards to entertain us. ^.^
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: 'Legal high' banned in UK

Postby Frank on Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:57 am

Merry Christmas, TheSinner! I'm +13GMT (NZ) and midway through imbibing a bottle of port. Question: UK, Salvia legal still?

Not terribly important, but I'm rather curious. In other news, the port is awesome. Nothing like foot-bathing in a warm spa in lovely, warm sunlight at 7PM on Christmas Eve chatting about the mildly irritating monoply churches have on 'beautiful buildings' instead of being in Dunfermline doing largely the exact same thing (minus all warmth).

It's the most horrible time of the year! :laugh:
Frank
User avatar
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:39 pm

Re: 'Legal high' banned in UK

Postby munchingfoo on Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:41 pm

I think that it is unlikely that government legislature will be able to remain ahead of the development of 'legal highs'. We should probably not ban any of them, and instead focus our energies on educating people of the dangers of any mind altering drugs.
I'm not a large water-dwelling mammal Where did you get that preposterous hypothesis? Did Steve
munchingfoo
Moderator

 
Posts: 5062
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:09 pm

Re: 'Legal high' banned in UK

Postby lost_eden on Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:33 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:
lost_eden wrote:a pleasant THC-like high can quickly escalate into a terrifying full-on trip that almost had me calling for an ambulance.

So yes, ban them, but sort out the damn classifications.


I once very nearly had an ambulance-calling situation involving running with scissors. Let's ban scissors. And running.

That's a rather poor analogy, as the primary purpose of scissors is not to be ran with, whereas the primary purpose of JWH-018 in this situation is to serve as a THC substitute.
lost_eden
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:04 pm

Re: 'Legal high' banned in UK

Postby RedCelt69 on Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:41 pm

lost_eden wrote:That's a rather poor analogy, as the primary purpose of scissors is not to be ran with, whereas the primary purpose of JWH-018 in this situation is to serve as a THC substitute.

I have a knee-jerk reaction* every time I hear someone calling for something to be banned. It is nearly always done for emotional reasons, rarely rational reasons. e.g. a grieving parent has every right to be upset about the passing of their child - which isn't the same thing as being entitled to use the media as a platform for launching a ban-whatever-killed-my-child campaign. Very often, what killed their child was poor judgement. Whether their (fatally) poor judgement was via nature or nurture (in which case the parents hold a degree of responsibility) or one of those rare lapses in judgement that we all have from time to time... the liberties of everyone else shouldn't be reduced because of it. The fossil record is strewn with creatures that made poor judgement calls.

Slightly tangential to the original point, but not as tangential as it might seem. Does the packaging of these legal highs come with instructions giving maximum dosage? If not, there's going to be information available online.

During my experimental period, I'd try various recreational substances - but always with caution and (in the case of potentially addictive substances) respect. I'd check out the effects, the dosages, the likelihood of danger - all in advance of taking something. All of which was prior to the explosion of the WWW's mass appeal. These days, there can be no excuse for blindly taking something without being aware of the possible results. Calling for something to be banned just because you thought that JWH-018 was a good analogy for THC... makes no more sense than any other idiotic action leading to a reduction in the liberties of non-idiots.



*I have an urge to knee the jerk in the bollocks.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: 'Legal high' banned in UK

Postby David Bean on Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:53 pm

Finally, RedCelt, an issue on which we agree. Prohibition, as a drugs control strategy, has tragically failed: on this basis alone, it's time to get a new one. I also struggle to understand what plausible theory of the 21st century state justifies politicians dictating to citizens what substances they may or may not ingest in private.

This move was a disgrace. Even if you believe the government ought to be going around banning things based on whatever random prejudices they and the press happen to have bees in their bonnets about at the time, there is no valid evidence of significant risks to health from the substances concerned. So awful - and yet, so typical.
Psalm 91:7
David Bean
 
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am


Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests