Because it's very hard to ban them. When you ban a chemical and then they change the chemical structure of it so it's legal again.
Best way to combat it is to decriminalise and regulate more harmless drugs like cannabis, mdma etc which is what drives people to legal highs in the first place.
I believe the government are currently trying to create a bill that will ban legal highs however it is taking time as there are many loopholes to close as substances like laughing gas are used in some consumer goods and in hospitals making it an issue to make supplies to them strict whilst making supplies to the public fully unavailable.
Difficilt to get right. Take the castor oil plant. The oil is okay and used in all sorts of stuff. But eating four of the beans could kill you dead because they contain ricin. And we grow these things in the garden! (Always makes me laugh when foodstuffs are advertised as containing 100% natural ingredients. Well arsenic is a natutal ingredient but you wouldn't want it on your weetabix.)
Because it's very hard to ban them. When you ban a chemical and then they change the chemical structure of it so it's legal again.
Best way to combat it is to decriminalise and regulate more harmless drugs like cannabis, mdma etc which is what drives people to legal highs in the first place.
Because it's very hard to ban them. When you ban a chemical and then they change the chemical structure of it so it's legal again.
Best way to combat it is to decriminalise and regulate more harmless drugs like cannabis, mdma etc which is what drives people to legal highs in the first place.
Exactly, legalise, control and tax the lot.
But many legal highs are taxed. Things like Herbal Haze etc sold in Bong Shops are taxed. Even the nitrous oxide cannisters are taxed, they are just purchased for a reason other than for squirting cream etc.
Our drug laws are mad. Cannabis is illegal yet it's effects on most is less potentially harmful that alcohol, and most of the legal highs which are sold as a substitute.
I think that kids are always going to get their hands on stuff, legal or illegal. Even if they legalised cannabis, it would only be for 18 plus.
Kids get hold of tobacco which is not legit at the moment.
With decriminalisation needs to come education based around harm and not around illegality.
Completely agree. With decent and sensible education you would hope that drugs would lose some of their appeal. At the end of the day, it just seems that humans like to get out their minds
"Over the last two years, NIBRS data reveals a 41 percent decrease in all drug arrests in the state. This drop can be attributed to allowing adults to possess, cultivate and privately use marijuana."
"What else has changed? The state's once-tightly regulated medical marijuana industry is now a tighter regulated retail industry. The medical marijuana regulatory framework enforced by the Colorado Department of Revenue was refined to tax and regulate the retail market. As of October, Colorado brought in more than $40 millionin marijuana taxes."
"The early returns after a year of decriminalization in 2013 are favorable showing a slightdecline in youth use rates."
"Colorado also has seen an economic boost since legalization. Colorado is ranked as one of the the fastest growing economies. The unemployment rate is at its lowestsince 2008, well below the national average. Google has received the go ahead to open a state of the art facility in Boulder. "
I can't see them legalising drugs for the simple reason of handing power to countries like Columbia. Can you imagine how much money those countries would make from it. Can't see the good old USofA being happy about their new found wealth etc. I mean they love the arab states having oil. Plus can you imagine the constant dictatorial coups that would play out
Cannabis can be legalised. Use of the remainder of currently illegal drugs should be decriminalised.
Addiction can then be treated as an illness (just like alcohol addition).
To me the most ridiculous and counter-productive of all use of legal powers is lock people up for the possession of a chemical.
If you keep production, wholesale procurement and supply a serious offence then that maximises the use of the law enforcement, criminal justice and penal system. Dealers should be offered immunity if they finger the real gangsters.
I find it extremely hard to believe he was killed by the laughing gas. I await being proved wrong.
Someone was telling me recently that it's quite possible. It's a story I'm not too sure about but maybe someone here could back up..
She claims her parents are doctors. Now they visited her once, and it was the morning after a party. They saw the usual things - empty bags that had contained this and that the night before etc - but flipped their shit when they saw canisters.
Apparently, some people can "forget to breathe" when doing them. That's why they didn't care about anything else but just thought the canisters were muggy. Not quite sure the science behind it, and it sounds like nonsense, but apparently they explained why it could happen and why for some people it could be a bad move.
I find it extremely hard to believe he was killed by the laughing gas. I await being proved wrong.
This... I've done a ridiculous number of canisters in a night and not so much as got a headache
I'm not sure thats great logic, i've crossed the road thousands of times and never got so much as a scraped knee that doesn't mean that people don't get run over and killed.
Difficilt to get right. Take the castor oil plant. The oil is okay and used in all sorts of stuff. But eating four of the beans could kill you dead because they contain ricin. And we grow these things in the garden! (Always makes me laugh when foodstuffs are advertised as containing 100% natural ingredients. Well arsenic is a natutal ingredient but you wouldn't want it on your weetabix.)
Too true.
However I do think the answer is relatively easy in terms of Legal certainty. Principles based approach just like good tax law should be. We have done very well for 800 years with a common law approach, why does statute have to be dotted I's and crossed T's? If you approach this from a codified perspective it won't work as you simple change one ingredient. Also the time it takes to prescribe for new drugs is unacceptable.
So pass a bill on drugs. Ha
1. All synthesied chemicals, sold for human consumption, must be tested on two limbs if they are of a concentration or have an effect which is significant
Limb 1 - is the purpose of the drug medicinal?
Limb 2 - If recreational, then the Court may decide if the drug is legal, based on the severity of its chemical effect on humans.
Ha, put the judgement back in the hands of the State. Too much in this Country about freedom, freedom also comes with responsibility.
I dont give a monkeys if this hurts the.producers, which is to my mind the only argument against the efficacy of how a principles based approach would work.
I don't care if they ban 10 substances harshly, if it gets meow meow off the streets shelf
All about proportionality - the potential risks of chap drugs sold to kids are HUGE. The draw back of the odd Company operating in a restrictive market or the odd person getting done for not a lot is MINOR
Too much complication is put on law by politicians to pull the wool over your eyes. As long as u trust the judicary, it's easy peasee
Though this is not necessarily the case with this one, the vast majority of the 'legal high death' articles you see either don't mention or skim over the other concoction of drugs that the person is on. Usually making the laughing gas the least of there worries. The morality of this is questionable but I can see the reasoning, I think everybody knows how easy it is nowadays to get your hands on anything, legal or not. But when it comes to illegal drugs, you're the one taking them, fully aware of what they do. However with legal highs some simply are too naive to realise the possible dangers, so articles like this are in a way scaremongering, for the right or wrong reasons. As for laughing gas it self I think the majority of people around 'going out' age would be lying if they said they'd never done it, as would I. The only risk that I can truly think of is falling over and hitting your head due to the effect of the gas. Something that could happen when drunk, or not even that.
I mean no disrespect to the victim or anyone who has died due to similar circumstances, it just annoys me to always see the vast majority of a story cut out, so they can make you think what they do.
I find it extremely hard to believe he was killed by the laughing gas. I await being proved wrong.
This... I've done a ridiculous number of canisters in a night and not so much as got a headache
I'm not sure thats great logic, i've crossed the road thousands of times and never got so much as a scraped knee that doesn't mean that people don't get run over and killed.
That isn't followed with the banning of all cars though.
Though this is not necessarily the case with this one, the vast majority of the 'legal high death' articles you see either don't mention or skim over the other concoction of drugs that the person is on. Usually making the laughing gas the least of there worries. The morality of this is questionable but I can see the reasoning, I think everybody knows how easy it is nowadays to get your hands on anything, legal or not. But when it comes to illegal drugs, you're the one taking them, fully aware of what they do. However with legal highs some simply are too naive to realise the possible dangers, so articles like this are in a way scaremongering, for the right or wrong reasons. As for laughing gas it self I think the majority of people around 'going out' age would be lying if they said they'd never done it, as would I. The only risk that I can truly think of is falling over and hitting your head due to the effect of the gas. Something that could happen when drunk, or not even that.
I mean no disrespect to the victim or anyone who has died due to similar circumstances, it just annoys me to always see the vast majority of a story cut out, so they can make you think what they do.
I go out almost every day* and I've never even heard of this stuff, never mind 'done it'!
My mate found a big bag of these cannisters in the ally round the back of his gaff in Bexley Village, how much are ther each, coz I think he just threw em out
Very cheap. People that sell them as legal highs charge £10 for a box of 24. From catering websites (they are used to create whipped cream) are even cheaper at around £6 quid a box.
I know one thing, Spice is seriously bad shit. Prisons are awash with it and it's causing all sorts of problems. Even it's creator, JW Hoffman says you must be mad to try it as it's like playing Russian roulette. Whereas traditional/natural weed gives the cannibinoid receptors in your brain a nice warm hug, synthetic cannibinoids charge up and smack them straight in the face. Scares me that young kids are smoking that crap because they've been fooled into believing it's a safe/legal alternative to sweet old Mary J.
Comments
Best way to combat it is to decriminalise and regulate more harmless drugs like cannabis, mdma etc which is what drives people to legal highs in the first place.
(Always makes me laugh when foodstuffs are advertised as containing 100% natural ingredients. Well arsenic is a natutal ingredient but you wouldn't want it on your weetabix.)
Our drug laws are mad. Cannabis is illegal yet it's effects on most is less potentially harmful that alcohol, and most of the legal highs which are sold as a substitute.
Kids get hold of tobacco which is not legit at the moment.
With decriminalisation needs to come education based around harm and not around illegality.
Would be interesting to see if it has affected crime rates etc...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-way/colorado-and-marijuana-le_b_6397664.html
"Over the last two years, NIBRS data reveals a 41 percent decrease in all drug arrests in the state. This drop can be attributed to allowing adults to possess, cultivate and privately use marijuana."
"What else has changed? The state's once-tightly regulated medical marijuana industry is now a tighter regulated retail industry. The medical marijuana regulatory framework enforced by the Colorado Department of Revenue was refined to tax and regulate the retail market. As of October, Colorado brought in more than $40 millionin marijuana taxes."
"The early returns after a year of decriminalization in 2013 are favorable showing a slightdecline in youth use rates."
"Colorado also has seen an economic boost since legalization. Colorado is ranked as one of the the fastest growing economies. The unemployment rate is at its lowestsince 2008, well below the national average. Google has received the go ahead to open a state of the art facility in Boulder.
"
Addiction can then be treated as an illness (just like alcohol addition).
To me the most ridiculous and counter-productive of all use of legal powers is lock people up for the possession of a chemical.
If you keep production, wholesale procurement and supply a serious offence then that maximises the use of the law enforcement, criminal justice and penal system. Dealers should be offered immunity if they finger the real gangsters.
Be interesting to see how much was the effect of alcohol/other substances, and how much was laughing gas.
Me and my mates a few years ago used to go through boxes of these things on a night out. Never saw anyone once get ill on them.
She claims her parents are doctors. Now they visited her once, and it was the morning after a party. They saw the usual things - empty bags that had contained this and that the night before etc - but flipped their shit when they saw canisters.
Apparently, some people can "forget to breathe" when doing them. That's why they didn't care about anything else but just thought the canisters were muggy. Not quite sure the science behind it, and it sounds like nonsense, but apparently they explained why it could happen and why for some people it could be a bad move.
However I do think the answer is relatively easy in terms of Legal certainty. Principles based approach just like good tax law should be. We have done very well for 800 years with a common law approach, why does statute have to be dotted I's and crossed T's? If you approach this from a codified perspective it won't work as you simple change one ingredient. Also the time it takes to prescribe for new drugs is unacceptable.
So pass a bill on drugs. Ha
1. All synthesied chemicals, sold for human consumption, must be tested on two limbs if they are of a concentration or have an effect which is significant
Limb 1 - is the purpose of the drug medicinal?
Limb 2 - If recreational, then the Court may decide if the drug is legal, based on the severity of its chemical effect on humans.
Ha, put the judgement back in the hands of the State. Too much in this Country about freedom, freedom also comes with responsibility.
I dont give a monkeys if this hurts the.producers, which is to my mind the only argument against the efficacy of how a principles based approach would work.
I don't care if they ban 10 substances harshly, if it gets meow meow off the
streetsshelfAll about proportionality - the potential risks of chap drugs sold to kids are HUGE. The draw back of the odd Company operating in a restrictive market or the odd person getting done for not a lot is MINOR
Too much complication is put on law by politicians to pull the wool over your eyes. As long as u trust the judicary, it's easy peasee
I mean no disrespect to the victim or anyone who has died due to similar circumstances, it just annoys me to always see the vast majority of a story cut out, so they can make you think what they do.
*most days it's just to do the school run!
I go out almost every day* and I've never even heard of this stuff, never mind 'done it'!
*most days it's just to do the school run!
blackheath heath is littered with empty cannisers.