UK - The government’s drugs strategy is miles behind today’s drug dealers

[CLICKHEREx]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/the-governments-drugs-strategy-is-miles-behind-todays-drug-dealers/


4 August 2014


New powers to tackle the huge growth in ‘legal’ highs are set to be introduced. Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer, is said to be pushing for the most radical move, a blanket ban on all psychoactive substances.

My heart sinks. Do those at the top of government really think that a blanket ban will solve the problem? The evidence doesn’t suggest so: prohibition very rarely reduces drug use. So why do they think that an even more extreme level of prohibition will help?

New varieties of ‘legal’ high will be invented and put on sale on the internet. Many of these drugs are already imported from foreign websites, and it’s hard to see how this ban can stop this from happening.

The emergence of ‘legal’ highs presents a good opportunity for the government to reassess Britain’s creaking drug laws. But no, rather than seize that opportunity, they’ve grabbed the sledgehammer. This unsophisticated approach won’t reduce drug use, and it certainly won’t make ‘legal’ highs any safer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nick Wallis • a day ago

Ireland tried this in 2010. Irish youth are now some of the biggest consumers of NPS (Novel Psychoactive Substances) in the European Union.

Down here in Australia, three states have introduced similar legislation to Ireland.

New South Wales defined ‘psychoactive substance’ to refer to any substance (other than those exempted - ie. tobacco, caffeine, alcohol) which stimulates or
depresses the central nervous system, resulting in hallucination or significant disturbance or change to motor function, thinking, behaviour, perception, awareness or mood, or creates a state of dependence.

This broad-reaching legislation has not yet been tested in the courts, so it's hard to tell how well it will hold up, but according to their definitions there are a number of potentially unintended consequences of this legislation, including:

Banning all plants that contain DMT or other similar tryptamines, which includes Australia's native wattle which can be seen on our national emblem. Avocado (among other things) contain cannabinoids that appear to be banned under the legislation. Many cheeses also contain cannabinoids and opioid-like substances that are technically banned under a broad reading of the legislation.

The other part of this legislation is that: Direct or indirect advertisement or promotion of a psychoactive substance for consumption, supply, sale or on how to acquire one is considered an offence.

This is broadest in South Australia, where it is illegal to promote something with words that MAY give another person the idea that it might get them high (So... what of Red Bull's "Gives You Wings" campaign???).

This legislation is usually touted as a 'reversal of the onus of proof' by legislators.

To be clear: Reversing the 'onus of proof' requires that there must be a possibility to prove that something is of a certain level of safety. This is IMPOSSIBLE under this kind of legislation, because it ASSUMES that any psychoactive effect (other than those randomly exempted) is a moral, social a health/welfare evil that must be stopped AT ALL COST.

This is the presumption of prohibition. It is a MORAL one, not a scientific one. And it sits on VERY shaky moral grounds that have very, very few valid propositions backing it up.

Shift the psychoactive paradigm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And how exactly is "significant disturbance" defined? What of herbal relaxants / anxiolytics (anti anxiety products, such as passionflower, valerian, and kava, or non herbal ones, such a 5-htp, or herbal antidepressants like St. John's Wort?

Edited August 6, 2014 by CLICKHEREx