http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11645354/Theresa-May-wants-to-ban-pleasure.html
Quite possibly the worst law-writing fail I've ever seen...
Quote from: Jubal on June 03, 2015, 10:13:08 AM
Quite possibly the worst law-writing fail I've ever seen...
Indeed. I think the supply of food and water would become illegal, for example. Less absurd, but also very worrying, the legal position of companies developing new drugs would become very uncertain.
Lol. Tbh I'd rather we go the other way and legalise most if not all drugs.
I mean even if you don't agree with legal highs this is completely stupid. Things should be permitted as the norm, not prohibited.
Clearly it's an error in writing and not an attempt to actually ban everything that gives you feels :P
If you agree that legal highs should be illegal then the sentiment is right surely?
I see the point, but everything being banned by default as opposed to being allowed until proven "dangerous" is a little backwards.
Just for the record, I believe most or all drugs should be legalised, I'm not against legal highs in any way. :P
Yeah true. If you think about it bleach is dangerous but still shouldn't be banned really. Things that cause highs as a side effect of nearly killing you is just going to happen regardless imo. I think we have the same sort of sentiments here ;)
My two penn'orth...
I'm strongly in favour of decriminalising all drugs. Instead, I think drug use and addiction should be treated as a matter for education and the health service, and drug supply should be subject to a regulation and licencing regime similar to that for medicines. This seems to me to be preferable on every front:
- the treatment of people using drugs
- drug safety (people buying drugs will get a known quantity of a known substance, not mixed with anything dangerous)
- public finances (a big saving on police and the legal system; drugs can even be taxed like alcohol and tobacco)
- drug-related crime (drugs are cheaper, and the money does not go to criminals)
Having an "exceptions list" system is depressingly silly. Basically this law will mean the police *can* arrest almost anyone, because almost everyone will be technically in possession of *something* illegal. Which is a bad starting point.
Also, most people who die from these things have been sold them illegally already. Most "legal highs" that are dangerous are sold as inedible chemicals, so either a) the person taking them knew they weren't supposed to be consumed or b) the provider was already breaking the law.
I'm with Glaurung on the decriminalisation issue. I'd say things like weed should be fully legalised, whereas harder drugs should be a matter for compulsory healthcare/treatment. Education and rehabilitation are in some ways the most important thing - but decriminalisation would free up the funds from the policy to actually put into caring for addicts, and allow cops to focus their remaining drug funds much more heavily on chasing down high-level supply criminals rather than requiring them to bust some fifty year old bloke who grows a small amount of cannabis in his back garden.
An interesting blog post (http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/03/30/psychoactive-substances-act-delayed-while-the-home-office-wo) about the UK's Psychoactive Substances Act. Apparently, having rushed the Act through Parliament, the Home Office have worked out they don't actually understand what it bans; it might not effectively ban anything at all! So the commencement date has been postponed from 6 April 2016 to a date yet to be decided.
Huzzah :)
I saw a BBC news article this afternoon, saying that the Psychoactive Substances Act has now come into force in the UK. Presumably none of the wording has changed, and the police are still at a loss about to enforce it, but nevertheless it is now in force. I foresee some interesting (scary!) test cases.
So I guess we should stop posting about anything we ever do in our real lives now because it's all probably illegal?
If it involves consuming a substance that alters your mood, yes. Consuming includes sniffing things as well as eating or drinking them. Unless it's alcohol or tobacco - those are both exempt. Though if you enjoy the flavour of your drink, rather than just getting drunk from the alcohol, that might still be illegal. I couldn't actually tell when I read the draft version of the bill last year - it was an incomprehensible mess of circular definitions. It's probably still like that - I couldn't see any way amend it so as to make sense.
Snort fridge mold!
No we can't snort fridge mold no more. Or sniff flowers. Or your friends heads whilst they sleep.
I'm pretty sure there are some good studies on how saliva includes various mood altering substances so kissing is probably out.
Oxygen makes you feel alive so no breathing either.
There's already been one confused & incorrect police raid:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-36393222