[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
alternatives

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 7015)
Message
File  []
close
Plant_Feed_and_Other_Research_Chemical.jpg
701570157015
>> No. 7015 Anonymous
13th November 2014
Thursday 7:46 pm
7015 Here comes the kibosh
Welp, looks like this might be it for the RC scene in the UK, lads. No idea how such fundamentally vague wording as simply "psychoactive" could make it into law. For example I'll be watching to see how heavily the force of the law comes down on the majority of psychoactive substances sold in that den in iniquity and vice that is Holland & Barrett.

Link here that talks about what the home office is planning to do:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11197099/How-a-ban-on-legal-highs-could-work.html

For those who dislike clicking torygraph links:

"The Home Office study which proposed a blanket ban on the sale of "legal highs" set out how potential new law could work.
Ireland introduced measures legislation tackling a proliferation of "head shops" - which offer a range of drug paraphernalia - in 2010.
The law made it an offence to advertise, sell, supply, import or export a psychoactive substance.

The blanket ban means that substances with a 'psychoactive' effect must have a specific exemption under the law, and anything which does not is illegal.

Legal substances which affect the brain's chemistry, including caffeine, alcohol, tobacco and prescription medicines, had to be exempted. "
Expand all images.
>> No. 7016 Anonymous
13th November 2014
Thursday 7:54 pm
7016 spacer
>>7015
I very much doubt this could be forced through before the election.
>> No. 7017 Anonymous
13th November 2014
Thursday 10:01 pm
7017 spacer
>>7016
Which means they will force it through after the election.

As an illegal drug user, this pisses me off. 99% of legal highs are bobbins. Labelling them legal highs made me know to avoid them.

Only decent ones I can think of are Salvia and Nitrous Oxide. I think Salvia has been criminalised now, and NO2 is banned for "recreational purposes". Although that doesn't stop you being able to order a box of a few hundred capsules on Amazon every week.
>> No. 7019 Anonymous
13th November 2014
Thursday 10:24 pm
7019 spacer
>>7017

So you're writing off all the 2c-Xs, the nbomes, and the RC benzos? Odd. RCs and legal highs are not all Hawaiian Baby Woodrose and useless herbal shit, you know.

Personally my interest is a definitively political one; who decides what and what isn't psychoactive? Who decides which psychoactives get an exemption and which ones don't? It's a brutal and uneven law basically designed to allow the government to ban whatever they want when they want. There will be little, if any, rhyme or reason as to how or where it's applied and that's my main problem with it.
>> No. 7020 Anonymous
13th November 2014
Thursday 11:11 pm
7020 spacer

ayyy.png
702070207020
>>7015
>The law made it an offence to advertise, sell, supply, import or export a psychoactive substance.

Thank god we can still manufacture and consume.
>> No. 7021 Anonymous
13th November 2014
Thursday 11:21 pm
7021 spacer
>The blanket ban means that substances with a 'psychoactive' effect must have a specific exemption under the law, and anything which does not is illegal.

This is going to lead to some interesting prosecutions of legitimate seed and horticultural retailers stocking plants which have psychoactive effect but not commonly used for such effects.
From a completely non legal point of view pretty much unworkable
>> No. 7024 Anonymous
13th November 2014
Thursday 11:58 pm
7024 spacer
>>7021
Along with supermarkets, sports supplement stores, vitamin and health food shops, anywhere that sells any kind of aerosol, anywhere that sells various types of glue, or solvents... or lots of things really. I really can't wait to see nutmeg on the list of "approved psychoactives", for example.

Except that most likely none of these places will ever be prosecuted. It will be a back-handed law unevenly applied in order to persecute a particular type of vendor selling a particular type of psychoactive. It's essentially a carte blanche to suppress substances they don't like while happily legislating around or conveniently ignoring the ones they do.

Sage for almost straying into [/boo/ | /pol/] territory.
>> No. 7025 Anonymous
14th November 2014
Friday 1:39 am
7025 spacer
>>7019
I didn't know the 2C-x family were legal. Hoo boy, that will twist our melon.

Benzos and medicinal opiates are a fringe case. An exception to the rule.

Ketamine was a good one, so they made it illegal. Mcat was fucking terrible...don't know why anyone bothered. I tried it once, didn't like it, tried it twice to make sure then never touched it again.
>> No. 7026 Anonymous
14th November 2014
Friday 3:24 pm
7026 spacer
Who decides whether something is psychoactive or not? If I'm selling mcatobromidophine-B as a plant fertilizer, who can say otherwise?
>> No. 7027 Anonymous
14th November 2014
Friday 3:39 pm
7027 spacer
>>7026
The police, the courts, and parliament.
>> No. 7028 Anonymous
14th November 2014
Friday 5:56 pm
7028 spacer
>>7027
This would be the same legal system that failed to even watch a sex tape to work out that it wasn't a real tiger before indicting a man on bestiality charges.

Goodie.
>> No. 7029 Anonymous
14th November 2014
Friday 6:56 pm
7029 spacer
>>7028

Someone was prosecuted for supposedly fucking a tiger? I wonder what kind of rep that garners once you're inside...
>> No. 7030 Anonymous
14th November 2014
Friday 7:04 pm
7030 spacer
>>7029
I question whether outside is meaningfully less hostile. But no, it never reached court.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/six-months-on-bail--for-being-sent-spoof-video-of-a-tiger-having-sex-that-was-really-a-man-in-a-tiger-suit-9819776.html
>> No. 7031 Anonymous
14th November 2014
Friday 10:01 pm
7031 spacer
I know a lot of people aren't keen on the show but the most recent South Park episode (Grounded Vindaloop) is a bit of a ketamine nightmare.
>> No. 7032 Anonymous
15th November 2014
Saturday 1:32 am
7032 spacer
>>7031

Holy shit are you me?

I indulged in K the other night for the first time in yonks, then last last night I watched the latest South Park episode and thought "Jesus Christ whatever you do, don't watch this on K".

I know that when you're on K, every film/TV show looks like it was made for people on K but that episode of South Park looked like it was even when I was sober.

Unless I'm still in my room on K, thinking I'm watching south park and you're another lad who.... fuck you!
>> No. 7033 Anonymous
15th November 2014
Saturday 11:32 am
7033 spacer
>>7032
All I can say is that I don't remember taking any K before watching it.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password