[ 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 7820)
Message
File  []
close
May.jpg
782078207820
>> No. 7820 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 12:21 pm
7820 spacer
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2074813-youre-not-hallucinating-mps-really-did-pass-crazy-bad-drug-law/

Why?
Expand all images.
>> No. 7821 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 12:41 pm
7821 spacer
>Why?

http://www.legalcheek.com/2013/12/the-something-must-be-done-act-2014/
>> No. 7822 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 1:16 pm
7822 spacer
>>7820
Why not?
>> No. 7823 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 1:57 pm
7823 spacer
This is so bloody sad. Surely, surely they must know better, right? So what's the purpose of this? Is it solely that everyone's too afraid to say "yes, we're the party that thinks doing to same thing over and over, and expecting different results, is daft and ought to be stopped"? Because this law is more, much more, of the same old crap that's not going to change a thing, well not for the better anyway.

It's either willful ignorance or self perpetuating political balls, and in either case I find it totally vile.

>>7822

Because it makes less sense than a hat made of custard, that's why.
>> No. 7824 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 2:02 pm
7824 spacer
>>7820

Because we're still inanely fighting an American-propaganda led war on drugs even in an age where the WHO admits that drugs should be legalized.

Does anyone have a link to the text of the act? I have completely failed to find it on google. I'm really interested to know how they plan to adjudicate if a drug is "psychoactive" or not and whether we're going to end up in the paradoxical situation where I'll potentially end up with a higher sentence for buying Etizolam (unregulated) than I would for buying Diazepam (essentially unpunished for personal use/import/possession).

Anyone got a clue what'll happen to modafinil, while we're at it?

Christ.


In all seriousness if I have to go back to using heavy, brain-deadening Diazepam again after these last three functional, anxiety-free, years using small doses of Etizolam it might finally push me over the edge.

That said, there's a good opportunity to make some good dosh here for anyone willing to set up their RC shop on the continent and ship packages in from abroad.


>> No. 7825 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 2:10 pm
7825 spacer
>>7824

OK, I've managed to find http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/psychoactivesubstances/documents.html from which you should be able to piece together the act as published and the amendments, although I can't seem to find a document that holds the entire act as amended (I may be merely blinded by rage, though).

While I'm here I'll say that I'm happy to see such a heavy-handed article from such a respected organ as the New Scientist (or at least it was when I was a lad), although I'm too longer optimistic enough to think that educated debate will do any of us any good.

Rage and sage firmly checked.
>> No. 7826 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 2:26 pm
7826 spacer
This is so fucking ridiculous. Special exemption was made for alcohol, the biggest known killer on the list.

You can get high from fucking nutmeg, it contains one of the primary constituents of MDMA. BAN NUTMEG IT'S A PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCE AND IS CORRUPTING ARE CHILDREN!

The slippery slope fallacy is one I've always mocked others for using, but this is nonsensical. Not a single shred of scientific scrutiny went into this legislation. Where do I stand buying catnip for my cat? Bath salts? Sudafed? fertilizer pellets? Ethanol wipes? Methylated spirits? Nasal sprays? Bananas?

I could go on for pages.
>> No. 7827 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 2:34 pm
7827 spacer
All these pharmaceuticals are a bunch of bollocks anyway lads. Just stick to the fucking weed.
>> No. 7828 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 2:49 pm
7828 spacer
>>7826
The law doesn't criminalise the buying of psychoactive substances, but their production, import and export, possession with intent to supply and supply itself (but only for the purposes of psychoactive use). So you can continue your shopping unmolested and spare us your pages of knowledgeable commentary.
>> No. 7830 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 4:00 pm
7830 spacer
>>7827

Cannabis is fine if that's your thing, but don't be that guy. "All these pharmaceuticals" are derived from plants in the first place.
>> No. 7831 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 5:38 pm
7831 spacer
>>7826
>>7828

It's a piece of legislation that I feel will only be used to clamp down on elements the government feels are undesirable - for the purposes of any prosecutions a substance is only psychoactive if the CPS feel like arguing that it is. It will be an entirely unfair and unevenly applied law, used only with overt political overtones.

I am interested in how the "not for human use" defence will play out if it's ever used, as pointed out there are plenty of chemicals sold by legitimate chemical suppliers that have psychoactive effects.
>> No. 7832 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 6:14 pm
7832 spacer
>>7826
Some astute lawyers pointed out that the original draft banned tea and air.

It's a joke.
>> No. 7833 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 6:16 pm
7833 spacer
Maybe it's just my inner /boo/ lad talking, but this is only completely bonkers when you're looking at it from a position of essential naivety.

I find it easier to believe that actually, of course, politicians do want drugs firmly in the hands of unregulated black markets and criminal gangs. Having drugs as a legal, legitimate business, in the case of RC vendors and headshops, simply can't be allowed, because then where would they take their cut from?

Remember these are the same people who've been covering up child abuse for years and have us bombing the fuck out of innocent people under the thinnest of justification. Their public motives are almost certainly a lie.
>> No. 7834 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 6:18 pm
7834 spacer
>>7833

>where would they take their cut from?

Tax. Legitimate businesses pay tax.
>> No. 7835 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 6:24 pm
7835 spacer
>>7834

Yes lad, but that's the point- the problem with tax is that it goes straight into the public coffers, instead of your own silk-lined pocket.
>> No. 7836 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 6:26 pm
7836 spacer
>>7832

If they can't even figure out that the psychoactive substance in tea is caffeine and that caffeine was already exempted, then we're all doomed to hell in a hand basket anyway.

While we're at it, if anyone finds a link to the list of exempted substances I would be most obliged indeed.
>> No. 7837 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 6:40 pm
7837 spacer
>>7836

>psychoactive substance in tea is caffeine

And theobromine and theophylline.
>> No. 7838 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 7:08 pm
7838 spacer
>>7837

They better add chocolate to the list too.

Honestly I'm being facetious because there will be hundreds, or thousands of substances being "legally" sold that are psychoactive but will never be the cause of a prosecution.

Sage for a number of reasons but mainly for repeating myself.

I'm going to close this thread and go make a cup of (still legal) tea before I end up chewing my own jaw off in impotent frustrated rage.
>> No. 7839 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 7:25 pm
7839 spacer
>>7836

Page 40.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0088/15088.pdf

>>7833

The legislation makes perfect sense if your priorities aren't reducing crime or improving public health, but appeasing the prejudices of Mail readers.

The proliferation of new drugs gave the tabloids a stick to beat the government with. Some fuckwit would stick two grams of clarky cat up their drug trumpet and end up like a piano dentist, but all the government could say was "we'll get around to banning that eventually". The Psychoactive Substances Act allows the government to announce a crackdown and make a few token arrests.

It's worth bearing in mind that these drugs were entirely the product of our whack-a-mole drug policy. Nobody really likes mephedrone or synthetic cannabinoids, they were just cheaper and easier to get hold of than proper drugs.

The article below argues that the Psychoactive Substances Act may be a baby step towards decriminalisation. It bans import and supply, but simple possession remains legal. It isn't implausible to believe that the Misuse of Drugs Act could be quietly repealed at some point in the future, decriminalising simple possession of all drugs.

Ireland introduced similar legislation to the NPA last year, but are now on track to decriminalise personal use of all drugs.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/01/21/could-psychoactive-substances-bill-trigger-end-prohibition
http://www.thejournal.ie/drugs-decriminalisation-ireland-2421220-Nov2015/
>> No. 7840 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 9:00 pm
7840 spacer
>>7839
>the Misuse of Drugs Act could be quietly repealed at some point in the future, decriminalising simple possession of all drugs.
Wouldn't they also have to decriminalise possession of proper drugs for that to work first? I don't know a lot about law but I would have thought that this one wouldn't have cancelled out the old ones despite the overlap.
>> No. 7841 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 9:19 pm
7841 spacer
>>7840
The Misuse of Drugs Act is what controls "proper" drugs, ya gonk.
>> No. 7842 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 10:08 pm
7842 spacer
>>7841
Oh I thought that was this one. Ignore me.
>> No. 7843 Anonymous
27th January 2016
Wednesday 11:49 pm
7843 spacer
>>7820
I need to hide this thread, Theresa May's photo legitimately makes me nauseous.
>> No. 7846 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 3:36 pm
7846 spacer
>>7824
Modafinil is definitely facing the chop-- along with poppers, NOS and many other things.

>>7826
Nutmeg might actually be banned, lad.

>>7828
Uh, posession with intent to consume (even by yourself) is also explicitly outlawed.
>> No. 7847 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 4:03 pm
7847 spacer
>>7846

This post is all kinds of wrong, you are twelve years old, and I want my five pounds.

1) I looked it up and Modafinil is actually a prescribed medicine in the UK and therefore covered by the medicines act and therefore an exempted substance. Poppers will be banned but the application of law as regards N2O will not change as selling it for the purposes of direct human consumption is already prohibited. They will not stop businesses selling N2O for legitimate uses, it would be utterly unworkable.

2) Nutmeg is a food and is therefore an exempted substance

3) According to at least the version of the act I'm working with (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0088/15088.pdf) the only offences under the act are:

1. Producing a psychoactive substance
2. Supplying, or offering to supply, a psychoactive substance
3. Possession of psychoactive substance with intent to supply
4. Importing or exporting a psychoactive substance
5. Possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution


I will point out, however, that technically methylated spirits and isopropyl-alcohol based hand sanitizers are prohibited by this act as the only exemption for alcohols is specifically for ethanol. Go figure.
>> No. 7848 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 4:10 pm
7848 spacer
>>7846
>along with poppers, NOS and many other things.

Won't be enforcible. I remember a few months back there was something about banning NOS. Thing is, it has legitimate uses, so you'll always be able to order it from Amazon. They might make it stick with poppers, which are now sold as "room oderisers". Which is total bollocks because they smell like arse.
>> No. 7849 Anonymous
28th January 2016
Thursday 6:31 pm
7849 spacer
Sounds like I'll have to stock up on the not-quite PSD then. I still have a moderately sized stash of AMT I was hoping not to have to break into again in future. The fuck are they playing at...

I wonder if the RC vendors will put on a big closing down sale?
>> No. 7850 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 12:02 am
7850 spacer
>>7847
You'll no longer be able to buy it online. I wasn't aware that it was a prescription med though, apologies. Do you accept bitcoin?

There was a big hoo-hah about nutmeg when they discussed the bill in commons, I mostly said that as a joke.

For point 3, I misquoted the 'Importing or exporting' part. In short though. it's illegal to import anything that you 'should know' is psychoactive. From where would you buy a substance that wouldn't count as importing, if nobody in the UK is permitted to sell it?
>> No. 7851 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 1:13 am
7851 spacer
>>7850

>You'll no longer be able to buy it online.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television. Don't come crying to me if you get your bumcherry popped by the gloved digit of a customs officer.

"Medicinal products", as defined by the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, are exempt from the Psychoactive Substances Bill. As Modafinil is authorised for sale as a medicine by the MHRA, it inarguably satisfies the definition of a medicinal product under the HMR. QED, importing Modafinil for personal use will continue to be legal. Selling Modafinil would be a breach of the Human Medicines Regulations, not the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

This does raise an interesting legal point that may have escaped the attention of parliament. The Human Medicines Regulations use an extremely broad definition of a medicinal product, as they are intended to be a catch-all to regulate any old quackery being peddled as medicine. The Psychoactive Substances Bill exempts any substance that satisfies this broad definition. Parliament appear to have inadvertently written a ludicrously broad exemption into a ludicrously broad ban.

The situation would be comical if it weren't so serious.

2.—(1) In these Regulations “medicinal product” means—
(a) any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties of preventing or treating disease in human beings; or
(b) any substance or combination of substances that may be used by or administered to human beings with a view to—
(i) restoring, correcting or modifying a physiological function by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or
(ii) making a medical diagnosis.
>> No. 7852 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 1:16 am
7852 spacer
>>7850
Might foreign firms continue shipping to the UK with the buyer taking on the risk of prosecution?
>> No. 7853 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 5:16 pm
7853 spacer
>>7851

So if I'm to understand what you're saying correctly, all they've done is made it so instead of selling your stuff as plant fertilizer in a shop, you sell it online as medicinal aromatherapy dust?
>> No. 7854 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 6:05 pm
7854 spacer
Amazon.co.uk still selling "cream chargers". I am unworried.
>> No. 7855 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 6:32 pm
7855 spacer
>>7854
The Act doesn't come into force until April.
>> No. 7856 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 7:13 pm
7856 spacer
>Much has been made of calls to exempt "poppers" because of its positive uses and benign nature, it having been used widely by the gay community for almost 50 years without a ban. As a result of the outcry, the government have referred this substance to a panel of experts who may recommend adding it to the exempt list. So it is legal to sell "poppers" now, it is going to be illegal to sell it in a few weeks' time but it may be legal again by the summer. The fact is, many other substances that have been used for years with few ill-effects are in the same boat as "poppers" but this catch-all Bill is indiscriminate.

I don't think so, Tim.

http://poppersguide.com/forum/10213
http://thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60887-4/fulltext
>> No. 7857 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 8:41 pm
7857 spacer
>>7853

Quite possibly, yes. I certainly wouldn't want to be the test case, mind you.
>> No. 7858 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 9:04 pm
7858 spacer
>>7855

From the bill:

>(1) A person commits an offence if—
>(a) the person intentionally supplies a substance to another person,
>(b) the substance is a psychoactive substance,
>(c) the person knows or suspects, or ought to know or suspect, that the substance is a psychoactive substance, and
>(d) the person knows, or is reckless as to whether, the psychoactive substance is likely to be consumed by the person to whom it is supplied, or by some other person, for its psychoactive effects.

The key part is (d). Petrol has psychoactive effects, but no petrol station could reasonably expect that someone filling their tank would then siphon off some petrol and sniff it.

Someone selling a packet of herbal material sprayed with synthetic cannabinoid in a head shop clearly "knows, or is reckless as to whether" someone will smoke that mixture. Likewise for an online retailer who deals exclusively in novel psychoactive substances.

Someone selling balloons filled with N2O outside a nightclub is at the very least reckless as to the intended use of that gas. Bringing a box of N2O capsules to a party would be a fairly straightforward case of supply. It is possible that legitimate vendors of whipped cream chargers may need to take reasonable efforts to establish the bona-fides of the purchaser, but that is for the courts to decide.
>> No. 7859 Anonymous
29th January 2016
Friday 9:21 pm
7859 spacer
>>7858

There are parallels with the Scots law case of Khaliq and Anor v HM Advocate. They were convicted under common law for selling plastic bags containing a small amount of glue. Although both plastic bags and glue are perfectly legal, they clearly knew what the bags would be used for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaliq_v_HM_Advocate

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password