Britain Bans Legal Highs

These drugs may be legal but do you truly understand the consequences of taking them? NO because not enough research has been conducted to determine their true effects and dangers. I think you would all feel differently if you had lost a loved one or been affected because of this. In your view it may not have any affects now but what about in the future? whose to say it wont affect you then? For the government to ignore, allow, condone this would be highly irresponsible. Many people are confusing the fact that because its legal, its safe and this is why society needs educating!

i agree,this is yet another stab at control over what we do to ourselves and own bodys,what makes me sick is these laws are passed by mps who go home every evening and relax with whiskey/alcohol and have probably done so most of their adult lives,why should legal alternatives be banned when these users of the real or legal alternatives,and with the exception of a few,just want to sit at home and enjoy their own way of relaxing and not harming or interfering with anyone else,whilst drunken teens,adults run rampage every weekend and most nights freely allowed to consume as much as they want and go on destructive,antisocial benders.
Going back as far as victorian times before opiates were banned and dens were on the streets along side liquer houses and pubs,in the dens would be peacefull with users laying quietly,then going home quietly whilst down the road the pubs were at near riot,and when kicking uttime came,the antisocial behaviour flooded out onto the streets..
This may be a old argument of alcohol vs drug use,and with the exception of crime to pay for certain drugs,these drugs hardly infringe onto any non users lifestyles,whereas how many people have been attacked by a drunk at one time or another in their life or at least been verbally abused by one..
Why should one set of drugs be illegal wheras another be legal,why are we not allowed free choice? b
Because it comes down to the same thing,not the want to supress our conciousness but the want to keep us all in active,everyday work,the goverment doesent want drug using dropouts reducing the workforce further,this is a ridiculous statement as many drug users hold down normal jobs on a dily basis year in year out.
Also on the topic of drug users stealing,robbing to pay for their drug habits,this will be true for some users who were this way inclined before drug use began and their may be a small,very tiny amount that steal especially because of the drugs but on the whole users who never robbed,stole from shops before becoming users will not do so even when facing addiction and no funds,it does not turn everyone into potential theives and menaces to society.
Many users i know would not steal from anyone or any shop to fund their habits,but when the said users were theives beforehand they dont think twice of theft to pay for drugs.
This is all a very complicated and poorley understood medium that has been tainted by the 1970s and the so called hippy movement,and the tune in,turn on,dropout society of the time.
When cannabis was lowered to class c,did we see a mass dropout of our youth,no...did we see a mass psychosis of our youths,are they all now in asylums? no,did we see a mass migration towards other,harder drugs? no.
were the police releaved of much work towards prosecuction,yes,were they freeded to persue other more important matters,yes.
Our Dragonian goverment continues to chip away at our liberties in a effort to protect us from ourselves,do we need this protection and restriction of free choice?
Are we becoming a police state?
How much longer will it be before we are fully intergrated into a communist way of life? arent we already more than half way there?

By the way, is it just coincidence that this story follows the satirical posting of "Herbal Highs will Soon be as Rare as Heroin" just the other day, or is life imitating art?

I don't care their rubbish.Don;t waste bemoaning the govt restricting access to products of dubious quality and fight to legalise proper drugs .fat chance i know especailly in Airstrip 1 but we can try

No, this Labor government is the most illiberal UK government in living memory. They do not understand freedom and responsibility, and if they thought they could get away with banning freedom and responsibility altogether, they would do it for your own good.

Really, it is straight out of 1984. That book just got the year wrong.

Well in the time before their counterparts and the real thing are legalized again, this will be a good thing. These are all crap, at least people will go for the real thing now. Real pot, E or even cocaine are probably healthier than "Spice" or especially BZP, I don't like the sound of piperazine at all.

POTENTIAL HARMS, BETTER MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOLKS. ALSO HAND OVER ALL YOUR KITCHEN KNIVES, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, CARS, ETC
"The evidence does show that it does have potential harm"
everything does, you fucking shriv

love, hugs and having children are the next logical things to ban.

"It's these legal drug dealers that the British ban seeks to target. "

What, like the landlord of my local pub and owner of the corner shop?

Alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous than the vast majority of legal highs, further showing how our laws are not based on harm, but rather on controlling the state of consciousness.

So here I am looking at my drug dealer. In one hand, he has heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. In the other hand, he has GBL, BZP, and Spice. Their price ratios are equal. Well, now that they're both illegal, they must all be just as bad. Just like in the US, the government tells you that PCP is safer than marijuana. The gateway is not weed but when the governments compare risks based on morality.

Of course they don't. People who understand those tend not to go into government service.

What I don't understand is how those in power can claim that they are following a risk-based, harm-based approach to drug regulation and keep a straight face. I'm not a brit, but it is my understanding that the Misuse of Drugs Act establishes criteria which are based upon a drug's potential risk and benefits. But from actions like this is it obvious that they're interested in controlling states of consciousness, not administering risks and benefits in any sane or rational way.

We have a similar situation in the US, where the so-called analog laws explicitly contradict our supposed scheduling criteria.

Do these people not understand the concept of freedom and resposibility?

damn