The Student Room Group

Legal highs kill 50 people per year. Smoking kills 100,000. We're banning legal highs

Scroll to see replies

Legal highs and their risks are a direct consequence of the prohibition and criminalisation of certain drugs which are probably less dangerous health-wise. The Conservative response is always going to be 'ban it', unfortunately. This will not address health risks of drug consumption, but it will keep many older Conservative voters happy, as they will see the government as being 'responsible' and 'taking action'. I really cannot wait until Millennials are running (and voting for) majority governments, this current approach to drugs will seem prehistoric.
As someone who has worked in door security before, let me assure you legal highs are a ****ing curse.

Little underdeveloped teenage bodies getting these ****ed up drug substitutes in their bodies and it being extremely hard for the police to prosecute anyone for it? Terrible!

Of course the statistics for how many die of these things is going to be far lower than reality though because how do you tell that someone died from a legal high? Every legal high is different, how do you know it isn't just a good substitute - most of the time they would just be counted as deaths from the actual, illegal drugs OR just other arbitrary causes, perhaps natural depending on the scenario...
Original post by Pro Crastination
Legal highs and their risks are a direct consequence of the prohibition and criminalisation of certain drugs which are probably less dangerous health-wise. The Conservative response is always going to be 'ban it', unfortunately. This will not address health risks of drug consumption, but it will keep many older Conservative voters happy, as they will see the government as being 'responsible' and 'taking action'. I really cannot wait until Millennials are running (and voting for) majority governments, this current approach to drugs will seem prehistoric.


Now this. I can agree with.

However until ordinary drugs are tackled differently legal highs must be attempted to be outlawed. They're a damn nuisance.
Original post by TorpidPhil
Of course the statistics for how many die of these things is going to be far lower than reality though because how do you tell that someone died from a legal high? Every legal high is different, how do you know it isn't just a good substitute - most of the time they would just be counted as deaths from the actual, illegal drugs OR just other arbitrary causes, perhaps natural depending on the scenario...

I'm pretty sure doctors have ways of finding out how people died nowadays.
Original post by SmashConcept
I'm pretty sure doctors have ways of finding out how people died nowadays.


They can find symptoms, but various drugs have cross-over symptoms and it is very hard to separate the effects of particular illnesses vs illegal drugs vs legal synthetic drugs.

And obviously if you don't find a dead body really quick the chemicals they've took in get lost rather quick - some slower than others, but yeah, it's actually quite tricky.
Original post by TorpidPhil
Now this. I can agree with.

However until ordinary drugs are tackled differently legal highs must be attempted to be outlawed. They're a damn nuisance.


This is why I'm not specifically up in arms about legal highs being outlawed, just pointing out that it's quite emblematic of an outdated approach to the issue as a whole. I think it'd be arbitrary to want one load of potentially harmful drugs to be kept legal whilst one other load of potentially harmful drugs to be kept illegal. For me this whole issue isn't about specific types of drugs but about a wider approach to the issue as a whole, which we might not see until the next generation of grey voters comes along, or (hilarious notion, I know) young people actually start voting en masse.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by JordanL_
Why would anyone support this? How many supporters of banning legal highs also want to ban smoking? Self-righteous hypocrites.


To answer your question more people purchase cigarettes compared to legal highs, approximately 5.7 billion cigarettes were sold in 2014 , I doubt that legal highs sell in the same volume, i have done some quick google searches which brought back nothing. But consider this one maybe they prefer having 100,000 smokers die each year to keep the population under control- they probably have a cure for cancer but have not released it for this very reason.

If you look at the table on the link below provided by the government it shows the tax rates which are put on cigarettes
https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-shopping/alcohol-tobacco

It is 16.5% +£3.93 on a packet of 20

In 2014 tax duty was paid on 34% of cigarettes in circulation so lets for a rough idea say that people only pay for packs of 20( Whilst i know this is not true, I am just doing this as a guideline)

5.7 billion divided by 20 will give you 285,000,000 20 packs of fags if we then multiply that by 16.5% = 47,00,000 then add the £3.93 per pack 1.1billion pounds, this is not an accurate figure though because in 2014 only 34% of cigarettes in circulation paid the correct 'tax' if you will

So in reality the best guideline article for where i got my info from is http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/uk-cigarette-consumption/

On the previous calculation we need to find 34% of the combined total of my calculation above which is about £389 million pound on fag prices in 2014 was tax- legal highs probably dont get as high as that because they are for junkees.

I support drug legilisation - but i think they should only be availible in moderation - this is just in a bid to get the dealers out of regular , illegal income.

To conclude the government want to ban legal highs as they have the same affects as many illegal drugs, and it probably does not bring them as much money as cigarettes do, or alcohol so they do not want to ban cigrettes as it helps them fund things
I'd personally decriminalise the vast majority of drugs.

I don't see why the government should be telling people what they can and can't consume, given people can go out and get drugs anyway.

It they were decriminalised, the government could also put taxes on them.

Decriminalisation is not the same as full legalisation, you wouldn't be able to pop down to the off license and pick up some crack-cocaine.

I say this as someone who doesn't actually take any illegal drugs.
Original post by Pro Crastination
This is why I'm not specifically up in arms about legal highs being outlawed, just pointing out that it's quite emblematic of an outdated approach to the issue as a whole. I think it'd be arbitrary to want one load of potentially harmful drugs to be kept legal whilst one other load of potentially harmful drugs to be kept illegal. For me this whole issue isn't about specific types of drugs but about a wider approach to the issue as a whole, which we might not see until the next generation of grey voters comes along, or (hilarious notion, I know) young people actually start voting en masse.


As you have stood back from the drug issue I think it's important to take a step back fro this issue as well. Political parties don't care about the young in any capacity other than a group of people to be taken from in order to give to those who are more 'deserving' (here deserving meaning; voted for us), until such a point that the political class even attempts to make a policy designed around the young I don't think young people should be encouraged to vote.

From my perspective, the current political structure has failed far too many times for me to even consider voting, if we want actual meaningful change, the current paradigm is the number one way of not achieving it.
Well, smoking usual tabacco products kills people indirectly (long-term), whereas the strength and the magnitude of legal highs often causes direct death, so the sequence is easy to prove. Of course the industry of legal highs is not nearly as influential as the latter.
I think its the fact that legal highs have dangerous side affects, resulting from seizures to deaths. It's also un-tested and produced in Chinese labs so you don't really know what your putting inside your body...

Another thing is that research chemicals/legal highs will always be available to purchase because vendors are using different components which is not recognised by the government. They do this everyday.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by mojojojo101
As you have stood back from the drug issue I think it's important to take a step back fro this issue as well. Political parties don't care about the young in any capacity other than a group of people to be taken from in order to give to those who are more 'deserving' (here deserving meaning; voted for us), until such a point that the political class even attempts to make a policy designed around the young I don't think young people should be encouraged to vote.

From my perspective, the current political structure has failed far too many times for me to even consider voting, if we want actual meaningful change, the current paradigm is the number one way of not achieving it.


No I'm sorry, (sensible, election-winning) political parties adopt policies based on whether the public are going to vote for them - no amount of standing on the sidelines and calling for Russell Brand to lead us all to an enlightened political 'revolution' is going to change that. If young people voted as much as older people did, mainstream parties would be including at least a few reasonable policies in their manifestos targeted towards winning younger voters. We don't make the effort to vote, hence they don't make the policies, and it's infuriating.
Original post by Pro Crastination
No I'm sorry, (sensible, election-winning) political parties adopt policies based on whether the public are going to vote for them - no amount of standing on the sidelines and calling for Russell Brand to lead us all to an enlightened political 'revolution' is going to change that. If young people voted as much as older people did, mainstream parties would be including at least a few reasonable policies in their manifestos targeted towards winning younger voters. We don't make the effort to vote, hence they don't make the policies, and it's infuriating.


Young people don't vote -> Political parties take no notice of them -> young people don't vote.

Young people shouldn't be expected to chose between numerous terrible options in the rather futile hope that maybe, in 5 years time, someone might pay attention to them.
Original post by Milzime
I feel so sad and helpless

I would easily have the same views as you do, but after being directly affected by a legal-high-related accident, I cannot be okay with psychoactive substances remaining legal. It's not the substance itself which causes problems, it's what people do when under the influence, and accidents that may have been extremely unlikely inevitably become more likely. It's a similar thing with alcohol abuse, and alcohol is legal, but regulated. Maybe if legal high supply and trade whatever is regulated in a similar way to alcohol, and viewed in a similar way, then I'd have less of a problem with it.

I'm just sat here shaking my head because it's like there's no real solution. People have died, people will die. All I can think is that those who refuse to cross the legal line might be preserved if these substances are made illegal.


I completely understand why you'd feel that way. Everyone wants to protect the people around them, and we need to try something, and it seems like banning these substances should help. But please, please look at the facts and just consider that by trying to do something, regardless of our intentions, we could end up killing more people and stopping others from getting help.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
So your saying making drugs illegal makes the problem much bigger?

Imagine if smoking was illegal and we couldn't get all the tax on it but still had to fork out the bill if has on the NHS.


I think it definitely would in terms of smoking, other drugs I can't speak for. With over 9 million adult smokers in the UK, making them illegal would boost the black market for it and as you said there would be no tax to help lessen the strain on the NHS.
Original post by mojojojo101
Young people don't vote -> Political parties take no notice of them -> young people don't vote.

Young people shouldn't be expected to chose between numerous terrible options in the rather futile hope that maybe, in 5 years time, someone might pay attention to them.


There is a huge variance in ideology available for young voters to choose between (the disparity between the Greens and UKIP, for instance is huge). I think you'd be justified in being disenfranchised purely because of the electoral system, but not because there isn't enough choice on offer. And, if you don't believe there is a party that reflects your values, stand for Parliament yourself, or set up a pressure group, engage with the system in some way, otherwise you will be completely ignored. Please say you at least spoil your ballot.
Its all about the money, all about the dum dum diddy dum dum i dont think its funny

Y u think the EU plans to make vaping as expensive as cigarettes... they want them ££££££££££££
Now that the ban has come into effect, do people actually think it will particularly successful? A similar law was trialled in Ireland and resulted in only 4 convictions over its first 5 years due to the difficulty in classifying a substance as psychoactive
Original post by Alex from almanis
Now that the ban has come into effect, do people actually think it will particularly successful? A similar law was trialled in Ireland and resulted in only 4 convictions over its first 5 years due to the difficulty in classifying a substance as psychoactive


Of course not. As we've seen in Ireland and also in the entire world over the last century, prohibition doesn't work. If people want drugs they'll get them. This ridiculous law just forces people to buy from unregulated illegal suppliers instead of safe sources.

The idiots supporting this law have blood on their hands, but they'll just bury their heads in the sand and keep reading the Daily Mail.

Quick Reply

Latest