Q&A on 'legal highs'- ask a drugs expert your questions now!

The problem with the regulate and decriminalised debate is that there is no perfect answer for everything. For example, heroin remains harmful and in the arms of the illegal drug trade, while alcohol a legal, regulated drug causes even more harm across the UK population.

Alcohol causes way more havoc. You can't make the "legal highs are dangerous" argument. The ban was put in place because legal highs are deemed socially unacceptable to people in government. they don't take kindly to drug users. None of your arguments are valid simply for the reason that alcohol causes more money to the NHS, deaths and health problems in UK.

Yeh GREAT Q&A where you delete my questions for some reasons, good communication.

Alcohol is very dangerous. I am not trying to suggest otherwise. But as we have seen before banning something is not going to stop people from using it. The ban on alcohol has been tried and tested with no successful outcome (see Prohibition aka Volstead Act in 1919 America). A lot of people on this thread seem to think the word 'legal' next to high means they are safer than those that are currently illegal. THE 'LEGAL' DRUGS MIMIC THE EFFECTS OF VERY DANGEROUS ILLEGAL ONES. We can keep talking about alcohol yet you and myself know that alcohol will not receive any form of controlled legislation due to its socially acceptable use. Legislating on these 'psychoactive' substances will not eradicate them completely but it will make them much harder to access. Legal highs worked for some addicts as a replacement to darker alternatives e.g. crack, heroin etc but these substances can cause as much damage. The prison system across the UK is infected with the consequences of Spice/Black Mamba. Unfortunately, these substances were killing people. As I have previously stated, legislation isn't going to remove the issue completely but it is a step forward.

In my opinion, the governing bodies that deal with drugs in the UK should reach a deal with companies to produce drugs that can be enjoyed with no horrific side effects. The israeli chemist that revolutionised the legal high world will tell you his reasons for making such substances. I suggest you check some of his work.

Please don't respond with the same broken record that is alcohol use. It is very dangerous (I will say it again) but we simply cannot combat the issue unless we educate the entire population. Drinking is so socially accepted it has almost become a disease. These days people can't enjoy themselves in other company unless there is alcohol on deck. It is ridiculous. We should try and spend time on things that could have a significant, positive outcome. The war against alcohol is a constant battle that is never going to be won.

Did you say something to me? Can't see your posts.

Who seems to think legal means safe? I haven't seen anyone claiming that. That said, most of the stuff banned by this legislation is significantly safer. Dozens, if not hundreds, of substances are now banned, some of which don't even exist yet. You can pick out synthetic cannabis and pretend legal highs are all demon drugs, and I can pick out nitrous oxide, which is as dangerous as sucking the helium from a balloon. Ironically, the synthetic alcohol which is being developed specifically as a safe alternative to alcohol, will be illegal under this legislation.

As you acknowledged yourself, prohibition has never worked, so its not even relevant whether they're safe or not.

Who seems to think legal means safe? I haven't seen anyone claiming that. That said, most of the stuff banned by this legislation is significantly safer. Dozens, if not hundreds, of substances are now banned, some of which don't even exist yet. You can pick out synthetic cannabis and pretend legal highs are all demon drugs, and I can pick out nitrous oxide, which is as dangerous as sucking the helium from a balloon. Ironically, the synthetic alcohol which is being developed specifically as a safe alternative to alcohol, will be illegal under this legislation.

As you acknowledged yourself, prohibition has never worked, so its not even relevant whether they're safe or not.

It may seem as though there are so many unnecessarily banned substances, on the grounds that they are 'harmless'. I think it's generally safe to assume, anything illegal, is illegal for a reason.

The legal line is really important to loaddss of people, who wouldn't take drugs on the basis of legality ('they're illegal for a reason, right?'.

These are people who might take legal highs in place of illegal highs; which can be equally dangerous, not necessarily chemically, but in the immediate effects the drug has on the body. Someone who has taken a legal high is not safe to drive, for example, and many other activities can become fatally dangerous under the influence of such drugs.

It's true that alcohol has hazardous effects also, but alcohol is regulated, and illegal for certain ages, illegal to drink and drive, perhaps illegal to be drunk at work etc.

These legal highs simply cannot continue to remain legal in the way they are. At least regulated, but really, the first step is to introduce a blanket ban, and work from there.

One the other hand, younger users, in their teens, might be put off by the risk of taking something illegal. Certainly some of my young users only take 'legal highs' because they don't want to risk a criminal record.

Why would you assume that? This legislation literally bans hundreds of substances, many of which don't even exist yet. You're being very naive if you believe that most of the idiot MPs involved in this catastrophe even know of a tenth of the substances being banned, because they really have no idea. You can't ban something for a reason if you don't even know it exists. So that's not a safe assumption at all.

And yet the overwhelming consensus among researchers is that criminalizing drugs DOES NOT REDUCE DRUG USE. We don't even need to look at research, though, because this exact piece of legislation was passed in Ireland, which now has the highest use of psychoactive substances in the EU. This law has already been done, it's already been shown categorically to fail to do what it intends to do, and had the wonderful side-effect of forcing people to buy from illegal suppliers instead, which makes things even more dangerous. What makes the UK so different from Ireland that a law that was a cataclysmic failure there will be a success here?

You just can't make this generalisation. Again, there are hundreds of substances considered "legal highs". There are many, many drugs that are perfectly safe to drive on. People drive under the influence of caffeine and nicotine on a regular basis. Stimulants like amphetamines, to some extent, will make people significantly safer drivers. I have no doubt that there are dozens of substances that are now banned which would have no impact on a persons ability to drive.

You're right, there should be some form of regulation. This isn't a first step toward regulation. It's an atrocious piece of legislation which has already failed, which we know will significantly exacerbate the problem, which outlaws far too many safe, useful substances, and is another big slap in the face for psychiatric pharmacology. We're being dragged back to the stone age by these clueless, chest-pounding neanderthals, but we'll just keep burying our heads in the sand. In a few years, when the stats are out and they show that drug use has gone up, addiction has gone up, deaths have gone up, and this steaming hot **** of a law has made the problem a billion times worse, we'll still be patting ourselves on the back for being TOUGH ON CRIME™.

hm hm okay, sure, maybe the MPs ain't as capable shall we say, but I still think that the legal line is important, and significant, and it does (should) make a difference.

To be honest, I just don't see how keeping these things legal is okay. Even morally. Maybe not even a blanket ban whatever but for christs sake there are some substances with minuscule differences to class A drugs which are legal. I just, personally, cannot, accept this as okay.

ahhh it's not necessarily the net reduction of drug use per say, but just the principal of having such harmful substances as totally legal. For example, there is almost no difference between LSD and 1P-LSD, apart from the fact one is labelled a class A drug under the law, and the other is totally fine, legally speaking.
This is not okay.

okay yeah, fair enough, fine, okay. I still can honestly with confidence continue to feel that certain legal highs simply cannot remain legal.

ugh sorry for the rant-like stubbornness. I am someone who would probably be on the other side of this argument, if I hadn't been personally affected by the continued legalisation of certain legal-highs.

*deep sigh*

just ban them. It may be difficult, and 'impractical' and there are obviously many exceptions, but imo it's a better staring point to ban 'em all, then chip away at that, as opposed to having them all okay, and then awkwardly try to ban bits and pieces..

This just isn't how young people think, and really demonstrates a lack of understanding and disconnect from reality. Young people who take drugs, or are likely to take drugs, are not scared of risking a criminal record. Picking up from a dealer is not seen as risky to anyone who has picked up at least once.

What absolute rubbish. The fact that it's the 21st century and adults still aren't allowed to do what they want with their own bodies is a joke.

Sure. But then the taxes other adults are paying are going towards providing treatment for dumb people who do drugs, rather than people who actually need treatment for an illness that didn't arise from their idiocy

........Rather than hundreds of millions of pounds going towards arresting, going through the courts, keeping people locked in already overcrowded prisons? And rather than paying a little bit for rehabilitation, we pay an absurd amount of money to put them through the criminal justice system, ensuring that they'll never become productive members of society and never contribute taxes themselves, and then paying even more to arrest them and put them in prison again when they inevitably become criminals because we ruined their lives? What an utterly ridiculous, ignorant point.

Even if we ignore the simple fact that we'd be spending an absolutely miniscule amount of money rehabilitating people compared to what we spend throwing them in prison, and the loss of productive members of society, what you're saying is still absurd. Do you want to ban extreme sports so your taxes don't have to pay for treatment for dumb people that get into sporting accidents? Do you want to ban smoking and alcohol, too? Maybe we should ban sugar, since that's by far the biggest drain on the NHS, more than any drug.

Well for one, such people most likely were not "productive members of society" anyway. Also, you're saying that prisoners do not get counselling and therapy? Why do you think multiple programs are in play in an attempt to integrate such people back into society once they are out?

"Minuscule" amount of money. Do you have any figures to back up your claim? Because I'm pretty sure that finding people qualified to provide therapy and/or paying for their training is not a "minuscule" amount of money. Why do you think the NHS is continually cutting funds for the mental health sector? They just can't afford to be giving people therapy. Therapy (or consoling, to be precise) is provided on a one-to-one basis, you think they have enough trained and qualified people to provide care for the thousands of people that do drugs?

Let's not forget that making certain substances illegal WILL in fact result in less people even starting drugs. There is a fear involved so people are less likely to start because they know there are consequences (obviously this has little to no effect on addicts).

So to clear things up, I do not think I'm being absurd in the slightest. Comparing drugs to substances such as sugar is what is absurd. It's hard to limit the consumption of something that is so widely used by the vast majority of the population, the same applies to smoking and alcohol; too many people consume them. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of the population haven't tried recreational drugs and/or legal highs.