Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B998 – LSD, Psilocin and DMT (Repeal) Bill 2016 Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Them being legal isnt the best thing. Psychedelics arent the safest drugs you can take.
    They are, actually. If you're counting cannabis as a psychedelic (which it is). Otherwise, psychedelics would be the second safest, after cannabis. Other drugs such as alcohol or opiates are far more dangerous.

    (Original post by Lime-man)
    People who do wish to take them illegally should be responsible for their own actions.
    How does them being legal change this in any way? They're still responsible for their own actions, they're just less likely to harm themselves as they've bought chemically pure drugs from a regulated source, rather than from a dealer who may be selling them something completely different.

    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Dont get me wrong, we may like to trip balls every now and then but having access to these drugs so easily cant be a good thing.
    Why?

    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I dont understand why people are so against drugs being illegal, because them being illegal means that you cant just do them out in the open and make it obvious, you have to be discreet about it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What? The drugs being legal doesn't mean you can just do them in the street, any more so than you can now. Bans on taking these drugs in public can be enforced if it's viewed as a problem, but banning them in private is in no way a solution to this.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    So you have to get them from shady dealers who may or may not be extremely violent?
    When people decide the break the law they should be responsible enough to conduct their own risk assesment.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    When people decide the break the law they should be responsible enough to conduct their own risk assesment.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Ah, but under current TSR legislation (assuming this repeal doesn't go through), they're not breaking the law.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    There is only so much we can do to enforce laws on people's private property. Unless they are actively harming another person behind closed doors they can be pretty much left to do whatever they want. I think that this difference is often neglected. Things that are either found to not be bad or are too difficult to enforce to a high standard are legalised.

    If someone wants to trip balls then they can, and judging by posts on the thread they obviously do (i cant drop acid due to my mental state). There is a direct correlation between those wanting legalisation and those wanting better ease of use, the anomaly being TDA. I dont think these drugs should have greater ease of use, i think that policing dealers should be improved as well.

    I think that research should be allowed to continue but i cant support allowing recreational use of drugs that can cause long term mental illness.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Have we legalised mandy yet? It's great stuff but I'm always wary that it might be cut with speed or ket or something... It needs to be legal and regulated.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Do UKIP ever listen to the early works of Pink Floyd?

    I think it should only be legal in certain medical circumstances and would prefer UKIP to have a Bill to amend the original one.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think that it is important to mention in this debate that although we have heard lots from all sides of the house about how safe psychedelics are, we should not forget the case for legalising drugs that are not safe, because criminalising them multiplies the harmful effects in a myriad of ways. Criminalising drugs means that we can't know exact dosages and strengths of drugs, leading to accidental overdoses or, in the case of psychedelics, unnecessary bad trips. It means that drugs are adulterated with substances that are often more harmful than the original drug. It means that we drive money into the hands of organised criminals and terrorists instead of local businessmen and women. It means that we incarcerate black and asian men disproportionately for a victimless crime of possession of drugs.

    Not only that, but we lose a place where we can inform people about addiction services and treat this as it truly is, a public health problem, not a criminal one. Funelling even 5% of the extra revenue gained and money saved would more than double our budget on addiction services. That way, we could truly help those that have a problem, let those that don't have a problem have fun with a lower risk, and let everyone else benefit from the extra money we can spend on public services.

    Yes, I do think a proper regulatory framework is necessary. Back when I was active on here we passed this: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1796449 and I think it isn't a bad starting point for discussion.

    There is no good reason to criminalise any drug. Indeed, a large part of me thinks it is more necessary for more harmful drugs. So Nay to the bill and Aye to the positive case for legalising all drugs.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    I think that it is important to mention in this debate that although we have heard lots from all sides of the house about how safe psychedelics are, we should not forget the case for legalising drugs that are not safe, because criminalising them multiplies the harmful effects in a myriad of ways. Criminalising drugs means that we can't know exact dosages and strengths of drugs, leading to accidental overdoses or, in the case of psychedelics, unnecessary bad trips. It means that drugs are adulterated with substances that are often more harmful than the original drug. It means that we drive money into the hands of organised criminals and terrorists instead of local businessmen and women. It means that we incarcerate black and asian men disproportionately for a victimless crime of possession of drugs.

    Not only that, but we lose a place where we can inform people about addiction services and treat this as it truly is, a public health problem, not a criminal one. Funelling even 5% of the extra revenue gained and money saved would more than double our budget on addiction services. That way, we could truly help those that have a problem, let those that don't have a problem have fun with a lower risk, and let everyone else benefit from the extra money we can spend on public services.

    Yes, I do think a proper regulatory framework is necessary. Back when I was active on here we passed this: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1796449 and I think it isn't a bad starting point for discussion.

    There is no good reason to criminalise any drug. Indeed, a large part of me thinks it is more necessary for more harmful drugs. So Nay to the bill and Aye to the positive case for legalising all drugs.
    Hear, Hear!

    (would make a more constructive agreement than that, but you've pretty much said it all)
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    I think that it is important to mention in this debate that although we have heard lots from all sides of the house about how safe psychedelics are, we should not forget the case for legalising drugs that are not safe, because criminalising them multiplies the harmful effects in a myriad of ways. Criminalising drugs means that we can't know exact dosages and strengths of drugs, leading to accidental overdoses or, in the case of psychedelics, unnecessary bad trips. It means that drugs are adulterated with substances that are often more harmful than the original drug. It means that we drive money into the hands of organised criminals and terrorists instead of local businessmen and women. It means that we incarcerate black and asian men disproportionately for a victimless crime of possession of drugs.

    Not only that, but we lose a place where we can inform people about addiction services and treat this as it truly is, a public health problem, not a criminal one. Funelling even 5% of the extra revenue gained and money saved would more than double our budget on addiction services. That way, we could truly help those that have a problem, let those that don't have a problem have fun with a lower risk, and let everyone else benefit from the extra money we can spend on public services.

    Yes, I do think a proper regulatory framework is necessary. Back when I was active on here we passed this: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1796449 and I think it isn't a bad starting point for discussion.

    There is no good reason to criminalise any drug. Indeed, a large part of me thinks it is more necessary for more harmful drugs. So Nay to the bill and Aye to the positive case for legalising all drugs.
    You're still here?!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    You're still here?!
    I think this is my first post in 2016. I dip my toe in occasionally but pretty much no.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    Nay to this bill. Yes, these drugs may be harmful (although less so than certain things that are already legal) but at the end of the day an adult should be free to do whatever tf they like to their body and not have the state peering over their shoulder 24/7 telling them what they can have and what they can't. We also really don't need to be wasting money on pursuing victimless crimes like this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ny,legislation should solve actual problems. This doesn't even lay out which problems it tries to solve.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This bill is in cessation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Division! Clear the lobbies!
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 27, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.