Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many are of the opinion, Aye (21)
46.67%
On the contrary, No (19)
42.22%
Abstain (5)
11.11%
This discussion is closed.
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
B860 - LSD, Psilocin and DMT Bill 2015, TSR Labour Party

LSD, Psilocin and DMT Bill 2015
A bill to legalise the production and sale of DMT, Psilocin and LSD.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

SECTION 1: Reclassification
1. LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide), Pscilocinand DMT (N,N-Dimethyltryptamine) will no longer be class A drugs under the misuse of drugs act.
2. LSD and Pscilocin will be moved to schedule 2 of the misuse of drugs act.

SECTION 2: Synthesis
1. To synthesise DMT, Psilocin or LSD a home office license must be acquired for these compounds separately, this license will state how much you are legally allowed to produce and will cost £5,000 with a yearly renewal cost of £3,000 after the first year subject to change.These licenses may be revoked.
2. University departments will be given these licenses at a quarter of this price to promote research.

SECTION 3: Possession
1. Those with home office licenses will have their allowed amount of DMT, Psilocin or LSD stated in their license.
2. Those with only seller’s licenses will be allowed to store up to 10,000 micrograms of LSD, 5 grams of DMT and 2 grams of Psilocin.
3. Anyone with neither of these licenses will be allowed to hold up to 500 micrograms of LSD, 500mg of DMT and 0.2 grams of Psilocin.

SECTION 4: Sale
1. To sell DMT, Psilocin or LSD you must obtain a sellers license for each drug separately with the price determined by the drugs quality commission as well as a renewal cost; if you have a home office license to produce these compounds then you will automatically have a seller’s license included, however you will only be able to sell directly to those with seller’s licenses or in the case of research you will be able to transfer this product to participants as long as it is given for free.
2. Those with only seller’s licenses must source their product from a licensed home officer producer.
3. DMT, LSD and Psilocin must only be sold to those over the age of 18.
4. A drugs quality commission will be set up which will monitor the standard of these drugs and may enter the premises of a DMT/LSD/Psilocin production facility or a seller’s premises without prior consent.

SECTION 5: Punishment
1. If someone sells or produces DMT or LSD without a license they will receive the same punishment they would if DMT or LSD were class B drugs under the misuse of drugs act. This also includes intent to supply/produce and for sale of Psilocin the same will apply but it will be treated as a class C.
2. Possessing more than your allowance as someone with a home office license is subject to a fine of up to £10,000.
3. Possessing more than your allowance as someone with a seller’s license is subject to a fine of up to £10,000.
4. Possessing more than your allowance as someone without either of these two licenses is subject to a fine of up to £90.
5. These fines will apply separately for each drug in excess.
6. If over your allowance the police may dispose of any DMT/LSD/Psilocin you have,depending on which is in excess.

SECTION 6: Commencement, Short Title and Extent
1. This Act may be cited as the LSD, Psilocin and DMT Bill 2015.
2. This Act shall extend to the United Kingdom; and
3. Shall come into force 1 week after Royal Assent.

Notes
This bill is an attempt to decriminalise the use of certain psychedelics which cause very little harm to the human body in comparison to other legal drugs such as alcohol and will bring money into the economy
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
I asked for proof that they were harmless, none was given so it has to be nay. We wouldn't let people take cianide recreationally and if something is class A I expect it will be leathal.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by Aph)
I asked for proof that they were harmless, none was given so it has to be nay. We wouldn't let people take cianide recreationally and if something is class A I expect it will be leathal.
Then everything should be a Class A drug...
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Then everything should be a Class A drug...
Good point, tomorrow I outlaw living... You know what I ment:rolleyes:
0
RotatingPhasor
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Aph)
I asked for proof that they were harmless, none was given so it has to be nay. We wouldn't let people take cianide recreationally and if something is class A I expect it will be leathal.
Nothing is harmless, fast food isn't harmless. What matters is relative harm and if you have something that is non addictive with a very large LD50 that is consistent with being of little harm relative to other drugs. This relates to all of these drugs. Also you can't say a drug is either harmless or lethal.
0
RotatingPhasor
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Aph)
I asked for proof that they were harmless, none was given so it has to be nay. We wouldn't let people take cianide recreationally and if something is class A I expect it will be leathal.
It's funny because cyanide is a legal substance and that is DEFINETLY, I would argue more harmful than pretty much every drug that comes under the misuse of drugs act. It may not be used recreation-ally but if we looked at this from a libertarian stance even something very harmful in my opinion should be legal to possess for personal use as people should have control over their own bodies including euthanasia on the extreme end.

I'm surprised, I would have thought a member of a leftist party would be more libertarian. It seems as though Labour is more progressive than you on this issue, maybe you've been in bed with the right for too long...
0
username280380
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
Nay - primarily because legalising Class A's at the moment is suicide. A gradual legalisation I support but not of these 3 so quickly.
0
RotatingPhasor
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
Nay - primarily because legalising Class A's at the moment is suicide. A gradual legalisation I support but not of these 3 so quickly.
Suicide in what way? If we have bad laws we should undo them as soon as possible. I think I made a good case for why they aren't very harmful.
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Aph)
I asked for proof that they were harmless, none was given so it has to be nay. We wouldn't let people take cianide recreationally and if something is class A I expect it will be leathal.
You do know that chemicals like arsenic and cyanide are in our foods, right?


Although I'm agreed that without a detailed proof of the side effects being no worse than alcohol, it has to be a nay.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Andy98)
You do know that chemicals like arsenic and cyanide are in our foods, right?


Although I'm agreed that without a detailed proof of the side effects being no worse than alcohol, it has to be a nay.

Posted from TSR Mobile
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/03/scie...-than-alcohol/
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...r-1811247.html
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
http://www.factfiend.com/lsd-statist...fer-marijuana/
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
Thank you very much Ray.

Mr Speaker, with this new information in the mix, my opinion has changed. May my vote be switched from Nay, to Aye?

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
RotatingPhasor
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
I would be interested in knowing why some of you have voted nay and if there is a possibility that I could convince you to change your mind if it is not ideologically driven?

As for abstainers, If there is anything you are unsure of then please let me know and maybe I can make you more likely to support this bill.
0
RotatingPhasor
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
I realised I missed out a single bracket, could you amend :

(N,N-Dimethyltryptamine will no

to

(N,N-Dimethyltryptamine) will no

It isn't really a big change so I was wondering if it was allowed at this point? (just want to be a bit neat).
0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by RotatingPhasor)
I realised I missed out a single bracket, could you amend :

(N,N-Dimethyltryptamine will no

to

(N,N-Dimethyltryptamine) will no

It isn't really a big change so I was wondering if it was allowed at this point? (just want to be a bit neat).
Thanks for the heads up, I have amended the OP as requested.
0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
Ayes to the right: 21
Noes to the left: 19
Abstain: 5

The Ayes have it! The Ayes have it. Unlock.

Turnout: 90%
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Which party will you be voting for in the General Election?

Conservatives (126)
20.22%
Labour (311)
49.92%
Liberal Democrats (84)
13.48%
Green Party (30)
4.82%
Brexit Party (7)
1.12%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (3)
0.48%
SNP (14)
2.25%
Plaid Cymru (3)
0.48%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (0)
0%
Sinn Fein (6)
0.96%
SDLP (0)
0%
Ulster Unionist (3)
0.48%
UKIP (8)
1.28%
Other (4)
0.64%
None (24)
3.85%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed