'Legal high' review after laughing gas cases collapse

Watch this thread
MrSuavetopia
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
The Home Office says it will continue to prosecute those who sell nitrous oxide, despite the collapse of the first contested cases under new laws.

The Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing two cases after a judge and the government's own expert witness said "laughing gas" was exempt.

This now raises questions as to whether the new law will need to be amended.

The Psychoactive Substances Act was introduced last year to deal with the problem of new manufactured drugs.

Nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas, is taken by hundreds of thousands of people every year as a recreational drug. But the gas is also used by doctors for its pain-relieving properties.

In a statement the Home Office said: "Nitrous oxide is covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act and is illegal to supply for its psychoactive effect.

"However, the Act provides an exemption for medical products. Whether a substance is covered by this exemption is ultimately one for a court to determine based on the circumstances of each individual case".

A subsection of the Psychoactive Substances Act exempts medical products defined as "restoring, correcting or modifying a physiological function by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41098996

What are your thoughts on this, and more widely, this particular piece of legislation? It's no secret that this was a controversial law to put into place. I think it's quite embarrassing that the Government has lost two cases owing to the (very correct) interpretation of the law in regards to Nitrous Oxide.
0
reply
MrSuavetopia
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#2
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
But even Marijuana and MDMA have very significant medical uses...
Correct (which adds to more confusion). However the article didn't mention that there is also an exemption in the Psychoactive Substances Act for any drugs that are currently regulated under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (which is where you'll find those Class A/B/C drugs).

Whether you think marijuana/MDMA should under the Misuse of Drugs Act, or the Psychoactive Substances Act, or even legal, is a another debate however
0
reply
the beer
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
That the PSA needs so many explicit exemptions (such as tobacco and alcohol) is a red flag of its own.

But my point was that there are undoubtedly a vast number of previously legal substances covered by PSA which have some significant medical uses.
The exemption for alcohol is a good'un.

Alcohol
3
Alcohol or alcoholic products. In this paragraph— “alcohol” means ethyl alcohol, and “alcoholic product” means any product which—
(a) contains alcohol, and
(b) does not contain any psychoactive substance.

An alcoholic product must contain alcohol and must not contain alcohol.
1
reply
r3035
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
idiotic politicians who play dumb about the drug issue won't solve anything
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest

Y13s: How will you be receiving your A-level results?

In person (81)
66.39%
In the post (5)
4.1%
Text (16)
13.11%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (20)
16.39%

Watched Threads

View All