It's 2015, and the British Government Is Considering Expanding the Drug War Faster
U.K. wants to be able to ban chemicals more quickly. That's going to be a disaster.
The war on drugs has led to a sort of legal arms race as the government tries to outlaw various chemical compounds that make people (particularly young people) feel things the government for some reason thinks is wrong for them to feel. Outlawing chemicals then prompts illicit drug manufacturers to look for alternatives. And then the government bans or regulates those chemicals, and so on and so on, and soon the average Joe has to show a driver's license just to buy cold medicine.
The United Kingdom has the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971 to oversee its system of criminalizing and managing controlled substances. The U.K. is looking to update the law to actually make it easier to ban more mind-altering chemicals as they come around with the Psychoactive Substances Bill. It appears that the Conservative Party is looking to take to a new, absurd level: They want to create a blanket ban of all psychoactive substances. All of them, with some exceptions.
The problem is that lots of psychoactive substances are very helpful, and a blanket ban just to prevent kids from getting high legally (that's the justification for this) is going to have disastrous consequences. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) in London sent a warning letter (pdf) that there would be some serious unintended consequences:
"The ACMD … cautions against a blanket ban on all psychoactive substances. It is almost impossible to list all the desirable exemptions under the Bill. As drafted, the Bill may now include substances that are benign or even helpful to people including evidence-based herbal remedies that are not included on the current exemption list."
Furthermore, the ACMD notes that the way the new law is approached completely divorces drug policy with analysis of harm when determining what to ban. A blanket ban doesn't take into account the psychoactive substance is actually harmful; therefore, those who provide benign or beneficial drugs could be prosecuted.
Fortunately the new rules would target suppliers and not users, but AMCD worries that the law would be used to snag "social suppliers," those who bring drugs for their friends in the club scene, et cetera. They worry the bill would be used to target minorities to bust them for petty crimes, treating them like drug dealers just for handing out high-inducing nitrate inhalants (commonly known as "poppers") or other recreational drugs made from banned chemicals to buddies.
Sadly, the AMCD is in favor of bans on psychoactive substances, as long as they're more carefully considered than what's being presented from the government. But there are additional unintended consequences even when chemical bans are more clearly targeted. In the United Kingdom, they've seen an increase in eye damage caused by the use of popper inhalants. Why? Because the European Union banned one popular chemical combination—isobutyl nitrate. This didn't stop people from manufacturing and using poppers. Instead they switched to isopropyl nitrate in 2007, and that's when European countries started seeing the eye problems. It's a health problem actually manufactured by the government's desire to control how people enjoy themselves.
The government can't stop people from pursuing happiness through chemistry, and even the AMCD knows full well of the dangers of attempting to do so with too broad a brush. But even the kinds of bans the AMCD supports may not accomplish what it thinks it will accomplish.
Read more about the proposed legislation here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
As a psychoactive substance is one that induces a change in brain function that can affect alertness, perception, focus, mood, and/or state of consciousness, what you're telling me is that the Conservative Party wants to ban coffee and tea.
And nicotine.
Well, I would put it past the UK to ban that, but no cuppas?
wouldn't
I guess they'll just have to pass it to find out what's in it.
"I guess they'll just have to pass it to find out what's in it."
Like kidney stones
Shame, salt, and a fuckton of pain?
Guardian did troll with "tea is horrible, racist beverage and we must get rid of it" article.
u wot m8? i swer u are one cheeky cunt mate, say that you'll ban tea to me face and not online and we'll see what happens. i swer 2 christ I'll hook you in the gabba. you better shut your mouth or im calling me homeboys rite now preparin for a proper rumble. tha rumble thatll make your nan sore jus hearin bout it. yer in proper mess ya nob head.
ILL FUKIN RECK U
oi, r u avin a laff, m8?
And alcohol.
And cough syrup.
And chocolate
And anesthetics
And birth control pills
And . . .
if they outright banned cigarettes there would be a revolution of the proles.
They thought they had those common products covered in the exceptions, but of course once they look at it a while, there'll be many other things they'll think they should've excepted.
Sugar.
Like you care.
I care about the poor children who suffer under its sticky yoke.
Nutrasweet only wants to free us from ourselves.
It's all for you, Damian.
No you don't!
Don't you tell me what I care about!
I'm not! I was telling you what you don't care about! Like your mom.
They don't want to ban tea outright, maybe just tax it some more.
+1 party
Whenever we think a government can't suck any worse than ours... the Brits jump in and show the way.
Well, it was their shitty government that spurred us to create our own less shitty government.
Unless you believe crap like this...
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/2/88.....on-mistake
You just made me throw up on myself.
In the industrialized liberal west, the people are at war with their governments. The government, feeling it's losing control it never should have had to begin with, is getting increasingly panicky.
Can you fight in a war that you never signed up for and didn't know you were fighting in and also where you generally identify with the other side?
You seem to have misplaced your Social Contract. Here, you can borrow mine.
You already are, Hugh. And I'm not talking about the the Change War either.
I will never relent in the Change War, Epi. Not until those who wish to destroy the penny lie broken and bleeding at my feet.
Hugh, I regret that we meet in this way. You and I are of a kind. In a different reality, I could have called you friend. Or possibly lover, I can never figure that out.
There are no Swiss in foxholes.
You've got it backwards. The governments are at war with the people. Problem is, most people don't even know it. Not until it's too late anyway, and they find themselves in a cage.
OT: speaking of the Brits...
Former British Olympics minister says the opportunity for the London Olympics to inspire a generation of children has been squandered.
FTA: she "blamed her 'wicked and negligent successors' in government."
"Touch your toes, Montag. You can do it!"
A blanket ban doesn't take into account the psychoactive substance is actually harmful
Making someone feel good is considered harm because it's "unnatural."
No. The neo-puritans don't dislike it because it's "unnatural". They dislike it because pleasure is bad. Only suffering is noble and pure. Trust me, I know. My mother is one of them.
Thanks for the heads up about your mom. That explains a lot about why she is how she is in the bedroom.
Doesn't it?
Last I checked they approved of natural highs, like the highs people get from long-distance running or executing a no-knock warrant.
A blanket ban
What do those monsters have against warm and snuggly blankets?
I am still pissed that Vicodin is now a Schedule II substance in the US. Docs used to throw that at people like it was candy (while Percocet and other forms of Oxy were kept bit tighter). Now every doc is worried that they will look like a pill pusher.
Which sucks because frankly 10-15 mg of Vicadin once a week on a Saturday night sure helps with dealing with everyday bullshit. And there is no hangover!
When I busted two ribs, Vicodin was the only thing that let me sleep - just the pain of trying to stand was too much. Even laughing was too painful. It took a few weeks to recover... and even more before I could work out again.
That's nothing, let me tell ya about hemorroid surgery!
Percocet, FTW
After I got mangled in a car accident, Vicodin was such a huge help in just getting comfortable and not freaking out over the injuries. I can't even imagine how much it would have sucked without it.
[side effects include lack of imagination]
There's no "i" in Teamocil, at least not where you think.
That's a lot of acetaminophen...
But that's...what a drug war is.
The only alternative is to take those same prohibitions against people ingesting unapproved chemicals and dress them up in biased studies designed to support a predetermined conclusion. At least this way there's one less layer of bullshit.
Every time I get depressed about conditions in the good ol' US of A, the UK comes along and makes me feel ever so slightly better.
The present UK is just the coming attractions of the future USA.
Gotta keep up with the Joneses so we don't fall behind the rest of the civilized world. Wasn't that one justification Obama used for ACA?
They want to create a blanket ban of all psychoactive substances.
Oh, FFS! *Food* is a psychoactive substance!
YA reason to never set foot in the UK.
*Food* is a psychoactive substance!
My guess is that you've never actually eaten british food.
Things that make you depressed are still psychoactive.
I'm disa POINT ed!
England was on my bucket list.
If the British govt really wanted these synthetics to disappear, then they would follow Portugal's lesson and decriminalize everything. By not acting on a guaranteed successful policy with nearly 15 years of data on a country-wide scale, it's obvious the Brits just don't give a shit.
Do you think the officials of Airstrip One will surrender a valuable tool to keep the proles in fear and in line?
The WoD has nothing to do with morals or principles. It has to do with the ability to incarcerate anyone at will, and cash. Lots and lots of cash.
Oh, there's a very important principle in play. "We are better than you, and we don't use X. Therefore, we get to ban X to try and uplift you half-animal scum."
Bullshit they don't use X.
Well, not admittedly. But the stuff they use is high-class, like heroin, not this painkiller shit, or meth, or other swinish stuff that needs to be kept away from peasants.
Heroin is the brand name of diacetylmorphine.
Bayer Pharma.
Quite upscale.
Nitrous oxide, nicknamed 'laughing gas', Beer, nicknamed 'a pint', is a legal high but is also potentially lethal. It will be banned under the new legislation.
FTFY
THERE WILL BE NO NON-GOVERNMENT APPROVED PLEASURE
Victory gin!
As if the Brits didn't already have enough dental problems...
Yo, fuck a government.
word
You do not fuck the government, sir, the government fucks you.
OT: I don't really know how Tumblr works, at all, but this is kinda fun. You must read the "About Me" on the left.
lmao, now THAT is funny
This one is even better. Just keep clicking.
i am part dolphinkin/goatkin with some dragon traits.
This one might be serious, I'm afraid to click more...
Har
cistem of a down!
Oh, you.
I still consider Godfrey Elfwick, and his recent twitter campaigns for..
#WrongSkin
and
#PregnancyForAll ...
...are the best current works in the Social Justice field
I hadn't heard of the second one before, hilarious. "Pregnant is a social construct"
sorry, the link
"because denying someone the right to conceive and carry their child based on something like biology is un-American"
That picture is inspired. She looks like a radfem lunch lady
Independence was a mistake!/ Lew Rockwell.
It's isobutyl NITRITE. Are you trying to kill people?
So there'll now be a law that bans nitrous oxide. Oh ferpect. Next up, helium!!!