highlandsflyer
Retro Wizard
- Feedback
- View
So what will we call them from midnight? Illegal Legal Highs? How will we tell them apart from the old skool highs?
Legal Highs, Now Illegal Highs?
- Thread starter highlandsflyer
- Start date
Re:
Do you need to tell them apart then?
I thought you'd be drowning in alcohol, according to the news. Average of 10 litres of pure alcohol per person was sold in 2015. In Scotland. Some are clearly going to stick to legal, legal highs
Do you need to tell them apart then?
I thought you'd be drowning in alcohol, according to the news. Average of 10 litres of pure alcohol per person was sold in 2015. In Scotland. Some are clearly going to stick to legal, legal highs
technodup
Senior Retro Guru
Possibly the most retarded piece of legislation from any government. "Legal highs are legal but we don't want people taking them, so let's make them illegal so nobody takes them"
How's that working for smack, coke, E, mandy etc? A five year old could think that through better. As ever it's all about 'doing something' rather than getting realistic and pragmatic and doing what might actually improve things.
How's that working for smack, coke, E, mandy etc? A five year old could think that through better. As ever it's all about 'doing something' rather than getting realistic and pragmatic and doing what might actually improve things.
videojetman
Retrobike Rider
- Feedback
- View
why anyone would want to take a potentially lethal substance is beyond me.
maybe they should add alcohol and tobacco to the list.
maybe they should add alcohol and tobacco to the list.
highlandsflyer
Retro Wizard
- Feedback
- View
Have to agree with Technodup, and it seems the way the legislation is formulated is a cover all for just about anything we might use for a cheap thrill without examining the actual effects and side effects. A presumption to illegality, not a great thing in a liberal society.
Mike, I have one foot in London also, so can claim to be part of the lowest alcohol consumption data set.
However, the differences are not huge, and I know the rural drinker is unlike the urban drinker.
We tend to have a few at the end of a hard physical day, work, work, drink whereas the urban pattern is work, drink, drink.
Mike, I have one foot in London also, so can claim to be part of the lowest alcohol consumption data set.
However, the differences are not huge, and I know the rural drinker is unlike the urban drinker.
We tend to have a few at the end of a hard physical day, work, work, drink whereas the urban pattern is work, drink, drink.
technodup
Senior Retro Guru
It boils my piss tbh. With these being legal and distributed through bona fide shops etc they had a chance to bring some quality control and/or licencing similar to how alcohol is sold. Could have been a start of a brave new world, but a typically illiberal fake Tory policy fucks it up.
Any enterprising person has bought up remaining stock to be sold at inflated prices after the ban. It's what happened with mephedrone. When that's gone the users either continue to source formerly legal highs and are therefore now criminals, or switch to traditional illegal highs with the same result. Naturally the shopkeeper or 'dealer' and everyone along the chain is criminalised too.
People will ALWAYS want to get high, from rainforest tribes with their plants and toads, to MPs hitting the Scotch, to a raver sniffing coke or MDMA, it's human nature. The sooner the government (any/all of them) accept that and stop punishing some for their choice whilst congratulating themselves for choosing another the better.
For some reason they think they can affect the universal law of supply and demand, by not reducing demand, and by making the tiniest impact on supply. They criminalise everyone from the Peruvian farmers to the couriers to the dealers to the users. They waste billions on fighting a war which cannot be won, because the industry is smarter, more agile and makes more money than most governments. And all to trumpet a cocaine seizure on the news whilst conveniently forgetting that 90% passed right by them.
To think that people want these cretins to make MORE laws for us is absurd. The ONLY impact this will have is more people through the courts.
Any enterprising person has bought up remaining stock to be sold at inflated prices after the ban. It's what happened with mephedrone. When that's gone the users either continue to source formerly legal highs and are therefore now criminals, or switch to traditional illegal highs with the same result. Naturally the shopkeeper or 'dealer' and everyone along the chain is criminalised too.
People will ALWAYS want to get high, from rainforest tribes with their plants and toads, to MPs hitting the Scotch, to a raver sniffing coke or MDMA, it's human nature. The sooner the government (any/all of them) accept that and stop punishing some for their choice whilst congratulating themselves for choosing another the better.
For some reason they think they can affect the universal law of supply and demand, by not reducing demand, and by making the tiniest impact on supply. They criminalise everyone from the Peruvian farmers to the couriers to the dealers to the users. They waste billions on fighting a war which cannot be won, because the industry is smarter, more agile and makes more money than most governments. And all to trumpet a cocaine seizure on the news whilst conveniently forgetting that 90% passed right by them.
To think that people want these cretins to make MORE laws for us is absurd. The ONLY impact this will have is more people through the courts.
- Feedback
- View
I blame the EU.
And the SNP.
And cheap vacuum cleaners.
And Fracking.
And the SNP.
And cheap vacuum cleaners.
And Fracking.
Similar threads
