14 comments on “Odd headline

  1. Ban on legal highs delayed over concerns law is not enforceable

    Equally, if it was unenforceable then it shouldn’t have been passed into law in the first place.

  2. I suspect that that’s not quite what’s meant.

    I’m far from being an authority on the subject but would guess that where a substance is naturally available like, say, a mushroom or where it has another practical and every-day use, then it’s hard to frame legislation to prohibit its use or possession.

    The IEA’s nanny state index out today is a useful and sadly entertaining insight into what our lawmakers have done to clamp down on fun.

  3. Haven’t they had exactly the same problem in the Republic of Ireland? They passed a similar law but have come up against the problem of proving that any given substance actually has any psychotropic effects. There’s no research to quote obviously, as each chemical is manufactured by unknown people in unknown ways. And they can hardly make people take them and document the results.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33226526

  4. Guns are legal. Shooting people is not. I would not be surprised if some glues are legal but sniffing them is an offense.

    Is it legal to sniff petrol? Should it be?

  5. Possession is not to be an offence only supply. To shut –presumably– the “Legal High” shops on what is left of the High St. (Didn’t see the pun there at first. Thank you subconscious.)

    Obviously all of our (endlessly multiplying ) other problems must have been solved to even waste time on this tinpot tyranny.

    Hopefully test cases will fuck it up. I hope we will soon be out of the EU or they might prove useful idiots in such cases.

  6. “What’s this stuff then? Do people use it to have fun? No? Move along then. Yes? Let’s be having you…”

    That said, I’ve never understood the attractions of (formerly) legal highs. There are a number of widely available illegal highs, all of which have been extensively tested by caners over a long period of time, so the pros and cons are well known.

    Furthermore, Peter Hitchens is correct when he argues that drugs are to all intents and purposes decriminalised. I don’t think I know a single casual user who has ever been busted, and I know a lot of casual drug users.

  7. I’m really fed up with this endless Puritan campaign against people enjoying themselves.

  8. Concerns law is not enforceable.

    I guess it has more to do with bringing the law into disrepute, in the sense that if you can’t enforce this one, then …

  9. If I control my breathing and induce an endorphin high I’m ok, but if I purchase endorphins to get high I’m nicked. Crazy.

    BTW, I have low blood pressure such that having my blood pressure taking with a sphygnowotsit either makes me pass out or leaves me in a giggling heap on the floor. Is my doctor going to get busted?

  10. “If they’re banned then they’re not legal anymore, are they?”

    But they’re not banned yet, are they? And the ban that was due to come into effect is being delayed. So they’re currently legal. Hence the headline.

  11. jgh,

    “If I control my breathing and induce an endorphin high I’m ok, but if I purchase endorphins to get high I’m nicked. Crazy.”

    Good point. Should I report to the local nick when I get jogger’s high?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.