Blanket ban on 'Legal highs' enforced today.

[Starbud]

But you are happy with the chemicals in alcohol & processed food & drink & the chemicals in sponsored pharmaceutical that kill millions yearly?

 

 

Exactly. obviously our health isn't a priority of the government. It's just an excuse.

[sutty27]

If something has the potential to cause instant death at a nornal dose then I agree it shouldn't be sold in shops for recreational use, but they have also banned substances with no risk, or very low risk, its that I have issue with. I'm 47 years old, don't drink, haven't for nearly 20 years, and i don't take any pharmaceutical drugs because I'm aware of the harm they do. I work full time, not had a day off sickness in over four years and have no criminal record. I'm perfectly capable of making choices for myself regarding my own health.

I like to smoke salvia occasionally but now It would make me a criminal, that is wrong.

 

No it wouldn't, you would only be a criminal if you produced, distributed, sold or supplied it to someone else.

[Starbud]

There's an enormous difference between

 

1. Foodstuffs and medicines which are tested and where necessary licenced, which have known and measurable benefits and risks, and

 

2. Chemicals which are marketed without any such safeguards.

 

People have taken Salvia for thousands of years. The effects can be quite mind blowing (in higher doses) ,its astounding what our brains are capable of in altered states but there is no risk of harm if done in a controlled environment.

I might never have taken salvia again but just having that right taken away on top of cannabis and mushrooms, things given and intended by mother nature is very frustrating. It's like imprisoning the mind. Seems the government want a bunch of brain dead robots.

[Chelle-82]

I might have misunderstood this,

 

 

 

It appeared to me that you think they only affect themselves by taking drugs.

 

---------- Post added 26-05-2016 at 20:08 ----------

 

Although popular opinion believes that Prohibition failed, it succeeded in cutting overall alcohol consumption in half during the 1920s, and consumption remained below pre-Prohibition levels until the 1940s.

 

Illegal sales are not officially reported or measured, but there are indirect estimates using alcohol related deaths and cirrhosis, a liver disease specifically tied to ongoing alcohol consumption. Scholars estimate that consumption dropped to a low of about 60% of pre-prohibition levels around 1925, rising to almost 80% before the law was officially repealed. After the prohibition was implemented, alcohol continued to be consumed. However, how much compared to pre-Prohibition levels remains unclear. Studies examining the rates of cirrhosis deaths as a proxy for alcohol consumption estimated a decrease in consumption of 10–20%.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

 

???

 

Of course it does dear from that small comment i made you ASSUME i think only drugs affect only the drug taker!

[Tomjames]

There's an enormous difference between

 

1. Foodstuffs and medicines which are tested and where necessary licenced, which have known and measurable benefits and risks, and

 

2. Chemicals which are marketed without any such safeguards.

 

The evidence says differently. Food stuff and the ways its cooked can be as toxic as any substance.

[Starbud]

No it wouldn't, you would only be a criminal if you produced, distributed, sold or supplied it to someone else.

 

There's the problem.you see. I wouldn't be able to get it so I might turn to something harmful.

[sutty27]

???

 

Of course it does dear from that small comment i made you ASSUME i think only drugs affect only the drug taker!

 

That's how your comment reads to me, I am happy to be corrected, so maybe clarifying what you meant instead of being sarcastic would be the way to go.

 

 

If anyone is stupid enough to take drugs, after knowing what the potential dangers are, legal or not legal then so be it!

 

Just another form of natural selection...

[Chelle-82]

That's how your comment reads to me, I am happy to be corrected, so maybe clarifying what you meant instead of being sarcastic would be the way to go.

 

No you're alright, you think what you like! i'm going to go and make a cuppa tea

[sutty27]

There's the problem.you see. I wouldn't be able to get it so I might turn to something harmful.

 

There's also a benefit, children and people with less control than you will also find it more difficult to get hold of.

 

---------- Post added 27-05-2016 at 09:33 ----------

 

Do you just spend all your time being wrong on the internet?

 

---------- Post added 27-05-2016 at 07:26 ----------

 

You haven't though.

 

Use was increasing historically. The rate of increase didn't change.

QED legalisation had no impact on the level of use.

 

They find that legalization increased both marijuana use and marijuana abuse/dependence in people 21 or older.

 

http://www.nber.org/digest/oct14/img/ConsequencesMedicalMarijuanaLaws_spot.jpg

[Starbud]

There's also a benefit, children and people with less control than you will also find it more difficult to get hold of.

 

---------- Post added 27-05-2016 at 09:33 ----------

 

 

They find that legalization increased both marijuana use and marijuana abuse/dependence in people 21 or older.

 

http://www.nber.org/digest/oct14/img/ConsequencesMedicalMarijuanaLaws_spot.jpg

 

And so also turn to something more harmful already widely available on the street. There is no benefit.

 

And what's so bad about cannabis dependence compared with any other dependence? Far less harmful than say prescribed anti depressants.

In fact the benefits and healing potential of cannabis far outweigh any damage potential especially if not smoked and prepared accordingly.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Starbud