Blanket ban on 'Legal highs' enforced today.

[Cyclone]

Is that because to shows that harm can be reduced by making harmful things harder to get hold of.

 

No, it's because firearms and drugs cause harm in such a completely different manner that the analogy is really stupid.

[Tomjames]

What seems to me to be a ridiculous idea showing just how stupid the government is, they put a blanket ban on all so called legal highs. I say all but it seems they're not including alcohol.

Have they learned nothing? We know it will do nothing for harm reduction, at least buying from a shop you'd know what you were buying and get advice how to use it safely and what to expect. It created jobs and revenue which will now be driven underground, kids that way inclined will likely use far more dangerous substances to get their kicks. It makes no sense.

 

Agreed. The act includes all psychoactive substances which is just plain ridiculous

 

---------- Post added 26-05-2016 at 12:37 ----------

 

How do you go about banning legal highs? Does that mean we can no longer buy paint, glue, solvents etc?

Do you have a link for this story?

 

Sorry for butting in. There was a story said it will be very difficult & costly to prosecute because how do you prove a substance is psychoactive without testing?

[sutty27]

No it's not. Possession in law has a specific meaning.

 

Feel free to explain, and can anyone legally own any gun with ammunition?

 

---------- Post added 26-05-2016 at 13:42 ----------

 

No, it's because firearms and drugs cause harm in such a completely different manner that the analogy is really stupid.

 

So because they cause harm in different ways you believe restricting one reduces harm and reducing the other won't reduce harm. If so I disagree.

[L00b]

Feel free to explain

Simple terms, so you can follow: ownership means having legal title to something, possession means being able to exert control on that something.

So because they cause harm in different ways you believe restricting one reduces harm and reducing the other won't reduce harm. If so I disagree.

Simple terms again, so you can follow: drugs only harm their users, not third parties.

 

The selling of a firearm to a user would only be analogous to the selling of drugs if, and only if, the user used the firearm to shoot themselves with it (presumably just the once ).

 

Now can you see how and why your comparison between drugs (legal ones, at that) and firearms is daft?

 

I really do wonder about sutty sometimes

Edited May 26, 2016 by L00b

[Cyclone]

F

 

So because they cause harm in different ways you believe restricting one reduces harm and reducing the other won't reduce harm. If so I disagree.

 

Yes, precisely, I believe that prohibition on drugs increases harm (this is very well established by evidence), and that licensing firearms does in some minor way minimise harm.

No doubt you think that prohibition of drugs works, despite all the evidence to the contrary, either that or you want to make an argument for the de-restriction of firearms possession, which I doubt is the case.

 

---------- Post added 26-05-2016 at 14:04 ----------

 

Simple terms, so you can follow: ownership means having legal title to something, possession means being able to exert control on that something.

Simple terms again, so you can follow: drugs only harm their users, not third parties.

 

The selling of a firearm to a user would only be analogous to the selling of drugs if, and only if, the user used the firearm to shoot themselves with it (presumably just the once ).

 

Now can you see how and why your comparison between drugs (legal ones, at that) and firearms is daft?

 

I really do wonder about sutty sometimes

 

He knows what you just explained, he's just going to pretend that he doesn't for the purposes of trolling.

There is one further option to your scenario's though, someone buys drugs with the intent of using them on someone else without permission. But with the exception of a few specific drugs, that seems like a very far fetched scenario.

[Obelix]

I really do wonder about sutty sometimes

 

 

He's a prolific troll called variously MrSmith, Xenia, and a half dozen other nym's. I let him out the killfile to see if he's changed and he's just gone back in it again.

[monkey104]

So some on here would be quite happy for their kids to be taking substances that has this sort of effect on them? Shame.

 

https://youtu.be/ApTfAJAjrd4

 

Of course it should be made illegal. Why would the government allow something this dangerous.

And don't come the argument about cars, guns and alcohol causing as many deaths or more because they have been with us a long time and are not going to be banned.

[sutty27]

Simple terms, so you can follow: ownership means having legal title to something, possession means being able to exert control on that something.

Simple terms again, so you can follow: drugs only harm their users, not third parties.

 

 

 

Simple terms, most people that own something have control over it, but you didn't answer the question, can anyone own any gun and ammunition?

 

drugs only harm their users, not third parties.

 

I can see where you are going with this, so I will play the game with you, guns don't cause harm to third parties, the person using it causes the harm, just like the person using drugs causes harm to third parties.

 

---------- Post added 26-05-2016 at 16:52 ----------

 

Yes, precisely, I believe that prohibition on drugs increases harm (this is very well established by evidence), and that licensing firearms does in some minor way minimise harm.

No doubt you think that prohibition of drugs works, despite all the evidence to the contrary, either that or you want to make an argument for the de-restriction of firearms possession, which I doubt is the case.

 

 

Nonsense, the evidence supports banning them, less availability means less harm, prohibition works by limiting supply, legalisation increases supply, consumption and harm.

Edited May 26, 2016 by sutty27

[Chelle-82]

In all honesty children are better educated on the damage drugs and alcohol do to us than they have ever been in the past..

 

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...

[sutty27]

In all honesty children are better educated on the damage drugs and alcohol do to us than they have ever been in the past..

 

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...

 

Have you considered the possibility that it might be you or someone you love that ends up dead when they run you over whilst high?