Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday June 12 2015, @06:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-more-drug-war dept.

UK Home Secretary Theresa May is continuing a trend of ignoring science advisers when it comes to drug policy:

Home Secretary Theresa May and her statutory advisers on drug policy look to be heading for a showdown over government plans to deal with so-called "legal highs". Some members of The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) are understood to be furious that they were not consulted on proposed legislation for a blanket ban on psychoactive substances. The relationship between the ACMD and ministers in various governments has long been strained. There have been sackings and mass resignations in the last few years, amid claims that expert scientists were being bullied and ignored because their advice didn't coincide with government policy.

Questions are now being asked as to whether the ACMD is being edged out of the drugs debate - 44 years after a Conservative government set it up to ensure science rather than politics dictated policy. In the House of Lords yesterday, a number of peers demanded to know why ministers had not asked the ACMD's opinion before drawing up the controversial Psychoactive Substances Bill.

"It is actually a legal requirement set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 that the ACMD must be consulted before alterations to the Act or new legislation is brought in," Labour peer Lord Rea told the House. "Instead, a specially appointed expert panel was set up by the Home Office. I can only suggest that this was done because the opinion of the ACMD is often not exactly welcomed by the Home Office".

The principle which underpinned the drugs debate in the UK at that time [in 1971] was the longstanding and broadly accepted view that addicts were ill and required treatment rather than punishment. Known as the "British system", ministers felt a medical science-led approach was preferable to US-style prohibition. Roll the clock forward four decades and the government view seems to have turned around entirely in responding to the threat from so-called "legal highs". The bill to outlaw NPS prohibits everything "capable of producing a psychoactive effect" unless it is specifically exempted - and there are concerns that the proposals are being introduced without proper consultation with health experts.

A blanket ban on psychoactive legal highs with prison sentences of up to seven years was featured in the Conservative Party's election manifesto and the Queen's Speech.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Gault.Drakkor on Friday June 12 2015, @08:56PM

    by Gault.Drakkor (1079) on Friday June 12 2015, @08:56PM (#195532)

    If they are concerned about deaths. Why don't they push for labeling and purity value?
    It would add some expense, but then consumers have better idea what there getting. I don't think there would be very many people against the idea.

    Only thing that I think would be challenging is labeling it in a way that it is clear to users what ingredients are. Example product has ingredient A that is 98% pure. The remaining 2% is solvent(s), precursors, catalysts etc. I would expect it would be good to have shortcuts/notations to describe items as solvents/precursor/ etc

    I know i would not really know what ethylmethlbiphenamaline(randomy chem string) would be or do. But that it was a solvent for A is a little clearer what it is. A user probably doesn't want any solvent but could probably tolerate some of the precursors(depending on substance of course).

    This type of labeling would be good on certain foods and many medications.

    tl;dr more information is better then banning.