Came across this just now, thought it was very interesting.

Sort of ass backwards if you ask me, why not legalize all the classic psychedelics that have been proven safe first? I guess it is a conversation that needs to happen nonetheless.

http://www.guardian.co.u...vailable-sale-government

My lady and I were having a related conversation last week - about the fact that the average kid can pick up some weird cocktail of legal powders at the local gas station... but a little reefer lands you him jail (at least still in my neck of the USA).

Ass-backwards is exactly what it is.

still waiting on that facepalm emoticon..

less nbome more lsd

less mxe more ketamine

less mdai more xtc

less nag more amphetamine sulphate

classics are classic for a reason, we dont need these crappy replacements any more available!

(IMO)

I don't see why they bother distinguishing between types of substances by naming new ones legal. Surely this is just masking the bigger picture and this kind of legislation should be applied to all substances?

I'm a strong believer in getting together a bunch of avid RC enthusiasts, studying the effects of their use as they use it and then making a decision based on the findings, but just declaring new, nonlegislated substances just seems like... well it's handing in unfinished homework, right?

Maybe politicians have less trouble getting their heads round substances they haven't already been demonizing for 40+ years?

Theory -> Animal -> Human -> Profit?

Isnt that usually how new substances are treated in the pharmaceutical biz?

It seems weird that the powers that be would allow shortcuts for experimental chemists to make a profit. Even household non-consumables are tested for toxicity.

But if this is in fact all kosher, I'm going to design and distribute a car with 1 wheel, write my own review under a different name, tell everyone it's fine and then distribute it without testing, get a plane to guam... then just coast.




Different kettle of fish.

/agrees

however the issue of personal responsibility is still at large

Banning is not the way, education is.

And when i say education, i mean the truth, not lies.

That's alot of responsibilities for a teenager. I think you've all noticed by now that we live inside a teenager. Just because a few individuals here and there are more "rational" in the way that they research things before believing anything, if you take all the 7 billion people and turn it into an average value, it more or less corresponds to a very young and confused planetary kid who has alot of issues and is just starting to mature and become aware of itself. The neurons (people) are multiplying and the connections (internet) between them are getting more efficient. Just give it some time, it'll all be good. I have a feeling Earth will be one of those planets who has a nice adventurous personality and a great sense of humour.

Cool way of looking at and explaining the collective abilities/consciousness - I like it!

Legal highs are for sale for 18 year olds or over, not kids.

1. I think it was a metaphor.

2. 18 = Teenager.

I agree, banning shouldn't be the instant reaction to every new drug. Education and safety profiling should be at the forefront of any conversation regarding legalizing/banning a substance.

It is silly to just give up on regulating these new substances and make them available while we continue to demonize the classics that have been proven safe over and over just because people are starting to realize scheduling them doesn't work.