More on the "Psychoactive Substances" bill

Kurtosis

AKA pat sheen wrote: »

There is no ambiguity, GHB and any substance or product containing "any proportion" of it is a controlled drug, the law is quite clear about it. Every pub, club and off-license in Ireland that sells wine is breaking the law.

Someone has obviously not been following this thread, or read the bill properly. You're right, there is no ambiguity:

This Act does not apply to—

...

(d) intoxicating liquor sold in compliance with the Licensing Acts 1833 to 2008

strobe

AAAAAAAHHH wrote: »

You're confusing decriminalising with legalising.

No he's not.

AKA pat sheen

penguin88 wrote: »

Someone has obviously not been following this thread, or read the bill properly. You're right, there is no ambiguity:

I was referring to the Misuse of Drugs Act, not the CJPS bill, which already controls GHB, GBL & 1,4-BDO. Wine contains GHB and the law says any product containing any proportion of GHB is a controlled drug.

Steodonn

penguin88 wrote: »

Someone has obviously not been following this thread, or read the bill properly. You're right, there is no ambiguity:

GHB is under the misuse of drugs act and is already illegal

Jamiekelly

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

Err, you should take another look yourself. Holland never decriminalized any drugs, let alone weed, they simply don't prosecute, there's a huge difference.

Portugal, now there's a different matter. In 2001 they decriminalised ALL drugs. Go read the Time magazine article 8 years on and then tell me criminalising users is the way to go about it.

Uhm decriminalising means not prosecuting. Technically not legal but still allowed to be sold in coffee shops and hash bars.

c0ldfyr3

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Uhm decriminalising means not prosecuting. Technically not legal but still allowed to be sold in coffee shops and hash bars.

My mistake was already pointed out thanks I just hadn't gotten around to a groveling apology yet :P

Stuxnet

The dail is on a 3 month recess, god bless them they work so hard, has the bill gone through yet ? We are free to import non banned rc's for our plants now I take it

c0ldfyr3

BOBBY wrote: »

The dail is on a 3 month recess, god bless them they work so hard, has the bill gone through yet ? We are free to import non banned rc's for our plants now I take it

The last news report I read said the presidents signature was all that was missing so unless she's off on her holidays too it could be law already!

HoPpiE

So is there a list of what's banned?

c0ldfyr3

HoPpiE wrote: »

So is there a list of what's banned?

Have you read the fnckin bill? Any idea whatsoever about what it contains? Maybe give it a once over before you ask about it's foundations...

Everything 'psychoactive' which is not alcohol, tobacco, glue and diesel...

HoPpiE

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

Have you read the fnckin bill? Any idea whatsoever about what it contains? Maybe give it a once over before you ask about it's foundations...

Everything 'psychoactive' which is not alcohol, tobacco, glue and diesel...

I'm pretty sure if you read my question again you'll see it didn't say "Can somebody act like a fúcking príck to me and not be in any way helpful to my simple question?"

I've taken a quick glance at it, nothing thorough I might add. That is why I asked.

Even though I know it's not the case, if I were to go with your gold mine of information I'd be under the assumption the caffeine is on that list.

c0ldfyr3

HoPpiE wrote: »

I'm pretty sure if you read my question again you'll see it didn't say "Can somebody act like a fúcking príck to me and not be in any way helpful to my simple question?"

I've taken a quick glance at it, nothing thorough I might add. That is why I asked.

Even though I know it's not the case, if I were to go with your gold mine of information I'd be under the assumption the caffeine is on that list.

Your question seemed in complete ignorance of the bill and what they're trying to do - a simple skim of the thread would have filled you in on that much! Better than a UTFSE anyway right ?

I've not looked at the bill since it's inception but I'm glad to see they've thrown out the bits on pipes and bongs and the specifics about excluding alcohol. But yes you are right nothing thorough, they left it vague, or as they say at the discretion of the 'Authority'... And the original bill was so mundane as to say "Everything pyschoactive except.."

Did anyone notice these little doozies?

Non-Medicinal Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority wrote:

The Authority shall be a Body Corporate.

The Authority may sue and may be sued in its corporate name.

The Authority may acquire, hold and transfer land and other property.

Why does a government authority require any of the above... unless they plan on taxing substances they find not to be of huge health detriments?

Maybe I'm completely naive and all state bodies are coporate??

Elevator

Did anyone notice these little doozies?


Why does a government authority require any of the above... unless they plan on taxing substances they find not to be of huge health detriments?

Maybe I'm completely naive and all state bodies are coporate??[/QUOTE]

now that would be nice alright, could we see a relaxing of our drug laws? could we see such a thing work in this country?? would the greedy bastard ministers etc make a pure hash of it, tax too high, corrupt awarding of licences for growing or production of the drugs

at the mo we got a bunch of guys who we voted for that couldn't run a piss up quite literaly in the Guinness brewery

I wouldn't hold out much faith here

Steodonn

Well our government have acknowledged that cannabis MIGHT have some medical uses :rolleyes:

Shulgin

Elevator wrote: »

would the greedy bastard ministers etc make a pure hash of it, tax too high, corrupt awarding of licences for growing or production of the drugs

If only

ScumLord

Steodonn wrote: »

Well our government have acknowledged that cannabis MIGHT have some medical uses :rolleyes:

Just like our hospitals might be in crisis and our roads may not be all that good. Maybe they might even do something about all these problems?

Elevator

there are many other issues they should be tackling alright but I swear of the government knew the amount of people who actualy used shops and we were all relable voters in their opinions we never would have seem these new laws comin in.

read somewhere last sun that some government agency had claimed there were about 15,000 drug users in Ireland and we have 9,000 registered smack heads

do they really think there's only 6,000 people who use drugs in the 26 counties?!?

ScumLord

Elevator wrote: »

there are many other issues they should be tackling alright but I swear of the government knew the amount of people who actualy used shops and we were all relable voters in their opinions we never would have seem these new laws comin in.

read somewhere last sun that some government agency had claimed there were about 15,000 drug users in Ireland and we have 9,000 registered smack heads

do they really think there's only 6,000 people who use drugs in the 26 counties?!?

I'm not saying they should ignore this issue over anything else but if they won't fix important things like those they won't bother their hole trying to do anything about tackling drug crime either. Legalising the safer more popular drugs would put a huge dent in organised crime that's fairly obvious and proven at this stage.

If I was the conspiracy type I'd say they must be profiteering from the chaos in some way.

bushboy

so under this new bill will i still be able to purchase beautiful morning glory flowers from my local garden centre? or would it be illegal for me to import the seeds form abroad for me to grow my own flowers?

Shulgin

bushboy wrote: »

so under this new bill will i still be able to purchase beautiful morning glory flowers from my local garden centre? or would it be illegal for me to import the seeds form abroad for me to grow my own flowers?

Its prefectly fine to import them to grow flowers, if you intend to eat the seeds for psychoactive purposes then that is illegal.

If you purchase the seeds from the garden center and use them to get high then you and possibly the garden center are breaking the law.

Elevator

Shulgin wrote: »

Its prefectly fine to import them to grow flowers, if you intend to eat the seeds for psychoactive purposes then that is illegal.

If you purchase the seeds from the garden center and use them to get high then you and possibly the garden center are breaking the law.

then we all need to hit the garden centres on the same saturday, buy our seeds and sit there trippin balls and recording the whole thing, see what happens

ScumLord

I see all the head shop drugs are now in the hands of the drug dealers at €10 to €20 more expensive. Nicest thing the government have ever done for criminals.

strobe

Elevator wrote: »

then we all need to hit the garden centres on the same saturday, buy our seeds and sit there trippin balls and recording the whole thing, see what happens

What would happen is that Morning Glory seeds would be scheduled.

strobe

ScumLord wrote: »

I see all the head shop drugs are now in the hands of the drug dealers at €10 to €20 more expensive. Nicest thing the government have ever done for criminals.

I've noticed that aswell. Didn't take long did it?

ScumLord

strobe wrote: »

I've noticed that aswell. Didn't take long did it?

Of course not, the government made their inventory illegal overnight so who else where they going to dump it on?

It's a big cash injection for organised crime that will allow them to cause more distractions for the government to point at while their actions send the country down the toilet.

bushboy

Quote:
Originally Posted by bushboy View Post
so under this new bill will i still be able to purchase beautiful morning glory flowers from my local garden centre? or would it be illegal for me to import the seeds form abroad for me to grow my own flowers?
Its prefectly fine to import them to grow flowers, if you intend to eat the seeds for psychoactive purposes then that is illegal.

If you purchase the seeds from the garden center and use them to get high then you and possibly the garden center are breaking the law.

I hadn't suggested breaking any laws, of course. The flowers would be bought purely for their aesthetics.

Under this bill is it illegal to own mescaline containing cacti, or poppies? Surely poppies wouldn't be made illegal as gardeners up and down the country cultivate them solely for their flowers. How would they go about proving that mescaline containing cacti weren't purchased as a botanical specimen?

AKA pat sheen

bushboy wrote: »

Under this bill is it illegal to own mescaline containing cacti, or poppies? Surely poppies wouldn't be made illegal as gardeners up and down the country cultivate them solely for their flowers. How would they go about proving that mescaline containing cacti weren't purchased as a botanical specimen?

It used to be illegal to grow any poppies derived from papaver somniferum, including ornamental varieties, until a few years ago but the law was changed to control growing poppies specifically for opium production. At the moment it's only illegal to cultivate cannabis and coca plants without a license. This bill won't change that. Funnily enough, it's not illegal to grow psilocybe mushrooms but it is illegal to possess mushrooms which aren't "growing uncultivated"

TheDark_Knight

very sensible article on uk drug policy, july 12 bbc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/07/tension_at_heart_of_drug_classification.html

Tension at heart of drug classification

Mark Easton | 11:49 UK time, Monday, 12 July 2010

The Home Office has fought for three years to keep details of its review of the drug classification system secret. Now the campaigners who forced its publication think they know why: the document, they say, exposes the illogicality that undermines government drugs policy.

You will remember what happened to Professor David Nutt, the former head of the body which oversees the drug classification system, when he argued official policy should recognise that ecstasy and cannabis were less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. His controversial views cost him his job on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. But, years earlier, the Home Office had come to the same conclusion.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, this weekend the pressure group Drug Equality Alliance finally got to see the 2006 advice given to ministers [361KB PDF] ahead of a planned public consultation into the legal controls on illicit drugs, a report initiated by the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke.

One section of the paper focuses on the dangers of treating cigarettes and booze differently from ecstasy and cannabis. The authors point out that "alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and deaths than illicit drugs". They quote figures which suggest that "in terms of death, illegal drugs amounted to 1,388 in 2003 compared to about 20,000 for alcohol and 100,000 for tobacco."

So far, so familiar.

What makes this hitherto secret report such dynamite is the implication that this inconsistency in the way society treats "substances that alter mental functioning" might be making Britain's drugs crisis worse.

http://i31.tinypic.com/ouvegw.jpg
http://i28.tinypic.com/2e51mjt.jpg

In other words, treating malt whisky differently from mephedrone makes it more likely young people will ignore the official advice.

The report appears to support the idea that alcohol and tobacco might be included in the classification system, although "in a way which would stop short of imposing comparable controls".

The tension at the heart of this debate is clear when the report goes on to point out that:

http://i28.tinypic.com/2e51mjt.jpg

However, the suggestion that "tradition and tolerance" should guide the legal framework surrounding recreational drugs will be seized upon by those who argue that the answer to the drugs dilemma is to end the "un-British" policy of prohibition and regulate all substances based on the harm they cause.

AKA pat sheen

This is law now, The Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010 was signed on 14/07/10.

connexion

AKA pat sheen wrote: »

This is law now, The Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010 was signed on 14/07/10.

Any links to news sites about this ? I can't find anything.