A “legal high” is a common term for a drug where the key ingredients are not on a list of banned substances, although the drug itself produces similar physiological and psychological effects to many drugs that are illegal to trade or consume. One example is a substance called “Spice,” which is a laboratory-created cannabis substitute.
Arguably the risks associated with “legal highs” are greater than those for drugs that are banned because the chemicals that blended together to make the legal high have not always been extensively studied. Many such products are also highly addictive, and are classed as psychoactive substances.
The proposed new law aims to clarify the approach to legal highs. Here some of the drugs that fall under this definition cannot be sold but they can be taken; whereas others can be sold lawfully. The bill also seeks to pull in a vast number of substances into the status of being illegal and where possession can lead to being fined or imprisoned.
Among the proposed list of banned substances are “poppers” and nitrous oxide (or laughing gas or by its street name “hippy crack”). These are increasingly being used by young people. In total some 500 substances appear on the list. In essence, any substance that alters brain function is likely to to be covered. Some of these are already under a under a Temporary Class Drug Order (as Digital Journal reported on in April.) Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, food and medical products will not be included.
The measures are welcomed by anti-drugs campaigners. Maryon Stewart, who founded the Angelus Foundation after her 21-year-old daughter Hester died after consuming the then legal drug GBL, told the BBC: “We expect the law to impact very significantly on the high street trade.
While the measure is broadly supported by most policy makers, some are calling for exceptions to be made for the area of academic research. For instance, scientist Nick Davis has written in The Guardian: “I believe that there is one situation where the use of psychoactive drugs is currently illegal…this is the case of research use of drugs in universities and clinical institutes.”
This is a similar argument used in the U.K. in relation to marijuana, where supply for academic research is severely curtailed.
