Children as young as 12 are getting hooked on highs
Tuesday 25th August 2009, 11:30AM BST.
CHILDREN as young as 12 are getting hooked on Spice and other legal highs, according to the manager of Drug Concern.
Tracey Rear said the advice group would welcome the legal high being classified as a Class B drug.
The Home Department wants the herbal extract made illegal within two years. It would be regarded in the same light as cannabis and amphetamines.
It comes as the UK Government follows recommendations from drug advisers. A recent report called for a ban on the possession and use of Spice and other legal highs, which it said could be as harmful as cannabis or worse.
‘If making it a Class B drug could prevent young people getting involved, then it has to be a good thing,’ said Ms Rear.
‘Whether or not they will get involved with cannabis instead, we don’t know.
‘We have had 10 people in [about legal highs] this month and it’s not even the end of the month. They are new people.
‘It’s certainly gone up. In 2008, we had seen eight people about legal highs. By February, we had already exceeded that.
‘The restriction of the sale of it and making it illegal can only be a good thing.’
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
If it is worse than cannabis, surely it should have a higher rating? or maybe they should just lower the cannabis to C and “legal highs” up at B.
On another note, what will they be called once classed as a B? Surely “legal high” will not be appropriate any longer?
Report abuse
How many children as young as 12 are smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol? I guess that’s alright because they’re taxed though……….
Report abuse
Hi Phil!
Sweatheart I take your point but there’s no way that 12 year olds would be drinking or smoking because that’s illegal. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that it’s been suggested.
Once things are made illegal no-one does them any more. Everybody knows that.
It’s a fact.
Report abuse
Phil / Mrs P
You’ve both taken the age old stance based around the opinions “don’t make it illegal because people will still do it” and “everyone’s doing it so make it legal”
The truth is that you’re right – making something illegal doesn’t stop people taking it, I don’t actually think anyone is naive enough to think they would – otherwise there wouldn’t be any need for police, courts and prisons would there?
Laws are made to define what society considers acceptable behaviour, they are also meant to protect the innocent and act as a restraining influence, with consequences built in for those who break them.
Interesting isn’t it that you don’t hear many rational people saying “everyone breaks the speed limit so let’s abolish it.”
Report abuse
Are parents letting their children buy this stuff?
Do they let them drink bleach?
“What’s for tea, mum?”
“A melted tyre fondue with Goujons de Raw Asbestos in a paint stripper marinade followed by a short insufflation of Soda Caustique and an Aerosol Anglaise.”
“Spice?”
“Of course! It’s one of the five a day – looking at the ingredients it’s probably a meal in itself! Now go and get me some cash from the shop”
It’s a tragic way of looking at life
“It’s legal so it’s safe.”
Report abuse
Hi Paul Le P!
Forget about law. There are many reasons why it’s not going to work.
Here’s a phat argument to pack in your bowl:-
Take ‘Spice’ and it’s look-a-likelies in isolation for a moment. It’s a legal herb sprayed with a tiny amount of some very powerful research chemicals from China. OK so we ban those chemicals but then the manufacturer will just change the recipe. Then you ban those and it changes again ad infinitum.
We will waste time and millions of £’s on passing laws but all the time the foil packets will keep coming.
Prohibition doesn’t work, it’s actually what has lead us here.
Report abuse
PLP, Where’s the law prohibiting alcohol then? It’s a shame the Press didn’t print some corresponding stats for alcohol abuse in the Island (I guess that’d get in the way of some good ol’ fashioned ‘won’t someone think of the children’ scaremongering though).
Alcohol is worse on every level than legal highs, but still, every weekend, thousands of Islanders are so drunk they can mistake a chinese lantern for alien invasion.
The only justification for continuing to tolerate alcohol is that at least there’re laws and taxes and support for its victims. Better the devil you know….
So isn’t it time we accepted that some people would prefer to get loaded on something that isn’t as harmful as alcohol? Rather than criminalising everything, why not provide the support that users need?
Report abuse
Paul Le P
well put, also what always comes out is the same old “we have smokeing and drinking argument” so what? does that mean we should allow other harmful things too?
Report abuse
‘Children as young as 12 are getting hooked on highs’
Are they b*ll*cks! Stop talking such rubbish, you’ve absolutely no proof. As for ‘more harmful than cannabis’- cannabis is barely harmful at all and not even remotely addictive medically compared to opiate based painkillers. The fact that people here in extreme pain are allowed it medically proves that.
Report abuse
bcb – If smoking and alcohol were invented today, do you believe they’d be legal? They’re both horrifically harmful!! I bet as far as tobacco goes, we wouldn’t even be debating it.
Look at the advances mankind has made, especially in the last 100 years. It stands to reason that cleaner, safer highs will have been developed. Getting a rush is a primordial instinct and it’ll never go away, surely as responsible people all we can do is regulate what people put in their bodies and make getting high as safe as possible?
With Spice and its ilk, you have this latest generation of highs, proven to be less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. Yet you want to criminalise it!! Why aren’t we embracing Spice, opening Spice Bars and criminalising alcohol and tobacco?
Report abuse
Student Bob “With Spice and its ilk, you have this latest generation of highs, proven to be less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.”
Where is the proof? These substances haven’t been around long enough to study their effects properly. How can the effect of long term Spice use be studied, when it hasn’t even been widely used for a generation?
The only reason we know the long term effects of alcohol and tobacco is because it’s been used since time immemorial and the effects of long term use have been studied.
Report abuse
Sarah – I don’t get your point. Both cannabis and opiates are given to people in extreme pain. I was given morphine once after an operation, which I’m sure you know is medical heroin. That doesn’t prove that either are safe for recreational use, as they are both given in a controlled environment.
Report abuse
Paul, the active component of Spice is a synthetic cannabinoid, an artifically produced varient of cannabis. The use of cannabis is as old as the use of alcohol and tobacco.
Try Google Scholar for pharmacological studies on synthetic cannabinoids, they’ve been around since the 1940′s.
You might be interested to learn that at present, research into synthetic cannabinoids is focusing on its potential as an anti-cancer treatment, whilst other cannabinoids, such as Sativex, are already in use in the treatment of neuropathic disorders such as MS. A lot of very clever people are spending a lot of time and money in this field. Spice is a product of these brains, this time and this money. Certainly seems a bit more reliable than rolling some tobacco leaves up in a paper tube and setting fire to it eh??
Report abuse
Thanks for the info Student Bob. From what you’ve written, from a purely legal perspective I’m actually surprised that Spice was ever legal, being a synthesised version of an already illegal drug.
It’s interesting that many (including your good self) describe Spice as a “safer” recreational drug than alcohol and tobacco. I wonder if your concept of “safe” extends beyond physical health to long term mental health?
Report abuse
Paul, given the choice between dying of lung cancer or CHD or living with anxiety and an increased risk of panic attacks, I’ll take living thanks. Wouldn’t you?
Also, don’t kid yourself that alcohol isn’t without long term mental health problems. Many alcoholics have the same mental health problems as long term cannabis users.
Report abuse
Student Bob – not much of a choice my friend! Personally I’d avoid the lot and live a healthier, happier life! :-)
I’m not kidding myself either about alcohol – I’ve seen close friends mess their lives up through problem drinking….not to mention having previous issues with a few too many bevvies myself.
Report abuse
We need a similar education scheme to the private sector.
Report abuse
Student Bob
If smoking and alcohol were invented today, do you believe they’d be legal? They’re both horrifically harmful!! I bet as far as tobacco goes, we wouldn’t even be debating it.
no i dont think they would be made legal and thats partly why i dont think spice should be.
One other point, i suggest you go out onto the streets and into the real world as i have done, instead of sitting at a desk looking at “statistics” and fancy reports that mean very little and leed to no solutions. All the experts out there and it takes a kid to tell us the obvious.
Sarah
does denying the truth make you somehow feel better ?
Report abuse
I don’t think we should label these particular chemicals as ‘safe’. The point is to get a scientific analysis of ‘safety’ in toxic chemicals and grade them accordingly.
That is the only logical start point for any debate on drug policy.
Report abuse
@bcb
The governments (mainly people sitting at desks) will use “statistics” to ban these substances. Why can’t Student Bob do the same to make his point?
Hey even Drug Concern are using them in this article (or fancy report, if you prefer)!
Report abuse
bcb
The headline is reactionary nonsense. A few 12 year olds may have spent a few months mucking about with something they shouldn’t and subsequently hurt themselves, but that could be true of anything.
I notice that pornography is not banned, in fact its overt use to market a ‘lifestyle’ practically pokes your eye out in the newsagent.
There are dozens of examples where the attractiveness of adult pastimes over-ride any sense of danger. Why aren’t airguns banned?
We, as society, expect adults to take responsibility for children.
It’s a sad endictment.
I don’t think Guernsey has much option in following this ban trend, but this prevalence of unenlightened policies means that manufacturers will never disclose chemical ingredients for fear of the product being immediately compromised. This will just go round and round, ultimately introducing far more risk into the system as short term profits over-ride natural market evolution.
The best example is Salvia Divinorum. How the hell anyone would want to do this without proper research and a propensity for extreme exploration is beyond me. Low doses marketed as an alternative to cannabis is utter madness. It’s a specialist tipple to say the least but here we are effectively promoting it up the consumer ladder.
It’s all about the marketing, all consumerism is, and by banning stuff we absolve responsibility and pass on the control to unaccountable criminals. Look how difficult it was just to ban cigarette adverts. The negative and hysterical campaigns in the past have only reinforced the ‘them and us’ moral superiority of the outraged, whilst they indulge in whatever peccadilloes they wish without thought to obvious hypocrisies.
Report abuse
bcb,
Unfortunately the crux of my argument depends on you accepting that seeking a high is a fundamental, intrinsic human trait. Chasing that chemical tweak in the brain is why people swim with sharks, jump out of planes, run marathons, take spice, get drunk, drive fast, set fire to cars, balance a gnarly set of accounts and bait students on online local news forums. Of course none of these are safe. That’s the point.
Once you can accept that people are always going to want to get tweaked, and to reply to Arnald too, do you not agree that where people choose to ingest substances to do it, there is a moral obligation to make sure that they are taking the safest of the available substances? Alcohol kills, tobacco kills. Spice has never killed anyone. Sure, Spice has long term effects, but they’re not that much different to long term alcohol abuse, and with Spice you won’t get liver cirrhosis and CHD too.
You’re right bcb, there ARE a lot of experts out there, writing fancy reports, none of which you seem to have read, but, you know, I’m happy to share the information with you. I would however suggest that rather than “leeding to no solutions” these experts with their meaningless fancy reports dictate the course of medical research and treatment throughout the world. Google NICE or WHO. Whilst you’re online, feel free to visit AMED, OVID or The Cochrane Library and do your own research before you reply, next time you might not look like such an idiot.
Finally, I am dying to know more about your ‘real world’ experience!! I only spend about 3-6 months a year working in UK hospitals, trying to improve the quality of life for people with alcohol, smoking or drug problems, the rest of the time I waste reading fancy reports. So any ‘real world’ peer-reviewed, randomised clinical experiences could really help on my next placement!!
Report abuse
L Bob
I agree with you. All I’m saying that ‘safety’ is merely a function of dosage. Without any clear guideline on how risk increases with dosage, any user will have to rely on anecdotal evidence.
There is a further problem in that ‘academic’ research is now considered a state tool to ‘engineer’ social behaviour. People resent being told that what they are doing exceeds studied ‘safe’ norms for certain things – red meat for example.
As much as there is an innate desire for risk taking and rush-achieving, or equally, oblivion there is also a deep distrust of any advice now given by ‘authorities’.
Banning something is the ultimate ‘nannying’ that I bet most pro-ban-without-thought would spit their morning coffee out if it were to do with something they enjoyed. Like alcohol consumption guidelines.
Report abuse
Arnald – Quite. There are no toxic chemicals, only toxic levels. After all, too much water will kill you and no-one’s trying to ban that!! Yet…….
I maintain that as the user can get a high on Spice with a lower level of toxicity than smoking or drinking, perhaps we shouldn’t be so keen to criminalise it and potentially push the users onto something that is worse for their overall long term health? People will always look for a high, all we can do is guide them towards the safest option.
Report abuse
Coca plant leaves are an indigenous treatment for surviving high altitude, high exertion, low hydration environments. Opium derivatives are painkillers, as are cannabis varieties, with some alkaloids affecting mood positively (tea!) as well as muscle relaxants.
The pharmaceutical industry makes profits from HIGHLY toxic drugs, often shoddily researched with a compulsion to hide adverse results.
The US is blighted by abuse of sanctioned chemicals. I could go online and buy all manner of ADD drugs, or tranqs, or Michael Jackson Sleep Remedy. Nurofen Plus is addictive and can cause permanent long term damage.
SSRI drugs would score as badly in any test as most illegals yet the docs hand them out willy-nilly.
Watching too much TV affects behaviour.
Phyto-oestrogens in soya (amongst other things), derivatives of which are used in MOST processed foods (as lecithin and other agents), are significant factors in gender change in water animals near outflows. What are they doing to us?
Someone is making rules that influence our chemical ingestions. Who watches the watcher?
Report abuse
Instead of a ban, why not regulation? Why not let there be choice? Why has it been decided that alcohol, tobacco and fatty food are acceptable and “legal highs” are not?
How many deaths from legal highs have been recorded? How many deaths from alcohol, tobacco and fatty food? Not to mention crossing the road, a botched surgery and car accidents.
Make it 18 to buy, and let adults do their own research and make their own decisions.
People always want to get high, that is a fact as Student_bob rightly points out, all this legislation will do, is create more criminals and more people with criminal records. Ms Rear is an idiot if she thinks making this a class B substance will do anything other than create criminals.
In fact I wouldn’t mind betting that customs will be looking out for “legal highs” so much, that hard drugs will slip through the net. I’m sure the overstretched police force on the island need another crime to investigate.
Ironically while we are getting worked up by legal highs, Town is still a ghetto every Friday and Saturday night, caused by Alcohol, who lets not forget is very accepted and real damage, and in fact loss of life has been caused, and what are drug concern doing about that?
Report abuse
Student Bob: “People will always look for a high, all we can do is guide them towards the safest option.”
I agree however surely part of the “rush” is based on the knowledge that you’re dicing with danger? The greater the risk, the bigger the rush? As soon as you tell people after a thrill that what they’re doing is “safe” they may well give up and try something more risky…
“do you not agree that where people choose to ingest substances to do it, there is a moral obligation to make sure that they are taking the safest of the available substances?”
Personally I think we have a moral obligation to steer people away from chemically-based highs. There are plenty of non-chemical methods of getting a rush that are actually socially beneficial – competitive sport being one. There may be an element of danger to them but that’s part of the game…they also don’t tend to lead to chemically induced mental illness.
Report abuse
Sanguine – Why stop at simply regulating it? Why not tax it at 50%? The kids paying £20 a pack will pay £30 a pack and the States can use the revenue to pay for the christmas lights in town.
Report abuse
@Paul Le P
“surely part of the “rush” is based on the knowledge that you’re dicing with danger?”
This is a common misconception, actually people take them for the effects plain and simple. If they wanted to dice with danger they would more likely be stealing cars.
So to answer your question “The greater the risk, the bigger the rush? No.
Report abuse
Paul Le P
Our “moral obligation” is to educate to ensure that individuals can then apply that knowledge for the benefit of society as a whole. There is a difference between telling someone that they are a criminal for following their wants and giving someone objective choice with known outcomes for certain behaviours. Shooting one bullet from a gun could kill someone, shooting up one dose of heroin does not, nor will it cause problems directly unless it makes life uncontrollable (this example ignores the criminal empire aspect that is funded through dealing – this is now used as a reason for more prohibition in itself, prohibition having caused it).
It all depends whether you take the social outcomes of widespread drug abuse as a function of the drug use, or whether you take the drug abuse as a symptom of social problems.
Unfortunately most pro-ban arguments centre around “look what happens” when there is no control group to compare with. By similar tokens most anti-banners see it as a theoretical problem without too much thought what would happen if only that aspect of legislation and treatment were changed.
Ban or no ban, the infrastructure for supporting those who fall into bad ways either by abuse or (usually) through ignorance (more often than not due to false anecdotal evidence, urban myths and peer pressured nihilism), needs addressing.
These are only problems for society if we let it happen. I believe that blanket banning hides potential problems so that when they develop only reactionary responses seem appropriate.
There is too much stigma attached to drug use. Even alcoholism is still viewed as a ‘tramp’ condition, yet be assured that people around you may well be alcoholics without ever dreaming themselves as just that, it doesn’t take much. We will never progress and tackle issues like this if we do not approach them with responsible and adult mentalities.
The very fact that people are still clueless about what’s what out there means that kids will go around thinking that ‘legal’ is ‘safe’. That also is a direct product of prohibition.
Report abuse
Shame on the shopkeepers who have sold this rubbish to the children of Guernsey,and shame on those who sell fags and booze ,hundreds of millions of people have died from these poisons over the years.
Report abuse
The rush is not in the risk. That is confusing two different things.
Pursuits such as travelling at high speed or climbing high things or anything competitive and exerting trigger the release of a whole cocktail of brain chems. These then translate as ‘rushing’ or ‘euphoria’ and are necessary for bio feedback systems to ensure maximum body efficiency. Similar, meditation or other brain calming or focussing activities trigger other chems to relax muscles and what have you.
Recreational drug use is a lazy way of feeling similar things. The risk is only in the unknown.
Report abuse
Thanks Arnald for your balanced comments. Believe it or not but you and I actually agree on quite a lot.
I know a lot of friends who are alcoholics or alcohol dependent and they come from all ends of the social spectrum – from those society would consider “tramps” to those who on the surface seem pretty succesful yet can’t socially interact properly without a drink.
I’m certainly in favour of addressing the support infrastructure for those who fall foul of substance misuse, be that alcohol, drugs, spice or cream cakes. Personally I think that can be achieved while maintaining a ban however I accept you disagree – as someone who lacks experience in this field I certainly wouldn’t hold religiously to that view.
The way I see it, most people want the same thing – it would be a shame if progress was hindered by dogmatic adherance to opinions.
Report abuse
Student Bob
I see your back to doing what you do best, childish insults behind your com (and who`s a big man).
My talking to 13-16 year olds leads me to this conclusion having noticed just how many of them are taking this stuff when they clearly admit a big part of why they take it because they think it`s safe and cant get done for it. Yes some will take drugs anyway but there are far more in that age group who will now go on to seek out other drugs, many who may never have even bothered with them before, do i need you and your expertise to tell me this? You also mention about them using safer drugs, so what is safe then? have you not heard about those who are already finding it hard to get of L Highs?
I have no problem with scientists and the medical reaserch carrying out thier findings of the effects but if think i dont know what i`m talking about then firstly your blind to many things on this subject and secondly your and even bigger idiot :).
I will bet you there are more 13-16 year olds taking drugs now then there was before the legals came out.
looking forward to some more verbal abuse.
Report abuse
Whatever I blather on about drugs (and blimey, don’t I like the sound of my own typing!!!! ) the reality for those involved in someone’s life who loses control of of their health and personality, over enough time to make yourself feel guilty that you didn’t make sense of all those nagging clues until that something bad happened, is heartbreaking. It seems that it is no longer unusual to have known someone who has succumbed to something or other with damaging consequences. So before I get shot down for advocating a junky free for all and opening an EasyCrack empire based in the old Woolworth’s (maybe building a school with the proceeds!), the human cost of such a radical overhaul in a very divisive issue is not something that can be estimated, and so arguably shouldn’t be gambled with. It’s impossible to project what would happen, and certainly Guernsey could not do anything by itself. Not good risk management. We have a fairly cheap geographical border to guard so it does make sense to use that advantage.
Good news I heard on the TV, no drug related deaths here. That has to be a measure of success for all agencies and individuals involved.
But there is a debate to be had on how drugs in society are perceived and whether or not external factors contribute. There are too many discrepancies in how the legislation has evolved and too many black/white fixed positions preventing a more efficient big view on things.
For some reason the culture is alluring. What is society failing to do?
Anyhoo, back to the rate race for me. Don’t take your laptop on holiday, especially if it rains a lot! Ah well. Sorry for boring you all. Back to lurking.
And hey, let’s be careful out there. :)
Report abuse
Arnald
A couple of years ago a major study was undertaken which compared the dangers of most recreational drugs, legal, prescription and otherwise, it took in not only the physical effects, but the long term psychological effects, addictiveness, and obviously danger of fatal overdose and other side effects.
Spice was too new to be included in this so we have no benchmark, but I would wager on SB’s side that given that its a synthetic version of a known compound (cannabis) we could assume the risks are similar to cannabis.
Bob you seem well versed on this and I agree with your posts on this subject, do you know the report I’m talking about?? or happen to have a link to the report? Because it was very eye opening, alcohol was 3rd I think (behind Heroin and Crack Cocaine) in the list. A few people on here may be very interested in what it has to say.
So given alcohol is 3rd (and I’d be pretty confident in saying that there are plenty of 12 years olds swigging fortified in a field somwehere) and Cannabis (and by definition its offshoots) was relatively near the bottom, I’d say we should be looking elsewhere for headlines.
Oh but the tax, we cant go after alcohol……
Report abuse
“and secondly your and even bigger idiot :)”
“looking forward to some more verbal abuse”
Pot, kettle, black?
But seriously, like booze this can be banned for under 18′s, there is no need to make this a class B. At least this would allow a democratic society to make a CHOICE, and if you don’t like that choice, tolerate it, if you can’t tolerate it, then you are in the wrong society!
Put a duty on it as well, and then they are no worse than fags or booze.
bcb can you honestly say you would like a group of 13-16′s to become criminals over something like this? If you think kids don’t experiment with drugs then you are sorely mistaken.
If we use drugs, as long as they don’t hurt anyone, only yourself, then that is your choice.
Report abuse
While we’re at it, can we ban chocolate as well? MrsPah is never crazier if she can’t get her Dairy Milk… yet one toke on a Wispa and many of her problems seem to go away.
Report abuse
The Man
It was in the Lancet, there is a link on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)
I had seen this before, its quite interesting!
Report abuse
Sanguine
Thanks for that, much appreciated.
Its reference link 81 to the Lancet from Sanguines wiki link for anyone who is interested, you have to register with Lancet but it only takes a minute.
A real eye opener!
Report abuse
TM/Sanguine – I remember that one, good article!!
One of the authors, David Nutt, lectures in psychopharmacolgy at Bristol Uni, and has written numerous other papers on similar topics. Most are pretty heavy going, but if you can find it, (and try searching on Google Scholar) look out for ‘Have we thrown baby out with the bathwater?’ which considers whether the societal ‘pro-ban’ culture is harming medical research. Nutt cites the example of MDMA, classified as a Class A and therefore unavailable for medical research, despite the fact that it is a remarkably stable psychotropic and would be immeasurably helpful in understanding neuro disorders.
Report abuse
Taking E is statistically safer than horse riding. I don’t see a campaign to stifle the wants of little pony girls by middle aged fat blokes in suits. Who probably drink too much.
My best friend at school broke his neck playing rugby. Paralysed because he didn’t know what he was doing.
There was a clip on the news the other day of an eight year old boy stealing and driving his dad’s car because he “didn’t want to go to church”. Can’t see much car banning happening. Can someone explain the rationale?
I’m off for a bit of horse action.
Report abuse
SB
Yes MDMA is a classic example, a drug with obvious therapeutic potential, but its class A status means very few researches will touch it.
About 10 years ago there was a massive furore about E taking and its dangers when a few ravers died. Ironically all the danger involved in taking an E was precisely because it had been banned and thus unregulated. People were taking tablets with 1% MDMA and 99% whatever else they could find to make up the tablets.
Banning something does not aoutomatically remove/ mitigate the danger.
Report abuse
Sanguine
I take your point regarding my post but this SB guy seems to spend so much time posting sarcastic comments towards other posters, then insults anyone who dare question his opinion, haven`t you noticed it yourself? that is why i think the guy is an idiot actually i dont think they would allow me to post what i really think. We should all be allowed to post our opinions without kids like him spitting out his dummy and posting his stupid insults. Sure attack the post if anyone feels the need but does it need to get personal?. The only thing i regret is i let him bring me down to his level on this one.
At the end of the day the only thing i want to see is a way to discourage kids from drugs and we all have our own thoughts on it. Ok so maybe i`m wrong but who can tell me whats right givin there is a problem out there with this stuff which hasen`t been solved.
Report abuse
How many posters on this subject would allow their children/nieces/nephews/grandchildren to smoke or inject this poison. May I suggest that those who support the use of this very addictive chemically based drug speak with the parents and ex users and see what they say. Those who sell this poison are only in it for the money, they don’t give a dam about the impact on the user, their family or the age of the child using the stuff. I will applaud loudly when the ban comes in.
Report abuse
Hi Pete!! I presume you ARE happy for children/nieces/nephews/grandchildren to smoke cigarettes? I’d also suggest that those who sell AND TAX tobacco and alcohol are also only in it for the money and couldn’t care less about the impact on the user. Perhaps you could speak with those who have lost loved ones due to lung cancer or alcohol? And there’s plenty more of those than those whose lives have been negatively affected by Spice. Why would you support a ban on Spice, but not on alcohol or tobacco?
I assume when you state “very addictive … drug” that you are referring to the Zimmerman paper published earlier this year? It is worth remembering that Zimmerman et al didn’t find any physiological reason for addiction in the patient and believed that it was psychological dependency, based on his heavy daily use (a daily comsumption that, had it been alcohol, would have killed him).
Report abuse
Black and White as usual eh Pete??
I dont see too many people on here supporting the use of this drug, just some people questioning what other effects the ban will have.
“Wont somebody please think of the children”
Report abuse
Pete,
You can clap as loud as you want but prohibition does not stop misuse, so what really have you to applaud?
Report abuse
I saw a child not much older than 6 drinking red bull. Do I win a community service prize if I shop them in to the coppers?
Mother/guardian seemed perfectly happy about it.
The ignorance surrounding the chemicals we choose to put into our bodies is astounding. It’s no wonder people are falling into holes.
Clueless hypocrisy, I’m afraid.
Would you take a whole packet of paracetamol? No? Why not? Ah I see….because it says so on the packet….
Would you put twenty spoons of coffee in a cup to make a drink???
Would you drink a bottle of whisky down in one??
What are you on about applauding Pete Burtenshaw. You are supporting the condemnation of more kids, supporting the alienation of more kids and forcing shame to admit their criminality befopre seeking medical help.
Harmful and sociopathic, not just ignorant and hypocritical.
Report abuse
Pete, “How many posters on this subject would allow their children/nieces/nephews/grandchildren to smoke or inject this poison.”
I would, Im sure the Dutch would (thats the people with the lowest level of hard drug abuse btw. As an ex user, I think I am able to comment.
Oh yes, did I mention Alcohol and Fags?
So people free will will end with you thunderous applause?
bcb, “Sanguine I take your point regarding my post but this SB guy seems…etc”
Just remember, its only the internet man :)
JL, pray do tell, when did you last have a drink?
Report abuse