There is now a big focus on MCAT in the Tabloids following a couple of recent deaths, with calls to ban it before any or the scale of any causal link has been established. It has all the hallmarks of opportunistic bootstrapping.
The case referenced above, a tragedy, involves two lads who took contaminated MCAT along with alcohol and other substances. Let me just say that again. Two lads took contaminated MCAT. Not MCAT. Contaminated MCAT. Does one ban all milk because people in China died drinking contaminated milk? No.
Do you reduce or increase the chances of contaminated products by making it illegal to make, sell or consume? Answer: Increase.
Do you reduce the availability of a drug by making it illegal? Answer: No.
Do you raise the price of a drug by making it illegal? Answer: Yes
Do drug dealers stand to gain ever greater profits from making a drug illegal? Answer: Yes
Is there a greater incentive to push a drug when the profit margins grow significanty? Answer: Yes.
Does it criminalise people both due to their actions and by dint of forcing them to consort with other criminals? Answer: Yes
MCAT could have been a good opportunity to properly legalise a drug*.
We could use existing laws e.g. fraud to ensure that MCAT is sold in consistent known strengths, that it is correctly described in terms of effects and that it is illegal to sell to the underaged.
Just like tobacco and alcohol.
All that will happen now is that it will get "banned". Please do not confuse this with actually making one jot of difference to "availability". If anything it could increase its usage.
Banning will just end up criminalising people, removing any chance of quality control and dosage consistency, raising prices and ultimately enriching drug dealers.
Well done. Well done indeed, Mandelson, Grayling &Co. You imbeciles.
* of course, if it is actually poisonous, then label it so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Fantastic! This is exactly what I have been thinking over the last few days, since the whole "Ban MCAT" nonsense has been circulating.
The only reason alot of these new drugs are becoming popular on the market is simply because they have banned all the natural substances, eg. Cannabis.
It is a never ending cycle of supply and demand. You ban one thing, and people will soon find an alternative (usually worse, health wise).
Of course we don't actually *know* whether something new will be worse - as in many aspects of life, progress might actually improve things!
But at least even MDMA has a century of history behind it, including sufficient testing to deem it safe enough for use in numerous (albeit controlled) human trials.
Creating something merely because it appears to have similar experiential effects to something already banned may not be the most rigorous way of incrementally improving products!
But I was particularly annoyed with Grayling - for he implied that he had some kind of special insight that would enable them to ban the general groups of substances known as "legal highs" when clearly they cannot ban something that has not yet even appeared in use yet.
Utter, posturing, murderous, shitheads.
You forgot...
Do you increase demand for drugs due to the 'forbidden fruit' effect by banning them? Answer: Yes
http://reflectionsondemocracy.wordpress.com/
As long as correction fluid thinner is still legal I'll be fine ;-)
Seriously though, I think the government is more likely to make a substance illegal if you can't slap a patent on it.
Mind you, Salvia Divinorum is still legal in Britain. So if you fancy a spot of shamanism, enjoy it while you still can!
"Do you reduce the availability of a drug by making it illegal? Answer: No.
All that will happen now is that it will get "banned". Please do not confuse this with actually making one jot of difference to "availability". If anything it could increase its usage."
1)The Majority of imports from China are purchased via the internet and are shipped UPS
2)The majority of UK sales are over the internet
OF COURSE AVAILABILITY WILL GO DOWN
"Banning will just end up criminalising people, removing any chance of quality control and dosage consistency, raising prices and ultimately enriching drug dealers."
These 'drug dealers' you talk of (I'm sure you're familiar with loads) aren't some homogeneous lump. People selling mephedrone on the internet are mostly web designers, you think they are gonna carry on importing by the kilo risking 14 years in prison? Answer:NO
Quite clearly you've written a rant on a subject you know nothing about. You don't know anything about the nature of the consumer demand, the retailers or the channels of distribution. If you're supposed to champion the rights of individual entrepreneurs as a libertarian then what is the difference between a 'drug dealer' and a business man. ANSWER: your prejudice.
You've clearly nothing against drugs as you wished to see it legalised, but you can't stand drug dealers being enriched. You're giving libertarianism a bad reputation by spouting your own prejudice views and passing them off as that of all libertarians...mug
"swim thinks that the telling point was made earlier by a colleague who had experienced what happened in israel when they banned mephedrone. basically the importation to the distribution channels gets hammered, and because the internet distributors are by and large not smugglers, and do not deal in illegal substances, then the supply side of the market will be closed down pretty soon.
unfortunately this will be replaced by a short-term black market of secondary dealers who have bought off the importers and internet distributors, with the intention to make a quick profit as the price rises. pure product will become cut; customers will become angry and will just move onto whatever the next 'big thing' is.
therefore this particular swim thinks that its irrelevant when the actual act passes in the next 2 weeks or 4-weeks or even more. the supply side of the market is going to dry up pretty soon anyway."
the above quote is spot on. lifted from a website called..... drugs-forum.com. Who knew junkies could be so erudite. SHOCK!!!
In the medium to long term it really doesn't matter - banning one drug makes little difference to the availability of drugs. That is why Mephedrone is around now - the banning of the import of the MDMA precursor chemicals two years ago (from China) meant that China tried a different tack and produced something so far unheard of and therefore legal.
Now of course, those who have been dealing more or less legitimately in something not yet illegal will be closing down - indeed nearly everyone I've had any from has already announced their "closing down sales" and that they will cease trading in most cases 72 hours before the ban comes in.
Sure, there will be some - mostly those student types who invested in a kilo or so to sell amongst their mates who will have some left, and in the closing down sales it is noticeable that larger packets have been going first - to secondary dealers or to people hoarding for themselves - don't know. Some of both probably.
At a tenner a retail gram tops, this stuff is not worth seeking out a secondary import route and taking the risk, but if Guernsey is anything to go by, it may well hit eighty quid a gram fairly quickly where it likely becomes viable again. Though 80 is well over the top for what it's worth and given the uncertainty of purity and novelty at that point, it's likely that many users will prefer to go looking for some half decent MDMA instead.
In the meantime, nearly everyone I know who has had the experience of making a reasonable return on something not yet illegal is wanting to continue to do so and so is now actively looking for the next thing - and my guess is that that is likely to be weeks or months away rather than years.
Believe me, banning this and its near analogues will have little effect on the availability of *drugs*, only next time there will still be people wanting to pay more for illegal Meph etc plus whatever the new stuff is too, until they are more sure about it. If whatever comes next is seen as better then it will prevail. If not, the market for illegal Meph will bounce back - especially if it is still seen as of better quality than current "ecstasy" which has been declining in quality shockingly (and of course dangerously) since the import ban on the precursors.
The extraordinary popularity of Meph has been largely down to its low price compared with illegals, but if it is still seen as better than some of the older and now lower quality illegals then a price level will be reached at which it is feasible for organised crime to smuggle it in, in whatever quantities is required.
Post a Comment