Your browser is no longer supported.

Please upgrade to a modern browser.

Top Menu

5% Discount on Legal Highs, Salvia Divinorum and Everything Else From The Coffeesh0p

Mexxxxxxxxxxxxxxy

By slicedmind

It’s always exciting when a drug is banned, but the recent announce­ment by the Home Office con­cerning the imminent banning of the former ‘legal high’ meth­oxetamine set unpre­ced­ented levels of excite­ment and con­fu­sion by making it a new kind of illegal.

Under the pre­vious system, if the British Gov­ern­ment wanted to ban a drug, they had to consult their gaggle of sci­ent­ists, doctors and other assorted experts col­lect­ively known as the ACMD, ignore their views, sack them for objecting to being ignored, appointnew panel and then do what they were always going to do by banning the drug anyway. This cir­cum­vented cum­ber­some bur­eau­cracy, and also allowed min­is­ters to tran­scend any remaining ties to objective reality by applying such bans to chem­icals the exist­ence, let alone the effects, of which had not yet been proven.

Meth­oxetamine, pur­portedly syn­thes­ised by the inten­tion­ally mys­ter­ious under­ground chemist ‘M’, has emerged in the past two years as a “bladder-​​friendly” altern­ative to ket­amine, but is more widely known for raising the stupid-​​drug-​​name bar which everyone thought had peaked with “meow meow”, being dubbed “mexxy” and “roflcoptr”. Need­less to say, the putative tox­ic­o­logy inform­a­tion presented to promote the drug is highly ques­tion­able, as should be obvious

More recently meth­oxetamine has got the British tabloid press frothing after its alleged involve­ment in the death of two people. Need­less to say the post­mortem revealed both had meth­oxetamine and alcohol in their blood at the time of death. At the time of writing, no move has been made to ban alcohol.

Meth­oxetamine is the first sub­stance to be banned under what’s called a ‘tem­porary class drug order’, a new measure enshrined in legis­la­tion in November 201. Making a sub­stance subject to an order effect­ively bans it for 12 months, offering the gov­ern­ment the welcome oppor­tunity to ban the banned drug all over again in a years’ time.

 

Police Officer
“Yes! Even more crimes to solve!”

 

This isn’t how they put it. In their words the intro­duc­tion of an order is to allow time for the ACMD to perform tests and decide whether it should be per­man­ently con­trolled. During this time the man­u­fac­ture, supply and con­sump­tion of such a sub­stance subject to an order, the effects and impact of which are neces­sarily unknown, is pun­ish­able by prison sen­tences up to 14 years and an unlim­ited fine, the current penalty imposed for sup­plying class B drugs such as amphetamines.

But perhaps after said testing period the ban might be lifted? Current Home Sec­retary Theresa May recently announced in some­what less than neutral terms, an upcoming review of legis­la­tion con­cerning ket­amine, stating that the review was prompted by “heightened public concern about the pop­ularity and poten­tial harms of ket­amine” and con­sid­ering the last major report into the legal status of a con­trolled sub­stance res­ulted in can­nabis being re-​​upgraded to a class B drug against the advise of the ACMD, it is looking unlikely that a radical rethink of drug-​​policy is taking place by our elected leaders in West­min­ster Palace.

This time the ACMD impli­citly admit that meth­oxetamine appears to be more dan­gerous than ket­amine and with the review of ket­amine looking likely to result in an upgrading, the care­fully charged words spoken at the start of the ban set the tone for when in 12 months time, meth­oxetamine is per­man­ently con­trolled.
Since ket­amine was made a class C drug in 2006, its use has risen dra­mat­ic­ally indic­ating that the ban has made no impact on use and has act­ively driven people onto what the ACMD believe is an even more harmful drug, meth­oxetamine. As such, the decision not to let meth­oxetamine remain legal will, at best, have no impact on trends of use and at worst drive users to increas­ingly unsafe substances.

This seems as good a time as ever to remind you that prior to his elec­tion, David Cameron act­ively spoke out against the absurdity of the war on drugs. I await his inter­ven­tion on this matter imminently.

[This article was written for Syn​chronium​.net by sliced­mind, who runs an eso­teric music blog here and, well, lets just say, owes me big time.]

4 Responses to Mexxxxxxxxxxxxxxy

  1. domski23 says:

    Another quality article. The way gov­ern­ments don’t work does make ya wonder, ahh who cares it’s just another dic­tat­or­ship dressed up as a demo­cracy, they’ll do what they want regard­less of their own facts and science and I’m not really sure why, when evid­ently a straight ban does not achieve the required effect, merely provides the scaboids of Fleet Street with a head­line to calm the panic and misled uneducated public (regards sub­stances). At for 6 months and the next scare story and away we go again — for every sub­stance banned, a new sub­stance becomes avail­able. Like the war on terror — that the west gen­er­ated — it’s an unwinnable war. etc etc etc Anyway, I’ll look forward to the replace­ment ‘latest post’ when that becomes avail­able, mums the word!

  2. Mike says:

    An abso­lutely fant­astic article. While I don’t live in the UK, I follow all or your posts because we are having nearly all of the same issues here in America; the only dif­fer­ence being a slightly dif­ferent flavor of polit­ical bull­shit. Keep up the good work!

  3. fiona says:

    I think my views on this topic, also relate to my longer post on your ’10 reasons why’ topic.

    I think the banning issue is a kne-​​jerk reac­tion to the media scandal about the unfor­tu­nate deaths. I won’t go on about I wonder how many people drowned due to alcohol…

    MXE seems to be used as an example as the first RC to be banned under the new laws. It’s more about that, and making an example for the topic of legal highs as a whole, and a knee-​​jerk ban due to that alleged fatality. It cer­tainly isn’t about clamping down on/​stopping emerging/​existing legal highs. If it’s about that, they cer­tainly missed a lot of ‘em.

    I believe the Gov­ern­ment is happy to sweep legal highs use under the carpet, as long as their isn’t a media scandal about one. Then if there’s a scandal/​death, then this legis­la­tion is there, to ‘protect us’. For the rest, they’ll still be sold.

    I don’t think MXE will be legal in a year. But I’m sure already, there’s a newer alternative.

  4. Lex Pelger says:

    Hello,

    Great article. I just found this blog and appre­ciate it’s sci­entific ways.

    I couldn’t get the contact form to load but would love to talk more.

    I’m a sci­entist also writing about mater­ials as the Good Doctor at Altv​er​iety​.com.

    .x

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

%d bloggers like this: