Last week Nanny added the legal high Mexxy to her ever growing list of banned "legal" highs.
Suffice to say this ban will have bugger all effect on reducing people's consumption of the this, or any other, legal high. In fact, until Nanny banned it, many people (Sally Bercow also counts as "people") were not even aware of its existence but now are looking up retailers of the product on the net.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) were less than impressed with the ban, and noted that the solution to tackling legal highs does not lie in "adding inexorably to the list of illicit substances" and questioned "the extent to which legislation can realistically be used to address active choices being made by (predominantly young) people".
The UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC) was also unimpressed, and noted that simply adding to the long list of substances already banned "won't make much difference".
As I have noted many times on this site before, Nanny's drugs' laws and policies are a mess and are failing:
"Nanny's reasoning is a tad "wobbly", here's a few reasons why:However, Nanny is not listening as it is far easier to ban things than to have an open and rationale discussion about banned drugs as opposed to unbanned drugs (eg alcohol, caffeine, nicotine).
1 She assumes that drug taking equates to addiction, ignoring the fact that there are thousands who use drugs in clubs every Friday and Saturday who are not addicted, nor will ever become addicted.
2 Nanny also ignores the fact that caffeine, fags and booze are also addictive and potentially dangerous drugs; yet they are legal.
3 Nanny is worried that legalisation would "confuse" her healthy living message.
4 I note with a degree of disbelief, that Nanny feels it may be difficult to tax drugs. Since when has the complexity of tax legislation ever stopped her before from taxing something?
5 There is an undercurrent of wishful thinking in Nanny's note that she would very much like to ban booze and fags as well.
6 Nanny states that legalisation would lead to a substantial increase in use. On what empirical evidence is this assertion based?
7 Nanny is worried that if other countries don't follow suit, in legalising drugs, then this country would become a shopping paradise for drugs dealers. Is that not for the customs officials of other countries to worry about?
Is it not ironic that the leader of the "free world" and, allegedly, the leader and chancellor plus others in another country have used class A drugs yet continue to deny others the right to abuse their bodies in the same way?
Drugs were banned in the early 20th century because the "morality movement" managed to gain the upper hand in the legislative process. Had events continued in their favour booze would have also been banned here, as it was in the USA.
We have this hypocritical duality of legislation (legal drugs vs illegal ones) because a single issue pressure group got their way, and the government has not got the political interest nor guts to reverse the situation (bad laws once enacted are very difficult to overturn).
Be warned, if Nanny had her way she would ban booze and fags as well!
This policy is failing and will continue to fail."
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries