Critics said it was unworkable. That it was scientifically illiterate and legally unsound. And that it recreated failed policies on drug control. They were right. The UK鈥檚 blanket ban on psychoactive substances is under renewed fire after two cases brought under the new law collapsed.
Three people accused of selling nitrous oxide 鈥� or laughing gas 鈥� walked free after the government鈥檚 own expert witness and a judge concluded that the substance wasn鈥檛 covered by the law. The Crown Prosecution Service is carrying out a review.
The Psychoactive Substances Act was introduced last year by Theresa May when she was home secretary. It was created in response to growing concern surrounding the unregulated sale of so-called 鈥渓egal highs鈥�, particularly the synthetic cannabinoids known as spice, and cathinone derivatives such as mephedrone. Every time one was outlawed, producers responded by tweaking the chemical formula so that it fell outside the new regulation.
Advertisement
To end this cat and mouse approach, the UK government changed strategy and introduced a sweeping bill that made it an offence to sell anything that could alter mental states when consumed. Exemptions were made for food, medicine, alcohol and tobacco.
Critics quickly pointed out that the bill, as worded, would make it an offence to sell perfume, cut flowers and nutmeg. And Labour MP Paul Flynn exhorted colleagues to consider the outcome of a similar law passed in Ireland in 2010, which led to an increase in drug use among teenagers. Such protests were ignored.
Psychoactive effect?
As well as worries it would further entrench the sale of recreational drugs in the hands of criminal gangs, the bill also made a significant departure from the harm-reduction philosophy that underpins good drug policy. For example, one reason that nitrous oxide escaped previous restrictions was that it isn鈥檛 considered particularly dangerous.
Now, the government only has to demonstrate that a particular substance has a psychoactive effect to qualify for prohibition. However, even this has proven to be an impossible task, as no test exists that can identify whether a substance is a psychoactive agent. Indeed, even biochemically inert substances can induce surprisingly powerful effects.
It would be wrong to say that May鈥檚 blanket drugs ban has fallen at the first hurdle. In truth, it has stumbled clumsily over every hurdle it has encountered.
Late in the day, the government scrambled to contrive an exemption for poppers, also known as alkyl nitrites. This inhalant is a popular sex aid due to its muscle relaxing properties, and the government was warned users might turn to unregulated supplies and spark a public health disaster. The government鈥檚 Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was press-ganged into reporting (nonsensically), and therefore poppers weren鈥檛 covered by the act. Alcohol and tobacco, of course, were exempted from the start.
The Psychoactive Substances Act has always looked doomed. To achieve the Home Office鈥檚 strategy of banning drugs pre-emptively, it had to be vague regarding what it hoped to ban. Yet ut at the time that this ambiguity would mean the law was almost certainly unenforceable. Despite the latest setback, the Home Office has insisted 鈥� incredibly 鈥� that it will continue to pursue convictions for selling nitrous oxide.
The minister in charge of shepherding the bill through parliament, Mike Penning, claimed at the time of drafting that it was possible to create a law that was both precise about what was legal and not, 鈥�while at the same time having a blanket ban鈥�. Instead, he has given the UK a Schr枚dinger鈥檚 law: one that now seems both dead and, troublingly, alive at the same time.
