Whatever the US can do, the UK can do better! We've got a the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016[0].
The act is so broad it can be applied to many things. And it's so broad it's functionally unenforceable.
A quote from Wikipedia:
'The law has been criticised as an infringement on civil liberties. Barrister Matthew Scott described the act as an attempt to "ban pleasure", saying it could drastically overreach by banning areca nuts, additives used in vapourisers and electronic cigarettes, hop pillows, and the sale of toads and salamanders that naturally produce psychoactive substances. Scott went further and suggested it may also ban flowers and perfumes as the scents can produce an emotional response'[1].
You know...
* Think of the children.
* It's good for society.
* The social contract.
* And all the other BS people like to come up with to trample on individuals.
> and suggested it may also ban flowers and perfumes as the scents can produce an emotional response
I look forward to someone trying to get things like that tested in court. Tough it'd be tricky, given that the Crown Prosecution Service would presumably not want to push a case like that and end up looking like idiots, and while the UK allows for private prosecutions I'm not sure if there'd be a viable avenue to use this act for that (trying to find a way of giving you standing to e.g. sue a florist sounds like inviting contempt of court).
This is a big problem - the law is so broad that it'll be incredibly easy to abuse if government wants to charge someone, or add additional charges.
> I look forward to someone trying to get things like that tested in court. Tough it'd be tricky, given that the Crown Prosecution Service would presumably not want to push a case like that and end up looking like idiots, and while the UK allows for private prosecutions I'm not sure if there'd be a viable avenue to use this act for that (trying to find a way of giving you standing to e.g. sue a florist sounds like inviting contempt of court).
Of course, he's pointing out the absurdity of the law.
> This is a big problem - the law is so broad that it'll be incredibly easy to abuse if government wants to charge someone, or add additional charges.
This highlights a more sinister side to government—rather than incompetence. One could deny this until it happens. I'm sure state apologists will (& continue once it does happen).
L-phenyalanine apparently "inhibits NMDAR current in hippocampal neurons by competing for the glycine-binding site" [1] and is also an essential amino acid. Oops.
Whatever the US can do, the UK can do better! We've got a the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016[0].
The act is so broad it can be applied to many things. And it's so broad it's functionally unenforceable.
A quote from Wikipedia:
'The law has been criticised as an infringement on civil liberties. Barrister Matthew Scott described the act as an attempt to "ban pleasure", saying it could drastically overreach by banning areca nuts, additives used in vapourisers and electronic cigarettes, hop pillows, and the sale of toads and salamanders that naturally produce psychoactive substances. Scott went further and suggested it may also ban flowers and perfumes as the scents can produce an emotional response'[1].
You know...
* Think of the children.
* It's good for society.
* The social contract.
* And all the other BS people like to come up with to trample on individuals.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20...