Gordon Brown overruled by EU on banning of dangerous drug

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1260484/Ban-meow-meow-delayed-EU.html
http://www.ukip.org/content/video-zone/1514-why-banning-mephedrone-is-not-as-easy-as-it-sounds

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/17/article-1258384-08C14C86000005DC-649_224x116.jpg


Gordon Brown's promise of an immediate ban on the so-called legal high mephedrone was last night undermined by an EU directive. Critics say that any delays mean more young people will die from taking a drug they mistakenly consider to be safe. The Prime Minister yesterday said the Government was 'determined to act to prevent this evil hurting the young people of this country', following a string of deaths linked to mephedrone, also known as meow meow.

But the UK Independence Party last night dealt a blow to Mr Brown's announcement with the unearthing of an EU directive which will significantly slow down the move. Under the EU Technical Standards and Regulations Directive 98/34/EC, the Government has to give the EU at least three months' notification before it can change British legislation. UKIP spokesman Nigel Farage said: 'The Government is kidding the people but it simply can't act without an EU-enforced delay. 'This useless government needs to tell the EU to back off from controlling or delaying British legislation.'

Mr Brown said: 'The advice is clear that just because the substance is legal, it doesn't make it safe. 'But we are very concerned specifically about the harms of mephedrone, and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is considering this as an absolute priority.' Professor Les Iversen, the Government's chief drugs adviser, has indicated that mephedrone is likely to be made a Class B drug.This comes after two young lads died of an overdose because of this very drug; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258384/Schools-mephedrone-Meow-Meow-ban-teenage-deaths.html

Our own democratically elected government cannot even ban a drug now that they class as dangerous without permission from the unelected European Union. It makes you even wonder what is the point in even having Gordon Brown and Westminister when they dont even have the power to make their own decisions anymore. If you vote one of the main parties come this election you are essentially not voting for them but for more unelected and unwanted control from the European Union.

Thoughts - should the British government have the ability/power to ban dangerous drugs?

[GommeInc]

Well, yes, we should have the power to ban what we like within reason, and this is a pretty good reason. I've had enough of the EU and its law-making procedure anyway, just written an essay on the hierarchy of the judicial system and how laws are made, and the EU section was grinding :P

[marriott0.01]

The EU shouldn't have a say over how countries change their laws it's stupid, you don't see the UN being as picky and forcing everyone to do what the UN tells them to. The EU is stupid and is just too controlling, let the countries have their own control, not a body controlling those countries.

[xxMATTGxx]

Thoughts - should the British government have the ability/power to ban dangerous drugs?

Answer: Yes. The government of this country who are here to run this country should be able to ban dangerous drugs. EU have gone over the bloody top once again.

[Wig44.]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1260484/Ban-meow-meow-delayed-EU.html
http://www.ukip.org/content/video-zone/1514-why-banning-mephedrone-is-not-as-easy-as-it-sounds

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/17/article-1258384-08C14C86000005DC-649_224x116.jpg

This comes after two young lads died of an overdose because of this very drug; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258384/Schools-mephedrone-Meow-Meow-ban-teenage-deaths.html

Our own democratically elected government cannot even ban a drug now that they class as dangerous without permission from the unelected European Union. It makes you even wonder what is the point in even having Gordon Brown and Westminister when they dont even have the power to make their own decisions anymore. If you vote one of the main parties come this election you are essentially not voting for them but for more unelected and unwanted control from the European Union.

Thoughts - should the British government have the ability/power to ban dangerous drugs?

This is the part people don't, or do not want to understand - and it's really frustrating!

[jrh2002]

Gordon said we would keep full control over law and order and surely banning a dangerous substance is part of law and order? I think we need a hero like Guy Fawkes but who can carry out a job properly to save the country.

[marriott0.01]

Gordon said we would keep full control over law and order and surely banning a dangerous substance is part of law and order? I think we need a hero like Guy Fawkes but who can carry out a job properly to save the country.

That actually made me lol, let's not go too extreme with assassinations etc..

I would of thought also that banning dangerous substances would be law and order as well?

[FlyingJesus]

Whilst I believe far more research into this particular substance is needed before a conclusion, the principle of changing legislature should never have to take a minimum of 3 months. I don't doubt that they'll manage it in the end because other European countries have banned it already, but imposing limits on how quickly a government can make laws is utterly ridiculous.

[Wig44.]

Something else can easily spring up in the 3 months this will take. If it takes 3 months warning to ban a drug then more legal drugs will fill the gaps left by former legal highs being made illegal. Pointless, why on earth are we in the EU? Unelected idiots who have no idea what they're doing, who make awful decisions and who **** things up for us are running our country. Our government : the same but they are 'elected'.

[BeanEgg]

Good move - I guess it was done for the best, quite quickly.
But there are just some things that have to be overruled.

[dbgtz]

**** OFF EU YOU FREAKING NOOBS AND THE LEADER WITH THE NAME I CANT REMEMBER BUT SOME DOUCHE FROM BELGIUM OR SOME REALLY UNIMPORTANT COUNTRY NO ONE GIVES A **** ABOUT!11111!!!!`11!

But seriously, I hate the EU now they bring nothing but more problems on top of the ones we already have.

[Nuxty]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1260484/Ban-meow-meow-delayed-EU.html
http://www.ukip.org/content/video-zone/1514-why-banning-mephedrone-is-not-as-easy-as-it-sounds

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/17/article-1258384-08C14C86000005DC-649_224x116.jpg

This comes after two young lads died of an overdose because of this very drug; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258384/Schools-mephedrone-Meow-Meow-ban-teenage-deaths.html

Our own democratically elected government cannot even ban a drug now that they class as dangerous without permission from the unelected European Union. It makes you even wonder what is the point in even having Gordon Brown and Westminister when they dont even have the power to make their own decisions anymore. If you vote one of the main parties come this election you are essentially not voting for them but for more unelected and unwanted control from the European Union.

Thoughts - should the British government have the ability/power to ban dangerous drugs?

Well yes, of course they should.

This is now a perfect example of our own governement no longer having the power to make decisions so they don't "upset" the people lurking above them.

If they aren't allowed to ban dangerous drugs, then what will they be allowed to do?

[alexxxxx]

they had already said it was going to take months to get through the legislation anyway. plus this substance is used as part of plant fertiliser.

plus the drug is illegal in many other EU states, so perhaps the government should have acted much earlier? or maybe the way drugs are prohibited by law should be changed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

they had already said it was going to take months to get through the legislation anyway. plus this substance is used as part of plant fertiliser.

plus the drug is illegal in many other EU states, so perhaps the government should have acted much earlier? or maybe the way drugs are prohibited by law should be changed.

Indeed, so why now, because of regulations made in another country by unelected left wing officals should we endanger more young lives by halting this ban? - in 2005 the people of this country voted for a British government to make British laws, not an unelected federalist Belgian and thousands of eurocrats.

[DrLacero]

Thoughts - should the British government have the ability/power to ban dangerous drugs?

Nope. I've tried Meph and it's a laugh. I don't think the government should be able to ban anything that only harms an individual, ever.

Put what the **** you want into your bodies, just don't come near me or my house. Including the government.

[alexxxxx]

Indeed, so why now, because of regulations made in another country by unelected left wing officals should we endanger more young lives by halting this ban? - in 2005 the people of this country voted for a British government to make British laws, not an unelected federalist Belgian and thousands of eurocrats.
then why was the labour party voted in?

but honestly, this drug hasn't just been knocked up in the last couple of weeks, it's been around for at least a couple of years. the government have had ample time to deal with it. or perhaps the drug laws aren't good enough, i know some countries have other ways of outlawing them in blanket laws and medicine laws. How come Germany and Sweden have had them banned already? It's the ineptitude of our government, not the EU who this has happened to.

[dbgtz]

Nope. I've tried Meph and it's a laugh. I don't think the government should be able to ban anything that only harms an individual, ever.

Put what the **** you want into your bodies, just don't come near me or my house. Including the government.

I actually kinda agree with this, you should get a choice in what you do as long as it doesn't harm others (smoking *cough*). It's kinda hypocritical banning something which only harms yourself and not something which harms others.

[AgnesIO]

Nope. I've tried Meph and it's a laugh. I don't think the government should be able to ban anything that only harms an individual, ever.

Put what the **** you want into your bodies, just don't come near me or my house. Including the government.

So we hould let gangs run wild selling cocaine etc easier than ever.
Then help the Taliban by buying loads of Heroin. Fantastic, I look forward to hearing your visit to hospital after an overdose.

[Wig44.]

So we hould let gangs run wild selling cocaine etc easier than ever.
Then help the Taliban by buying loads of Heroin. Fantastic, I look forward to hearing your visit to hospital after an overdose.

For a start, the taliban burned the opium fields in afghanistan, they don't sow them. You need to respect other people's opinions and stop using stereotypes.

[-:Undertaker:-]

then why was the labour party voted in?

but honestly, this drug hasn't just been knocked up in the last couple of weeks, it's been around for at least a couple of years. the government have had ample time to deal with it. or perhaps the drug laws aren't good enough, i know some countries have other ways of outlawing them in blanket laws and medicine laws. How come Germany and Sweden have had them banned already? It's the ineptitude of our government, not the EU who this has happened to.

Why do we have elections then for that matter?

How can you blame our government, yes perhaps they should of banned it earlier (although when it first arrived here I am unsure of) but surely the sovereign elected government of the United Kingdom should be able to ban a dangerous substance which has killed two young lads already rather than having to wait for the unelected eurocrats in Brussels to give the green light which would take more than 3 months?

[alexxxxx]

Why do we have elections then for that matter?

How can you blame our government, yes perhaps they should of banned it earlier (although when it first arrived here I am unsure of) but surely the sovereign elected government of the United Kingdom should be able to ban a dangerous substance which has killed two young lads already rather than having to wait for the unelected eurocrats in Brussels to give the green light which would take more than 3 months?

theyd have to run it through legislation first which would already take ages. if we had your preferred method of referendum it would take even longer.

[-:Undertaker:-]

theyd have to run it through legislation first which would already take ages. if we had your preferred method of referendum it would take even longer.

So why not start that process right now in our elected parliament rather than waiting a period of 3 months for the EU to say yes or no. As for referendum, drugs would not come under referendum. The issue of drugs is not even comparable to the death penalty and issues such as that which should be decided via referendum. A government is there to protect its people, something it can no longer seem to be able to do as proven by this.

[alexxxxx]

So why not start that process right now in our elected parliament rather than waiting a period of 3 months for the EU to say yes or no. As for referendum, drugs would not come under referendum. The issue of drugs is not even comparable to the death penalty and issues such as that which should be decided via referendum. A government is there to protect its people, something it can no longer seem to be able to do as proven by this.

why shouldn't drugs come with issues like the DP? there is a lot of public support for the legalisation of certain drugs. who picks what goes up for referendum? it's an incredibly flawed system. if the government were to ban the sale of mcat tomorrow, i'm sure the EU commission wouldn't have an issue with it plus they should have had other ways of banning the drug, better safeguards. it's frivolous to blame the EU for this..

[Eoin]

cigarettes and alcohol kill 40 times more people than all legal highs combined.

but i suppose hearing that an alki died isnt a good story is it??
hearing that an 'innocent teenager' who 'cleary had no idea what he/she was getting into' had overdosed on the 'devils own legal high, straight from hell' will give you plenty of gossip ammo for the next week eh?
away and pish.

[AgnesIO]

For a start, the taliban burned the opium fields in afghanistan, they don't sow them. You need to respect other people's opinions and stop using stereotypes.

I respect an opinion if it is not so god damned stupid it needed to be kicked.


cigarettes and alcohol kill 40 times more people than all legal highs combined.

but i suppose hearing that an alki died isnt a good story is it??
hearing that an 'innocent teenager' who 'cleary had no idea what he/she was getting into' had overdosed on the 'devils own legal high, straight from hell' will give you plenty of gossip ammo for the next week eh?
away and pish.

There is also about 200 times more people who drink and smoke than who take legal highs. And about 200 times more people who drink and smoke than take crack.

---

Although I do think it should be banned, I do have to agree that the papers have made it out WAY worse than it is. Because it is new to the scene it is a bigger story. I mean if you said someone died du to taking crack nobody would be bothered, however because it is fairly unknown in general it is big news.

[GommeInc]

So we hould let gangs run wild selling cocaine etc easier than ever.
Then help the Taliban by buying loads of Heroin. Fantastic, I look forward to hearing your visit to hospital after an overdose.

Some people fail to notice that it's not about private consumption, it's the fact alot of money is going to be wasted on them e.g. hospital, police etc.

[FlyingJesus]

they had already said it was going to take months to get through the legislation anyway. plus this substance is used as part of plant fertiliser.

plus the drug is illegal in many other EU states, so perhaps the government should have acted much earlier? or maybe the way drugs are prohibited by law should be changed.

I don't think anyone has ever spent £10-15 a gram on something they want to use as a plant fertiliser :P that's just what it's marketed as because it's illegal to sell it for human consumption


Nope. I've tried Meph and it's a laugh. I don't think the government should be able to ban anything that only harms an individual, ever.

Put what the **** you want into your bodies, just don't come near me or my house. Including the government.

Woopwoop JS Mill. I do agree, but that would only cover the taking of such substances, rather than the manufacture and selling of (as that obviously does affect others)


So we hould let gangs run wild selling cocaine etc easier than ever.
Then help the Taliban by buying loads of Heroin. Fantastic, I look forward to hearing your visit to hospital after an overdose.

Nope, as I said above selling drugs is not a thing that only affects an individual. Also I'm fairly sure most drug money goes to big time dealers rather than to terrorist organisations


The issue of drugs is not even comparable to the death penalty and issues such as that which should be decided via referendum

Are you suggesting that the public are capable of making a decision about the outright killing of other human beings but not about substance trafficking?

[Black_Apalachi]

Making it illegal will just make it more dangerous.

[alexxxxx]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8592103.stm

home secretary to ban the drug 'within weeks'

[Wig44.]

It's best to make it illegal so people will at least understand the implications of taking it, ie it's illegal because of the risk of damaging your health.

[GommeInc]

It's best to make it illegal so people will at least understand the implications of taking it, ie it's illegal because of the risk of damaging your health.
Depends how you see it really. Banning it may seem a pointless measure, when proper education would teach people that these sorts of drugs are hazardous/dangerous, but obviously that theory died out years ago where people would rather find out the effected themselves.

[Catzsy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8592103.stm

home secretary to ban the drug 'within weeks'

Yes I think this announcement has pretty much killed this thread as they seem just to be carrying on to ban it.
Nice little publicity campaign though. :P


Mephedrone to be made Class B drug 'within weeks'

Alan Johnson: "I am seeking cross-party support to swiftly ban these dangerous drugs from our streets"

Home Secretary Alan Johnson is to ban mephedrone and other synthetic so-called "legal highs" within weeks.

It comes after the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended they be classified as Class B drugs.

Class B drugs, which include cannabis and amphetamine sulphate, carry a maximum sentence of five years for possession or 14 years for supply.

There has been recent pressure to ban mephedrone, linked in media reports to at least four deaths in the UK.

Mr Johnson said he would be introducing legislation in Parliament on Tuesday and hoped to get cross-party support.

[alexxxxx]

Yes I think this announcement has pretty much killed this thread as they seem just to be carrying on to ban it.
Nice little publicity campaign though. :P

i don't honestly see how this has anything to do with eu in the first place, as you could make it illegal to consume a substance or be in possession of it with intent to use or sell without damaging technical standards nor am i sure how mephadrone fits into any EU technical standard. i'll correct myself and take it back if i'm wrong but i think nigel farage has been telling porkies.

[Catzsy]

i don't honestly see how this has anything to do with eu in the first place, as you could make it illegal to consume a substance or be in possession of it with intent to use or sell without damaging technical standards.

Exactly but any publicity is good publicity I guess :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

why shouldn't drugs come with issues like the DP? there is a lot of public support for the legalisation of certain drugs. who picks what goes up for referendum? it's an incredibly flawed system. if the government were to ban the sale of mcat tomorrow, i'm sure the EU commission wouldn't have an issue with it plus they should have had other ways of banning the drug, better safeguards. it's frivolous to blame the EU for this..

I'm not arguing about the legalisation of drugs, thats a totally different topic and yes if there was enough support for a referendum on that issue then it should be put to a referendum so its not a flawed system, its only a flawed system in your eyes because it gives people what they want. Switzerland is living proof that a system like that works and delievers the best for its people. The peope of Switzerland for example had a referendum on the European Union, they voted no as we would also do so.

As for the European Union and the Commission in this issue, maybe not but the fact our government has to wait for the EU to give the go-ahead is unacceptable. Let me ask you this; who is supposed to run this country alex?

The unelected EU comission or the British government which was elected?


Are you suggesting that the public are capable of making a decision about the outright killing of other human beings but not about substance trafficking?

If there was enough support for a referendum on the legalisation of drugs then it should be put to a referendum although I would not expect it to pass - thats democracy and its how it should be.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8592103.stm

home secretary to ban the drug 'within weeks'

Gordon Brown also said it would be banned but Farage kindly pointed out that EU legislation prevents him from doing so without EU permission.


i don't honestly see how this has anything to do with eu in the first place, as you could make it illegal to consume a substance or be in possession of it with intent to use or sell without damaging technical standards nor am i sure how mephadrone fits into any EU technical standard. i'll correct myself and take it back if i'm wrong but i think nigel farage has been telling porkies.

It has something to do with the European Union because as Farage has found out, the EU requires the final say on whether or not a drug is banned henceforth why it has not yet been banned. Now let us think this through logically; who is more likely to be telling the truth?

A man who gave up his job to fight against the unelected European Union?
A government which is desperate to seem in control and wishes to hide the fact the EU creates most of our legislation?

While they are all politicians, I know what the logical answer is.

[Catzsy]

I'm not arguing about the legalisation of drugs, thats a totally different topic and yes if there was enough support for a referendum on that issue then it should be put to a referendum so its not a flawed system, its only a flawed system in your eyes because it gives people what they want. Switzerland is living proof that a system like that works and delievers the best for its people. The peope of Switzerland for example had a referendum on the European Union, they voted no as we would also do so.

As for the European Union and the Commission in this issue, maybe not but the fact our government has to wait for the EU to give the go-ahead is unacceptable. Let me ask you this; who is supposed to run this country alex?

The unelected EU comission or the British government which was elected?



If there was enough support for a referendum on the legalisation of drugs then it should be put to a referendum although I would not expect it to pass - thats democracy and its how it should be.



Gordon Brown also said it would be banned but Farage kindly pointed out that EU legislation prevents him from doing so without EU permission.



It has something to do with the European Union because as Farage has found out, the EU requires the final say on whether or not a drug is banned henceforth why it has not yet been banned. Now let us think this through logically; who is more likely to be telling the truth?

A man who gave up his job to fight against the unelected European Union?
A government which is desperate to seem in control and wishes to hide the fact the EU creates most of our legislation?

While they are all politicians, I know what the logical answer is.

Its not going to stop them doing it though is it. EU or no EU. Just another publicity stunt.

[alexxxxx]

right.... i've actually gone to find proof that this is completely false and i have:

http://62.95.69.3/SFSDOC/08/080908.PDF

here is the PDF of the law passed by the swedish, which left less than a month from publishing to the enactment of the law. Last time i checked sweden was in the EU. I've also read parts of the EC directive that supposedly makes Britain wait 3 months and I can't see how it'd be required as methadrone isn't a standard.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31998L0034:EN:HTML