• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Noots got Banned in the UK

noots

  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

Poll: Anarchy in the UK? (31 member(s) have cast votes)

Will this lead to anarchy and disrespect for government authority?

  1. Yes (18 votes [58.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 58.06%

  2. No (13 votes [41.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.94%

Vote Guests cannot vote
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#31 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,665
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 24 February 2016 - 08:02 PM

 

I have the suspicion though that it may not end up being as big of a deal as people fear. 

 

 

Not a big deal? The legal ramifications are enormous. With one law, the UK has made everything illegal unless they specifically permit citizens to ingest it or inhale it. Such sweeping laws are typical of totalitarian dictatorships, not democracies, and the ill effects will only increase with time as the UK goverment uses this law to put the screws into the population. In the US, alcohol was once banned by constitutional amendment thereby generating a massive crime wave, but now the constitution is just ignored and drugs are banned by bureaucrats in the DEA, creating the largest prison population since Stalin. So expect this UK law to be the beginning of a social disaster even greater than what the US has experienced.

 

That does make me wonder. Will people have gotten jobs on the merits of using noots and be pressured to seek potentially dangerous company (the Al Capones of noots/supplements) in order to maintain their career, health, and lifestyle?



#32 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,665
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 24 February 2016 - 08:28 PM

 

Not a big deal? The legal ramifications are enormous. With one law, the UK has made everything illegal unless they specifically permit citizens to ingest it or inhale it. Such sweeping laws are typical of totalitarian dictatorships, not democracies, and the ill effects will only increase with time as the UK goverment uses this law to put the screws into the population. In the US, alcohol was once banned by constitutional amendment thereby generating a massive crime wave, but now the constitution is just ignored and drugs are banned by bureaucrats in the DEA, creating the largest prison population since Stalin. So expect this UK law to be the beginning of a social disaster even greater than what the US has experienced.

 

 

I didn't say it's not a big deal.  I said that I speculate that it may not end up being as big of a deal as people fear. 

 

The problem as I understand it is that the law defines "psychoactive substance" extremely broadly in a way that arguably encompasses any substance providing even a modest cognitive boost.  So that could be anything from ginseng to serious designer drugs, and everything in between. 

 

Remember, though, that the intent behind the bill is to do away with "legal highs," i.e. substances that produce a similar effect to currently outlawed drugs but which escape regulation due to their novelty or obscurity.  I know nothing about UK law, but in the U.S., the legislative intent behind a law is a major driving force in how it is interpreted and enforced, especially when the law is ambiguous, which is clearly the case here. 

 

Also, remember that there is a difference between the letter of the law and actual enforcement of the law.  Government agencies have limited personnel and resources and set their priorities accordingly.  For example, in the U.S., as far as I can tell, there is almost universal non-enforcement of laws re. grey-area or lightly schedule substances (i.e. modafinil), except for maybe the more grievous violations.  You can bet money that there will be no big push by law enforcement to crack down on ___________ (insert favorite nootropic) even if that nootropic ends up being illegal, which it probably won't.    

 

Case in point: the new UK law is based on a very similar Irish law passed in 2010.  In the first five years of its existence, the law resulted in a total of four successful prosecutions, and those against synthetic cannabinoids and other serious designer drugs.  See http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33226526.  Granted, the definition of "psychoactive" in the Irish law requires a "significant" change to awareness, mood, etc., but this would still seemingly encompass many nootropics and related substances.  For example, 5-htp and tyrosine certainly produce a significant change to mood in many.  See text of Irish law at: http://www.irishstat...nacted/en/print.

 

The article above on the Irish law raises another good point: you have to prove a criminal violation based on evidence, and for many supplements, there is no clear evidence that they produce any psychoactive effect.  Is some obscure Russian study of piracetam on rats going to constitute evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that piracetam produces a psychoactive effect in humans?  Are prosecutors going to come into court armed with forum posts from Longecity.org reading "I took some piracetam and think I felt something..."  Seems pretty laughable to me. 

 

So, at this point we are only speculating and dealing in likelihoods.  But in my opinion, the chances of the law not being narrowly interpreted and applied appear very, very low. 

 

I suppose the test of law will be whether or not B complexes, vitamin D3, blueberry extracts, and that kind of thing remain on store shelves or available via internet stores. It certainly does sound like they could ban b complexes, and B1 (at least the thiamine HCl form), a popular supplement for protecting people's livers and preventing hangovers, can cause mild "high" (similar to caffeine) in high doses among genetically susceptible people. Though it generally the kind of "drug" that you want to abuse for it's anti-aging benefits. Will people suffering from dementia/AD suffer (there are members of our community in these dire straights) and ultimately fade away for loss of access to experimental noots? 

 

As I understand, the FDA attempted to prosecute Bill Faloon of LEF for supplements decades ago and some of the most effective anti aging treatments available such as NMN/NR have cognitive enhancement properties. Our progress could be erased, and rejuvenation made virtually illegal without many even realizing it. Of my top 5 list, Cycloastragenol, Resveratrol,  NR, Blueberry Extract, and Beta Alanine, only beta alanine doesn't confer some kind of cognitive boost or mood elevation, though these are all associated with the rejuvenation they cause, or the ongoing aging damage they prevent.

 

So my question is, how hard is it to change the intent of the law? Will the guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness prevent people like Leon Kass (Bush's anti-rejuvenation bioethicist) from turning us all into criminals for wanting to live longer and be young?


  • Agree x 1

#33 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,665
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 24 February 2016 - 09:33 PM

This law is [expletive deleted], the government completely ignored the drug department of the government in this decision and i see no evidence of this leading to any improvements as ppl will get in trouble in the law, ingest unknown crap and other problems, not that rcs don't have risks but sites as bluelight try to provide as much information as possible about that.

So you're saying that this law will result in these substances becoming dangerous or diluted with who knows what? 

 

I wouldn't trust bluelight. I'm sure they have some good information, but it's prone to drug induced wishful thinking. People who want to do drugs, and those who are desperate, will ignore their ignorance and rationalize all sorts of things or report benefits that might come with some pretty bad side effects or risks. It's really kind of a vacuous reservoir of registered user neglect. Maybe that's putting it a little harsh...



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#34 medievil

  • Guest Guest
  • 3,750 posts
  • 20
  • Location:Belguim

Posted 24 February 2016 - 09:42 PM

I mean that is people go resort to street drugs they get god knows what, with rcs you can do research and make a risk benefit analysis.

 

I dont understand the last part your saying, personally i allways post about the positives and negatives, i do abuse drugs but i dont rationalise anything or something like that, i just do objective research, look at the risk benefit ratio and then make a decission.



#35 ceridwen

  • Guest
  • 1,289 posts
  • 94

Member Away
  • Location:UK

Posted 24 February 2016 - 10:20 PM

I have no doubt that people with AD such as myself will die probably in prison because we try to stay alive

#36 ta5

  • Guest
  • 851 posts
  • 258
  • Location: 

Posted 25 February 2016 - 01:45 AM

I don't live in the UK, and I would be very reluctant to move there because of this law.

It's the same thing with Canada and their stupid supplement laws.


  • Agree x 1

#37 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,665
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 25 February 2016 - 03:14 AM

 

[The act] excludes legitimate substances, such as food, alcohol, tobacco, nicotine, caffeine and medical products from the scope of the offence...

 

 

Funny that the most socially problematical substances of all are excluded, while it even appears to cover oxygen (everything stimulating is covered unless specifically exempted, and inhaling deeply is certainly stimulating). This is a very bad and totalitarian law, and it will be interesting to see the UK lock up people for the crime of breathing.

 

So are supplements to be understood as medical? What category do they fit into? Most non-supplement noots have a medical purpose somewhere... Maybe that means only stuff like synthetic pot and krocodil are being banned and the headlines are sensationalist? Were any specific examples given?



#38 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,672 posts
  • 1,515
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 25 February 2016 - 07:46 PM

So are supplements to be understood as medical? What category do they fit into? Most non-supplement noots have a medical purpose somewhere... Maybe that means only stuff like synthetic pot and krocodil are being banned and the headlines are sensationalist? Were any specific examples given?

 

The answer is in your link to the full text--"For the purposes of this Act a substance produces a psychoactive effect in a person if, by stimulating or depressing the person’s central nervous system, it affects the person’s mental functioning or emotional state..."

 

As to what makes a substance psychoactive specifically, the law doesn't say, but makes it a crime if you can't figure that out for yourself--"A person commits an offence if...the person knows or suspects, or ought to know or suspect, that the substance is a psychoactive substance..."
 
The law has severe penalties--
 
(1)A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 4 to 8 is liable—
(a)on summary conviction in England and Wales—
(i)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months...
 
(d)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 
7 years or a fine, or both.

 

 

 
 
Note that summary conviction is done without a jury. The judge just sends you to jail for up to a year.
 

The authorities can also give you a notice that you are to stop any "prohibited activity." They can do this even if you are only ten years old, and can give it to a landlord, forcing him to police his property. Presumably this would also include colleges and the like. If you fail to obey or enforce this prohibition order, you can be locked up for 12 months on summary conviction, or for two years if convicted under indictment.

 
The full list of the exempted substances--
 
Exempted substances
Controlled drugs
 
Controlled drugs (within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971).
Medicinal products
 
Medicinal products.In this paragraph “medicinal product” has the same meaning as in the 
Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/1916S.I. 2012/1916) (see regulation 2 of 
those Regulations).
Alcohol
 
Alcohol or alcoholic products.In this paragraph—
“alcohol” means ethyl alcohol, and
“alcoholic product” means any product which—
(a)contains alcohol, and
(b)does not contain any psychoactive substance.
Nicotine and tobacco products
 
Nicotine.
Tobacco products.In this paragraph “tobacco product” means—
(a)anything which is a tobacco product within the meaning of the 
Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 (see section 1 of that Act), and
(b)any other product which—
(i)contains nicotine, and
(ii)does not contain any psychoactive substance.
 
Caffeine
 
Caffeine or caffeine products.In this paragraph “caffeine product” means any product which—
(a)contains caffeine, and
 
(b)does not contain any psychoactive substance.
 
Food
 
Any substance which—
(a)is ordinarily consumed as food, and
(b)does not contain a prohibited ingredient.In this paragraph
“food” includes drink;
“prohibited ingredient”, in relation to a substance, means any 
psychoactive substance—
(a)which is not naturally occurring in the substance, and
(b)the use of which in or on food is not authorised by an EU 
instrument.

 

 

 
So you can't add anything to food and get away with it, and by my reading of this law, such things as tea and chocolate are not on the exempted list and thus prohibited as they don't meet both (a) and (b).

 


  • like x 1

#39 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,665
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 25 February 2016 - 07:59 PM

 

So are supplements to be understood as medical? What category do they fit into? Most non-supplement noots have a medical purpose somewhere... Maybe that means only stuff like synthetic pot and krocodil are being banned and the headlines are sensationalist? Were any specific examples given?

 

The answer is in your link to the full text--"For the purposes of this Act a substance produces a psychoactive effect in a person if, by stimulating or depressing the person’s central nervous system, it affects the person’s mental functioning or emotional state..."

 

As to what makes a substance psychoactive specifically, the law doesn't say, but makes it a crime if you can't figure that out for yourself--"A person commits an offence if...the person knows or suspects, or ought to know or suspect, that the substance is a psychoactive substance..."
 
The law has severe penalties--
 
(1)A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 4 to 8 is liable—
(a)on summary conviction in England and Wales—
(i)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months...
 
(d)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 
7 years or a fine, or both.

 

 

 
 
Note that summary conviction is done without a jury. The judge just sends you to jail for up to a year.
 

The authorities can also give you a notice that you are to stop any "prohibited activity." They can do this even if you are only ten years old, and can give it to a landlord, forcing him to police his property. Presumably this would also include colleges and the like. If you fail to obey or enforce this prohibition order, you can be locked up for 12 months on summary conviction, or for two years if convicted under indictment.

 
The full list of the exempted substances--
 
Exempted substances
Controlled drugs
 
Controlled drugs (within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971).
Medicinal products
 
Medicinal products.In this paragraph “medicinal product” has the same meaning as in the 
Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/1916S.I. 2012/1916) (see regulation 2 of 
those Regulations).
Alcohol
 
Alcohol or alcoholic products.In this paragraph—
“alcohol” means ethyl alcohol, and
“alcoholic product” means any product which—
(a)contains alcohol, and
(b)does not contain any psychoactive substance.
Nicotine and tobacco products
 
Nicotine.
Tobacco products.In this paragraph “tobacco product” means—
(a)anything which is a tobacco product within the meaning of the 
Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 (see section 1 of that Act), and
(b)any other product which—
(i)contains nicotine, and
(ii)does not contain any psychoactive substance.
 
Caffeine
 
Caffeine or caffeine products.In this paragraph “caffeine product” means any product which—
(a)contains caffeine, and
 
(b)does not contain any psychoactive substance.
 
Food
 
Any substance which—
(a)is ordinarily consumed as food, and
(b)does not contain a prohibited ingredient.In this paragraph
“food” includes drink;
“prohibited ingredient”, in relation to a substance, means any 
psychoactive substance—
(a)which is not naturally occurring in the substance, and
(b)the use of which in or on food is not authorised by an EU 
instrument.

 

 

 
So you can't add anything to food and get away with it, and by my reading of this law, such things as tea and chocolate are not on the exempted list and thus prohibited as they don't meet both (a) and (b).

 

So it's going to be the degree to which it is stimulating. So is it as stimulating as speed? Is it as depressing as pot? That would give your answer. I don't even think phenylpiracetam would qualify. I think the intended targets are stuff like bimethylPEA (similar to meth iirc), and modafinil. Maybe some of the lithium salts at higher or continued doses...



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#40 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,672 posts
  • 1,515
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 25 February 2016 - 08:04 PM

"Stimulating or depressing the person’s central nervous system" sets no real bar at all, does it? And what will they do with brand new designer drugs? On what basis will they decide with no data? It's all very mysterious. Far better to give a chemical formula of a banned substance rather than setting a psychological bar that could be easily met with placebos.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 25 February 2016 - 08:07 PM.

  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • like x 1

#41 Kingsley

  • Guest
  • 113 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida, USA
  • NO

Posted 25 February 2016 - 09:46 PM

Let me try to explain a bit more clearly from a legal perspective why this law will likely not be applied to nootropics and supplements.  I'm an attorney by the way.

 

We'll use the example of bacopa.  Imagine that some crazy prosecutor decides to charge you under the Psychoactive Substances Act for possession of bacopa.  The only way the prosecutor obtains the conviction is by proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that bacopa "affects mental functioning or emotional state" by "stimulating or depressing the person's central nervous system."  This would require testimony by a qualified expert based on reliable studies, data, or scientific knowledge.  Hearsay is inadmissible. 

 

Bacopa is one of the better-studied herbal supplements.  But run a few searches in PubMed and try to find a study clearly establishing that bacopa "stimulates or depresses the nervous system" and "affects mental functioning" in human beings.  Throw out any rat study.  Throw out any in vitro study.  Let's say you find a really high quality study showing that bacopa improves memory in people.  Does the study show that it does so by stimulating or depressing the nervous system?  I doubt it; usually all the authors of nootropic studies can do is speculate as to the mechanism of action.  And, what about all the studies showing no effect or inconsistent effect?  

 

In other words, there is no scientific consensus regarding the effects of bacopa and other nootropics on the nervous system and cognition, making it almost impossible to prove violation of the law beyond a reasonable doubt.  It is not enough to be "pretty sure" about it or to be able to point at some isolated study.    

 

This is exactly the reason that Ireland has had trouble getting convictions under essentially the same law even for serious designer drugs.  That is why there were four convictions in five years under the Irish law, which by the way was never applied to nootropics.  The lesson is that hazy prohibitions against un-specified substances are relatively toothless, and Ireland has since moved in a different direction.

 

Don't get me wrong, the UK law is troubling in its ambiguity and potential reach, and it may have consequences.  But there is probably no good reason to think that it could or would be applied to the vast majority of nootropics, and to even try would be completely inconsistent with the legislative intent or any pretense of rationality. 

 

Also, the law gives the administering agency authority to create a list of exempted substances, so you'll probably see many substances with medicinal value or maybe whole classes of substances specifically exempted from the law.  


  • like x 1

#42 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,672 posts
  • 1,515
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 25 February 2016 - 10:19 PM

 

 

Don't get me wrong, the UK law is troubling in its ambiguity and potential reach, and it may have consequences.  But there is probably no good reason to think that it could or would be applied to the vast majority of nootropics, and to even try would be completely inconsistent with the legislative intent or any pretense of rationality. 

 

 

There was an attempt by MP Cheryl Gillanto put nootropics on the white list, but it was voted down. Thus the legislative intent is to ban them.


  • like x 1

#43 Kingsley

  • Guest
  • 113 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida, USA
  • NO

Posted 25 February 2016 - 10:37 PM

 

 

There was an attempt by MP Cheryl Gillanto put nootropics on the white list, but it was voted down. Thus the legislative intent is to ban them.

 

 

 

You can find a detailed discussion of the legislative intent and policies behind the bill here, beginning on page 3: http://www.publicati.../en/16063en.pdf.

 

The focus of the legislation is on "legal highs" / "new substances or products that are intended to mimic the effects of traditional drugs that are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act . . . such as cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine, MDMA (ecstasy), and, more recently, opoids."

 

Legislative intent really couldn't be more clear.  And again, there's no way you get a conviction for most nootropics even if you ignore legislative intent.

 


  • Agree x 1

#44 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,672 posts
  • 1,515
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 25 February 2016 - 11:13 PM

 

 

 

There was an attempt by MP Cheryl Gillanto put nootropics on the white list, but it was voted down. Thus the legislative intent is to ban them.

 

 

 

You can find a detailed discussion of the legislative intent and policies behind the bill here, beginning on page 3: http://www.publicati.../en/16063en.pdf.

 

The focus of the legislation is on "legal highs" / "new substances or products that are intended to mimic the effects of traditional drugs that are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act . . . such as cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine, MDMA (ecstasy), and, more recently, opoids."

 

Legislative intent really couldn't be more clear.  And again, there's no way you get a conviction for most nootropics even if you ignore legislative intent.

 

 

On the contrary, it seems that the legislative intent is very clearly to cover it in this bill, given the refusal to exclude it. That is the beauty of this law, that it covers an unlimited number of substances without naming them, the reverse of the usual situation. And the legislative attitude toward racetams is to restrict them. Piracetam is already considered a prescription drug in the UK, but there are loopholes allowing buyers to import it and receive it through the mail. This could easily be shut down under Clause 8 of the new law.


  • like x 1

#45 Kingsley

  • Guest
  • 113 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida, USA
  • NO

Posted 01 March 2016 - 02:01 PM

 

 

On the contrary, it seems that the legislative intent is very clearly to cover it in this bill, given the refusal to exclude it. That is the beauty of this law, that it covers an unlimited number of substances without naming them, the reverse of the usual situation. And the legislative attitude toward racetams is to restrict them. Piracetam is already considered a prescription drug in the UK, but there are loopholes allowing buyers to import it and receive it through the mail. This could easily be shut down under Clause 8 of the new law.

 

 

Do you have a link to meeting minutes, legislative discussion, or an article discussing the refusal to add nootropics or supplements to the exemption list?  I can't really comment without a better understanding of what actually happened.  The detailed legislative report I linked to discussing legal highs and designer drugs seems pretty clear, and there are any number of potential reasons for a vote not to exempt certain substances, but I need more info.

 

As to piracetam, it seems unlikely that the new law could or would be enforced against it.  A couple of obscure Russian studies showing a modest effect in some populations (forget the rat studies completely) is not going to be enough to prove that piracetam "stimulates the nervous system" or "affects mental functioning."  My understanding is that its mechanism of action isn't even fully understood.  The law you mentioned specifically mentioning piracetam is the more relevant, and if it hasn't stopped importation of piracetam, then it's highly unlikely that this much more vague law will.



#46 Kingsley

  • Guest
  • 113 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida, USA
  • NO

Posted 01 March 2016 - 05:10 PM

 

. . . And the legislative attitude toward racetams is to restrict them. Piracetam is already considered a prescription drug in the UK . . .

 

 

By the way, the fact that piracetam is regulated under a pre-existing statute actually supports the argument that the new statute does not apply to piracetam.  Courts generally interpret statutes so as to maximize their consistency with each other and to avoid a conflict.  So, where you have one statute clearly regulating a substance and another statute that is ambiguous as to whether it regulates such substance, a court will likely go with the interpretation that the second statute does not apply.  Otherwise, you've got a statutory conflict.  This is another way that courts try to ferret out the "legislative intent," as there is a heavy presumption that the legislature does not intend to enact two statutes that conflict with each other. 
 



#47 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,672 posts
  • 1,515
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 01 March 2016 - 06:24 PM

 

 

. . . And the legislative attitude toward racetams is to restrict them. Piracetam is already considered a prescription drug in the UK . . .

 

 

By the way, the fact that piracetam is regulated under a pre-existing statute actually supports the argument that the new statute does not apply to piracetam.  Courts generally interpret statutes so as to maximize their consistency with each other and to avoid a conflict.  So, where you have one statute clearly regulating a substance and another statute that is ambiguous as to whether it regulates such substance, a court will likely go with the interpretation that the second statute does not apply.  Otherwise, you've got a statutory conflict.  This is another way that courts try to ferret out the "legislative intent," as there is a heavy presumption that the legislature does not intend to enact two statutes that conflict with each other. 
 

 

 

The stated purpose of the statue--"This Bill creates a blanket ban on the production, distribution, sale and supply of psychoactive substances in the United Kingdom." It thus regulates new versions of regulated psychoactive drugs automatically. While piracetam might not itself fall under the statue as it is already regulated, the legislative intent is obviously to ban non-exempted analogues.



#48 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,665
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 01 March 2016 - 07:58 PM

So is there a law concerning the use of supplements?



#49 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,672 posts
  • 1,515
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 01 March 2016 - 08:19 PM

So is there a law concerning the use of supplements?

 

 

This new law doesn't cover simple possession, but other laws do--

 

https://www.gov.uk/p...session-dealing



#50 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,665
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 01 March 2016 - 08:31 PM

 

So is there a law concerning the use of supplements?

 

 

This new law doesn't cover simple possession, but other laws do--

 

https://www.gov.uk/p...session-dealing

 

Those are drugs. What does the UK FDA say about the legality of vitamins and supps?



#51 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,672 posts
  • 1,515
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 01 March 2016 - 09:10 PM

Those are drugs. What does the UK FDA say about the legality of vitamins and supps?

 

 

 

As for vitamins, looks like European harmonization will do in many of them--

 

EU to outlaw popular vitamins
 
Hundreds of vitamins and food supplements taken by millions of people every day are to be banned under new EU rules.
The regulations will outlaw the sale of 250 vitamins and minerals in Britain, many of which are already banned in other EU countries.
 
 

 

 



#52 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,665
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 01 March 2016 - 09:40 PM

Ok, I don't understand this EU harmonization thing... So they're taking this stuff away from people who use it to fight disease or other maladies? Are the HC systems of the EU going to provide these medicines to people now>? When did all of this happen?

 

I understand that some vits might increase certain risks, but isn't there on average more to be gained in one's health than lost if people take lots of stuff? As I see it, "nothing happens in isolation" as Aubrey says, and there is a balance of effects that result from supplements. More good is usually done than harm, so taking lots of different vitamins on a whole with the exception of daily vitamins (which are basically all that would be allowed to remain) increase lifespan. Glucosamine increases lifespan in rodents by 10% and improves lots of health markers, tocotrienols are thought to improve lifespan, as are creatine iitc and some others. So understanding those metrics will be good for us and reduce reliance and our cost to HC systems eventually resulting as I see it in sustainable health and 20x the human and monetary resources being available to the remainder of health issues which are not aging related and that means that we should be supporting these industries.

 

Unless of course the governments of the world want to do better? Are they developing something or have they developed something that will relegate supplements to an overly expensive second best? What is there justification for doing so? What am not seeing, or what is not being said?



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#53 Kingsley

  • Guest
  • 113 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida, USA
  • NO

Posted 01 March 2016 - 10:28 PM

I did some more digging into the legislative history and here's what I've found.

 

The Schedule 1 list of exempted substances did initially include exemptions for herbal supplements and homeopathics, but this language was removed because "investigational medicinal products, homeopathic medicinal products and traditional herbal medicinal products . . . fall within the revised definition of medical product."  Parliament members expressed concerns throughout the drafting process about the law reaching too broadly and were assured that broad swaths of supplements would be exempted.  See http://www.publicati...m/151027s01.htm.

 

So, Schedule 1 now exempts "medicinal products," defined as "any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties of preventing or treating disease in human beings; or any substance or combination of substances that may be used by or administered to human beings with a view to . . . restoring, correcting, or modifying a physiological function by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or making a medical diagnosis."

 

Very nice, broad language there.  Combine that with the parliament's extensive discussion of its legislative intent to target "legal highs" and intoxicants analogous to traditional illicit drugs and I think nootropics are pretty safe.

 

 

 

   

 



#54 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,665
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 01 March 2016 - 10:38 PM

So the guy selling noots and saying he may be forced to give up his business is creating intellectual belief barriers for the competition? 

 

Is that legal? I've stumbled upon this kind of thing before and it would be obvious to those who were familiar with these things. Is that some kind libel or slander against the public or some kind of monopoly thing? What is that all about?



#55 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,672 posts
  • 1,515
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 01 March 2016 - 10:47 PM

I did some more digging into the legislative history and here's what I've found.

 

The Schedule 1 list of exempted substances did initially include exemptions for herbal supplements and homeopathics, but this language was removed because "investigational medicinal products, homeopathic medicinal products and traditional herbal medicinal products . . . fall within the revised definition of medical product."  Parliament members expressed concerns throughout the drafting process about the law reaching too broadly and were assured that broad swaths of supplements would be exempted.  See http://www.publicati...m/151027s01.htm.

 

So, Schedule 1 now exempts "medicinal products," defined as "any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties of preventing or treating disease in human beings; or any substance or combination of substances that may be used by or administered to human beings with a view to . . . restoring, correcting, or modifying a physiological function by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or making a medical diagnosis."

 

Very nice, broad language there.  Combine that with the parliament's extensive discussion of its legislative intent to target "legal highs" and intoxicants analogous to traditional illicit drugs and I think nootropics are pretty safe.

 

 

Nice broad language, but it just dumps you into a different law where it seems you need a goverment licence to make and/or market that stuff (Part 3). So they can block you either way.


  • Agree x 2

#56 Kingsley

  • Guest
  • 113 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida, USA
  • NO

Posted 02 March 2016 - 01:03 AM

So the guy selling noots and saying he may be forced to give up his business is creating intellectual belief barriers for the competition? 

 

Is that legal? I've stumbled upon this kind of thing before and it would be obvious to those who were familiar with these things. Is that some kind libel or slander against the public or some kind of monopoly thing? What is that all about?

 

Good question.  The guy probably had legitimate concerns, as it is clear that the new law isn't fully understood yet.  Even if he is knowingly lying to prevent competition, I doubt whether it would violate the law, though it is possible.  The best bet would probably be laws dealing with deceptive trade practices, which in the U.S. exist at the federal and state level, and there's probably something similar in the UK.  I believe a fraudulent statement that harms a competitor could constitute a deceptive trade practice under some circumstances, but I doubt whether lying about a law or something else in the public domain would constitute a violation.  Typically with laws like this the victim has to show that they "reasonably relied" on the fraudulent statement, which is tricky when it comes to publicly available knowledge.  For example, let's say I own my own nootropics business or am considering starting one.  It would probably not be reasonable for me to rely on some random competitor's statement regarding the law without checking into the matter for myself.  If I'm just extra gullible or careless I may be out of luck.  In theory though it's possible, and UK law could be different or other laws could possibly apply.  I'm skeptical though. 



#57 wanderlust

  • Guest
  • 86 posts
  • 0
  • Location:england

Posted 19 March 2016 - 09:53 PM

if histroy is anything to go by making nootropics a crime will actually make then cheaper , stronger and easier to get in the long run.

 

the truth is these laws are for the flood of new designer drugs hitting the steets at an alarming rate .

from chinese synthetic concaine to Mcat . part of my last job as a healthcare professional in a homless shelter is to be aware of all the diffrent abused drugs out there and there effects , the truth is that it was impossible . i could spend 40 hours aweek everyweek on that task .

 

the uk legal system takes around a year to get a law passed and into pratice and by then millions of people could have taken a new  drug with who knows what side effects .

 

this law is a stop gap measure ment to save lives which i support.

 

but  prohibition (the war on drugs ) is creating problems of its own.

and will eventually fail.

 

above all else we need long term stable solutions to these problems such as the gradual controled legalzation of substances which are clincially appoved for adults with the doctors concent .

 

as for these laws effecting the use of nootropics, well i expect it will be rare for them to be used in such away .

 

i am open about my use to noots and will remain so .

 

 

 

 



#58 YOLF

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 8,200 posts
  • 1,665
  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 20 March 2016 - 12:10 AM

I don't think history is relevant... the noots are already pharma grade, there isn't much more strength to be had... If it goes underground it's going to be cut with who knows what. We have/had a golden age of certified analysis... who is going to test street drugs/noots for purity? People would go to jail for being involved or doing the testing. It'll all be subjective... you're piracetam will be cut with phenylpiracetam and ephedrine and stuff you might not want that are your drug dealers "secret" ingredient... you won't even know what's in it. 

 

If you've gotta have your noots, and the UK wants them banned (though I think we determined that they would be unaffected) you're going to have to move somewhere you're allowed to get them.

 

New designer "noots" may be made, but they'll already be illegal according to this law... So new synthetics may get made, but they'll be made for recreational purposes, not for performance enhancement. 

 

I worry a little about some things that are on that borderline which can be called noot or mild recreational drug such as phenylpiracetam which is sometimes called Russian Ritalin, but has a different set of effects. Less of an anti depressant, more of a wired type stimulant, but having the added benefit of improved vocal acoustics to go along with it's improved social attention, so don't just pay more attention, get more for having a more attractive sounding voice that commands attention and get more involved.


Edited by YOLF, 20 March 2016 - 12:18 AM.


#59 wanderlust

  • Guest
  • 86 posts
  • 0
  • Location:england

Posted 25 March 2016 - 12:17 PM

the only diffrence this law will make is that i bulk buy my noots from outside of the uk .

just like my perscription meds 

(-:

 

 

i have informally spoken with barrister freind who is fully aware of the exsitance of noots but feels that its not in keeping with the the "sprit of the law " for it to be applied in this way.

the idea of some one like my self a person with severe learning disabilities,

who with the aid of noots can have a full meaning full life (work in a well paid meaningful job , drive, Learn,  & fully support onesself )

being charged with comitting a crime for taking them would be perverse and an international news worthy event.

 

much like the case of man  charged with theft for taking food out of a bin to feed his familly the case would likely be thrown out of court setting a new legal president .

to put it simply ,It would not be in the publics intrest for such a thing to happen .

 

if noots begin to be openly sold by venders publicly such as on the streets the police my be forced to act in isolated cases to stop this

there nothing wrong with that .

 

its better that they are taken by people who take the time to learn about them first and who are actually intrested in them

 

the main danger of this law is that we  start thinking they are being "naughty " by doing so  , it is important that noot users keep there intergity in this time of changing laws regarding and continue to think of them selves as law abiding honest citizens

remembering that marsbars are also effected by this law

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#60 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,672 posts
  • 1,515
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 25 March 2016 - 12:26 PM

Meanwhile, light has been shown on the real motivation of the drug war--

 

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
 
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
 

 

 

 


  • Informative x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: noots

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users