One of the most stupid and authoritarian laws to exist. Although, you don't hear of 13-year-olds doing random chemicals bought for a tenner from headshops and dying anymore. They're just sold as the more popular drugs.
The war on drugs is going about as well as Russia's war on Ukraine.
I personally support the legalisation of psychedelics so it's not a law I support, but I've always found it a very clear and fair piece of legislation, if one accepts that the government legislates within a certain framework of precedent.
If we take a look at countries like Germany or the Netherlands we see a cat and mouse game where each parliament outlaws the latest psychedelics and then the psychedelic community unveils their new analogue or precursor. We can mark the years by small additions to the basic LSD molecule. We've gone from 1p-LSD and 1cp-LSD to 1V-LSD and now onto 1B-LSD. The stimulants and dissociatives communies seems to favour flouride, it's easy to and doesn't bind to much.
The UK law bans anything sold primarily for inducing psychotropic effects, while the scheduled substances sections at the end add very fair provisions for items commonly sold as food. That's why it's actually an exaggeration to say the law could affect the spicy food trade, as food trades are one of the explicit exemptions.
>The UK law bans anything sold primarily for inducing psychotropic effects
You may have misread, but this is not correct. The act claims to ban substances that are _only_ used for their psychoactive effect. From the act:
"The act only captures substances which are solely for human consumption for their psychoactive effects."
I'll agree it's a given the number one reason for the use of cannabis is to get high, whatever that means. That said, it's also inarguable that pain relief is a significant and not uncommon reason to use weed also. I worked in a community in south America where a group of south american Mormons (yes, the ones who don't drink coffee) grew cannabis to produce a tincture for the treatment of arthritis pain. Research seems to agree (there needs to be more, it's a new subject for modern research) that it's a useful substance in pain management.
The UK psychoactive law is non-scientific and inconsistent, which is unfortunately common. Alcohol and nicotine have real psychoactive effects, and both are sold only for their effects, yet they are legal. The difference is an established power base controls one and not the other.
Cannabis wouldn't fall under this law, you're right. It's not intended to cover cannabis though, as that is already legislated for by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
This law was designed to combat so-called designer drugs and it has been successful in eradicating British production of these items, which mostly now takes place in the Netherlands, Germany and China
Tobacco and alcohol are also covered along with foodstuffs in the Schedules. They have long standing cultural acceptance and importance. The government does what it can do combat misuse of alcohol through taxes (along with minimum pricing in Scotland) and to combat the use of tobacco products through taxation and packaging/advertising restrictions.
What would a scientific version of the law look like in your mind? What are the inconsistencies?
Most US states don't remove the right to vote from a felon unless they are incarcerated or on parole (and many not even then). Employment discrimination is generally more of an issue than civil rights for felons, because almost noone supports hiring felons anywhere.
That link says nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, medicines, and anything that is a food is exempt. That would seem to include capsaicin, along with other stuff like Robitussin and nutmeg that can potentially be hallucinogenic if you megadose them.
“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 it sounds like Capsaicin produced naturally in things like hot peppers would be fine. But artificially produced Capsaicin added to food might not be.
As the original article notes it does appear to have a psychoactive effect beyond the sensation of burning pain (though if a sensation of pleasure is a psychoactive effect why wouldn't a sensation of pain be?).
I found additional sources going into the likely pharmacology of this effect:
> Namely, capsaicin and vanillin (and anandamide itself) are all agonists of the TRPV1 receptor, which stimulates production and release of endogenous anandamide. When mixed with N-linoleoylethanolamide and N-oleoylethanolamide from cacao, which inhibit anandamide breakdown, the levels of endogenous anandamide are augmented further. When breakdown of anandamide is inhibited pharmacologically or genetically, anandamide is able to produce a state of intoxication similar to tetrahydrocannabinol in rodents and nonhuman primates
Interesting, that does remind me of times that some people would experience a brief “glow” feeling after consuming a handful of “inferno” chicken wings.
Psychedelic shrooms are not ordinarily consumed "as food", though they are eaten. But they taste like ass and often cause nausea. The primary purpose is unambiguously to get high.
Also, psilocybin is probably still scheduled explicity from before the law was passed.
Robitussin (dextromethorphan) is now a prescription in several countries for its abuse potential, like codeine. It is a dissociative hallucinogen that can be abused, but it is generally considered a poor substitute to other substances like ketamine, rarely a first choice.
Nutmeg is a deliriant on really high doses, and most deliriants are not controlled substances, though they may be classified as poisons. The reason is that tripping on deliriants is generally considered unpleasant, and enough to turn people off quickly.
Turns out just about everybody, all around the world, loves authoritarian laws when they agree with the alleged goal, or when the psychological propaganda worked on them. If it's not the children, it's grandma, or someone else.
Turns out there are a small number of actual anti-authoritarians who have always been consistent. And then there are countless hangers-on who proclaim to be an anti-authoritarian resistance when it suits them. It's funny, the fact people co-opt it shows that they see it as a noble and worthy ideology, yet it's still one they're happy to discard the minute some talking head put on TV by a corporation tells them to be outraged.
I'd love to be put in contact with some of these true Scotsmen^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H anti-authoritarians. I need staunch moral support in my tireless, lonely fight against the soulless minions of orthodoxy who blithely kowtow to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 [0]. My perfectly fine produce deserves the embrace of the free market; it isn't up to some pencil-pusher in Washington to have the final say in how much lead there is in a tomato, it's between God, Man, and the Invisible Hand.
Are you one of the countless hangers-on who proclaim to be an anti-authoritarian resistance when it suits them?
I don't think a world where Yelp and the BBB managed the food safety ratings of restaurants would be a good one. That's a "solution", but is it a solution?
Besides, my tomatoes are certified safe by Nutr-Alert and SafeCo. SafeCo even lets me doctor the lab results myself, for a little extra! I'm still in negotiation with PureFood, but I'm sure this little speedbump will be ironed out before you know it. Iron is good for you, anyway; they don't even test for that.
>>>just about everybody, all around the world, loves authoritarian laws when they agree with the alleged goal, or when the psychological propaganda worked on them
You made a really strong claim in the post I'm quoting, and suggested that you are among those hardcore anti-authoritarians whom you lionize. But this is a real(ish) world example of that belief being challenged, and instead of explaining your principled stance, you're playin' around; you suggested you had "hit a nerve". Ah, right, I guess I'm just too emotional. Gotta stand up for what's right! No, not like that.
Of course I'm being facetious about my leaden tomatoes, but so too are you, and other readers of these words should think about how the "anti-authoritarians" actually practice their claimed stances, and where they don't.
