As of the 23rd of December this year a raft of previously legal highs will come under the umbrella of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In the new amendment compounds containing or derived from benzylpiperazine or BZP will considered class C drugs along with GBL, which is also being made a controlled substance while synthetic canabanoids used in the production of Spice will be categorised class B.

Alan Johnson, the current Home Secretary and former Secretary of State for Health stated that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACDM) found that the substances have an unpredictable effect on health, he went on; “The perception is that [unscheduled chemical stimulants] are harmless, however, in some cases people can be ingesting dangerous industrial fluids or smoking chemicals that can be even more harmful than cannabis.” He says this despite there being little medical consensus on exactly how harmful cannabis is on the human body, some professionals believe that cannabis is no more dangerous than socially acceptable drugs, such as alcohol.

John Ramsay, toxicologist at St. Georges University, London points out that little is known about the side effects of legal highs and unscheduled chemical preparations such as mephedrone, known as meow, or GBL ,a compound primarily used as an industrial solvent, beyond anecdotal evidence by users due to the nature of the law as it currently exists. If users of any synthetic narcotic are admitted to hospital they are reticent to reveal what products, quantities and combinations of drugs, synthetics and legal highs they have ingested. A way around current legislation as it stands against synthetic narcotics is to state on the packaging that it is not for human consumption but plant food, for example. Where the product is not illegal or designed for human consumption then the data regarding its effects whether in unison with other illegal drugs or alcohol for example isn't collected. The government's response to the current situation is to legislate against compounds once they have come under media scrutiny which, rather than diminish the use of the synthetic, simply force less reputable manufacturers to design new methods of synthesis which weren't covered by the latest legislation. As a result the new synthetics remain unknown to the law, untested by pharmaceutical researchers and the data uncollected by the medical community. This lack of information means that the effects in conjunction with legitimate medication also remains unknown, as well as possible long term physical, psychological damage or being responsible for birth defects et cetera.

The legislation which comes into force this year is, rather typically in the 'War on Drugs,' seems like an over reaction following media prompting regarding synthetic narcotics for which the media uses the shorthand 'legal high', not recognising the distinction between and lumping together the misuse of industrial chemicals and the legitimate use of products made for human consumption.

Perhaps it would be wiser to investigate the effects of legal highs and unscheduled chemicals to recognise their place in the recreational lives of people in the 21st century rather than adapt legislation which is nearly 40 years old, written long before many of these products were concocted. Taking this approach would allow for medical and pharmaceutical investigation leading to the recognition of particular trusted compounds or formulations. Manufacturers would be encouraged to submit their products for testing leading to medical and governmental approval. This would guarantee both the efficacy and the safety of the ingredients used in the creation of products designed to imitate the effects of particular stimulants and hallucinogenics. However, due to the moral bias and draconian nature of British legislation regrading drugs and modern synthetic recreational products, this approach is unlikely. Evidence of the intolerant outlook held by the legislators is given by the sacking of Professor David Nutt, Drug advisor to the British government, who, while not advocating de-criminalisation of cannabis, pointed out that it wasn't necessarily more dangerous than alcohol. This view, contrary to the government's policy lead him to being relieved of his advisory role, proving that policy isn't based on informed debate but upon the moral prejudices of those charged with protecting society from itself.