Spice is throwing up problems not seen with other drugs

My question is, is spice an issue in the places where pot is legal?

Even if weed were legal it would still be off limits to those on parole and such, so those people would still use spice.

I don't see the logic here.

Legalization will undoubtedly entail considerably more use, more experimentation, more demand for exotics.

I suppose there are parallels with the current opioid epidemic these days, in that restriction tends to cause more problems than it solves (at least in this area of policy).

how painfully true this is, if youre a single middle aged man with no children there is very little help available. but sadly its the "war on drugs" that has created this situation, had they just taken the sensible option and decriminalized cannabis i doubt we would have anywhere near the epidemic that currently plagues us

and if they really are planning on going through with this crazy brexit idea it would at least create an opportunity to create new businesses, jobs and increase tourism. but since when have the government listened to sense? just look at what happened to david nutt

That's not why people in England use spice. They use spice because they wish to get heavily intoxicated, and spice does that cheaply and easily.

They pretty obviously used "cannabis" here because these products were designed + marketed as legal cannabis replacements or alternatives. They're called "synthetic cannabinoids" for a reason. I hardly think that using "cannabis" as a comparison to "synthetic cannabinoids" is "twisting things", or using "foul language", either.

Because these substances are obviously and explicitly marketed as substitutes for cannabis. Cannabis is the relevant comparison. There's no agenda, just reality. You're being very dramatic calling this a "disgrace" when it's really very mundane.

later on other brands using different mixes came about one of the biggest being called "Black Mamba" this too was generally a mixture of synthetic cannabinoids sprayed onto smokable herbs, but then came the psychoactives bill which banned most of these chemicals meaning that they started to be produced illicitly and also led to the mixture of chemicals used in them being even further twisted.

this brings us to now and while fringe analogs of synthetic cannabinoids are no doubt still being used and by no means are they likely to be good for you the problem chemical is actually more likely to be MDPV or a derivative of it (methylenedioxypyrovalerelone if memory serves correctly) otherwise known as Monkey dust or simply "Dust" it wouldnt surprise me to see some form of dissociative analog in there too, something like 3MeO-PCP

MDPV is not a cannabinoid but more a stimulant of sorts which gives a very short high with very long acting unpleasant side effects. of course its highly unlikely we will ever know exactly what is in that crap but one thing is for sure you have one and only one thing to blame for the problem and that is the prohibition of other substances proven to be less harmful. were we to make a sensible move the likes of the one Portugal has it would likely alleviate the problem greatly, even simply legalizing the sale and recreational use of cannabis would likely greatly reduce the problem (whilst also creating businesses, jobs, tax revenue and tourism to name but a few economic benefits)

how do i know all this stuff? experience i have no shame in admitting i became interested in psychoactive chemicals at one point in my 20s and spent a few years deeply researching and trying a staggering number of chemicals both the classical psychoactives we all know and a large number of "research chemicals" MDPV was in fact one of said chemicals, i only did it once and i did it via insuffluation it gave me a 15min buzz followed by 3 days of no sleep, twitchyness, paranoia and toward the end a similar situation to amphetamine psychosis including hallucinations, from what im told smoking it only serves to intensify all of this. of all the chemicals i tried there were few i could label as fundamentally "bad" but MDPV was definitely one of those few

i fully agree with you that at this stage any comparison to cannabis is pretty idiotic, not only do we not actually know what is in the stuff but even if it were synthetic cannabinoids and nothing else theyre likely now so far removed from the original substance that they have totally different effects just look at what happens when you modify something like amphetamine, both MDMA and Meth are amphetamine analogs but you dont see many people homeless, toothless and brainless due to an MDMA addiction. a quick read of PIHKAL or TIKHAL will show you just how much the effects of a chemical can change with only a tiny modification

its a shame that people arent more biochemically aware or theyd know that articles like this are packed with poor information but sadly thats not the case so we end up with people demonising other substances based on poor information from supposedly trustworthy sources

Better youth protection: a dealer doesn't care if you are 18 or not

Consumer protection: clean substances without dangerous cutting agents will prevent health issues and accidental overdoses

No more black market: as long as the legal substances aren't too expensive, a legalisation will close the black market for drugs since it is no longer economic to sell them illegally. (This might also take a huge hit on the finances of organised crime and terrorist organisations)

More money for helping addicts and _neutral_ drug education: when taxing the sells, the money can be used to treat addiction.

Further the legalisation might change society's point of view on drugs which might make it easier for addicts to seek help without being judged.

Before being able to buy drugs from these state controlled entities, the buyer should be required to acquire some kind of license. I imagine the license similar to a first aid course. Participants should be educated about health risks, dosages, safer use guidelines and so on. There should be licences for different classes of drugs, e.g. opioids, stimulants, cannabinoids, psychedelics and so on.

The question is what do you do with drugs who change the behavior of the user dramatically to the degree that they become a risk to others. We currently have that problem with alcohol and see the side effects in violent and reckless behavior. From domestic violence to drunk driving. The answer might be to shift the approach from restricting possession to restricting consumption and being under the influence in certain areas or situation where they might become a danger to others.

The only open question I see is how to deal with expensive, addictive substances that change the behavior of its consumers. Crack comes to mind.

And when you think about it there are practical advantages.

The form factor is not bad, compatible with your existing lighters, papers, pipes and so on and takes up “the right amount” of space (harder to lose but still concealable). Lungs are an excellent drug delivery system. You can also use it out in the open since there are existing (legal) things it could be.

You could distribute it “pure”, but it would be a lot more fiddly (tiny bags) and require a fragile (and suspicious) glass pipe, lightbulb, alufoil or what-have-you. Harder to maintain for your “addict on the go”. From a marketing perspective, much more threatening (crack/meth associations).

“Injectibles” have similar (but worse) downsides.

A pill, or snortable powder could work? Probably these do exist already - lots of dodgy pills around, some of them are bound to have these actives. Generally slower onset though and less of a high than smoking the same thing. Also somewhat different market.

Have not seen synthetic edibles or oils but no reason it couldn’t be done.

If you were going to “startup the heck out of it” you would probably go for some kind of juul-like vape. Subscription, of course....

Try opening the page in a private Firefox window. That worked for me.