Talk

Advanced search

AIBU to find Legal High a really annoying and misleading description?

(12 Posts)
FlouncyMcFlounceFace Sun 22-May-16 19:24:46

Legal high, to me, legitimises something that may just not yet be banned. It isn't quite the same as being a registered, tested, considered safe to use drug.

ShoesieQ Sun 22-May-16 23:55:51

Remember coming across a stall at a festival selling LHs years ago and thinking "Oh, they must be safe if they're legal" ! confused

YAVMNBU. A more accurate description would be Untested-mind-fuckers-that-aren't-yet-banned.

Frostox Mon 23-May-16 00:07:58

Of course YABU - they quite literally are legal highs. You can hate them for all sorts of reasons, but it's fully insane to hate that they're named that on the basis that it's misleading - it's not misleading at all, that is exactly what they are!

dylsmimi Mon 23-May-16 00:13:27

But they aren't always legal frostox which is part of the problem and certainly not always safe
I guess NPS or new psychoactive substances is too much of a mouthful and 'legal highs' have stuck but I agree op it is misleading

mumgointhroughtorture Mon 23-May-16 00:14:36

They really shouldn't be legal at all ! They are dangerous and the legal part makes them seem more attractive to people, especially youngsters. They are being banned but obviously that won't stop them being around. It says on the packet " Not for human consumption " which should say a lot !

Frostox Mon 23-May-16 00:33:53

Whether or not you think they should be legal, the point is that they are legal... so the name isn't misleading, which was the OPs point.

Don't get me wrong - I am very strongly anti the use of legal highs. I think they're a horrible idea and wouldn't take them nor endorse others doing so. But the name isn't at all misleading, and I have much bigger issues with our drug (il)legalisation policy that 'legal highs' - for instance, marijuana is far far safer than the lot of them and isn't legal. And the fact that absolutely everything would be much much safer if we regulated the drug trade so that people actually knew what they were taking - that one step would save countless lives.

Welshmaenad Mon 23-May-16 01:01:40

I attended substances training with a 3rd sector substance misuse agency and they're not permitted to refer to them as 'Legal Highs' - the accepted term is New Psychosctive Substances.

WeeWaspie Mon 23-May-16 04:14:21

As of Thursday they won't be legal anyway. I've had a massive problem with my young people using spice, which is particularly nasty. I don't even think it was the fact that it was "legal" that made them use it, and i doubt making it illegal will make them stop either.

araiba Mon 23-May-16 04:23:51

yabu

its not misleading, they are legal and they get you high

should they be legal is a different question

herecomethepotatoes Mon 23-May-16 05:11:17

I can' think of a more apt pair of words for describing them. They don't mislead in the slightest.

The last time I was at a festival though (Glastonbury 15-ish years ago) they were first appearing and I remember thinking, "No way! I'll stick to the tried and tested illegal highs."

BrienneAndTormund Mon 23-May-16 05:15:05

They still get called herbal highs sometimes which could not be more wrong and misleading!

ApocalypseSlough Mon 23-May-16 06:10:56

New Laws- Daily Star link but surprisingly comprehensive and reasonable!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now