This chapter critically examines the UK’s response to the rise of Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS), particularly synthetic cannabinoids like Spice, through the lens of media panic, reactive legislation, and systemic inequality. Tracing the shift from the early emergence of “legal highs” to the sweeping Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, it explores how policy was shaped less by scientific evidence and more by sensationalist narratives and political expediency. Drawing on personal experience working as a nightclub bouncer, the chapter reveals the lived realities of Spice users—many of whom were far from the stereotyped homeless or prison populations portrayed in the media. It critiques the Act’s vague definition of “psychoactivity,” its failure to target harmful legal substances like alcohol, and its disproportionate impact on marginalised groups. While expert bodies such as the ACMD warned against the law’s flaws, their advice was sidelined in favour of tough-on-drugs posturing. By contrasting the UK’s approach with international models like Portugal and New Zealand, the chapter argues for a shift towards evidence-based, health-oriented drug policy that prioritises care over control.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Legal Highs, Loopholes, and the Politics of Panic

  • Elizabeth Peatfield

摘要

This chapter critically examines the UK’s response to the rise of Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS), particularly synthetic cannabinoids like Spice, through the lens of media panic, reactive legislation, and systemic inequality. Tracing the shift from the early emergence of “legal highs” to the sweeping Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, it explores how policy was shaped less by scientific evidence and more by sensationalist narratives and political expediency. Drawing on personal experience working as a nightclub bouncer, the chapter reveals the lived realities of Spice users—many of whom were far from the stereotyped homeless or prison populations portrayed in the media. It critiques the Act’s vague definition of “psychoactivity,” its failure to target harmful legal substances like alcohol, and its disproportionate impact on marginalised groups. While expert bodies such as the ACMD warned against the law’s flaws, their advice was sidelined in favour of tough-on-drugs posturing. By contrasting the UK’s approach with international models like Portugal and New Zealand, the chapter argues for a shift towards evidence-based, health-oriented drug policy that prioritises care over control.