It’s easy to get the impression that the government acts swiftly to ban any substance primarily enjoyed by young people. Nitrous Oxide recently joined this list, along with freshly picked ‘magic’ mushrooms (which were previously only illegal to own if processed, for example by drying). There is now a move to ban disposable vapes. Are any of these reasonable, or are they all knee-jerk, vote-winning fixes?
Legislation of intoxicating substances has been happening for over a century, and has been prompted by some laudable aims, such as protecting people from serious avoidable harm, and also more worrying goals, where racism has been an element. Outright prohibition was first trialled in America from 1920-1933 with alcohol. Although there was an initial drop in consumption and alcohol-related problems, it wasn’t a success. It led to more potent alcoholic drinks, a huge black market, and the rise of the Mafia. Despite this failing, the penchant for simply banning stuff continued into the still-active, US-led “War on Drugs”.
The war on drugs has claimed many casualties: the move from hash to skunk and from cocaine to crack mirrors the prohibition-era move from beer to spirits, as more compact, stronger substances are easier to smuggle, and therefore more profitable. Until very recently, research into therapeutic uses of psychedelics has been almost totally stymied, and probably the most harmful thing about cannabis use is a potential criminal record. But this doesn’t mean that the area should be free from legislation. We have good examples of limiting, but not preventing, access with cigarettes and alcohol.
Mushrooms
It became illegal to pick and possess fresh magic mushrooms in 2005, and it is almost impossible to think of a good reason for this. The reason given by the then Home Office minister, Paul Goggins was:
“By clarifying the law we are making it clear that we will not allow the sale and supply of magic mushrooms … this will benefit people likely to be at risk from the dangerous effects of magic mushrooms and will bring to an end profiteering in fresh mushrooms by growing numbers of vendors.”
But given the very low risk posed by mushrooms, this reason is thin. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that, in the view of these lawmakers, simply allowing anything psychedelic to be freely enjoyed contravenes the spirit of the Drugs War, and that their open sale was an embarrassment to the government. The relaxed attitude towards the inevitable move to the black market is harder to fathom.
Nitrous Oxide
Possession of Nitrous Oxide was made illegal in 2023. It has many uses, including as a rocket fuel booster and, combined with air, as an anaesthetic agent. When it began to be increasingly used as a culinary frothing agent, small cannisters of it became more easily available, and people began to inhale it recreationally.
Combined with air, it is a very safe, pleasant and short acting anaesthetic. But while the large gas and air bottles aren’t conducive to recreational use, a small cannister released into a balloon for rebreathing, is.
Nitrous Oxide itself poses little risk, but rebreathing an oxygen free gas can lead to hypoxia, which has its own risks, including, at worst, seizures and cardiac arrest. If a person is sitting down and begins to lose consciousness, they will let go of the balloon and quickly restore their oxygen levels, so these outcomes are rare in the absence of other methods of use, or when used alongside other intoxications.
It was interesting that the littering produced by discarded cannisters was cited as something which necessitated the legislation, as littering is already subject to sanctions – especially as cigarettes, a cause of frequent and unpleasant littering, have never been subject to a proposed ban on the same grounds. Again, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that people are enjoying something which causes altered consciousness, so it must be banned. There is a strong argument that controls, and limits on purchasing would be reasonable, but this is not the same as banning – and doesn’t appear to ever have been suggested.
Disposable vapes
Disposable vapes are next in line for banning, and this one seems entirely reasonable. Vaping started as an alternative to smoking, and the UK has stood apart from many other countries in keeping vaping in our arsenal of smoking-cessation support. The idea is that they deliver nicotine without the tar, and so reduce the risk. There is some evidence that for someone wanting to quit smoking, it is easier to reduce consumption in this way, and that vaping works better than patches or gum.
Unsurprisingly though, with the reduction in cigarette smoking, tobacco companies have found a new lucrative market with brightly-coloured, interestingly-flavoured disposable vapes, which sit in the front of shops along with sweets. If the target market was children, it would be hard to plan it better. Not only does this mean introducing nicotine to people who otherwise may never have become smokers, but it also exposes them to all the substances added as flavourings, which have never been cleared as safe for inhalation.
Vapes aren’t controlled by either food or drug standards. Substances like diacetyl, which causes popcorn lung, is found in some vape flavours, although no cases have been definitively linked to vaping. One final problem of disposable vapes is that it is not possible to reclaim the lithium in the batteries. Lithium is a valuable resource which is becoming scarcer, and consigning huge amounts to landfill in this way is environmentally unsound.
On balance then, making disposable vapes readily and appealingly available to young people doesn’t sound like a good idea. It is encouraging, at least, that the government still wants reusable vapes to be available, and aren’t choosing their usual route of simply banning them altogether. However a simplistic ban on disposable vapes may achieve little, as manufacturers can simply add a USB port for recharging, taking the vape out of the disposable category in terms of technology, even if not in terms of intended use, so nothing is changed. More thought needs to go into achieving the combined objective of protecting children while allowing for help with smoking cessation.
The UK government, in all its iterations, does not have a good record on control of drugs. The Drugs War has claimed far too many victims and needs to be consigned to history, and options for the sensible management of drugs need to be explored. This seems unlikely to happen in the near future, and in the meantime it appears that we will continue to see piecemeal additions to drugs policy, which are simply tinkering around the edges, with mixed harm and benefit, both directly and as a result of unintended consequences.
