Do you think that introducing a minimum legal age for buying

[James M]

Mephedrone...............? would have been a smarter move than banning it outright???
I really think the government has missed the boat here.Rather than having the opportunity to control the purity and set a minimum price,they have now pushed it underground,leaving it open to be cut with all sorts of rubbish.
If they really cared about the future of young people then they should have a rethink about the classification of it.
And just to clear things up-i'm not condoning using it,but i'd rather work with the problem than against the problem.
Lee-The reason it said that on the packaging was the same reason McDonalds put a warning on hot products-to cover their backs should anything go wrong.Cigarette packets carry a warning informing folk they may die if they use that drug,but the government are happy for folk to use that drug-and that has killed more folk than mephedrone and ecstacy ever will

 

[elo2joe]

No I think the government are doing the right thing.
In theory it is illegal to buy cigs under 18 but kids under 10 get hold of cigs easily.

 

[Lee]

It says 'NOT FOR HUMAN COMSUMPTION' on the packaging for a reason.

Classifying would send the wrong message.

 

[Chris]

I think any move would have been better than banning Mephedrone outright. When was the last time a substance could be banned completely without repercussions?

The government knew this, but parents and angry anti-drug persons alter elections immensely. So anything but an outright ban would leave politicians looking as guilty as a narcotics dealer.

Just think, the government cannot react to "alleged deaths" from this substance with "there's a label on the package". People want justice and they want bans and imprisonments to happen, not education.