https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past...
Whether this is true or not, it's certainly enraging.
That is specific to the USA, where you lose a bunch of rights if you are a felon.
Looks like only a couple permanent-disenfranchisers.
If we take a look at countries like Germany or the Netherlands we see a cat and mouse game where each parliament outlaws the latest psychedelics and then the psychedelic community unveils their new analogue or precursor. We can mark the years by small additions to the basic LSD molecule. We've gone from 1p-LSD and 1cp-LSD to 1V-LSD and now onto 1B-LSD. The stimulants and dissociatives communies seems to favour flouride, it's easy to and doesn't bind to much.
The UK law bans anything sold primarily for inducing psychotropic effects, while the scheduled substances sections at the end add very fair provisions for items commonly sold as food. That's why it's actually an exaggeration to say the law could affect the spicy food trade, as food trades are one of the explicit exemptions.
You may have misread, but this is not correct. The act claims to ban substances that are _only_ used for their psychoactive effect. From the act:
"The act only captures substances which are solely for human consumption for their psychoactive effects."
I'll agree it's a given the number one reason for the use of cannabis is to get high, whatever that means. That said, it's also inarguable that pain relief is a significant and not uncommon reason to use weed also. I worked in a community in south America where a group of south american Mormons (yes, the ones who don't drink coffee) grew cannabis to produce a tincture for the treatment of arthritis pain. Research seems to agree (there needs to be more, it's a new subject for modern research) that it's a useful substance in pain management.
The UK psychoactive law is non-scientific and inconsistent, which is unfortunately common. Alcohol and nicotine have real psychoactive effects, and both are sold only for their effects, yet they are legal. The difference is an established power base controls one and not the other.
Cannabis wouldn't fall under this law, you're right. It's not intended to cover cannabis though, as that is already legislated for by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
This law was designed to combat so-called designer drugs and it has been successful in eradicating British production of these items, which mostly now takes place in the Netherlands, Germany and China
Tobacco and alcohol are also covered along with foodstuffs in the Schedules. They have long standing cultural acceptance and importance. The government does what it can do combat misuse of alcohol through taxes (along with minimum pricing in Scotland) and to combat the use of tobacco products through taxation and packaging/advertising restrictions.
What would a scientific version of the law look like in your mind? What are the inconsistencies?
The war on drugs is going about as well as Russia's war on Ukraine.