-
I don't think a review is on the cards, is it? I can't find anything that says it is? MPs just voted by 309 to 228 against exempting poppers from the legislation so the democratic mandate is quite clear, unfortunately, so that would be odd.
If it is, it won't be because Crispin Blunt said he used them, unless it's as a result of the publicity that generated.
I agree with you on the rest, but to a degree poppers use among gay men is a practical aid to sex, whereas the other examples you're talking about could more legitimately be argued as a lifestyle choice. That's why I find that element particularly disappointing - to be blunt it's not like us gay men have any other option if we want penetrative sex, so to me this feels like active discrimination, voted on by a bunch of mostly heteronormative folk whose experience of anal sex is, I imagine, very limited.
You are reading a single comment by @Fox and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Fox
Yes I am aware he's a gay man.
What I found weird was, from what I heard on the radio, that because an MP said "this will directly affect me" a review seems on the cards.
And that drug x in sex is OK. But drugs y,z, and a, aren't.
It was the presentation of it. Drugs and sex are generally great. The language this MP used was "poppers are integral to bonding in gay sex" (that's paraphrasing but his words in one sentence were bonding gay sex and poppers). I would say it isn't just limited to gay sex. It affects all people who are into drugs and sex. It potentially criminalises many people, including legitimate business owners. I'm thinking of sex venues here. Saunas used to sell poppers, huge amounts. Now, people who use poppers in a legal sauna place the owner of the venue at risk of prosecution. Much like nightclubs and drug use, the law will target them.
I think this might have been my point.
The mp to say "this is a gay thing" missed the point. This is a civil liberty thing affecting anyone.