header-logo header-logo

Laughing gas: not so funny after all?

28 April 2023 / Dr Olubunmi Onafuwa , Dr Michael Harrison
Issue: 8022 / Categories: Opinion , Criminal
printer mail-detail
120629
While nitrous oxide abuse is no joke, is criminalising the drug the right move? Dr Michael Harrison & Dr Olubunmi Onafuwa caution against a heavy-handed approach to the laughing gas problem

Nitrous oxide (commonly known as laughing gas) is a drug that is commonly used as an anaesthetic and analgesic in dentistry and surgery. However, it is also used recreationally to produce euphoria and hallucinations. When nitrous oxide is inhaled repeatedly or used in combination with other drugs, it can cause serious health problems, such as vitamin B12 deficiency, nerve damage, and death.

In 2016, two defendants were acquitted after being charged with possession of nitrous oxide in Taunton. Their defence barrister successfully argued that the substance is a medicinal product and is commonly used during childbirth. The prosecution relied on the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 (PSA 2016) which makes the production, supply, and importation of nitrous oxide for recreational consumption illegal. However, it does not cover possession, because it qualifies as a medical product.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cadwalader—Matthew Sperry

Cadwalader—Matthew Sperry

Firm grows private wealth practice with transatlantic hire

Michelmores—Jennifer Morrissey

Michelmores—Jennifer Morrissey

Financial services and securities litigation specialist joins as partner in London

Shakespeare Martineau—David Smithen

Shakespeare Martineau—David Smithen

South West land team bolstered by real estate partner hire in Bristol

NEWS
MPs have expressed disappointment after the government confirmed it will not consider updating the parental leave system until at least 2027
In his latest 'Civil way' column for this week's NLJ, Stephen Gold delivers a witty roundup of procedural updates and judicial oddities. From the rise in litigant-in-person hourly rates (£24 from October) to the Supreme Court’s venue hire options (canapés in Courtroom 1, anyone?), Gold blends legal insight with dry humour
David Bailey-Vella of Davis Woolfe and chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers explores the new costs budgeting light pilot scheme in this week's NLJ
In July, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that trial judges had wrongly directed juries to treat profit-motivated Libor submissions as inherently dishonest. In this week’s NLJ, David Stern and James Fletcher of 5 St Andrew’s Hill reflect on the decision
In this week's issue of NLJ, Emma Brunning and Dharshica Thanarajasingham of Birketts unpack the high-conflict financial remedy case TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam). The husband’s conduct—described by the judge as a ‘masterclass in gaslighting’—included hiding a £9.5m deferred payment from the sale of a port acquired post-separation. Despite his claims that the port was non-matrimonial, the court found its value rooted in marital assets and efforts
back-to-top-scroll