It does seem that the authorities are taking all there chemical information on these products (at least for the time being) directly off the BL report on them....
....There is definitely are close link between the dates when the ACC and other law enforcement organisations began serious investigation into these new substances and the first publication of the neo org analysis on BL.
Please elaborate. And for what it's worth, the official report was out for some time before it appeared on BL. Are you saying that in your presence, BL was refered to by authorities? If so, then to what degree? If this
is the case, then it's information that should be posted here.
On their own, coincidental dates don't mean anything IMO, unless you can cite actual dates from original proposals etc. which I'm sure aren't available to the public. These inquiries normally take months to prepare, so I would be surprised if this wasn't on the cards before the anaylsis results were out.
Although it is bound to happen sooner or later it just shows me how a harm minimisation activity can be manipulated to end up causing more harm than it is in fact minimising.
In the world we live in, everything related to harm reduction can be (and often is) used to formulate the next step by LE. That's everything from outreach intervention reports, internet boards, and seizure finds which are novel in nature, to user trend studies done by Universities, which, these days are often done in association with intelligence based authorities. I know, I was interviewed some years ago for one, during which time I was also briefed on the scope of the project and the expected outcomes.
However, in saying that, I'd certainly not say harm reduction causes more harm than it is actually minimising. I've spoken to many people during outreach operations on the topic of neos and other vendor products; what they contain, legal and health risks, etc. Great benefit has resulted from identifying these compounds because people can make a better informed choice. THIS
IS HARM REDUCTION. The concept has always been focused on drug users rather than drug traders; something some people may need reminding of.
So what if LE are closely following that which comes up via HR? They'll always be behind the eight ball, particularly with novel products. Their ineffectiveness has to also be highlighted if policy reform in this country stands a chance. With the growing networking of private researchers, intent on exposing mislabeled, or badly marketed products, this is surely set to receive greater emphasis in the future.
First off it's not even 100% certain if the contents of these pills were/are illegal.
In Qld at least, with recently introduced legislation, there's no doubt whatsoever these chemicals are illegal.
While I support and was actively involeved in sending samples to be tested to find out the contents of these products I am now unsure whether I would have taken part in it if I had my time again.
If it hadn't been you ilikeacid, it would have been someone else. I and others in HR remain appreciative that you did go to the trouble of being involved. If we can't identify new products as they emerge, I don't see any place or value for most of the harm reduction presently operating in Australia. The exception would be outreach, but even then, having no idea what compounds have been taken is a real concern for both HR workers and medics.
It's more important than ever to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of analogues laws at stopping the influx of new drugs. As I've indicated, I believe what we'll see in the near future will make this episode insignificant. BTW, at the moment it looks set that there'll be identification and exposure of other substances currently marketed in, and imported into Australia. If, in one product, the actives turn out to be those currently suspected, then revealing these will demonstrate an area of pharmacology not before associated with recreational drugs. It would be truly mind-blowing for both users and LE, while serving to further demonstrate just how advanced drug designers and the drugs discovered really are - and how far out of touch LE really are.
So, while some of you remain skeptical of the benefits associated with the outcomes of the analysis of these chemicals, I and others remain committed to exposing any and all new products where manufacturers either refuse to divulge ingredients, or fool users by incorrectly labeling their products. What's more, I'll remind those who did submit samples for analysis, that at the time, everyone acknowledged that the products could be banned because of it, yet all still expressed a view that it was the right thing to do. It would seem, some of us were more sure on that point than others.....
