• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

NSW to slap temporary ban on synthetic drugs after Kwan death

webbykevin

webbykevin

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
1,723
The New South Wales Government says it will temporarily ban the sale of some synthetic drugs online.

The action was foreshadowed last week but has come into sharper focus after Sydney teenager Henry Kwan jumped to his death under the influence of synthetic drugs.

Kwan, 17, jumped from the balcony of his family home after allegedly taking a synthetic substance that mimics the effects of the hallucinogen LSD.

His father Stephen Kwan says more needs to be done to restrict the sale of such substances online.

New South Wales Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts says his department is nearing the end of an investigation into the sale of the drugs and the Government will soon start a regime of banning synthetic drugs.

In the meantime, it will introduce a 90-day ban.

"Fair Trading is currently almost at the end of its intelligence gathering and we expect in the not too distant future, once we've established some protocols with police and health, to start the naming and also the banning of products," Mr Roberts said.

Federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek today backed any State Government measure to restrict the sale of the substances.

Drug and Alcohol Research Training Australia director Paul Dillon says the use of synthetic drugs is on the rise because they are cheap and readily available online.

But Mr Dillon warns that users have no way of knowing what they are taking or its effects.

"They're seen as relatively benign and they can't be detected by drug dogs, so they're becoming very attractive - they're also incredibly cheap," Mr Dillon said.

An 18-year-old man has been charged with supplying a prohibited substance to Henry Kwan and will face court next month
Click to expand...

So tens of thousands of people took drugs that weekend with no problems, but one idiot throws himself off a balcony and everyone else is PUNISHED (and that is not too strong a word).

So why, when someone drives into a tree at 3 times the alcohol limit why don't they ban all alcohol the next day because the risks are just too high, why when some kid gets brain damage playing rugby don't they ban all contact sports ?

no answers required, we all know the reasons, fear, ignorance, brainwashing, vote grabbing pollies, rating grabbing media, conflicting taxation and business interests blah blah blah.....

shame on the main stream culture, I hope they suffocate in their ego trip isolation boxes.
 
Aus - 'Legal high' shops mull $200m campaign

art-drugs-202-620x349.jpg


Synthetic drug sellers have offered to foot a $200 million bill to test the legality of their products in a bid to keep selling them to Australians.

Following the death of north shore student Henry Kwan, who jumped off a third-floor balcony on Wednesday after taking a synthetic LSD tablet,

the association representing sellers of so-called ''legal highs'' will launch a major offensive against proposed new laws to ban synthetic drugs.

Eros, the national adult retail and entertainment association, will distribute hologram stickers to mark packets of drugs that have been scientifically tested,

implement an industry-wide ''code of practice'' for selling synthetic drugs and mount a legal challenge to proposed legislative changes that make it harder to sell the drugs.

A recent state government inquiry recommended outlawing almost all synthetic cannabinoids and giving the Minister for Fair Trading power to issue on-the-spot bans on products in adult shops, tobacconists and other stores.

Robbie Swan, co-ordinator of Eros, said simply banning synthetic drugs would not stop their spread in Sydney and they should be regulated and taxed.

Synthetic drugs are products containing chemicals artificially developed to mimic the effects of cannabis, cocaine and methamphetamine.

They exist in a grey legal area because manufacturers tweak their recipes to circumvent illegal drug classifications.

One new synthetic drug emerges on the European market every week and the two drugs believed to be involved in Henry Kwan's death, 25I-NBOMe and 25B-NBOMe, are among hundreds coming in to Australia.

''The tough-on-drugs policy is rendered null and void with these new drugs,'' Mr Swan said.

''You can't just keep banning them. The government needs to work with the people who are manufacturing and selling these things to make them safe.

We're trying to implement a form of industry self-regulation in the absence of any sensible government regulation.''

Mr Swan urged NSW to follow the lead of New Zealand, where the onus of proof has been reversed and retailers can sell synthetic drugs if they have proved they are safe and contain legal compounds only.

He said sellers were willing to foot the bill for scientific testing - about $2 million per drug - because the returns were so lucrative. The annual turnover in Australia is $700 million and there are about 100 synthetic drugs in circulation,

Eros said. If the drugs were regulated and taxed like alcohol, the return for the government would be $200 million a year. Under the plan, each tested drug would have a hologram sticker,

carry a list of ingredients, a warning label and dosage guidelines and be sold responsibly as per a ''code of practice''.

However, the inquiry decided against taking the New Zealand approach and the committee chairman and Liberal MP, Dominic Perrottet, slammed Eros' self-regulation scheme as dangerous.

''The committee totally agrees with the idea that we need to give certainty to people - but we don't give certainty by saying some formerly illicit drugs are now OK to take,'' he said. ''We need a solution now. Another boy has just died.''

NSW Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts is pushing for an interim 90-day ban on selling synthetic drugs.

Mr Roberts is consulting police, NSW Health and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission but a spokesman said a ban was likely ''sooner rather than later''.

Breaking the interim ban on selling the products over the counter would come with fines of up to $1.1 million.

''I want to impress upon the public that every time they are considering using these products, they are risking their lives,'' Mr Roberts said.

''People will need to step up and realise that they are endangering themselves if they consume these.''

Federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek said she was willing to work with states to prevent synthetic drugs circulating.

Nearly one in 10 17-year-old boys and one in 20 17-year-old girls admitted to taking hallucinogens in the federal government's survey of secondary school students last year.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/healt...#ixzz2VYmLlU1p
 
I was under the impression that they were illegal under the analogue act anyways... or that act perhaps doesn't have the teeth that it was first designed to?
 
I think the companies making or producing these types products keep changing the ingredients or molecular structure to skirt around those laws, or something like that, as far as I've read anyway.
 
Argh, the state of the world. The lack of understanding. Not learning from history and past mistakes. Why, in this day and age are we still electing these clueless people. When will this change? What hope is there for the world if people can't use common sense, science, success stories in other countries and evidence that banning things just doesn't work. Why do the people of the world continually put up with this shit? What can be done?

As was said earlier, a drink driver kills 4 innocent kids by crashing. A drunk person in Sydney bashes and kills innocent people, yet alcohol isn't urgently banned. Nor should it be. Banning is not the fucking answer, education helps but stupid people exist and will do stupid things regardless.

What the fuck can be done? Is there any reason to believe things will ever change for the better in this world? I'm too angry to form any kind of decent argument, I just wanted to vent about the complete fucked up world we live in. Why does it have to be so fucking broken, lead by complete ignorant fuck-tards?
 
''We need a solution now. Another boy has just died.''

it's funny how as soon as a psychoactive substance is involved someone dying becomes so fucking important, I refuse to believe these educated people in positions of authority are this ignorant and bereft of logic, they all must know the score .
The illegality of drugs is a key component of their system of control, they won't legalise the new synthetics because the older illegal drugs would follow and along with it the physical and legislative means of spying , databasing , searching , policing and incarcerating the general population. Drugs are bad hence we need protecting from them (ourselves).
Trying to rationalise drug law with these oligarchs is futile
 
It becomes more important when publicity is involved. Think about it; the Politician's job in the interest of the people is to enforce policies and their interest is to stay in Politics so they can enforce those policies. The majority believes in the controlling of new drugs which are deemed potentially dangerous by media outlets (whose interests are to get controversy and views), so the Politician's best interest is to enforce that desire.

The only people in this scenario that give a fuck about the man dying is the media outlets - and only because it calls for a good story. Yet Politicians are the ones who enforce ethics in their policies, and I'm the unethical one if I were to not follow those laws.
 
Nozphexezora said:
Think about it; the Politician's job in the interest of the people
Click to expand...


I hope you're being ironic! I don't mean to sneak a red pill in your GHB but a politicians job has fuck all to do with do what's in the interest of the public, the majority of politicians aren't social workers they are businesspeople, their primary interest is economic and social control not altruism and philanthropy.
To correct your statement, politicians don't enforce policies, politicians in this case MPs are part of parliament which is the legislative branch of government, the actual enforcement of the legislature created in parliament belongs to to the various other executive and judicial governmental departments.

That's quite the assumption, how do you know the majority believes in regulation of synthetics? was there a referendum or census? no ,because it's only a veil of true democracy and public consensus is a negligible factor in the creation of legislature.

Personally I would never consider myself unethical because I choose not to follow laws that I believe are unjust, I take my drugs without guilt or inner turmoil.
 
Nozphexezora said:
It becomes more important when publicity is involved. Think about it; the Politician's job in the interest of the people is to enforce policies and their interest is to stay in Politics so they can enforce those policies. The majority believes in the controlling of new drugs which are deemed potentially dangerous by media outlets (whose interests are to get controversy and views), so the Politician's best interest is to enforce that desire.

The only people in this scenario that give a fuck about the man dying is the media outlets - and only because it calls for a good story. Yet Politicians are the ones who enforce ethics in their policies, and I'm the unethical one if I were to not follow those laws.
Click to expand...

I dunno about oldirtybizza, but I thought this was a good balanced apporach.

There's some flaws in your argument ODB (oldirtybizza is too long and I refuse to keep writing it).
Firstly this ignorance goes back long before many of our politicians were born, Our prime minister is only 51 years old and the drug war is a little over 40. So she would've been brought up believeing that drugs are responsible for lots of problems. People still believe that who are growing up right now, and the drug war rhetoric was far more forceful 30 years ago because the media was so much more one sided against it. And drugs weren't nearly as main stream pre-dating the drug war which means the majority of parents raising their kids wouldn't have known the wiser.

In an ideal world, our politicians we elect would read as much data and evidence about any issue they're involved in, sadly this isn't the case. Many try to find evidence to support their beliefs (it's pretty much doing science backwards, go figure?). But this doesn't mean that politicians goal is power, control or self wealth. It just means that they've been raised believing drugs are bad mmm'kay and would see most evidence that says the contrary as anecdotal evidence opposed to how widespread the evidence is. Also if politicians want to do what they believe is right and they genuinely believe drug laws solve more problems then they cause, then why would they wish to change them?

Evidence I hear of this from time to time, just last night I watched a documentary on canada's war on weed http://www.documentaryon.com/documentaries/watch?documentary=canadas-war-on-weed&id=1016 and in it they spoke about former Canadian Major Phillip Owen who was a prohabitionist with a heavy drug stance until eventually from enough non violent resistance he started to see the other side of it and changed his views where he became a drug activist and eventually introduced a comprehensive program with provisions for prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction in drug laws.

To me, in order for politics to be about control requires everyone to be in on it otherwise it would be exposed and to me it's just not realistic, it gives me both sadness but also centres me believing that the majority of politicians want to do the right thing but are too wound up in there own beliefs to do the right things and make the right decisions. I always wonder what the goal of having greater control with spying, data basing, etc. Seems to me it's a hell of a lot of work with no reward, unless the reward is to get drugs/guns/violence off our streets, in which case trying to control us makes sense although Me and everyone else hates the idea of a big brother system watching us. As it directly conflicts with what freedom is about, which to me comes down to trusting the people to do the right thing and in return we'll trust the government. Somewhere along the line this has been confused and now we have a massive conflict of interest due to an unjust war on drugs. I'm excited to see what happens in the next 10,15,20 years, maybe I'm optimistic, but to me the internet has helped us understand one an other on a level which has never happened in the history of this planet.

More and more people are becoming aware of the failure of the drug war, but even 5 years ago I believed drugs should be illegal and I have one of the most libertarian minds out of everyone I know, this was due to naivity and trust in my government and my parents. My parents are libertarians too, but they genuinely believe drugs cause FAR more problems then the drug war ever could so why would I expect any different from our Government who are all aged similarly to my parents? But the next generation of politicans are coming, and for every person who joins politics I'd be betting that he or she has at least a few friends willing to show them the statistics, show how much the drug war has failed and continues to sap our country, and when it comes to voting the worlds gonna be a whole lot more aware. Colorado and Washington have Legalised Cannabis, the world's watching them very closely and as their revenue stacks up and there health costs stay stable the domino chips are gonna start falling and the rest of the world will bring down this drug war, the end of the drug war will be our legacy.

Sorry went off on a bit of a tangent there, I could keep ranting but I really should get back to finishing my assignment 8)
 
Synthetic drug ban won't halt online link

NSW will ban the sale of about 30 synthetic drugs on Sunday, with retailers ordered to pull the products from their shelves immediately.

But the ban is unlikely to curb use of the synthetic LSD drug that led to the death of 17-year-old Henry Kwan last week, as the drug is purchased only online.

Experts say the statewide retail ban could even push users towards more dangerous synthetic drugs available on the internet.
Click to expand...


The 90-day interim ban will cover about 30 synthetic drugs, identified by the NSW police drug squad, which have been proved to cause harm when misused.

NSW Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts was expected to hold a news conference on Sunday morning to call on the federal government and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to make the ban permanent and nationwide.

The measure follows recommendations from a parliamentary report released last month that the minister issue interim bans on synthetic drugs that ''will or may cause injury to any person''.

The head of emergency services at St Vincent's Hospital, Gordian Fulde, said he had noticed a significant increase in the number of people presenting with side effects from synthetic drugs over the past year,

particularly among teenagers and those in their early 20s. And, he said, his peers at other hospitals had noticed similar increases.

''This is not just a boutique Kings Cross clubbing drug,'' he said. ''It's everywhere.''

Fiona Patten, chief executive of the Eros Association, Australia's adult retail and entertainment association, said the ban would have a minimal effect as ''most'' synthetic drugs were bought over the internet.

She said the association would look at appealing the decision.

Monica Barratt, from the National Drug Research Institute at Curtin University, said while the ban would undoubtedly affect sales of some substances, it would be unlikely to reach the synthetic LSD taken by Kwan.

''And it may indeed drive other people towards this [drug], because they may have gone to the store and got something a lot more benign and now they are thinking about going to the [online drug marketplace] Silk Road,'' Dr Barratt said.

''It is going to be similar to the sorts of problems you get with Australian bricks and mortar stores not being able to compete with overseas websites,'' she said.

Mr Roberts said with new substances regularly appearing on the drug market, it was challenging for governments.

''But we are determined to do all we can,'' he said.

"Interim product safety bans are a step forward but we need the support of the Commonwealth in regard to products available around the country, over the internet and from overseas."

By listing products by brand name instead of chemical compounds, the ban aims to eliminate loopholes manufacturers have previously used to skirt bans by tweaking the make-up of their drugs.

NSW Fair Trading's assistant commissioner, Robert Vellar, said to prevent sellers from simply changing the name of their products, the ban notice would also encapsulate ''like products''.
Click to expand...


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/synthetic-drug-ban-wont-halt-online-link-20130608-2nwv1.html#ixzz2Ve7btZeh
 
NSW Fair Trading's assistant commissioner, Robert Vellar, said to prevent sellers from simply changing the name of their products, the ban notice would also encapsulate ''like products''.
Click to expand...


Why didn't they do that with swiss multivitamines, they banned one of their products and swiss just changed the label, nothing was done by the toothless regulators.

Hypocrisy Stinks.
 
oldirtybizza said:
I hope you're being ironic! I don't mean to sneak a red pill in your GHB but a politicians job has fuck all to do with do what's in the interest of the public, the majority of politicians aren't social workers they are businesspeople, their primary interest is economic and social control not altruism and philanthropy.
To correct your statement, politicians don't enforce policies, politicians in this case MPs are part of parliament which is the legislative branch of government, the actual enforcement of the legislature created in parliament belongs to to the various other executive and judicial governmental departments.

That's quite the assumption, how do you know the majority believes in regulation of synthetics? was there a referendum or census? no ,because it's only a veil of true democracy and public consensus is a negligible factor in the creation of legislature.

Personally I would never consider myself unethical because I choose not to follow laws that I believe are unjust, I take my drugs without guilt or inner turmoil.
Click to expand...

Firstly, the interest of the people is their duty. That doesn't mean it's altruistic, as the Politician's interests are for the sake of his own career. My points is that the Politician's ideal goal is to maintain society as a whole - regardless of whether it's economic and social management. I never said that the Government is full of caring, loving people; you completely misinterpreted what I said.

I thought it was common knowledge that these kind of drugs are considered generally bad, partly because of lack of information and partly because of media's sensationalism. If the majority voted against this, then wouldn't there be more controversy than a few online boards locally expressing their contempt for the decision? Even so, the fact that it's being passed through regulatory laws validates my assumption. Every point or argument has an assumption - it just depends on validation. Your assumption was the alleged fact that Politicians are idiotic, uneducated and want nothing more than to imprison you and the people - despite there being literally no justifiable reason as to why the Politicians would aggregate together and conspire just to piss you off a little.

I also never said that the majority belief or opinion is correct - especially in this case. It's called argumentum ad populum.

As for your lack of guilt, then that's good; power to you - but I never said that I felt guilt from breaking laws.
 
Temporary ban of synthetic drugs begins in NSW following death of Henry Kwan

The New South Wales Government is banning the sale of several synthetic drugs for 90 days following the death of a Sydney teenager.

Synthetic drugs have come under scrutiny after 17-year-old student Henry Kwan jumped off a balcony while allegedly under the influence of a drug that mimics LSD.

The ban applies to a range of drugs that mimic the effects of illegal drugs like cannabis, cocaine and methamphetamine.

NSW Minister for Fair Trading Anthony Roberts says retailers have until Tuesday to clear their shelves of synthetic drugs or face fines of up to $1.1 million.

"Retailers are on notice now," he said.

"It is not acceptable for you to continue selling these products that cause harm."

Mr Roberts says a record number of officers will be deployed to enforce the interim ban.

"On Tuesday we will see the largest taskforce in the Commonwealth's history in this area actually going out into the field," he said.

"There will be over a 150 officers deployed this week, to go out to retailers to remove these products, to fine retailers, to search and seize and to apply the full force of the law."

He says the next step is to approach the Federal Health Minister and Assistant Treasurer to make the bans permanent.

But retail groups say the ban will not work.

Robbie Swan from the adult and entertainment group Eros Association says synthetic drugs should be regulated instead.

"They can look at the packet and say it was manufactured here, it was manufacture on this date, it's got this in it," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-09/nsw-introduces-interim-ban-on-some-synthetic-drugs/4742394
 
oldirtybizza said:
I hope you're being ironic! I don't mean to sneak a red pill in your GHB but a politicians job has fuck all to do with do what's in the interest of the public, the majority of politicians aren't social workers they are businesspeople, their primary interest is economic and social control not altruism and philanthropy.
To correct your statement, politicians don't enforce policies, politicians in this case MPs are part of parliament which is the legislative branch of government, the actual enforcement of the legislature created in parliament belongs to to the various other executive and judicial governmental departments.

That's quite the assumption, how do you know the majority believes in regulation of synthetics? was there a referendum or census? no ,because it's only a veil of true democracy and public consensus is a negligible factor in the creation of legislature.

Personally I would never consider myself unethical because I choose not to follow laws that I believe are unjust, I take my drugs without guilt or inner turmoil.
Click to expand...




Yes its sensationalist, yes its a non issue, but the fact that seemingly the a very large, very vocal part of population believes that this is something to be worried about forces legislators to act and represent their misplaced fear and anger.

Would you really have faith and in referendum to relax laws on drugs? and if Australia voted against it would you accept it? Even if there was a referendum only regarding weed I would still bet against it.
 
Although its sad some kid died, but does anyone find it a bit cliche? I mean come on kid was high on hallucinogens then jumped to his death. It sounds like and urban legend, but unfortunaly this kind of thing will only strengthen the arguments of the anti drug lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top