NSW to slap temporary ban on synthetic drugs after Kwan death

[spacejunk]

He said profits were being funneled to the Middle East, and while he would not be drawn on exactly which groups were benefiting, citing the ongoing investigation, Capra hinted that terror networks were involved.

Fucking lies from the country that gives us never-ending wars.
That spies on global communications, provides all manner of weapons to all manner of shady groups (nukes to Israel- just one example) that kills civilians in wars based on lies.
Terrorism? More fucking lies from the biggest purveyors of bullshit (as well as murder, corruption and espionage) on this beautiful planet.
Such govt bullshit and associated sycophantic journalism is an insult to the public's intelligence.

Want to stop funding terrorism? Don't pay taxes in the United States or any of her military allies' countries. "Terrorism".
Jesus Christ. Fucking hypocritical murderers.
This is probably all a distraction from that CIA agent that spilt the beans in Hong Kong last week.
The world doesn't belong to the DEA, the CIA, the US govt or any of these other blundering idiots.
You have your wars - you lose them all in the end.
Watch the empire crumble into further stupidity, greed and slaughter. It's not the first time a huge empire has collapsed; highly doubt it'll be the last, either.

 

[footscrazy]

I'm a bit late to this, but..

That doesn't explain the countless high flyers and Hollywood elite who get into serious addiction issues despite no problems with accessing high quality and high purity drugs.

Being unreliable, fucking up your job and causing heartache to your family and friends will occur just as easily when you have a mountain under your bed as it would if you have to steal for your next hit.

Drug use has side effects, and addiction can have serious consequences. This is true whether drugs are legal or not. I don't think the argument to legalise drugs has ever claimed that addiction will suddenly become completely benign once drugs are legal. Legalisation can instead help address many of the other problems associated with illegal drug use, that have been gone over a million times here, so need not be repeated.

I guess the ultimate question is, would the amount of addicts increase or decrease with legalization?

I don't think that's the ultimate question. I think the ultimate question is, will the total amount of harm and suffering, to everyone, not just addicts, be increased or reduced with legalisation? Addiction often does impair one's life, as Busty has said. But addiction is simply a reality of society, whether drugs are legal or not. Of course I can understand the perspective that society would be better of addiction was somehow eliminated. But supporting this, that reduction of addiction is a good thing, and supporting the drug war, are entirely different things. It would be easier to understand the perspective of those wanting to maintain drug's illegality if the drug war actually worked to reduce the harms of addiction.

As I see it, the difference in opinion between those who support legalisation and those who don't, comes down to which option they believe would cause more suffering and harm. Unfortunately, the more short sighted in society may consider 'suffering and harm' to be valid only in the context of their small bubble of reality. For some, the increased suffering of many is worth less than the pleasure and superiority they can derive from sitting on their high horse and defining themselves as being 'better' than those legalisation could help.

 

[poledriver]

Expert warns against simplistic response to synthetic drug rise

A major crime bust and an international report have prompted an expert warning against simplistic responses to the rise of synthetic drugs.

Agents in the US have seized a record haul of illicit synthetic drugs and 225 people have been arrested in five countries.

The operation coincides with a United Nations report finding governments are struggling to keep abreast of the number of synthetic drugs hitting the market.

The director of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Professor Michael Farrell, says one approach will not solve the problem.

"They are producing drugs to specifically get around the current legislative controls," he said.

"You can ban things and something else will come in.

"It's quite important we don't go on a banning spree, that we have a measured response to this."

Earlier this month, the Federal Government banned 19 synthetic drugs when a Sydney teenager jumped to his death after taking a drug which mimics LSD.

Professor Farrell has played down Australia's problems with new synthetic drugs compared with Europe.

"In general our guess is that it is still modest, but the issues that are arising are new problems," he said.

Professor Farrell says it takes time to gather information and look at trends.

"The concern would be if you suddenly got whole new trenches of user populations and new problems related to that, but we have absolutely nothing to indicate that that is the case at the moment," he said.

He says New Zealand's new approach, that puts the onus back on sellers who are forced to get approval before putting them on the market, will be carefully watched.

"A lot of people will be looking with great interest to see what is happening in New Zealand," he said.

Customs plays role in global drug bust

Australian Customs played a part in what US authorities have called the biggest ever bust of a global synthetic drugs ring.

Customs has been sharing information with US authorities as part of Project Synergy since the operation started in 2012.

The US-led global operation has just made the largest coordinated strike against manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of synthetic drugs.

In the past three days, more than 550 kilograms of synthetic drugs were seized across five countries, and 225 people were arrested.

In Australia, the information has led to the detection of more than 145 kilograms of illegal drugs at Australia's borders, including 56 seizures weighing more than 60 kilograms.

Substances found included GBL, Ephedrine, Phentermine and human growth hormones.

A Customs spokeswoman says the results demonstrate the power of international law enforcement partnerships and intelligence-sharing.

The global bust comes after the United Nations warned of new "legal highs" emerging in fast and great numbers.

In its annual World Drug Report, the UN office on drugs and crime warned so-called new psychoactive substances (NPS), often sold under harmless names like spice, bath salts or herbal incense, pose a serious health risk.

"Sold openly, including via the Internet, NPS, which have not been tested for safety, can be far more dangerous than traditional drugs," it warned.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-...implistic-response-to-synthetic-drugs/4785400

 

[opi8]

I'm a bit late to this, but..



Drug use has side effects, and addiction can have serious consequences. This is true whether drugs are legal or not. I don't think the argument to legalise drugs has ever claimed that addiction will suddenly become completely benign once drugs are legal. Legalisation can instead help address many of the other problems associated with illegal drug use, that have been gone over a million times here, so need not be repeated.



I don't think that's the ultimate question. I think the ultimate question is, will the total amount of harm and suffering, to everyone, not just addicts, be increased or reduced with legalisation? Addiction often does impair one's life, as Busty has said. But addiction is simply a reality of society, whether drugs are legal or not. Of course I can understand the perspective that society would be better of addiction was somehow eliminated. But supporting this, that reduction of addiction is a good thing, and supporting the drug war, are entirely different things. It would be easier to understand the perspective of those wanting to maintain drug's illegality if the drug war actually worked to reduce the harms of addiction.

As I see it, the difference in opinion between those who support legalisation and those who don't, comes down to which option they believe would cause more suffering and harm. Unfortunately, the more short sighted in society may consider 'suffering and harm' to be valid only in the context of their small bubble of reality. For some, the increased suffering of many is worth less than the pleasure and superiority they can derive from sitting on their high horse and defining themselves as being 'better' than those legalisation could help.

Just quoting this because I think it deserves to be read.

 

[gimpan]

Fucking lies from the country that gives us never-ending wars.
That spies on global communications, provides all manner of weapons to all manner of shady groups (nukes to Israel- just one example) that kills civilians in wars based on lies.
Terrorism? More fucking lies from the biggest purveyors of bullshit (as well as murder, corruption and espionage) on this beautiful planet.
Such govt bullshit and associated sycophantic journalism is an insult to the public's intelligence.

Want to stop funding terrorism? Don't pay taxes in the United States or any of her military allies' countries. "Terrorism".
Jesus Christ. Fucking hypocritical murderers.
This is probably all a distraction from that CIA agent that spilt the beans in Hong Kong last week.
The world doesn't belong to the DEA, the CIA, the US govt or any of these other blundering idiots.
You have your wars - you lose them all in the end.
Watch the empire crumble into further stupidity, greed and slaughter. It's not the first time a huge empire has collapsed; highly doubt it'll be the last, either.

Good advice from a mod.

STOP PAYING TAXES EVERYONE!!

 

[mister]

The US government are the terrorists

 

[oldirtybizza]

I don't think that's the ultimate question. I think the ultimate question is, will the total amount of harm and suffering, to everyone, not just addicts, be increased or reduced with legalisation? Addiction often does impair one's life, as Busty has said. But addiction is simply a reality of society, whether drugs are legal or not. Of course I can understand the perspective that society would be better of addiction was somehow eliminated. But supporting this, that reduction of addiction is a good thing, and supporting the drug war, are entirely different things. It would be easier to understand the perspective of those wanting to maintain drug's illegality if the drug war actually worked to reduce the harms of addiction.

I absolutely agree with the above statement, However the word addiction and also addict has been thrown around quite a lot in this thread and generally in drug law reform debate (by myself included).
I think for a variety of reasons the word addiction is one that we need to move away from when we discuss drug reform where we want to make drug use a health rather than legal issue, reasons being that it is a vague term without specific clinical criteria and is not a medical diagnosis where the closest term is dependence which is usually (in OZ also) defined by the descriptions outlined in the ICD-10 or by meeting 3 or more of the diagnostic criteria of dependence outlined in the DSM-IV.

We need to bring this topic out of the haze of misinformation, morals and rhetoric and terms like addict with all it's associated stigma don't really help.
I'm not trying to be PC and say we should all say "drug dependent person" here but it's all too easy for people to throw the word addict out there to justify the current system, technically someone could be an opiate addict because they are addicted to using a medical opiate in prescribed doses for treating pain, this wouldn't however meet the criteria for dependence.

Interestingly enough the DSM-5 which was released in May of this year and is yet to have widespread impact, completely does away with the diagnosis of substance dependence and have combined the criteria for substance abuse and substance dependence into one new diagnosis called "substance use disorder" the disorder being defined by varying levels of severity , I don't know whether this is for better or worse but some of the positives I can see is that it implies there is level of substance use that is not clinically significant and that by grading the disorder in terms of severity it accepts that some forms of substance addiction uh dependence are less problematic.

I guess the ultimate question is, would the amount of addicts increase or decrease with legalization?

Becomes a different question entirely when posed as , would the amount of people with a severe substance use disorder increase or decrease with legalization?
It's easier for the public to get behind throwing "addicts" in jail than it is people with a mild substance use disorder.

 

[mister]

here we go again..............
Drug warning for teens

Synthetic LSD and an online "eBay for drugs" known as the Silk Road have been linked to the death of popular Churchlands student Preston Bridge.

Preston's family yesterday released confronting images of the 16-year-old in Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in the days before he died.

They spoke out after receiving an update on the coronial investigation into his death, which was the result of catastrophic head injuries after Preston fell from a balcony at Scarborough's Sunmoon Resort on February 16.

The toxicology tests found only a small trace of cannabis in Preston's system but no sign of LSD. Preston's father Rod Bridge told The Weekend West that five of the eight teenagers who were at the resort took what they believed to be LSD.

Mr Bridge said the lack of any trace of LSD in his son's system led to speculation Preston may have instead taken a synthetic version of the drug that was not immediately recognisable as a form of LSD.

Synthetic drugs are growing in popularity across the world because they are seen as a way to bypass laws and regarded as a safer alternative to substances made in illegal backyard laboratories.

They are outlawed in WA under laws regarded as among the tightest in Australia.

Mr Bridge said he was angry at the person who supplied the drugs to Preston. No charges have been laid and police inquiries into the supply of the drugs are continuing.

Mr Bridge is also angry at the operators of the Silk Road, which employs high-technology security measures to mask users' true identities and uses a digital currency that eliminates the involvement of banks.

"You get told by people that you can't shut down Silk Road," he said.

"I can't accept that. How can you not shut down the Silk Road drug site but put a man on the Moon? How can you not stop a website - it's ridiculous. Preston is not the first to die and won't be the last."

The Bridge family have different views on the responsibility of the teenager who took the drugs to the resort.

Mr Bridge said his former wife Vicki and daughter Aimee believed Preston was ultimately responsible because he took the drugs.

Preston's case bears striking similarities to the death of Henry Kwan, who died after falling from the balcony of his family's north Sydney home on June 5.

Toxicology is yet to confirm exactly what the 17-year-old took but senior NSW police said his behaviour before his death appeared similar to that shown by others who had ingested 25B-NBOMe and 25I-NBOMe.
The drugs are known by the street names of N-Bomb, Smiles and 25I. Up to 400 Smiles tablets were seized in regional WA in September.

"I can't accept that. How can you not shut down the Silk Road drug site but put a man on the Moon

oh come on, they never put a man on the moon

I cant be arsed looking up the statistics but there must have been 5-6 incidents of people falling off balconies due to alcohol in the past year but they hardly rate a mention in the news and are quickly forgotten, 1 person jumps and 1 falls off a balcony after taking xxxNBOMe and its fucking war.

from reading about these tragedies I learnt that maybe the railings are a little bit too short?

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/17887955/drug-warning-for-teens/

 

[poledriver]

from reading about these tragedies I learnt that maybe the railings are a little bit too short?

Yeah, that and also there's alot of us tall lanky fuckers these days, or so i keep getting told. Surprised we aren't better at basketball.

Mr Bridge said the lack of any trace of LSD in his son's system led to speculation Preston may have instead taken a synthetic version of the drug that was not immediately recognisable as a form of LSD.

Sounds logical.

Mr Bridge said he was angry at the person who supplied the drugs to Preston. No charges have been laid and police inquiries into the supply of the drugs are continuing.

Why would you be angry at the person who supplied the drug(s)? They didn't make it, I doubt they forced Preston to buy or take the drug(s).

There needs to be a whole heap of new 'education and awareness' ads and campaigns that let up and comers know that certain drugs might not possibly be what they are sold as, synthetic versions of nearly everything (lsd, mdma, cocaine, speed, cannabis etc) and can be more addictive, more dangerous and more expensive than the drugs they are designed to replace. I mean when i was 17 I didnt have to worry about all this shit, a pill was usually E, and acid trip was lsd, pot was pot etc.

 

[mister]

mate it sounds to me that we need more education about the dangers of standing on a balcony, and common sense of course

 

[mister]

balconies and drugs dont mix.....just say no

 

[gimpan]

Yeah, that and also there's alot of us tall lanky fuckers these days, or so i keep getting told. Surprised we aren't better at basketball.



Sounds logical.



Why would you be angry at the person who supplied the drug(s)? They didn't make it, I doubt they forced Preston to buy or take the drug(s).

There needs to be a whole heap of new 'education and awareness' ads and campaigns that let up and comers know that certain drugs might not possibly be what they are sold as, synthetic versions of nearly everything (lsd, mdma, cocaine, speed, cannabis etc) and can be more addictive, more dangerous and more expensive than the drugs they are designed to replace. I mean when i was 17 I didnt have to worry about all this shit, a pill was usually E, and acid trip was lsd, pot was pot etc.

Yes Exactly, All schools should be teaching harm minimisation and it should be a major part of their health classes. Its not hard to understand how kids think if they can buy it legally it cant be that bad.

 

[poledriver]

Research chemical NBOM-e linked to drug deaths of teenagers Henry Kwan, Nick Mitchell, Preston Bridge

A research chemical called NBOM-e is being blamed for the deaths of three high school students and one adult, with police and drug educators sounding an alarm to parents and students.

The substance is sold on drug-dealing website the Silk Road for less than $(price removed) and can also be purchased in bulk from factories in China.

Originally a chemical used in research for identifying depression, drug dealers took the chemical formula from scientific journals and replicated it.

The head of the NSW Drug Squad, Detective Superintendent Nick Bingham, says police are now certain the drug caused the death of 17-year-old student Henry Kwan, who jumped from the third-floor balcony of his home two months ago.

"We know [it was] one of the NBOM-e products," Detective Superintendent Bingham told 7:30.

"There's several of them - 25b, 25c, 25i - [they] seem to be the most popular products.

"I believe it was a 25i product that Henry ingested. And it was sold to him as LSD, not as NBOM-e."

7.30 can also reveal that police have a strong suspicion the drug caused the death of 15-year-old Nick Mitchell from the Central Coast, who died last December.

At the time the death was blamed on LSD.

"Unfortunately young Nick Mitchell died as a result of taking a substance, and his friend who survived engaged in quite reckless behaviour," Det Supt Bingham said.

"Toxicology reports have since come back that no LSD was involved in Nick Mitchell's death.

"It's speculation until a full toxicology report comes back, but I'm quite sure that NBOM-e will be involved in that case."

NBOM-e more dangerous than LSD, but still legal in NSW

At the time of Henry Kwan's death it was reported that he had taken synthetic LSD.

But NBOM-e drugs are far more toxic and dangerous, and contrary to reports are still legal in some Australian states.

"Currently NBOM-es are legal in NSW," Det Supt Bingham said.

"I've made submissions, I'm on a inter departmental government panel working group making submissions to have these drugs listed as prohibited, and hopefully that will happen in the very near future."

Henry's father Stephen Kwan hopes NBOM-es are quickly made illegal.

"I wanted to get that message that really he died for a good cause, that he can really help to save more people, more young people," he said.

Family grieves for son who took drug bought on Silk Road

In Perth, another grieving family is waiting on toxicology results for their teenage son Preston Bridge, with LSD originally suspected but now ruled out.

Preston's father Rod Bridge does not know if NBOM-es are involved, but the drug was purchased on Silk Road for a similar price and the circumstances are very similar.

"One of the other boys there has told me that it was purchased as an experimental trial pack, and you can buy 10 for $(price removed) and if you buy 10 you get one free - [a] bit like an upgrade meal at McDonalds," he said.

"So someone's out there selling whatever and for the sake of most probably $(price removed), it's killed my son."

Mr Bridge has set up a shrine in his home to his son and is leading a campaign to have the Silk Road shut down.

He also wants students educated about the risks.

Through tears, he says his son Preston would be proud.

"He'd support it a long way, for sure. I'm doing it for him. That's what he'd do," he said.

Drug educator warning of dangers of NBOM-e

The three deaths and the death of an adult in South Australia are being closely monitored by veteran drug educator Paul Dillon.

For the first time in more than 20 years of talks with teenagers about drugs, Mr Dillon is now including a drug warning.

"Police put out warnings about things and then nothing bad happens and young people don't believe us - we lose our credibility," he said.

"I certainly don't want to lose mine, but I really do believe that something really is happening at the moment, with the very young - we're not talking about 18, 19-years-olds here, we're going younger and younger."

Mr Dillon believes toxicology tests will soon confirm NBOM-e was taken in all three deaths.

"For many of the deaths that we suspect to be NBOM-e related, we still haven't got the toxicology through - certainly every indication is it is what it is," he said.

"I certainly wouldn't be giving a drug warning in schools unless I thought that this was the case.

"All of the experts that I've spoken to - law enforcement, toxicologists - all believe that that's what we're going to see here."

Topics: drugs-and-substance-abuse, community-and-society, drug-education, education, drug-use, health, drug-offences, crime, law-crime-and-justice, killara-2071, tascott-2250, nsw, scarborough-6019, wa, sa, australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-...om-e-blamed-for-teenagers-drug-deaths/4872078

 

[poledriver]

Synthetic drugs to be outlawed in NSW


Synthetic drugs will be outlawed in NSW under new laws that carry jail terms of up to two years and fines of more than $2000.

The drug believed to have contributed to the death of Sydney student Henry Kwan is banned under the new legislation.

The NSW government said the laws are the first of their kind in Australia and will target the manufacture, supply and advertising of synthetic drugs such as synthetic cannabis, cocaine and LSD.

Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts said the government would introduce the legislation on Tuesday.

"There is no silver bullet to protect people from the scourge of psychoactive drugs, but the NSW government has developed groundbreaking laws to tackle the problem," he said.

Attorney-General Greg Smith said the new offences will be added to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

"Manufacturers may try to alter drugs to avoid detection, but these new laws mean police have greater certainty in seizing substances where they have formed a reasonable suspicion that it is a drug or psychoactive substance," he said.

"The NSW government will also ban the advertising and promotion of a substance to be consumed for its psychoactive effects, or information that provides how or where to acquire the substance."

Penalties will include jail sentences of up to two years, more than $2000 in fines or both for the manufacture or supply of synthetic drugs. The penalty for possession of the drugs will be up to one year in jail and/or more than $2000 in fines.

The state and federal governments introduced an interim ban on synthetic drugs in June, but this will be the first time the ban will be introduced in law.

Mr Roberts said the community is seeing the benefits of removing harmful synthetic drugs from sale "and these new laws capture the whole process".

He said NSW Fair Trading inspected more than 1000 retailers since the ban was introduced to ensure synthetic drugs were removed from sale.

NSW will add 40 substances to the prohibited drugs list including NBOMe which contributed to the death of Sydney student Henry Kwan, 17, who jumped from the balcony of his Killara home in June. He was said to have suffered from a psychosis brought about by the synthetic drug.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/synthetic-drugs-to-be-outlawed-in-nsw-20130910-2thju.html#ixzz2eTAiU1iM

 

[The_horz]

I hate it! I can get blind drunk, shoot things, gamble my last cent but can I get high and eat ice cream...? Craptacular!

 

[Captain Brewster]

^ you forgot: chain smoke 39 packs of pj's a day.

But well said, either way.

 

[lovepsychadelics]

Got to love governments they like simple actions rather than examining the bigger picture. Hey maybe if people on the boats had decent wages in their country of origin like Bangladesh they would not emigrate. That means target would have to pay the workers an extra 5 dollars a day plus give the sweat shops more money to make working conditions safe. Instead they go in and say here is $10,000 I want 50,000 shirts made by next month for export to Australia. Once here we pay $20 or so a single item, in this case a shirt. These companies are exploiting these people economically but if they reinvested their money into the manufacturing facilities to ensure they were safe and paid the workers a decent wage half the boat people probably would never arrive.

This applies to the war on drugs as well. Education is paramount as is access to harm reduction information why don't we get taught a bit more than a cop coming into your grade 10 class with a projector with a few images of various drugs and say these are bad don't take them or you will end up dead or in jail. Simplistic political solutions offer no solution as they never address the complete picture. That is my 2 cents. I could walk 100 meters and buy as much booze as I want but I do not. Been through to much shit of late and am bored so have posted a few times on BL but I'm enjoying sobriety and I love to stir a few people posting on here, so much fun. Everyone to their own opinions but a holistic approach works far better than a simplistic one.

 

[lovepsychadelics]

^

Looks like a used car salesman lol.

 

[poledriver]

Drugs sold as 'food' exempt under new laws

A loophole will allow drugs sold as "food" to be exempted from laws pre-emptively banning all new synthetic drugs, the Greens say.

Experts have argued the law cannot keep pace with new ''synthetic'' drugs, with one new drug emerging in Australia each week.

Greens MP John Kaye said legislation introduced to Parliament on Wednesday failed in its mission to deal with this problem by banning anything that can affect a person's "motor function, thinking, behaviour, perception, awareness or mood", because it exempted foods.

"This will just shift the drugs arms race and encourage people to move from making drugs you can smoke to drugs you can eat," he said.

The law introduces fines of more than $2000, penalties of up to two years' jail and new powers to authorities to ban drugs once they are discovered. But it also exempts anything defined by the Food Act as a ''food'', that is, anything used for, or represented as being for, human consumption.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/drugs-sold-as-food-exempt-under-new-laws-20130918-2tzow.html#ixzz2fHqyzHXq