NZ - 'Revolutionary' legal high law means state regulated drug market

[edgarshade]

NZ Herald

By David Fisher
5:30 AM Saturday Jul 28, 2012

Kronic-style drugs are expected back on the shelves under the new legal high law being crafted by Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne. Experts say the law will create one of the world's first open and regulated recreational drug markets with synthetic cannabis making a return. The first legal highs will be offered for sale in 2014, based on estimates in papers released by health officials. The new regime, announced by Mr Dunne last week, aims to end the uncontrolled legal high industry which is estimated to have made $250 million in 10 years. The unregulated market has seen drugs sold legally with effects mimicking illegal substances like P, cannabis and Ecstasy.

In the law Mr Dunne aims to have ready by August next year, legal high manufacturers will have to pay to have their substance proved "low risk". His office acknowledged it would create a legal drug market. "That is the absolute intention behind this regime. The problem in the past has been that we had a totally unregulated market with who knows what substances in these products. "I am quite unapologetic about leading changes that will make things safer for young New Zealanders."

New Zealand Drug Foundation executive director Ross Bell said the proposal was "22nd century thinking" which posed serious questions for society. "What happens when someone invents the pill or the powder that gets you the high you want, is completely non-addictive ... and is safe to drive on. Is there anything wrong with that?"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10822749

 

[Cortexiphan]

I wonder if this new system will only cover recently outlawed legal highs or if it also pertains to the drugs that the legal highs were replacing due to bans. There's already plenty of clinical data on MDMA, psilocybin and LSD.

 

[THC2LSD]

Massey University drug researcher Dr Chris Wilkins said the system was "revolutionary".

"Having a government-approved legal high industry is pretty radical. New Zealand is the only country in the world going down that path."

New Zealand Drug Foundation executive director Ross Bell said the proposal was "22nd century thinking" which posed serious questions for society.

"What happens when someone invents the pill or the powder that gets you the high you want, is completely non-addictive ... and is safe to drive on. Is there anything wrong with that?"

Wow. I thought that approving new recreational drugs with this would be harder than getting a CI license in the US. It looks like a step in the right direction. Who know, maybe they'll approve weed?

 

[SDforever420]

One small step for man.....one giant leap for our kind

 

[stimutant]

how about legalizing cannabis instead of that kronic shit?

 

[Survived Abortion]

This totally blows the negative naysayers in our community out of the water. This is a very positive leap forward indeed.

The only thing that bothers me about this is the fact that they plan to test the drugs on animals. Vivisection is wrong. This needs to be contested.

 

[phactor]

This totally blows the negative naysayers in our community out of the water. This is a very positive leap forward indeed.

The only thing that bothers me about this is the fact that they plan to test the drugs on animals. Vivisection is wrong. This needs to be contested.

Agree on all counts.

 

[Roger&Me]

Well just how do you propose that we test new pharmacological agents without the use of animals?

Its not even a question of being "right" or "wrong", its an absolute necessity. Every drug is tested on animals, its a literal cornerstone of the field of pharmacology, otherwise you can't see whether the drug is likely safe to give to people.

 

[JohnnyVodka]

Well just how do you propose that we test new pharmacological agents without the use of animals?

Its not even a question of being "right" or "wrong", its an absolute necessity. Every drug is tested on animals, its a literal cornerstone of the field of pharmacology, otherwise you can't see whether the drug is likely safe to give to people.

Do alcohol and tobacco pass safety tests? Recreational drugs are taken for fun, not out of necessity. It's morally wrong to test aftershave, etc on animals, and so the same should apply to recreational drugs.

 

[Survived Abortion]

Every drug is tested on animals, its a literal cornerstone of the field of pharmacology...

A cornerstone that human beings invented. It's not writ hard in the physical laws of the cosmos that that is the way to do things in pharmacology. We could change if we wanted to, but it's apparently just too inconvenient for most.

Its not even a question of being "right" or "wrong", its an absolute necessity.

It's not an "absolute necessity" at all. Virtually all the new designer drugs we report about here on bluelight were not tested on animals, they were tested on human beings who boldly decided to take the plunge themselves (ourselves), rather than cowardly inflicting it upon other beings who have no say in the matter. Shulgin tested upon himself and his wife before anyone else got a look-in.

It can be done this way, and it should be done this way. Human beings are the ultimate consumers of the product, so there is no reason why we shouldn't be the ones to go first.

Anyway, let's not derail the thread too far from the original conversation.

 

[Blue Russian cub]

Hahaha duuuuuude what you just said may be the coolest thing I've ever heard VERY CLEVER SIR

 

[Korn3x]

Do alcohol and tobacco pass safety tests? Recreational drugs are taken for fun, not out of necessity. It's morally wrong to test aftershave, etc on animals, and so the same should apply to recreational drugs.

people used to sacrifice animals in the old testament. i think jesus is ok with testing on animals. its not like its out of a cruel spirit with cruel intentions.

 

[Wizzle]

A cornerstone that human beings invented. It's not writ hard in the physical laws of the cosmos that that is the way to do things in pharmacology. We could change if we wanted to, but it's apparently just too inconvenient for most.



It's not an "absolute necessity" at all. Virtually all the new designer drugs we report about here on bluelight were not tested on animals, they were tested on human beings who boldly decided to take the plunge themselves (ourselves), rather than cowardly inflicting it upon other beings who have no say in the matter. Shulgin tested upon himself and his wife before anyone else got a look-in.

It can be done this way, and it should be done this way. Human beings are the ultimate consumers of the product, so there is no reason why we shouldn't be the ones to go first.

Anyway, let's not derail the thread too far from the original conversation.

For this law to survive, it is an absolute necessity. Just think of the headlines when a human tester dies..

I'm loving this news though. Great!

 

[emkee_reinvented]

A cornerstone that human beings invented. It's not writ hard in the physical laws of the cosmos that that is the way to do things in pharmacology. We could change if we wanted to, but it's apparently just too inconvenient for most.



It's not an "absolute necessity" at all. Virtually all the new designer drugs we report about here on bluelight were not tested on animals, they were tested on human beings who boldly decided to take the plunge themselves (ourselves), rather than cowardly inflicting it upon other beings who have no say in the matter. Shulgin tested upon himself and his wife before anyone else got a look-in.

It can be done this way, and it should be done this way. Human beings are the ultimate consumers of the product, so there is no reason why we shouldn't be the ones to go first.

Anyway, let's not derail the thread too far from the original conversation.

although animal testing could be done without intending harm to the tested subject. With normal thinking one feels this is not the right way to go.

 

[sekio]

People generally get angry if you need a LD50 number and you use humans for tests rather than Rattus norvegicus.

 

[badfish45]

Yet they're still foolish enough to keep these on the shelf and market them as safer than illegal drugs such as cannabis. If we're doing this, why the hell do we need to keep all of these drugs illegal. *sigh*

 

[Roger&Me]

It's not an "absolute necessity" at all. Virtually all the new designer drugs we report about here on bluelight were not tested on animals, they were tested on human beings who boldly decided to take the plunge themselves (ourselves), rather than cowardly inflicting it upon other beings who have no say in the matter. Shulgin tested upon himself and his wife before anyone else got a look-in.

The designer drug community isn't an adequate model for drug development, its absolutely irresponsible... you can't just make new compounds and go giving them to people. That's an archaic model. We don't know the long term effects of many of the designer drugs reported here on bluelight, and just because they're being widely used doesn't mean that their safety profile has been established. And in order to establish the safety and efficacy of any pharmacological agent, you need data that can't be obtained from human subjects without running into serious ethical quandries.

The fields of pharmacology and medicine would be massively hampered by bans on animal testing, and this would directly decrease the quality of care that patients receive. Anyway, I won't continue the debate -- I'll just leave it at that, and say that although I do share many of your concerns about animal welfare, I also believe that animal testing is a necessary evil in contemporary society.

 

[the toad]

So theyre gonna legalize the more harmful ones created to replace the safer ones? This sounds counterproductive....

 

[hexalslug]

That's right, legalize and regulate the chemicals with no data that will take millions to declare "safe enough", but not the chemicals for which we have a lot of data and already know are "safe enough", while also ignoring the fact that the market for legal highs is created by said already established chemicals being prohibited in the first place. Makes perfect fucking sense.

 

[Poodles!]

Don't get me wrong, this is a massive step forward... but synthetic cannabinoids?

That's ridiculous, especially when there is already so much research and toxicity data already on Sativa and Indica. I can understand that it's easier to study the effects of a single chemical rather than a plant containing thousands though.

I think for something this to work they need to legalise Cannabidiol (CBD), which I believe should be included in any synthetic cannabis blend. I guess there's no reason why they can't use THC synthesised from CBD in a synthetic blend. I'd love to try THC on it's own to see how it compares to some of the synthetics I've tried. Perhaps they could come up with a blend that is safer and more more enjoyable or with greater medicinal properties than cannabis itself?r