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


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

Synthetic Cannabinoids Thread

Much appreciated if someone could update me (and the board) on the current state of legislation of the synthetic cannabinoids in Australia (specifically each state if possible! =D )??

Thanks in advanced! :)
 
NZ - 'Revolutionary' legal high law means state regulated drug market
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/ar...ectid=10822749
 
I very rarely smoke weed,as it's 50/50 whether I get extremely paranoid and feel depressed the following day,but due to media hype,I bought some Kronic awhile ago.

I only remembered I had it the other night,so made myself a very small joint.I wasn't even done smoking it before I started to feel very fucked up.It was so weird,it was like strong head rushes of anxiety and paranoia,and I just sat on the couch rocking back and forth for awhile trying to calm down.I ended up taking 2mg of Xanax which made me feel much better,and suddenly I was in stoner mode,raiding the fridge,laughing my ass off at a tv show and thinking odd thoughts and wondering if I should write them down.I fell asleep in front of the tv after about 2 hours.
The next day was fucking awful.I was severley depressed,irritable and felt kind of hung over.
I'll never touch it again :(
 
I very rarely smoke weed,as it's 50/50 whether I get extremely paranoid and feel depressed the following day,but due to media hype,I bought some Kronic awhile ago.

I only remembered I had it the other night,so made myself a very small joint.I wasn't even done smoking it before I started to feel very fucked up.It was so weird,it was like strong head rushes of anxiety and paranoia,and I just sat on the couch rocking back and forth for awhile trying to calm down.I ended up taking 2mg of Xanax which made me feel much better,and suddenly I was in stoner mode,raiding the fridge,laughing my ass off at a tv show and thinking odd thoughts and wondering if I should write them down.I fell asleep in front of the tv after about 2 hours.
The next day was fucking awful.I was severley depressed,irritable and felt kind of hung over.
I'll never touch it again :(

We are not allowed to mention brand names here.

You will find that a lot of the new products are causing effects like what you experienced. It has been alleged that a Salvinorin A analogue is being used. That would explain the effects starting as you blow the smoke out like Sally as opposed to Cannabis.
 
We allow the mention of brand names when it's a warning or bad trip report, so what Miss Nervosa mentioned is fine :)

Also, the name has been mentioned in the article, so it doesn't really make sense to then not allow anyone else to mention it after that. I know it's a bit of a grey area though - generally we just don't want people asking for opinions/experiences on brand name legal highs, or the 'should I buy?' type threads. That's because these brand name legal highs aren't always consistent between batches, and the active ingredients within them are often unknown, so one person's experience should never be assumed to apply to other users of it, too.
 
We allow the mention of brand names when it's a warning or bad trip report, so what Miss Nervosa mentioned is fine :)

Also, the name has been mentioned in the article, so it doesn't really make sense to then not allow anyone else to mention it after that. I know it's a bit of a grey area though - generally we just don't want people asking for opinions/experiences on brand name legal highs, or the 'should I buy?' type threads. That's because these brand name legal highs aren't always consistent between batches, and the active ingredients within them are often unknown, so one person's experience should never be assumed to apply to other users of it, too.

The problem is that there are several counterfeit products currently being sold under the name of "Kronic" that all have completely different make ups so there is no way of knowing for sure which product we are actually talking about.

It's a different story if the product comes in sealed tamper proof packaging.
 
Exactly. Contents are not consistent across batches and the reasoning behind the rule of not mentiong brand name legal highs is to try reduce the risk of harm from people seeing experiences or opinions about them and assuming that these experiences will apply to them too. A report of a bad experience should be treated as anecdotal too, but as this isn't likely to comfort people on the safety of the drug nor encourage them to use, and may actually be a valid warning, we allow these experiences to be posted. :)
 
Exactly. Contents are not consistent across batches and the reasoning behind the rule of not mentiong brand name legal highs is to try reduce the risk of harm from people seeing experiences or opinions about them and assuming that these experiences will apply to them too. A report of a bad experience should be treated as anecdotal too, but as this isn't likely to comfort people on the safety of the drug nor encourage them to use, and may actually be a valid warning, we allow these experiences to be posted. :)

So how do we know which particular "Kronic" product she is reporting?

For the report to be accurate we need to know when she bought the incense and also where she bought it from as there are several different products with completely different make ups currently all being sold under the same name.
 
Last edited:
We are not allowed to mention brand names here.

You will find that a lot of the new products are causing effects like what you experienced. It has been alleged that a Salvinorin A analogue is being used. That would explain the effects starting as you blow the smoke out like Sally as opposed to Cannabis.

Oops sorry about that,I just saw names being mentioned elsewhere,so thought it was ok.I wouldn't of mentioned the name if I was writing up a glowing trip report.

How you describe the Salvinorin A analogue is exactly how I felt.I felt it hit really hard and unpleasantly halfway through the joint.I'm just really glad I had some Xanax around as I was completely freaking out and overwhelmed by it,and I used a very small dose.

If anything,I expected it to be milder than weed,but it hit me like a tonne of bricks.I'm so glad I only used a tiny amount to check the strength.This shit shouldn't be underestimated.My boyfriend still wants to try it as he thinks since he has a higher weed tolerance it'll be fine, and that it might've happened because I sometimes have unpleasant experiences with actual weed,but I'm gonna flush the rest,I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy :sus:
 
Oops sorry about that,I just saw names being mentioned elsewhere,so thought it was ok.I wouldn't of mentioned the name if I was writing up a glowing trip report.

How you describe the Salvinorin A analogue is exactly how I felt.I felt it hit really hard and unpleasantly halfway through the joint.I'm just really glad I had some Xanax around as I was completely freaking out and overwhelmed by it,and I used a very small dose.

If anything,I expected it to be milder than weed,but it hit me like a tonne of bricks.I'm so glad I only used a tiny amount to check the strength.This shit shouldn't be underestimated.My boyfriend still wants to try it as he thinks since he has a higher weed tolerance it'll be fine, and that it might've happened because I sometimes have unpleasant experiences with actual weed,but I'm gonna flush the rest,I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy :sus:

I know how you feel. I had half a cone before I got on the ice one night and immediately started tripping so hard that I couldn't put my skates on and just sat in the change room rather than playing.

And I am VERY experienced with Salvia and Salvinorin A.
 
I thought my explanation covered this - we don't know which kronic product she's reporting. Like I said, even a negative report should be taken as anecdotal. However, a negative report warns people that a negative reaction is possible and gives people a reason to be cautious, even if it doesn't apply to everything sold under the name 'kronic'. A positive report also tells people that a good result is possible, but as I explained, we don't allow this because it may led people to assume that this applies to everything under that brand name, and may lead to complacency. Furthermore, a negative reaction is of much greater importance to BL than a positive one. If someone uses a brand name legal high and has a great experience that's awesome, no harm done. The same can't be said if they use one and have a bad experience. Hence, the inconsistency in allowing warning reports over others.

When we're dealing with a product of unknown and inconsistent active ingredients, the only harm reduction we can take is to discourage use, or at least encourage extreme caution. Allowing warning reports, whilst not allowing speculation or positive reports, helps accomplish this.
 
I thought my explanation covered this - we don't know which kronic product she's reporting. Like I said, even a negative report should be taken as anecdotal. However, a negative report warns people that a negative reaction is possible and gives people a reason to be cautious, even if it doesn't apply to everything sold under the name 'kronic'. A positive report also tells people that a good result is possible, but as I explained, we don't allow this because it may led people to assume that this applies to everything under that brand name, and may lead to complacency. Furthermore, a negative reaction is of much greater importance to BL than a positive one. If someone uses a brand name legal high and has a great experience that's awesome, no harm done. The same can't be said if they use one and have a bad experience. Hence, the inconsistency in allowing warning reports over others.

When we're dealing with a product of unknown and inconsistent active ingredients, the only harm reduction we can take is to discourage use, or at least encourage extreme caution. Allowing warning reports, whilst not allowing speculation or positive reports, helps accomplish this.

No worries. I misunderstood what you wrote.
 
Hello folks... just thought I'd let you know that Triple J's Hack will be running a story on synthetic cannabinoids in Australia this afternoon (5:30 - 6pm): http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/

I'm one of the people they spoke too. I know they've had a lot of callers, texts and tweets from people using these drugs today... even though new laws came in federally in May of this year that were supposed to have an effect on the market. So the question is why they haven't been enforced? I don't know the answer but I think it might be because the new laws are so broad that it is difficult for them to be used in a court of law. Hopefully some of the other experts on tonight's show will be able to provide more information on this area.

Interested in your comments and feedback on the show once it's aired!
 
Hello folks... just thought I'd let you know that Triple J's Hack will be running a story on synthetic cannabinoids in Australia this afternoon (5:30 - 6pm): http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/

I'm one of the people they spoke too. I know they've had a lot of callers, texts and tweets from people using these drugs today... even though new laws came in federally in May of this year that were supposed to have an effect on the market. So the question is why they haven't been enforced? I don't know the answer but I think it might be because the new laws are so broad that it is difficult for them to be used in a court of law. Hopefully some of the other experts on tonight's show will be able to provide more information on this area.

Interested in your comments and feedback on the show once it's aired!

Awesome Tronica I'll check that out for sure.
 
That was THE WORST, MOST 1 SIDED, piece of shit interview I have ever heard in my life.

Tronica, not your fault, but in all seriousness, that was the biggest waste of 15 minutes ive ever experienced. The interviewers and ABC Radio should be ashamed of themselves.
 
That was THE WORST, MOST 1 SIDED, piece of shit interview I have ever heard in my life.

Tronica, not your fault, but in all seriousness, that was the biggest waste of 15 minutes ive ever experienced. The interviewers and ABC Radio should be ashamed of themselves.

I thought it was great. Definitely good to hear these stories on JJJ.

I wonder whether the guy who had just bought some ended up smoking it up?
 
Personal attacks are not acceptable here, come on :X

But my curiosity has been piqued enough to put this on now, will let you know what I think in 30 mins...

Edit - I was working at the same time so I wasn't paying 100% attention, I didn't think it was terrible though. There were a lot of reports of the negative side effects, but honestly, it pretty much matches what people have reported on BL. At least they acknowledged that the laws around illegal drugs (which are often less harmful/more researched) are encouraging more and more unresearched RCs to come onto the market. They mentioned the testing protocol that's starting in NZ too, which I think is good. There's lots of things they failed to mention, but IMO it's still a far cry from a current affair which ran that story about the meow meow user binging on tuna 8(
 
Last edited:
Personal attacks are not acceptable here, come on :X

But my curiosity has been piqued enough to put this on now, will let you know what I think in 30 mins...

Edit - I was working at the same time so I wasn't paying 100% attention, I didn't think it was terrible though. There were a lot of reports of the negative side effects, but honestly, it pretty much matches what people have reported on BL. At least they acknowledged that the laws around illegal drugs (which are often less harmful/more researched) are encouraging more and more unresearched RCs to come onto the market. They mentioned the testing protocol that's starting in NZ too, which I think is good. There's lots of things they failed to mention, but IMO it's still a far cry from a current affair which ran that story about the meow meow user binging on tuna 8(

I thought it was a great news piece. Uneducated listeners would have learned a lot. I am not surprised that the story is getting an ear bashing from certain circles on certain forums though.

OT do you remember when Mr Ibis was on Today Tonight? Or when Splatt was on ACA with his eyes rolling back into his head?
 
Top