Matt Bowden: The drugs lord who's strictly legal

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
Independant

Friday 13 July 2012
Jeremy Laurance

With reader comments

He is credited with inventing legal highs. So why is the man who made a fortune evading the law now calling for the authorities to step in? Jeremy Laurance meets him.



It is a remarkable statement - the rock musician and drugs activist credited with spawning the global legal highs industry is now calling for new laws in Britain to protect the millions of young people who take the substances.

Legal highs are synthetic chemical substitutes for illegal recreational drugs such as cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy which often sell at a lower price. The industry has grown dramatically in the past decade in response to demand from clubbers and festival goers, but it has proved difficult to regulate, and some products have proved lethal.

Matt Bowden, 42, is known as the godfather of the legal highs industry. He was a user of crystal meth – a highly addictive form of amphetamine – in the 1990s until he teamed up with a pharmacologist in New Zealand to find a safer, synthetic alternative. Two family members had died from the effects of drugs and he concluded better substitutes must be developed.

The resulting product, called BZP, sold so well that it was noticed beyond New Zealand's borders. Soon budding chemists everywhere were busy tweaking the molecular structure of existing drugs such as cocaine and cannabis and selling them as "legal" alternatives for large amounts of money.

Dr Ramsey said: "Controlling this market by restricting supply is pretty much doomed to failure. The only way is to reduce demand. We need to persuade young people taking these drugs is a stupid thing to do."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...e-drugs-lord-whos-strictly-legal-7939583.html
 
Its funny how he wants these Research chemicals stopped or regulated after he has made his own fortune from doing exactly the same thing.
 
Well presently they are just being stopped. So "regulated" would definitely be an improvement. NZ is the only country I know so far that is talking about providing a route to approving a new "high" for human consumption. Though I expect the hoops a manufacture would have to jump through to be deliberately unfeasible.
 
Yeah it's ridiculous to say BZP is safer than meth. Unless you mean it's unpleasant so you're less likely to get addicted. Is he to blame for the piped out x pills? Fuck that! Although the older spice products he made were closer to weed and safer than the new shit so I'll give him that.

I agree that recreational drugs should be regulated like any other product. I mean there's drugs and even surgeries used for purely cosmetic reasons. Some drugs blur the line between medical and life-enhancers, like anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, HRT, sometimes pain-pills and drug maintenance therapy. Shit in the US weak opiate preparation, amphetamines, inhalants(ether, chloroform, amyl nitrite), bromides and even some barbiturates were OTC. In some states and some countries weak opiates/depressants/stimulants are still OTC. Those drugs are way worse than soft drugs like weed or psychedelics.

What I think should be done:
1.Soft drugs like weed or psychedelic should be legal.
2.Certain preparations or small amounts of harder drugs should be OTC like Sudafed is. Small amounts of stuff like coca, khat, or even opium should be dispensed in limited amounts.
3.There should be an age limit of 18 for everything, including alcohol.
4.There should be drug maintenance therapy available for addicts ie. diamorphine maintenance.
5.New drugs must be shown to be safe, like other medicine. Think drug approval, only for euphoria instead of a medical treatment.
6. They must meet standards of purity, consistency, and list the drug, dose, and side effects. If addictive it should be clearly labeled.
7.They should be taxed like tobacco or alcohol, except for medical use including maintenance.
8. Possession should be legal for certain drugs/amounts. Dealing, growing, or smuggling small amounts should either be legal or decriminalized.

They could make cannabis basically legal if it was moved to schedule V. Those drugs can be OTC. Surely cannabis is safer and less addictive than schedule IV drugs like benzos or barbs. Shit it's safer than lyrica, Robotussin AC, or buprenex(which was CIV)

I wonder how everything would be different if drugs were treated as a personal choose and addiction as an illness, rather then a moral and criminal problem to be stamped out. How much could we have learned if recreational drugs were studied like pharmaceuticals? On one hand I could see big business fucking shit up and making drugs that are more addictive, like what the tobacco or food industry did. But maybe some drug that's safer and less addictive would arise. Would it be like Synthehol, Soma, or Ambrosia? Or would it be Substance D or Neuroin?
 
^ He was once a Bluelighter...

THC2LSD, I don't think this guy was responsible for pipe X pills, but as far as I know it was him/his company that first marketed piperazines. I suppose it is possible he sold bulk quantities to ecstasy producers, but it seems unlikely given the massive profits he made peddling his own pills. I think most pipes that were pressed into pills probably came from large scale Asian laboratories, but I doubt their use in dodgy X would of got close to as prevalent as they did if it were not for the success of Matt Bowdens legal piperazine range in New Zealand.

I really dislike this guy, he makes his millions and now speaks out saying they should tighten laws on these substances, how convenient. 8) I remember when he was on 60 minutes saying how his legal highs are safer alternatives to illicit drugs, despite the fact that most (possibly all) of the products he was marketing at the time didn't indicate what substances they contained and in what quantity.

I will pay him that he turned his life around from being a drug addict to now being a successful business man, it certainly was a smart business decision to launch these legal highs. That said, I think he is an immoral piece of shit that doesn't label his drugs contents so they can fly under the law enforcements radar for longer and who categorically claims these RC's are "safer" purely because the research hasn't gone into their negative effects. I also think the 'legal high' industry is one of the worst things to happen to the drug scene in recent years, these drugs are NOT safe (a close friend of mine was hospitalised from their use just last weekend,) are generally less enjoyable than outright illegal drugs and the end user typically has less idea what they are buying than if they were to buy meth or ecstasy.
 
Last edited:
I agree 115% with above

I notice you said he was once a bluelighter, did he leave on his own volition, or was he thrown out
 
My local headshop sells BZP. It is the only legal high they sell (that isnt an herbal mix) and I asked the owner about it. I said to him that I have heard it is one of the most painful, useless street drugs available, he agreed fully! He said he would rather a migraine. He hasn't sold a packet of it in almost a year, I think it just sits in his display case and he frequently tells people not to bother.

This guy is no 'god-father' of legal highs. He legitimately worked his ass off to produce one of the worst stimulants in history!
 
BZP as a replacement to meth? I wouldn't use that shit to replace a broken spine. I Mean seriously wtf?

Remember those shitty pills (UK BlL'rs) from round '07 - '08 onwards? Blame this asshole for making a cheap stimulant people could chuck into those crap pills. I Actually hate this guy, he can eat a dick. After he's eaten every bit of bzp in existence that is.
 
You know, I kind of respect him in the same way I respect Pablo Escobar, Joaquin Guzman or Steve Jobs. He's a fucking douche and I think he could've come up with something better than BZP. At least something that wouldn't give pill makers any worse ideas. But I think the legal highs are fucking brilliant! It fucking sucks that so many suck and they don't label them properly. But I think it's like they're playing hardball with the government. They use chemistry to get around the drug laws. Some were good; the downside being you had to find the good ones through trial and error and hope they didn't just ban the good shit then changed the formula(maybe there's some kind of reagent that can test it). And the selfish part of me wonders why I didn't come up with it or get in on the action when it was easier.

I'd like to think this never ending cycle of legal highs would pressure the government to enact sensible legislation to set up a system to regulate recreational drugs. But sadly I think it'll probably result in more draconian laws and get to the point where someone releases something like MPTP or P-chloroamphetamine that kills or cripples a shitload of people. IMO the government is half to blame for it for not regulating it due to a "just say no" zero tolerance attitude, thus allowing unethical individuals to exploit an ambiguous loophole. Part of the reason they aren't labeled properly or even have proper instruction, which is often true for RC makers too, is it's illegal to use that shit the way it's intended. Even if someone wanted to do it ethically with the proper labels with ingredients, effects and instruction, they'd hit them with the analog act or some other drug law. So they say that spice is an all natural blend of herbs for incense, stimulants are bath salts, herbal capsules, plant food or glass cleaner, inhalants are room deodorizers or VCR cleaners, and various drugs are for non-human research. They can't sell weed which is safer than many synthetic cannabinoids, and they can't sell ecstasy or coke which is safer than BZP or MDPV. I often wonder if this is a cynical ploy to show that this is what would happen if drugs were legal.

You know I actually agree with him, drugs should be regulated and there should be a goal to find safer drugs than the current ones or alcohol. If only he practiced what he preached or was allowed to(not familiar with New Zealand law). Don't know why he's trying in Britain. The Labor party wouldn't support it, the Liberal-Democratic party most likely will not support it, and the Conservative party sure as hell won't support legal drugs. The Conservatives are just going to spin it like, "See, even the godfather of legal highs wants it banned," if they even listen to him at all.
 
Top