NZ - Researcher questions if 'safe legal high' feasible

edgarshade

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

JOHN HARTEVELT AND JODY O'CALLAGHAN
Last updated 05:00 17/07/2012

Chris Wilkins, head of the drug research team at Massey University's Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation, said any drug making it on to the market could be a potential health hazard.

"The great hope and the intention [of the legislation] is that the arrival of this new regime will get safer legal highs on the market and ban the other ones. But that's not going to be easy identifying the safer ones.

"Is there such a thing as a safe legal high? People tend to find out they're unsafe only after they've been using them for a while."



Wellington emergency medicine specialist and toxicologist Paul Quigley said it was "stupid" that people had to be harmed before products could be proven unsafe.

He saw patients with bizarre withdrawal symptoms and insomnia after taking party pills, and surges in admissions that had led to contaminated products being banned.

"Instead of closing the door once the horse has bolted, it's not opening the stable door to start with.

"If [manufacturers] really believe in this stuff, then they would prove how safe it is. I would be surprised if any of them actually step up and put their product under that level of scrutiny."

More...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7289264/Researcher-questions-if-safe-legal-high-feasible
 
Why don't they just legalise the known drugs, with known long/short term effects. Basically what i'm saying is, instead of banking on these unkown drugs maybe being safe. Why not just let folks use the tried and tested ones instead of basically playing the lottery?
 
Why don't they just legalise the known drugs, with known long/short term effects. Basically what i'm saying is, instead of banking on these unkown drugs maybe being safe. Why not just let folks use the tried and tested ones instead of basically playing the lottery?
That's always been my perspective but what always confuses my about government prohibition is that why does the government say "these drugs are known to be unhealthy, so we're not going to let you do them, and if you do, well, we'll fuck your life up even more." That just doesn't make sense to me, that the government isn't letting people do what they want despite it only hurting the individual consuming the drug.

As for legal highs, the whole idea behind most of the substances is to release them, get banned, release a chemical practically the same: synthetic canniboids are a great example. They're just sending the government on a wild goose chase and there's nothing that the government can do about it.
 
I think they should regulate recreational drugs like other pharmaceuticals. They should prove it's relatively safe, have proper labels with accurate info, and high standards of purity. More sensible than banning shit and letting the laws of the jungle decide.

But BZP is a shitty drug to uses in lieu of MDMA. Probably more side effects and dangerous. Only positive experiences I've read were with IV, and that's not safe. Who wrongly thought that piperazines would make a good replacement or cut for X?
 
Top