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

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.

 

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."

Why dont they just legalise pot, market it, sell it and start making shit loads in tax?

 

^ this

 

Ridiculous.
They are letting the research chemicals be sold to people without adequate testing.
Meanwhile, drugs with long histories of (relative) safety (cannabis, mushrooms, mescaline-containing cactus) are illegal.
Sheer stupidity.

 

^I'm with you slimmy-v this is absurd. Hopefully they will at least mandate a warning label be put on the packages, not that that will stop anyone. On the other hand, I'm glad they're not criminalizing it.

 

I wonder what criteria will have to be met for a substance to be classed as low risk, and if any will actually meet them?

 

They're going to test these on animals

It's quite obvious why they dont just legalise pot, there is already an established underground market for weed in NZ, and they want to be the ones making money out of legal highs. That's all it comes down to, all they really care about is MONEY

 

They are letting the research chemicals be sold to people without adequate testing.

While I appreciate the sentiment here, such attitudes are antithetical to the ultimate political goal of worldwide drug decriminalization that I presume we share, to a greater or lesser extent. There's no question about it - mescaline is a potent hallucinogen that is capable of producing mental states that are behaviorally indistinguishable from psychosis. Now, we can compare the safety of piperazines and gin and peyote all we like, but don't you think that this legislation is at least a tiny step in the right direction? And what is the actual safety profile of cannabis and hallucinogenic fungi, anyway? I highly doubt that controlled trials would report either one to be safe for public distribution by today's food, drug, and cosmetic standards. But that isn't the (political) point. Whether or not these drugs have been 'adequately' tested by a federal authority should have no bearing upon an individual's consumption of their particular substance of choice, harmful or not...or at least that's the libertarian tack. True, a more sensible approach would involve extensive (yes, probably unethical) animal testing and approval procedures - but that would only serve to put a stranger spin on the criminal underworld that we suffer today. Drug's that are federally 'banned' or officially deemed unsuitable for human consumption would still have to be regulated to such a degree that new underground markets could find an insidious niche in the production and distribution of Generally Recognized as Unsafe compounds. If criminal organizations began to thrive on such, what would fundamentally distinguish their role in society from the meth chemists of today and the bathtub gin-brewers of yesterday (note that I'm not talking strictly about organized crime here)? Recall the tired maxim that if people want it, they will tend to find it, purchase it, and consume it in direct proportion to the depth of their desire.

 

I think it's a step in the right direction. If it has successful results they would be considerring next steps in drug reform. I think in the general publics view though these legal drugs that can be tested are bound to be safer than most Illicit drugs which why statistically may be safer, their is still plenty of evidance that they can do serious harm.

 

This is one of the most rediculous things ive seen in a while. Why not just legalize marijuana? It grows from the ground its natural this synthetic shit is sprayed with chemicals and to legalize something that they dont know long term affects is irresponsible they say itl be on the shelves in 2014 itl take 50+ years to know longterm effects i think this is very unsafe. Why not legalize marijuana that would basicly eliminate all the reg weed which could be bad for you because it is rolled in bundles by the main drug dealers when they do this hairs hay anything on the ground where they bundle it is getting rolled up with it with that slmost eliminated we would be left with very very dank green grown by people u could actually mabye trust (sorry for spelling)

 

I think it's a step in the right direction. If it has successful results they would be considerring next steps in drug reform. I think in the general publics view though these legal drugs that can be tested are bound to be safer than most Illicit drugs which why statistically may be safer, their is still plenty of evidance that they can do serious harm.

I think theyre doijg it on purpose because they know the results will be negative... get all the kids strung out on spice then call it an epidemic

 

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.

simple there are plenty of child molesters and rapist in jail using up countless thousands in tax payers money use them instead

 

^ there are plenty of people obviously willing to ingest these new substances voluntarily.... as is evidenced here... instead of banning shit they should simply study it and report honestly about it... then let people decide wether theywant to take that risk or not... if people had a cboice between mdma and meph or metbylone i doubt any would choose meph or m1...

I also doubt many would choose spice over homegrown

 

Well this is a small step in the right direction. Hopefully this works out well and other countries follow suit.

 

Its all about money money money Theres plenty of recreational drugs already studied they could put on the shelves instead of this synthetic shit they know almost nothing about

 

Why not just legalize and regulate cannabis and ecstasy instead of go down the path of these whacky designer drugs, the only fucking reason these things were invented is because the cunts had banned the real thing in the first place.

makes me shake my head in dismay, are these people making the laws really that fucking stupid.

 

While I appreciate the sentiment here, such attitudes are antithetical to the ultimate political goal of worldwide drug decriminalization that I presume we share, to a greater or lesser extent. There's no question about it - mescaline is a potent hallucinogen that is capable of producing mental states that are behaviorally indistinguishable from psychosis. Now, we can compare the safety of piperazines and gin and peyote all we like, but don't you think that this legislation is at least a tiny step in the right direction? And what is the actual safety profile of cannabis and hallucinogenic fungi, anyway? I highly doubt that controlled trials would report either one to be safe for public distribution by today's food, drug, and cosmetic standards. But that isn't the (political) point. Whether or not these drugs have been 'adequately' tested by a federal authority should have no bearing upon an individual's consumption of their particular substance of choice, harmful or not...or at least that's the libertarian tack. True, a more sensible approach would involve extensive (yes, probably unethical) animal testing and approval procedures - but that would only serve to put a stranger spin on the criminal underworld that we suffer today. Drug's that are federally 'banned' or officially deemed unsuitable for human consumption would still have to be regulated to such a degree that new underground markets could find an insidious niche in the production and distribution of Generally Recognized as Unsafe compounds. If criminal organizations began to thrive on such, what would fundamentally distinguish their role in society from the meth chemists of today and the bathtub gin-brewers of yesterday (note that I'm not talking strictly about organized crime here)? Recall the tired maxim that if people want it, they will tend to find it, purchase it, and consume it in direct proportion to the depth of their desire.

We do share a common goal of drug legalization, and we see eye-to-eye on many issues, I think.
But I would say that "Whether or not these drugs have been 'adequately' tested by a federal authority should have a huge bearing upon the contents of the science-based educational materials that should be provided, free-of-charge, by, all responsible governments."
If people had dozens or hundreds of (time-tested) drugs to choose from at a legal drug shop, they would likely have little interest in new, untested RCs.
I never saw people smoking Spice or K2 in Amsterdam!

 

Me I actually like some synthetic cannabinoids. Was interested in them since reading about parahexyl and THC-V. Some of the old now banned ones were pretty good. I know many who like synthetics just as much or more than weed.

I think this is a step in the right direction. If they can have a cannabinoid that's shown to be safe in humans sold legally, it might open the doors for other drugs like cannabis. It's better than the direction the US is going, banning the good shit and driving users to less tested, more risky shit. Who knows, maybe someone will put cannabis through the approval process? Can this be done?

 

If people had dozens or hundreds of (time-tested) drugs to choose from at a legal drug shop, they would likely have little interest in new, untested RCs. I never saw people smoking Spice or K2 in Amsterdam!

You make a very good point. Nevertheless, I doubt seriously that the deeply-entrenched sociopolitical bedrock that underpins current cannabis legislation is likely to shift in the near future. On the other hand, as New Zealand's changing legislative zeitgeist would indicate, RC's are a comparatively recent and open issue. Any step in the right direction is certainly a refreshing bit of news and is most welcome, in my book. Ergo, I wouldn't be so hasty to write this new bill (or whatever they call them in NZ) off as 'ridiculous.' Baby steps.

Also, recall that alcohol is perhaps the most time-tested and (possibly) dangerous drug of all.

science-based educational materials that should be provided, free-of-charge, by, all responsible governments

This sort of idea is certainly well-intentioned (I tentatively support the idea myself), but how many real drug users would be likely to read that sort of thing? Bluelighters represent a significant minority and an incredibly biased sample regarding the frequency of the 'informed user' within our often depressingly ignorant subculture. As a group, I'm not certain that we have anyone to blame but our collective selves. [again, not talking strictly about Bluelighters here - just every junkie, every pothead, every common drunk, etc.]

 

Who actually owns the rights to these chemicals?

 

I've got a few things to say;
Legalizing Cannabis is far more benevolent and (would) reduce much more harm than synthetic Cannabinoids.
If slaughterhouses are fine and dandy, you can get the fuck off your high horse about testing substances on animals.
Animal testing still doesn't show us the long term effects it will have on humans and society.
I really don't care about any of this.

Aaaand that's all I've got to say. Enjoy your discussion, folks.