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.

 

I agree that it is not far enough, but I think we need to be patient. As far as I'm aware, this is the first time in the 51 YEARS since it's creation that ANY signatory country to the UN Single Convention has been willing to approve a psychoactive substance (other than Tobacco & Alcohol) for human consumption for recreational purposes. This might not seem like much right now, but this is a MASSIVE step forward in drug policy.

In recent years, the attitude of the media, and of experts, towards traditional drug regulation has been increasingly sceptical. And now we have a pilot scheme that could (eventually) change that approach forever.

It will start off with a few "legal highs", which will be well researched, high purity and will no doubt be accompanied with the kind of educational messages on responsibility that currently accompany alcohol. If this works from a harm reduction point of view, they might eventually try it out with some popular but currently illegal substances. And if the scheme is successful, it will set a precedent for other countries to follow.

I wouldn't expect to see widespread legalisation for at least another 10 years (and that's being optimistic), but at least it's a long overdue step in the right direction.

 

A small step, but atleast it's in the generally right direction. It just pisses me off that people in government and the general population in America have been so brainwashed by anti-drug groups that I'll be lucky to see marijuana legalized in my lifetime, much less anything else I would much rather buy regulated drugs, and pay well, for the knowledge that I am getting what I paid for. THere are so many additives in drugs today that it's anyones guess what you're snorting, smoking, or shooting up half the time. Why does America have to always be a decade or more behind more forward thinking governments? It's depressing.

 

Pretty sure ecstasy and coke have been tested on animals... what worries me is all the new rc's that havent...

Pure MDMA and pure benzoylmethylecgonine have, but often that isn't what is sold on the streets. What worries me are drugs that are synthesized then distributed without regulation, regardless of what they are.

 

The tax might help fund education and police national heatlth

 

I can't believe this. Something good happens, and then everyone bickers over how it's not good enough and so that it shouldn't have happened. Are you all fucking THICK?
This is the best chance we have of making things better. No, we can't just make ecstasy or <insert other reasonably safe yet demonised drug here> legal. That would require politicians and everyone else who was a policy shill, knowing or otherwise, to say "WE WERE WRONG - SORRY- LOOKS LIKE LITTLE JOHNNY, THAT KID OF YOURS THAT WE MADE A POLITICAL SHOWPIECE OUT OF, PUTTING HIM IN JAIL FOR LIFE TO SCARE OTHER TEENAGERS OFF THE DROOGS / GET ME REELECTED... DIDN'T WORK OUT AS PLANNED" - that just isn't going to happen. You know it's not. Not for as long as it takes for several generations to die off, or other equivalent societal change, which again, probably incurs similar amount of death. How about BE PRAGMATIC? How about do the best we can with what we have, so that our point of view is validated and hopefully speed up the process of getting our cognitive liberty back? No? Oh, you wanted to have everything you wanted, right now? Well,it doesn't work that way. Sorry. p.s. fuck you.

Pathetic.

 

Agree with above post 100%.

I don't know much about synthetic cannabinoids but since MDMA is synthetic to start with, and just one of many possible entactogens, it probably isn't too difficult to find a similar, or even better, substance.

There hasn't been any legitimised effort to produce a recreational drug since prohibition began. They are either discovered by accident, for medicinal purposes, for animal-based medical research (e.g. 6-APB) or they are developed by underground cooks. The only exception being Alexanda Shulgin.

If a large pharma company, or anyone else with resources, put their mind to deliberately developing entactogens and hallucinogens for NZ approval, what would they come up with?

Watch this space

 

Yea the toad is spot on. Legalize the real shit and educate the people on how to use it safely. All this synthetic shit is to unpredictable. Mdma and weed should be legal. Get the fucking country out of debt by making and selling the shit urself.

 

^ mdma is synthetic.

alasdair

 

Im certainly not bashing the idea of legalization... its perhaps a big step in the right direction... however... i feel like they are going to use this little trial as an example them "trying legalizing it" and having all these problems arise from people using them... so they can then ban it again for good...

 

A small step, but atleast it's in the generally right direction. It just pisses me off that people in government and the general population in America have been so brainwashed by anti-drug groups that I'll be lucky to see marijuana legalized in my lifetime, much less anything else I would much rather buy regulated drugs, and pay well, for the knowledge that I am getting what I paid for. THere are so many additives in drugs today that it's anyones guess what you're snorting, smoking, or shooting up half the time. Why does America have to always be a decade or more behind more forward thinking governments? It's depressing.

I am in my late 20s and fully expect to see Marijuana legalized in about 10-20 years. Its not all that far away. You are not given your fellow country men enough credit. In fact, recent polls have showed that over a majority of American's now favor legalization of marijuana. Not trying to be a jerk, but their is plenty of info in regards to how quickly opinions shift nowadays. Look at how quickly same-sex marriage has become something that now has support for a majority of American's.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/22/legalize-marijuana-56-percent-rasmussen-poll_n_1537706.html

Note that the result is coming from Rasmussen, not the most progressive polling company in the US.

The United States, especially those around 40 and younger tend to actually be pretty socially liberal. I am going to assume you are a bit younger then I am, because I held very similar thoughts in regards to my country when I was your age. Most people in the US, 50 or younger, have now tried marijuana. I meet far more that think it should be legalized and even more that think it should be decriminalized.

Neither of my parents puff anymore, but I know they support legalization. Heck, I hardly do myself, but I support marijuana legalization. What once was considered a "long haired hippie" political issue has been made into a fiscal one by some libertarians. I have some libertarian friends, and while we disagree about exactly how we would go about legalizing marijuana and other drugs, it is one of the few things that I as a Democratic Socialist and my "Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative" friends can agree on.

 

I would expect wholesale decriminalization of possession of small quantities in the next 10-20 years, but hefty penalties for distribution are going to be around for a while I think.

 

Great to see another government trying something out. The USA are also good with their state laws dispensaries but all the cops style raids on them are pretty harsh.

I will follow this change in legislation, it will be good to see how it works out.

 

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.

Well people seem more than willing enough to take whatever, whether it's being tested or not on animals, just look at the popularity of the RC market.

That being said, why don't we test them on ourselves? There's always someone willing to be a guinea pig for free, let alone for pay

 

NZ. I will move there.

 

I can't believe they don't just legalize marijuana. Look, New Zealand. You're not going to have a drug tourism problem.

If you're so worried about it, move the country somewhere far away from everyone and everything of value. For example, you could live on a tiny freezing island in the South Pacific.

Anywho. I bet AL-LAD could pass those tests. Or 4-HO-MiPT. Those are both gems. And hey, they're probably safer than Prozac.

 

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

Yeah, who needs civil liberties & cognitive liberty anyway. Fuck the constitution. 8(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_treatment

And slightly off topic, if our CJ system needs to forcibly medicate people to ensure their safety/the safety of other prisoners/ability to stand trial somethings wrong there. Its their job to control violent individuals in the first place. If they can't do that without drugging someone they're incompetent at the most basic level of what they're paid to do. No person should be forcibly subjected to psychotropic treatment without their consent, unless its to save their life in an emergency situation. The idea of forcing jared loughner, and other "crazy" people to take anti-psychs so they are "fit" to stand trial makes a complete mockery of the entire system.

 

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

This is a wonderful example of how folk wisdom and revenge instincts are absolutely terrible policy.

 

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".

How this policy works out will be very interesting. I'm almost wondering if Dunne is even serious. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars and takes decades of research for a new drug to be approved in the US. It's so expensive for a lot of new drugs big pharma is debating if it's worth it. With the approved drugs, the inherent dangers discovered by research are weighed against their potential benefit i.e. a cancer drug that causes lots of health problems is more likely to be approved than a new cold medicine that causes heath problems. But how is New Zealand going to weigh the risk/benefit ratio of new recreational drugs legally? It's an entirely new area of assessment. If new legal highs are going to be on the shelves of NZ retailers anytime soon there's going to need to be a total overhaul of the approval process specific to these new drugs, as well as some kind of protection for the retailers that essentially says "if you die that's your problem." If they were legalizing cannabis or something else with a proven empirical safety record it would be different, but I have no idea how the proposed is supposed to work if their serious about it.

 

There actually are simptom-less cancer drugs
But no one wants to pay to put it throught tests cos its open pattent as it was used for something else so no profit can be made

 

"NZ. I will move there."
Ah, if only it was that simple.Apparently they have a shortage of trained Sommeliers.