Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«4 »
  • Post
  • Reply
echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004



http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill...DLM5042921.html


http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/11/w...law/?hpt=ias_c2

CNN posted:

New Zealand: Prove recreational drug is safe, then you can sell

(CNN) -- The New Zealand government wants to make sure your high is safe.
In an attempt to tackle the popularity of new-generation synthetic party drugs -- sold widely in convenience stores and blamed for triggering a spate of mental health issues -- New Zealand authorities have taken a radical new tack.
A new law shifts the onus to the makers of synthetic recreational drugs, forcing them to conduct clinical tests to prove their products are safe -- similar to the way pharmaceuticals are regulated.
It's the first nation to take a dramatically different approach to psychoactive substances like party pills and synthetic marijuana -- which the United Nations has flagged as an alarming drug problem. Some psychoactive substances go by names like bath salts, spice or meow-meow.
The hidden dangers of synthetic drugs Fake pot sends teen to ICU Teen nearly dies smoking fake pot Big bust on 'bath salts' operation
In a 119-to-1 vote on Thursday, the country's parliament passed the Psychoactive Substances Bill, establishing a framework for testing, manufacturing and selling such recreational drugs.
The new law does not apply to non-synthetic drugs like marijuana, cocaine or magic mushrooms.
In a country that prides itself as a "social laboratory," New Zealand has become "a laboratory in every sense: for the approval of new recreational drugs," according to an editorial in the New Zealand Herald.
The drug law enjoyed broad support although there was debate over whether animal testing would be required in the clinical tests.
"While other countries are still blindly banning drug after drug, the Psychoactive Substances Bill will put New Zealand ahead of the industry's game," said Ross Bell, the New Zealand Drug Foundation's executive director in a statement in support of the law. "It is a comprehensive, pragmatic and innovative approach to address a complex problem."
This contrasts with countries where substances are legal until the governments ban them. Chemical concoctions come out fairly routinely -- far outpacing efforts to control them.
When one product is banned, "there are two or three or four replacements in the market," said Bell.
And authorities can't prevent the drug makers from selling new concoctions.
"You can't ban what yet doesn't exist," Bell said. "The government isn't in the position to pre-empt these things."
New Zealand is unique because of its remote geography, he added.
"It's because we're a small remote country," he said. "Drugs like heroine don't make their way to New Zealand. What we've become good at doing is making our own drugs."
Psychoactive substances have raised concerns over their ingredients and effects. Some are known to cause paranoia, hallucinations, convulsions and psychotic episodes.
"In lots of ways, this synthetic cannabis is way worse than the real stuff with a number of people who are becoming psychotic as a result," said Dr. Mark Peterson, the chair of the New Zealand Medical Association.
Under the law, new psychoactive drugs cannot be sold unless they pass health regulations. That process will be determined by the country's Ministry of Health.
The new regulation "has to be rigorous and robust enough to stand up to public scrutiny. To be licensed, to be legal, it has to pass testing like new medicine in the market," said Grant Hall, general manager of the advocacy group, The Star Trust, which represents members of the legal high industry in the country.
The industry wants to "be recognized as other highs" such as alcohol and tobacco, he added.
Hall said he expects the industry to take a hit on profits as they'll now have to submit costly and lengthy applications to be be sold on the market. But he views it as an investment.
"You have take a long term view," Hall said. "It's a legitimate industry that provides certified low-risk product so people can enjoy them safely. That's a much better business model than the better cat-and-mouse game the industry plays with the government."


Here is what else the Psychoactive Substances Bill entails:
- Restricts where and how psychoactive drugs are sold
- Prohibits sales to minors
- Restricts labeling and packaging of products
- Gives existing products a grace period to begin application process


So this just passed last night.


We're going to be the first country in the world with a properly regulated recreational drugs market. What will this mean? Will no drugs ever pass the standard?
Disappointingly but not surprisingly this cannot apply to any drugs previously scheduled.

Now that companies can apply for licences to sell drugs in a non cat-and-mouse fashion, is this going to attract big international players to invent/re-release all manner of substances that may work? Perhaps the big-pharmas have lots of stuff of their shelves they want another turn out. God knows people love to spend their money on drugs..

echinopsis fucked around with this message at Jul 12, 2013 around 11:04

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

hotelbaas
Sep 18, 2008


No recreational drug manufacturer in their right mind is going to spend tons of money on clinical tests to prove their product is safe. Especially not when a. it can still be rejected by the Ministry of Health if they feel like doing so and b. someone else can just copy whatever they're producing and make immediate money instead of running a big initial deficit.

When I read things in the article like "this synthetic cannabis is way worse than the real stuff", I'm left wondering why they don't just solve the problem in a simple, sensible way: by legalizing the real stuff.

Fallows
Jan 20, 2005
not racist

New drugs are bad and causing mental health problems guys so try out our NEWER SAFE drugs. We're good at making them, I promise.

Fargo Fukes
Jul 26, 2007
Highly qualified lurker.

Typically, showing that drugs are safe is a very expensive, very lengthy process that companies only go through if they think they've got a seriously profitable product. Going through the mess of clinical trials just for the chance of selling a niche product in a tiny market, knowing that your application could be denied at any moment on purely political grounds, that's madness. Unless I've misunderstood and the application process is a gutted one that doesn't care so much about safety (which is possible - these are recreational supplements rather than clinical drugs. Killing people with alcohol and tobacco is much more acceptable than killing them with chemotherapy) I don't see anyone going for it.

Millsy
Dec 28, 2004
All's fair in love and bouncy bouncy.

Fargo Fukes posted:

Typically, showing that drugs are safe is a very expensive, very lengthy process that companies only go through if they think they've got a seriously profitable product. Going through the mess of clinical trials just for the chance of selling a niche product in a tiny market, knowing that your application could be denied at any moment on purely political grounds, that's madness. Unless I've misunderstood and the application process is a gutted one that doesn't care so much about safety (which is possible - these are recreational supplements rather than clinical drugs. Killing people with alcohol and tobacco is much more acceptable than killing them with chemotherapy) I don't see anyone going for it.

Or you are a tremendous nerd and don't realise how incredibly popular drugs actually are, which will make these legal drugs, dare I say... popular?

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007


I think in the United States at least I think it's like 1 billion dollars to bring a drug to the market, which is just insane.

Popular Thug Drink
Apr 25, 2013


It's not like these drugs are necessarily unsafe. The bigger factor is the gray-market packaging with no indication of what you're purchasing and how to use it. Kids with no connection to the black market are the primary market, because they have a hard time getting the real thing and otherwise experienced drug users generally shy away from a bag labeled NEW DRUGS in some dingy convenience store on the sadder side of town.

In Georgia they banned synthetic marijuana because some wealthy suburban teen got too high in his parents hot tub and drowned. The problem wasn't that the weed was unsafe - the problem was that it has no published dosing schedule, the kid didn't do his homework and didn't know how much to smoke, and he dosed himself in a body of water which is a ridiculously bad idea. I'd bet money that he smoked the whole package like a champ, got really high really fast, passed out/flopped out and died. Outside of a scenario like this it's next to impossible to kill yourself with synthetic weed.

Now it's not like sacks of weed you buy in the park have a label or instructions but the social context of purchasing is different. You're more likely to be careful with something 'dangerous' you quietly purchased that could get you arrested versus something 'safe' you purchased with cash, in a store, that comes in a sealed plastic package.

I like this NZ law because by allowing drug sellers to admit that the product is intended to intoxicate (not "bath salts" or "incense") then you can print consumption guidelines and safety tips on the package. This would do a lot more for health than pharmaceutical study. I can guarantee that 90% of the time when a teen ends up in the hospital on this stuff it's because they took way too much and triggered their first severe panic attack.

Oxphocker
Aug 17, 2005

PLEASE DO NOT BACKSEAT MODERATE


ANY drug can be unsafe if taken improperly. The success of making this work would be in the details.

In general I think it's better to regulate the drug trade, tax it, and counter it with education and treatment as opposed to enforcement but something that rational will probably never make it to the US.

eviltastic
Feb 8, 2004

He pities you for your sins, but penance must be done.


This law leaves a whole lot to be worked out in regulations, but I think the article mischaracterizes it by comparing it so closely to pharmaceuticals. The process needn't be as complex as for approval of medical drugs, and I don't think the statute contemplates that. The framework for psychoactive substances is a hell of a lot less complicated than the comparable NZ statute for theraputic medicines. The relevant sections for medical drugs are too long to quote, so I'll just link the application and approval process sections for new drugs.

Contrast those with the ones in this bill:

quote:

31 Application for approval
(1) A person who is a New Zealand resident may apply to the Authority for approval of a psychoactive product as an approved product.
(2) The application must—
(a) be made to the Authority in a form or manner approved by the Authority; and
(b) be accompanied by—
(i) any particulars, information, documents, samples, or other material required by the Authority and prescribed in the regulations; and
(ii) the prescribed fee (if any).

quote:

35 Grounds for approving product
The Authority may approve a psychoactive product as an approved product only if the Authority is satisfied that—
(a) the application relating to the product—
(i) complies with the requirements of section 31; and
(ii) does not contain any materially false or misleading information; and
(b) the degree of harm that the product poses to individuals using the product is no more than a low risk of harm.

quote:

36 Conditions of approval
(1) The Authority may, when approving a psychoactive product, impose conditions on the approval as the Authority thinks fit.
(2) If the applicant asks the Authority for the reasons for imposing conditions under subsection (1), the Authority must, as soon as practicable, provide written reasons.

Bonus provision that'll be an eye-opener for those of us in the States:

quote:

63 Offence relating to personal possession of psychoactive substance that is not approved product

(1) A person commits an offence if the person has a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product in his or her possession.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who holds a licence in respect of the psychoactive substance.

(3) A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $500.

(Sadly, this doesn't mean what it looks like, this doesn't change the controlled substance schedules)

eviltastic fucked around with this message at Jul 12, 2013 around 18:06

KingEup
Nov 18, 2004
I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)


Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.


quote:

63 Offence relating to personal possession of psychoactive substance that is not approved product

(1) A person commits an offence if the person has a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product in his or her possession.

Did New Zealand just criminalise the possession of nutmeg?

quote:

69 Empowers the police or appointed 'Enforcement Officers' to enter premises without a warrant on suspicion of possess with intent to supply an unapproved substances

Oh poo poo. Interesting new powers they've been granted.

KingEup fucked around with this message at Jul 12, 2013 around 22:39

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004



KingEup posted:

Did New Zealand just criminalise the possession of nutmeg?

quote:

Meaning of psychoactive substance
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, psychoactive substance—
(a)means a substance, mixture, preparation, article, device, or thing that is capable of inducing a psychoactive effect (by any means) in an individual who uses the psychoactive substance; and
(b)includes—
   (i)an approved product:
   (ii)a substance, mixture, preparation, article, device, or thing that is, or that is of a kind or belonging to a class that is, declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council made under section 81 to be a psychoactive substance for the purposes of this Act; but
(c)does not include—
   (i)a controlled drug specified or described in Schedule 1, 2, or 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975:
   (ii)a precursor substance specified or described in Schedule 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975:
   (iii)a medicine as defined in section 3 of the Medicines Act 1981 or a related product as defined in section 94 of that Act:
   (iv)a herbal remedy (as defined in section 2(1) of the Medicines Act 1981):
   (v)a dietary supplement (as defined in regulation 2A of the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985):
   (vi)any food (as defined in section 2 of the Food Act 1981):
   (vii)any alcohol (as defined in section 5(1) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012) unless the alcohol contains a psychoactive substance within the meaning of paragraph (a) or (b) that is not alcohol:
   (viii)any tobacco product (as defined in section 2(1) of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990) unless the tobacco product contains a psychoactive substance within the meaning of paragraph (a) or (b) that is not tobacco:
   (ix)a substance, mixture, preparation, article, device, or thing that is, or that is of a kind or belonging to a class that is, declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council made under section 81 not to be a psychoactive substance for the purposes of this Act.


KingEup posted:



Oh poo poo. Interesting new powers they've been granted.

quote:

69 Warrantless power to enter and search
(1)An enforcement officer or a constable may enter a place if the enforcement officer or constable has reasonable grounds to believe that—
   (a)there is a psychoactive substance at the place; and
   (b)an offence has been, is being, or will be committed against any of section 24, 25, or 62 in relation to that substance in that place.
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to a dwellinghouse or other residential accommodation.
(3)An enforcement officer or a constable who enters a place under subsection (1) may—
   (a)use any force in respect of the place that is reasonable for the purposes of carrying out the search and any lawful seizure:
   (b)inspect the place:
   (c)take photographs or videos of the place:
   (d)copy any documents or records (of any kind) relating to a psychoactive substance:
   (e)seize anything that is the subject of the search or anything else that may be lawfully seized:
   (f)inspect any article or material (for example, advertising material and display signage) in relation to which a restriction or requirement is imposed by or under this Act.
(4)Subsection (2) does not prevent an enforcement officer or a constable from entering a dwellinghouse or other residential accommodation and exercising the powers referred to in subsection (3)—
   (a)under authority conferred by or under an enactment (including another provision of this Act); or
   (b)with the occupier's consent.
(5)An enforcement officer or constable who is exercising powers under this section in respect of or in a place, must,—
   (a)if a person in charge of the place is present on initial entry, identify himself or herself to the person in charge as an enforcement officer or a constable; and
   (b)in the case of an enforcement officer who is asked by a person in charge to do so, produce to the person evidence of identity, his or her instrument of appointment as an enforcement officer, or both; and
   (c)explain to the person in charge that the authority to enter is under this section.


It appears it won't apply to homes and such, except if permission granted or a warrant is obtained.


gently caress reading legislation

Nude Bog Lurker
Jan 2, 2007

King Kong of Megadongs

Gobblin' them mega schlongs

Makin' sure they mega long

Stroke 'em if they mega strong


hotelbaas posted:

No recreational drug manufacturer in their right mind is going to spend tons of money on clinical tests to prove their product is safe. Especially not when a. it can still be rejected by the Ministry of Health if they feel like doing so and b. someone else can just copy whatever they're producing and make immediate money instead of running a big initial deficit.

When I read things in the article like "this synthetic cannabis is way worse than the real stuff", I'm left wondering why they don't just solve the problem in a simple, sensible way: by legalizing the real stuff.

Everyone involved in the legislation has been pretty clear from day one that some products will have to be approved or the legislation won't work. There's a fairly detailed regime in the new legislation for controlling sale and supply, regulating advertising, etc., and it's clear that a lot of work has gone into all of that stuff - a blanket new psychoactives ban could have been put through in an afternoon. If the Authority declines applications "just because" they'll get judicially reviewed and lose pretty quickly.

The regime has quite a clever way around the 'copying' point: particular products are approved, not substances. So 'Hotelbaas Special', using JWH-018, say, might get approved. I can't start selling 'Trouble Man Tokes' using the same active ingredient. Ah, but I'll just copy your application, you say. No: the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority is prohibited from relying on your data to assess my application. So I have to go away and do all the clinical trials, etc. and pay for them myself.

The cannabis point is interesting: I looked at the policy documents for this about a year ago, and while THC might conceivably meet the low-risk threshold, realistically any combustable psychoactive is going to really struggle to be identified as low-risk, regardless of the actual active ingredients.

The gap is the exclusion of existing controlled substances: stuff like MDMA would probably fly through.

darroll
Oct 13, 2012


It's all we need is more air-heads.
Go to India if you want to talk to a smart person.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004



Trouble Man posted:

Everyone involved in the legislation has been pretty clear from day one that some products will have to be approved or the legislation won't work. There's a fairly detailed regime in the new legislation for controlling sale and supply, regulating advertising, etc., and it's clear that a lot of work has gone into all of that stuff - a blanket new psychoactives ban could have been put through in an afternoon. If the Authority declines applications "just because" they'll get judicially reviewed and lose pretty quickly.

The regime has quite a clever way around the 'copying' point: particular products are approved, not substances. So 'Hotelbaas Special', using JWH-018, say, might get approved. I can't start selling 'Trouble Man Tokes' using the same active ingredient. Ah, but I'll just copy your application, you say. No: the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority is prohibited from relying on your data to assess my application. So I have to go away and do all the clinical trials, etc. and pay for them myself.

The cannabis point is interesting: I looked at the policy documents for this about a year ago, and while THC might conceivably meet the low-risk threshold, realistically any combustable psychoactive is going to really struggle to be identified as low-risk, regardless of the actual active ingredients.

The gap is the exclusion of existing controlled substances: stuff like MDMA would probably fly through.

How much do you know about this legislation? I wonder how long until things are actually on the market

Pope on fire
May 12, 2013


So close... But I do agree that companies won't bother paying for the drug testing if it can just be pulled whenever.

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004



Word around town is that many companies already started as soon as the legislation was being formed..

awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005
I HAVE HONEST-TO-GOD DIRT LINING MY PITS AND CROTCH

hotelbaas posted:

No recreational drug manufacturer in their right mind is going to spend tons of money on clinical tests to prove their product is safe. Especially not when a. it can still be rejected by the Ministry of Health if they feel like doing so and b. someone else can just copy whatever they're producing and make immediate money instead of running a big initial deficit.

Pope on fire posted:

So close... But I do agree that companies won't bother paying for the drug testing if it can just be pulled whenever.

quote:

... Grant Hall, general manager of the advocacy group, The Star Trust, which represents members of the legal high industry in the country.
The industry wants to "be recognized as other highs" such as alcohol and tobacco, he added.
Hall said he expects the industry to take a hit on profits as they'll now have to submit costly and lengthy applications to be be sold on the market. But he views it as an investment.
"You have take a long term view," Hall said. "It's a legitimate industry that provides certified low-risk product so people can enjoy them safely. That's a much better business model than the better cat-and-mouse game the industry plays with the government."

hotelbaas
Sep 18, 2008


Comparing it to alcohol and tobacco is pretty funny, considering both of those would probably fail to pass health regulations.

If this system turns out to work, good for New-Zealand, even though it's still a mystery to me why such a relatively complicated system would be preferrable to much simpler options like cannabis legalization. A small step in the right direction, I guess?

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002

Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro


Somewhere in the developing world, a bunch of villagers are about to enjoy the best outsourced clinical trials of their lamentably short and unfortunate lives.

Loving Africa Chaps
Dec 3, 2007

We had not left it yet, but when I would wake in the night, I would lie, listening, homesick for it already.


These aren't going to be like normal clinical trials as they don't have to prove they work vs placebo just that they are safe which will reduce costs significantly.

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004



hotelbaas posted:

Even though it's still a mystery to me why such a relatively complicated system would be preferrable to much simpler options like cannabis legalization. A small step in the right direction, I guess?

Because this isn't aimed at synthetic cannabis (specifically) but is an attempt to regulate the influx of 100s of new drugs that have been released in the past X years, a problem that exists independently of cannabis prohibition (or not)

The current "plan", which every other country is doing is just to wait and see what comes and then ban, repeat ad nauseum. An unwinnable game of cat and mouse where the biggest victims are the public taking god-knows-what with no idea of its safety profile


Loving Africa Chaps posted:

These aren't going to be like normal clinical trials as they don't have to prove they work vs placebo just that they are safe which will reduce costs significantly.

I wonder if we will see any hallucinogens. I'm not sure if there are many cannabinoid receptor partial-agonists that aren't yet regulated but it's probably a start (since it'd be likely to have much lower abuse/addiction/harm potential compared to the full agonists)

hotelbaas
Sep 18, 2008


echinopsis posted:

Because this isn't aimed at synthetic cannabis (specifically) but is an attempt to regulate the influx of 100s of new drugs that have been released in the past X years, a problem that exists independently of cannabis prohibition (or not)

The current "plan", which every other country is doing is just to wait and see what comes and then ban, repeat ad nauseum. An unwinnable game of cat and mouse where the biggest victims are the public taking god-knows-what with no idea of its safety profile

To me it just seems logical that decriminalizing drugs with a very well known safety profile (like cannabis) is going to stop a lot of people from trying stuff like bath salts or whatever just to get high.
Then again, I have no idea how big of a problem the use of new synthetic drugs in New-Zealand really is, it's pretty much a niche market for the really adventurous experimenting types over here.

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004



idk how big it really is but it's certainly a thing that's always in the news and people are always ending up in ED... I mean sure but these are two separate problems. plus not everyone wants to get stoned you know?

Xandu
Feb 19, 2006


It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

echinopsis posted:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill...DLM5042921.html


http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/11/w...law/?hpt=ias_c2



So this just passed last night.


We're going to be the first country in the world with a properly regulated recreational drugs market. What will this mean? Will no drugs ever pass the standard?
Disappointingly but not surprisingly this cannot apply to any drugs previously scheduled.

Now that companies can apply for licences to sell drugs in a non cat-and-mouse fashion, is this going to attract big international players to invent/re-release all manner of substances that may work? Perhaps the big-pharmas have lots of stuff of their shelves they want another turn out. God knows people love to spend their money on drugs..

Given the ridiculous amount of new, untested recreational substances these days, I think this is an awesome law. Of course, it's also worth pointing out that a lot of this is happening because governments ban perfectly safe drugs.

I'm not sure how to interpret this, though

quote:

The new law does not apply to non-synthetic drugs like marijuana, cocaine or magic mushrooms.

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004



It's not that the law goes out of it's way to exclude non synthetic drugs, it's just that this law is regarding new, unscheduled compounds, or to be specific, mixtures. Those drugs are already scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. That Act is up for a big change sometime soon so perhaps it will be approached with an evidence based system too. One can only pray to Allah

Xandu
Feb 19, 2006


It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Thanks. That sort of piecemeal legislation is a bit problematic, but I'd be very curious to see if something happens with the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Rigged Death Trap
Feb 13, 2012

BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP


Xandu posted:

I'm not sure how to interpret this, though

Loads of international pressure on keeping illegal drugs illegal maybe?
What is the international political position on drugs anyways?

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004



The UN have some things to say about certain drugs not being allowed to be legal even if the country is ok with it. A LOT of things will need to be changed before the war on drugs can really be turned around.

Xandu
Feb 19, 2006


It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Rigged Death Trap posted:

What is the international political position on drugs anyways?

It's what you'd expect, but I'm not sure how important it is, except in a few areas (like US giving money/equipment/etc for drug eradication). UNODC isn't very relevant.

HappyHippo
Nov 19, 2003
Do you have an Air Miles Card?

The article paints this bill as a radical departure from the war on drugs but I'm a bit more cynical.

Most people categorize drugs into two groups: the "legitimate" drugs of alcohol, tobacco and caffeine (which often aren't even recognized as drugs) which are used by regular members of society, and the rest, usually illegal, which are used by low-lives. New drugs are implicitly categorized in the second category. The only way for a drug to not be banned in most societies is for it become part of the "legitimate" group, which basically can't happen anymore. Someone, somewhere, will do something stupid while on said drug long before it can become widespread and accepted enough to avoid being prohibited. Most people's first exposure to a drug is through media coverage of a moral panic related to its use (and, as the bath salts face-eating episode demonstrated, the drug itself need not ever be involved for this panic to take hold).

The legislature doesn't see each substance individually as a unique thing with it's own individual and social effects and challenges, but as just another drug sought by addicts to get high. From this perspective the constant introduction of new substances is seen as a loophole by which "drugs" (the bad kind) can be sold legally. It looks to me that this legislation is intended not as an honest attempt to create a regulated recreational drug market but rather to "close the loophole" by declaring all drugs illegal by default, forcing anyone who wants to sell a new drug to first get permission which likely won't be granted. This "solves" the problem once and for all - the government will no longer have to ban new drugs as they're developed. The fact that they won't go back and reevaluate already banned drugs attests to this purpose. I think this quote is most telling:

"While other countries are still blindly banning drug after drug, the Psychoactive Substances Bill will put New Zealand ahead of the industry's game"

Now I'd love to be proven wrong. I don't really know that much about New Zealand's politics. What agency is responsible for evaluating claims and granting permission? If it's the actual health agency and not the agency responsible for enforcing current drug laws then I'm more optimistic. But I'm going to wait until they actually OK something before I cheer on this approach.

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004



That general critcism, that nothing will be allowed through, has been brought up time and time again. They respond by saying they realise nothing can pose no harm, and that it's likely that whatever goes through will probably be "mild" (and that things will have to be allowed otherwise the law doesn't work)
My concern is that for the majority of drugs, "mild" or "extreme" is a dose thing and I don't really see how you can make something mild, and only mild.. Psilocybin mushrooms probably have the best safety profile of any psychoactive drug that actually has a worthwhile effect, but you could still take/give enough of it to create extremely stressful and uncomfortable experiences in almost anyone.


Time will tell I guess. I mean, the status quo would have been to just ban everything when it comes out anyway, this is still an improvement. And like I've mentioned, I'm pretty sure some companies already have products planned.

Warchicken
Jun 9, 2004


If aspirin made you feel happy then it wouldn't make it through this. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic though.

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004



Yeah hopefully these drugs don't increase the chance of gastric ulcer or renal failure.


I'm skeptical myself until I see if it works. Also tempted to get on the online sales bandwagon since it's early days

Xandu
Feb 19, 2006


It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

quote:

"It's because we're a small remote country," he said. "Drugs like heroine don't make their way to New Zealand. What we've become good at doing is making our own drugs."

Ignoring the typo, this is a weird thing to say. Are people in NZ making their own drugs? I feel like most of it's probably coming from overseas labs.

HappyHippo
Nov 19, 2003
Do you have an Air Miles Card?

echinopsis posted:

That general critcism, that nothing will be allowed through, has been brought up time and time again. They respond by saying they realise nothing can pose no harm, and that it's likely that whatever goes through will probably be "mild" (and that things will have to be allowed otherwise the law doesn't work)
My concern is that for the majority of drugs, "mild" or "extreme" is a dose thing and I don't really see how you can make something mild, and only mild.. Psilocybin mushrooms probably have the best safety profile of any psychoactive drug that actually has a worthwhile effect, but you could still take/give enough of it to create extremely stressful and uncomfortable experiences in almost anyone.


Time will tell I guess. I mean, the status quo would have been to just ban everything when it comes out anyway, this is still an improvement. And like I've mentioned, I'm pretty sure some companies already have products planned.

I hope you're right. If I'm right, however, I wouldn't consider it an improvement over the status quo. All it would do is reinforce the "legitimate"/"illegitimate" paradigm that currently rules society's approach to drugs by eliminating the (admittedly small) grey area that new drugs currently inhabit.

mystes
May 31, 2006



HappyHippo posted:

It looks to me that this legislation is intended not as an honest attempt to create a regulated recreational drug market but rather to "close the loophole" by declaring all drugs illegal by default, forcing anyone who wants to sell a new drug to first get permission which likely won't be granted.
If NZ is like the US, all new drugs (whether the recreational variety or not) are already illegal by default.

Xandu
Feb 19, 2006


It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

mystes posted:

If NZ is like the US, all new drugs (whether the recreational variety or not) are already illegal by default.

Not quite how it works in the US.

Warchicken
Jun 9, 2004


Xandu posted:

Not quite how it works in the US.

Everything is illegal if it makes you feel good in any way unless it is sold by a pharmaceutical company for 8 thousand times it's production costs. This exists on a sliding scale according to how essential it is to your survival. If it isn't a big deal, it's probably cheap. Need it to live? Oooo this costs soooo much to make and research that'll be a trillion billion dollars, sorry we couldn't make It cheaper.

Marinol is a great example of this. Less effective than marijuana, less recreational, but legal to prescribe whereas taking a puff of weed is literally a put-you-in-prison, possibly felony crime.

Xandu
Feb 19, 2006


It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

No I mean while there are things like the Analog Act, drugs aren't illegal by default, which is why the DEA has the authority to temporarily schedule them.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004



Xandu posted:

Ignoring the typo, this is a weird thing to say. Are people in NZ making their own drugs? I feel like most of it's probably coming from overseas labs.

Well it is just kinda wrong, but we don't have a lot of things like H, and . Importing drugs is a risky business for the small customer base we have here

So it's been easier to import unknowns that are still legal and redistribute.

We're one of the top countries for cannabis use though. We have a pretty ingrained waster culture in a lot of society and these synthetics took off like fuckin' crazy. If this is really any different than the rest of the world, I don't know.


Warchicken posted:

Everything is illegal if it makes you feel good in any way unless it is sold by a pharmaceutical company for 8 thousand times it's production costs. This exists on a sliding scale according to how essential it is to your survival. If it isn't a big deal, it's probably cheap. Need it to live? Oooo this costs soooo much to make and research that'll be a trillion billion dollars, sorry we couldn't make It cheaper.

Marinol is a great example of this. Less effective than marijuana, less recreational, but legal to prescribe whereas taking a puff of weed is literally a put-you-in-prison, possibly felony crime.

So are these synthetics and bath salts illegal?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«4 »