THIS IS AN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY BASED SUPPORT FORUM FOR HARM MINIMIZATION ONLY.
NO SOURCING OR DEALING WILL BE TOLERATED.
TO USE THIS WEBSITE YOU MUST READ AND AGREE TO THESE RULES HERE.
MEMBERS THAT DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULES WILL BE AGGRESSIVELY BANNED.
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 57
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,081
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 21 Times in 15 Posts

    Default

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0209/S00015.htm

    "This case has set a precedent for the Ministry as it deals with emerging trends in sale of substances that may impact on public health. Faced with this situation again, the Ministry of Health would respond in a similar manner."

    Mr Mcnee was convicted in Sept 2002 for selling food that was unsound or unfit for human consumption knowing that the sale could create a risk to human health"

    This was relating to the sale of 1,4B that had been labelled as a C.D cleaner and not for human consumption.I fail to see any difference to people selling untested synthetic chinese R.Cs to be smoked?

    Is this just exploitation of a loophole or?
    I can only guess its because one is a liquid and one is not,or smoking a product as a form of ingestion is not defined as a food under the act>?
    Last edited by cosmic ruler; 15-04-2014 at 01:36 PM.

  2. #42
    Drael's Avatar
    Drael is offline Highly Valued TripMe Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,896
    Thanks
    529
    Thanked 1,136 Times in 525 Posts

    Default

    In regards to your specific objection to black market issues, the difference is than cannibinoids are popular. GHB is not. BZP is not. mephedrone is not. Popularity does and will impact the strength of a black market. Again, not that any country has ever successfully banned synthetics, making the talk of black markets moot.

  3. #43
    Drael's Avatar
    Drael is offline Highly Valued TripMe Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,896
    Thanks
    529
    Thanked 1,136 Times in 525 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic ruler View Post
    As of now my understanding is that these new and ever changing R.Cs are untested.
    If you have anything to add that would shed some light on this then please feel free to otherwise I shall continue to name them for what they are...Untested R.Cs.
    Just because they may be tested in the future IF this new bill passes does not detract from the fact they have and are being sold in their current untested state and this is outrite dangerous and totally unacceptable from a 'harm reduction' and from a scientific view point.
    Actually from a scientific viewpoint the level of risk is a guess. It could be great harm reduction, when compared to say, the attempts to ban in the states, and you can probably already measure that. The point being that calling them repeatedly untested, when they are all definately going to be tested without a doubt (first bill passed 99-1), is kinda moot. They are all going to be tested, the current law is just a placeholder to prevent blackmarkets and other teething issues.

    The industry itself calling synthetics harm reduction would in many cases be a lie. However, back pre-ban, indeed in the early spice etc days, synths were weaker than cannabis. I used them to come off weed. It genuinely improved my life at that point. That was the start of the journey that ended here, with me basically not using any drugs. If they had a moderate strength, long acting synthetic, it could be safer for general use than cannabis oil, or hardcore hydro - provided the body chemistry was kosher (which is still unknown, making it also currently an unverifiable claim). Now there I agree entirely, on the industry calling it harm minimisation - it is from a legal and gang standpoint, and might, in some cases, be from a mental and addiction standpoint, but not enough is known to say that, and it certainly can't be said globally for all such products.

    If any legitimate testing is to take place for Human consumption it should follow the same guidelines as those for medical purposes.
    It does, it is almost entirely based on medical testing procedures, such as organ toxicity, metabolism, carcinogecity, safe doseage, addictiveness, adverse reactions and so on.

    How many times have you been given a prescription from a Dr or pharmacy to smoke a chemical?Never?
    its unnessasary with most medicines. Smoking is for rapid and short effects. In states and countries with marijuana legalisation, they are often able to smoke it.

    because it is an unacceptable practice for many health reasons.
    Im not sure I agree. It depends on how the substance is metabolized and broken down by heat. With tobacco, tobacco contains carcinogens before its even burnt. Burnt materials while not nearly as bad as smoking, do still create oxiditive stress, but with irregular use, I don't see this being a health hazard - nessasarily. But it could be.

    Arguably cannabis is harmful when smoked. But getting everyone to stop smoking it - not as easy. And thats also a consideration. You might promote vaping and eating, as you would with tobacco promoting e-cigs and swedish snus, for lower harm - but the exact way you acheive that is more like a careful combination of regulations - you can't just say "you have to vape or eat it", not only is that unenforcable, but it may encourage people into grey or black markets etc.

    I am always a fan of the more harmful products being more expensive and harder to access. So say, tobacco versus e-cigs, or swedish snus. or pure spirits versus lower percentage mixers. With smokeables without over the top by products, they could add an additional tax on the smokeables, making the vaping and eating products cheaper.

    In practice though because of how tobacco has maligned the practice of smoking, which actually varies in harm depending on the materials composition, they will most likely only allow vaping or eating products - or they will at least require a smoke composition study.

    How many of these chemicals being imported are 99.99% purity and accurately list all impurities?My guess is none.
    The rules around lab certification come in with the safety testing, as well as other regulations. When this comes in all chemicals will be made to a high standard locally. I thought you said you were familiar with the incoming laws?

    Again in theory I think this had merit but greed has become the driving force for most in the industry, as such Harm reduction has been disregarded a long time ago.
    Motive is irrelevant. We have a pragmatic situation on the ground (yes caused by the illegality of pot), but it needs a pragmatic solution. Banning has not worked anywhere to reduce harm for synthetics. So regulation is more intelligent. Arguably, and I agree, this regulation is still requiring fine tuning. And it is in the process of said fine tuning. Writing world first legislation isn't like putting on a cup of tea.

    I didn't realize Alphaware had legally sold GHB?I was of the impression they had only sold 1,4-Butanediol and had then changed it to be labelled Puritech or whatever the C.D cleaner name was for legal reasons.
    They sold GHB, bzp and 1/4b. The 1/4bd was the only one listed on the public website.

    Which is no different to the current suppliers selling these untested smoking blend R.Cs of varying purity,dosage etc,who are also showing a total disregard for the health,safety and well being of users.
    The chemicals have to be approved, by chemical. The product has to be approved. Reports of adverse reactions at primary health services will have the products removed from the shelf. Premises must be approved, r18 only, licenses to import must be approved, and doseages must be set (although purity and manufacture regulations have not come in yet).

    Big difference already, and thats before the most important parts of the legislation come in.

    I agree with some of what you are saying but I still feel these current products all need to be pulled.There are too many problems associated with them and it almost seems the industry is using this as their excuse/reason for regulating(which in turn means monopolizing) the market.They should never have sold dangerous,shit products in the first place and there would have been no problems.
    I think CL is probably going to pass, and its a current product. I don't feel the same about the PBs, or fub. The past is the past. Indeed if the govt hadn't banned bzp, which was reasonably safe, it would not have encouraged them into synths quite so hard. Pre-ban, when the govt was looking to regulation, the industry almost (apart from a cowboy or two) regulated itself with some fairly acceptable products. Post-ban, when everything was up in the air, things went mad.

    Arguably everything should be tested before sale, but by the same token, alcohol would NEVER pass the psychoactives testing regime. never ever. Nor tobacco. To some degree, people should not be coddled, but make their own safety determinations - thats what its like in the wild - ethically.

    The trouble is more that we live in a society that lacks cohesion, purpose, meaning, freedom, joy - and it generates these miserable people - and miserable people do not do their own safety determinations. And this is where I find myself in an ethical balancing act. In theory, people should be able to do what they like with their bodies. In theory, its our bodies, our right. In theory we should be able to assess our own health and safety, and not expect it to be all done for us. We should buy things on the basis of trust established, not trust assumed.

    In practice people in modern culture are dumb-asses. They yes, want to get high in massive numbers, but they don't really care much about on what, just that it has the fx they seek. The only reasonable thing to do is to provide the safest version of each high, legally. I tend to think thats pot - not hydro, but the bush-style stuff, mushrooms, mdma, maybe bzp or khat, maybe kratom (the last two would need to be highly highly restricted, maybe just for addicts), mushrooms and mdma would need psych or doctor review respectively, and limited doseage and quantities (say 100-150mg mdma available via a doc once/month or something)

    Methylone was great and had very few associated issues yet was banned,BZP was horrible and had very few associated problems yet was banned and yet somehow these smoking blends have been accepted when they have sooo many problems associated with them.Smoking any R.C is dangerous.
    Agreed that neither methlyone nor BZP presented any real risk (apart from maybe dose related effects, which regulation could have mitigated). Indeed there are yet more examples, phenubit, still legal in the US, is the perfect GHB alternative - no risk of overdose, or really addiction because its a prodrug and tolerance is through the roof.

    I can't say definatively that smoking any RC is unhealthful. The effect of smoking is largely dependant on the complex way the chemicals breakdown. Which may or may nor produce carcinogens, depending on the chemical. And I won't say that any dose of any synth is harmful either. But I do agree that vaping would be smarter, at least unless the full composition of the smoke is known, and probably anyway. And that a fair number of synths should not (and I think will not) pass the standard that will be set for "low risk".

    There is another thread that made me realize however there is another aspect at work here - familiarity and social acceptance. With alcohol, its widely known you don't drink spirits from the bottle like water. Its socially scorned to drink vodka with your breakfast, or to drink every day, or to binge to total stupidity. This is a product of societal acceptance, and familiarity. unless drugs are accepted as acceptable under some specific conditions, they cannot be rejected under others (such as overuse). The same goes for what is safe practice - people know what not to do with alcohol, everyone is told. But they do not get told what not to do with synths, or cannibinoids. Our societal adaption, norms, and education are also lacking, and this is a major issue.

    Its probably an issue that faces any reform of the law, and it probably takes decades to change - but someone, like the govt, or stars, should be right on that promoting guidelines for safe use, and guidelines for socially acceptable use.
    Last edited by Drael; 15-04-2014 at 03:02 PM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Drael For This Useful Post:

    Neo (15-04-2014)

  5. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,081
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 21 Times in 15 Posts

    Default

    "The only reasonable thing to do is to provide the safest version of each high, legally. I tend to think thats pot"

    100% Agree on this point.1000s of years of human use of Natural Marijuana with very few associated problems,compared with a few years of sales of synthetics and many,many associated problems.So why are you advocating the sale and supply of untested R.Cs for the purpose of smoking then?

    "I can't say definatively that smoking any RC is unhealthful."

    Or definatively say that it is not.Common sense should tell us that combustion of any untested chemical of varying strength and purity that has been impregnated onto organic matter for the purpose of inhalation is not going to be of any great health benefit, physically at least.

    "The same goes for what is safe practice - people know what not to do with alcohol, everyone is told. But they do not get told what not to do with synths, or cannibinoids. "

    Again I agree.And thus Synthetics should NOT have even been sold to the public at all for this very reason.

    This article says it all to me.(Im sure you are already aware of this)
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/heal...abis-risk-vast

    "Synthetic cannabis puts more New Zealanders in hospital per use than any other drug and experts say it is a ''timebomb'' that will strain the public health system for years to come.

    Results from this year's Global Drug Survey, conducted in partnership with Fairfax Media, found almost 4 per cent of synthetic cannabis users sought emergency medical treatment. More than a quarter of those were admitted to hospital."

    How can this possibly be deemed either Safe or in the name of Harm reduction,all other emotional BS aside?

    ''We are sitting on a timebomb with these,'' said Leo Schep, of the National Poisons Centre.
    ''It's not just the acute effects, it's the long-term psychological effects.''
    'They are going to be a huge burden on the state, possibly for the rest of their lives.''

    I 100% agree with Leo Schep and again ask why we the tax payers should foot the bill for the clean up of this misguided social experiment?The short term effects are UNKNOWN,the long term effects are certainly UNKNOWN.The potential is there for serious physical and/or psychological damage and as such the Ministry of Health who has a Duty of Care for all citizens of this country should ban them.


    "Canterbury District Health Board chief of psychiatry Sue Nightingale said the number of calls to the National Poisons Centre had increased along with visits to emergency departments by patients suffering adverse effects from the drugs.

    Patients were typically between the ages of 16 and 22.

    Many were teenagers, with patients as young as 13 reporting that they were regular users.

    Side-effects included anxiety, vomiting, chest pain and headache, as well as recent cases of kidney failure, seizures, psychosis and heart attacks, she said.

    The survey authors said the much higher rates of synthetic cannabis users seeking emergency treatment suggested those products were ''vastly more risky than natural cannabis''.

    Only 0.15 per cent of cannabis users had sought out emergency treatment.

    ''[This] does suggest that New Zealand has chosen to regulate the more dangerous of the two forms of cannabis,'' the survey report said. "

    Again which part of this sounds like HARM REDUCTION or even Minimization?
    These products are clearly being marketed to kids.Uneducated,naive kids who want to experiment and are duped into thinking they are using a SAFE and LEGAL alternative to Illegal Natural Marijuana,which is clearly not true from this report and thousands of first hand users reports.


    If the industry actually gave a shit about the end users NONE of these products would have been sold until such time as they had actually been proven safe and e3ffective.
    They have not done so and instead have continued to conduct live human experiments on the children of this country.
    That is absolutely unacceptable and should be criminal.

    If it transpires in 10,20 or 50 years time all these users suffer cronic health effects due to the use/abuse of these products who is going to foot the bill and look after them?Will it be the industry who has made millions off of selling this crap?NO.It will fall on the tax payer and the already over stretched public health system.
    Last edited by cosmic ruler; 16-04-2014 at 10:37 AM.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to cosmic ruler For This Useful Post:

    Bongzilla (16-04-2014)

  7. #45
    Frenzal's Avatar
    Frenzal is offline Highly Valued TripMe Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    East Coast, NI
    Posts
    2,347
    Thanks
    3,480
    Thanked 1,291 Times in 586 Posts

    Default

    "Results from this year's Global Drug Survey, conducted in partnership with Fairfax Media, found almost 4 per cent of synthetic cannabis users sought emergency medical treatment. More than a quarter of those were admitted to hospital."

    I know this is primarily a discussion between you and Drael but I thought I'd point out that this means an estimated 1% of users have presented at a medical facility. Taking into account how many of those presentations will have been panic attacks and green outs, we're dealing with quite a small number of concrete harm cases.

    I'm not arguing that this makes it safer than cannabis from a health perspective.

    But if you were in the shoes of the synthetic retailers you're also looking at other social issues like the effect of people buying off gangs instead of tax paying business and the people you're saving from being arrested or harassed by the law.

    Also worth noting is that when these guys first started into business synths weren't what they are now. You yourself seem to acknowledge that the early ones like the JWH series seemed much more benign. And it looks like, hopefully, the industry will be moving back towards these safer options than whats on the market now.

    Just my 2c but i think its a bit harsh to paint a business like PPH as marketing poison for profit. Even kronic who were far, far, far worse in their marketing (and quality control IMO) weren't doing anything that cigarette and alcohol companies haven't done for years.

    And it's not like NEO can click his fingers and get cannabis legalised.
    I hate people who take drugs.

    Like police, customs, parents...

  8. #46
    Drael's Avatar
    Drael is offline Highly Valued TripMe Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,896
    Thanks
    529
    Thanked 1,136 Times in 525 Posts

    Default

    The only reasonable thing to do is to provide the safest version of each high, legally. I tend to think thats pot"

    100% Agree on this point.1000s of years of human use of Natural Marijuana with very few associated problems,compared with a few years of sales of synthetics and many,many associated problems.So why are you advocating the sale and supply of untested R.Cs for the purpose of smoking then?
    Cannabis legalization is an agenda I support, but that agenda is not currently on the table at all. The safety testing regime is, and that may provide a gateway to law reform. Additionally, no country has ever successfully banned synthetics. Regulated is better than unregulated. I am not avocating the sale of RC's over pot. I am being a pragmatist in supporting the best solutions available to us. As ive pointed out, the most important regulations are yet to take effect - and those will further minimise harm. There was another piece of research on here showing that harms associated with synthetics have declined since the interim law. They will decline further with the full law. Anything else is encouraging trouble.

    "The same goes for what is safe practice - people know what not to do with alcohol, everyone is told. But they do not get told what not to do with synths, or cannibinoids. "

    Again I agree.And thus Synthetics should NOT have even been sold to the public at all for this very reason.
    This is true of mdma, mushrooms, and even pot. Safe practice and shaming of overuse do not occur with marijuana either, due to taboo. There is no "its okay to smoke a joint on the weekend, so long as your not have a breakfast bong". There is no "don't smoke a buckie if your cannabis niave" - if anything stoners encourage greens.

    In this regard, synthetics are not much different from a swath of relatively safe illicit drugs who's harms are being maximized by social marginazation. If people knew, like with booze, not to hit it super hard, to be warey, less problems would occur. If people approached booze with the approach they have with legals, there would be massive massive deaths. Parents, unlike alcohol, are not objectively informing their kids about synths. Neither are schools. Socialization of newly legal drugs takes time, and it should be something various organisations are putting effort into.

    "Synthetic cannabis puts more New Zealanders in hospital per use than any other drug and experts say it is a ''timebomb'' that will strain the public health system for years to come.
    Doubtful. Alcohol results in constant hospitalization. I doubt they included alcohol. All the same, as I have said, many times, the most powerful regulations are yet to kick in. All adverse reactions will be strongly minimized by testing, quality control and so on. Not doing so maximizes harm, and does nothing to stop the sale of synthetics.

    Results from this year's Global Drug Survey, conducted in partnership with Fairfax Media, found almost 4 per cent of synthetic cannabis users sought emergency medical treatment. More than a quarter of those were admitted to hospital."
    1% per use? so 1 out of 100 tokes results in a hospital admission? That doesn't sound right. For a start, most people would just be placed in an observation area, not admitted. Do you have a link to their methodology at all? I am skeptical. As much as I know these substances, broadly (not individually) can have there problems IDK about these results.

    I find it interesting so many are kids, according to this research. Where are they getting there synths from? Why isn't this being enforced properly by police, as they do with alcohol supply to minors?

    How can this possibly be deemed either Safe or in the name of Harm reduction,all other emotional BS aside?
    Would it be better if the chemicals and doses and so on where not regulated? As per australia or US, who have tried repeatedly to ban them? I think not.

    I 100% agree with Leo Schep and again ask why we the tax payers should foot the bill for the clean up of this misguided social experiment?The short term effects are UNKNOWN,the long term effects are certainly UNKNOWN.The potential is there for serious physical and/or psychological damage and as such the Ministry of Health who has a Duty of Care for all citizens of this country should ban them.
    Leo schepp is a biased anti-drug warrior. Nothing he says is objective. He is against all drugs. What social experiment? I don't understand that at all. No country has ever banned synthetic cannabis. Many have tried. What we are doing is a solution experiment if anything, trying something that may work instead of something already tried and known to fail - and like many, I believe when it kicks in fully, it will work.

    No ban, anywhere, has ever worked. They have been around for over 15 years, plenty of time to write hundreds of forms of legislation. The notion that they can be banned, is just completely ignorant of the whole global experience of research chemical based legal highs. If bans could work, or were working, we wouldn't even be considering the psychoactives bill - I mean this was passed on the watch of the national party. Think about that. They hate drugs. Most politicians won't touch law reform with a long stick - and this was voted 99-1.

    If your solution as genuinely simplistic as "ban it", you really haven't been paying attention to the global experience at all.
    Last edited by Drael; 16-04-2014 at 11:52 AM.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Drael For This Useful Post:

    Neo (16-04-2014)

  10. #47
    Drael's Avatar
    Drael is offline Highly Valued TripMe Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,896
    Thanks
    529
    Thanked 1,136 Times in 525 Posts

    Default

    This is true. Apparently, for the actual testing and approval, the industry is looking at a whole different selection of actives, which are smooth, longer acting, and generally more benign. I am not sure any of the current products will be making applications. They will probably be safer and smoother than the original actives even.

    No doubt they also don't want to waste 2 mill on testing something that wont pass, so they will play it really safe!
    Last edited by Drael; 16-04-2014 at 11:52 AM.

  11. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    594
    Thanks
    667
    Thanked 368 Times in 166 Posts

    Default

    As i have said previously said banning shit never works. Tbh i think if this shit got into the gangs people would much rather have real pot rather than this bullshit. My post are not based on media speculation its based on what I have seen this shit does to people. Compare the amount of people who smoke pot to the amount of people who smoke synthetics, Iv seen a TON more people get fucked over by synthetics and turn into brain dead zombies, often within the space of a few months. The truth is imo a lot of people end up going too far on this stuff again compared to the people who i see smoke pot and yes the government needs to step in and advise people on how to safely take this stuff but they wont and the only harm minimization advice i can give to people is DONT SMOKE THIS SHIT CUZ ITS CRAP. You can tell me yes but if people only educate them selves, look at the scientific facts then maybe maybe. All that doesnt mean jack as reality is, a lot of people dont bother to educate them selves, the thought doesnt even cross their minds.

    'The same goes for what is safe practice - people know what not to do with alcohol, everyone is told. But they do not get told what not to do with synths, or cannibinoids.

    Again I agree.And thus Synthetics should NOT have even been sold to the public at all for this very reason.'


    ​I think this quote by Cosmic pretty much sums up the argument. This IS the reality and things arent going to get better.
    The pull of the pond is beauty therefore beauty pulls

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Bongzilla For This Useful Post:

    Dizmal (17-04-2014)

  13. #49
    Drael's Avatar
    Drael is offline Highly Valued TripMe Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,896
    Thanks
    529
    Thanked 1,136 Times in 525 Posts

    Default

    Well ignoring the inability to do anything about the sale of synthetics globally, and bringing it back to personal advice for potential users, I agree.

    A mild bush-type weed (not so much your oil, or hydro etc, as these can be too much), vaped slowly is probably the safest choice, physically, available given the information we have atm, in terms of adverse effects.

    And the safest way to deal with that legally, is probably never to have more than a tin or so (because with illicit drugs there is a legal risk) and use it in private residence only.

    Also with illegals there is the risk of who you deal with - and that isn't worth ignoring, the gangs are involved with the supply of cannabis in most places.

    Whatever people choose to do, one should do use drugs every day, or consume them without due caution. This is a fundamental problem irregardless of the drug, it will create more problems than its worth eventually. Be it pot, booze, smoking, P, whatever - daily use is problematic, it is dependance and it creates tolerance and thusly a reversal of effects (anxiety versus relaxation as an example). What goes up must come down.

    And if you are going to use synths, something smoother and longer acting like perhaps CL is probably a safer bet. Don't aim for the hard hit - and aiming for the hard hit is usually a sign that your tolerance is too high anyway, and cost benefit balance would probably show that your habit is more hassle than its truely worth.

    Moreover, you are better without any drink, drugs or anything of the sort, if you can choose that lifestyle. Freinds, exercise, healthy eating, hopes and dreams, nature - these things will bring more lasting and stable contentment. If you must relax, some herbal teas do a pretty good job.
    Last edited by Drael; 16-04-2014 at 12:18 PM.

  14. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,516
    Thanks
    3,439
    Thanked 3,043 Times in 1,149 Posts

    Default

    Weed in NZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Drael View Post
    Leo schepp is a biased anti-drug warrior. Nothing he says is objective.
    SO true.

    At the end of the day, natural cannabis needs to be legalized. In an ideal world, we would have high CBD, low THC cannabis available for recreational and medical use and everyone would vaporize at a reasonable temp. But this is not an ideal world now is it?

    Natural cannabis has MUCH of the same issues that we see with synthetic cannabis, if used and abused to the same extent however.

    Any young person, under the age of 21, that smokes up to and above an ounce a week, of natural cannabis skunk, is going to suffer long term psychological damage. There have been some minor studies to prove this, but for those of us that have friends and family that have been smoking for years and years, we know this already.

    ALCOHOL does exactly the same thing, only ten times worse. We are hearing reports of people getting violent and aggressive, but there is absolutely NO denying that there is a subset of the population that has these violent and aggressive tendencies without drugs or alcohol, so of course these people are going to suffer ill-effects. Don't act like natural cannabis somehow doesn't have these negative side effects. Because it does.

    I find it absolutely mind blowing that people jump up and down claiming that the public is being used as some sort of human experiment, when we have these pharmaceutical companies shoveling all sorts of medicines down peoples throats that have pages upon pages of negative side effects. How IRONIC is it that most of the currently prescribed anti-depressants include side effects such as Nausea, Insomnia, Anxiety, Restlessness, Tremors, Sweating, Sleepiness or fatigue, Dry mouth, Headaches, SUICIDAL THOUGHTS!!! - Sound familiar??? (Currently about 10% of the New Zealand population are on anti-depressants)

    Almost every medicine available is an ongoing public experiment, how can you not understand this?

    We live in a world where hundreds and thousands of unregulated chemicals go in to the manufacture of house hold goods, cleaning products and our FOOD.

    We also need to understand, that the Ministry of Health obviously has some extremely high level experts working on this law. If there was some sort of immediate or serious long term harm to the public, if used correctly, do you honestly think the products would still be on the shelves? I find it very hard to believe that the chemists, scientists and doctors working for, or advising the government haven't done some sort of due diligence to ensure people aren't going to drop dead.

    Most of the synthetic cannbinoids were developed by some of the largest pharma companies in the world for human consumption, as medicines, or controls, or whatever, then of course many were then modified by equally intelligent chemists in order to change the effect or skirt the law. But the fact of the matter is, right now, the cannabinoids that are used in most products possibly aren't the most ideal cannabinoids available and we are likely to see better studied and better suited noids in future products.

    The biggest issue in all of this is education. Young people simply should not be using them at all. I think the age restriction should be 21 and not 18, same with alcohol quite frankly. Personally I think ALL packs should have some sort of warning stating that the chemicals contained in these products have NOT been thoroughly tested and are to be used at a users own risk. And people need to understand that, at the end of the day, Synthetic Cannabis is a DRUG. Just because it is legal does not make it suddenly some sort of magical substance that is safe from side effects and abuse. It's not. No drugs are!

    Somebody show me ONE cannabis user that doesn't have problems sleeping at night or get agitated the day after smoking.
    Somebody show me ONE alcohol user that hasn't injured themselves or killed a few brain or liver cells from binge drinking.

    The harms are all relative, and drugs are not going away any time soon. Sure we could "ban" synthetic cannabis, but there is no doubt in my mind that the people that are truly abusing these products are going to find another fix. Glue sniffing, huffing, pills, whatever.

    Let's also remember that not all synthetic highs are created equally. There are a number of "bad apples" in the industry, and the government are doing what they can now to weed these people out. (No pun intended) - Only now are we getting to the stage where all manufacturing is closely monitored, all chemicals need to be tested for purity, we are now getting to the stage (FINALLY) where chemicals and I guess the plant matter and finished product must go through some very very strict and serious tests to ensure they are "low risk". Remember that this all takes time and money. The government also requires statistics to define what should be considered "low risk" - how do they get some of those statistics? From health departments of course. Obviously we have the toxicity testing and all that, but there is certainly an element of real life case studies that are needed. We have had almost ten years of synthetic cannabis (ab)use in New Zealand and with this data, the government is able to make a more informed decision.

    We already know alcohol would NEVER pass these tests. But it's all relative. If you are going to take a DRUG, then you know, there are some risks associated with the use of that drug. With the use of ANY drug. But consumers need to be educated that this is the case and consumers need to be of an age where they are able to make such informed decisions.

    If natural cannabis were legal, the same thing would apply.

    I'd like to take a step back for a minute, and let's pretend like synthetic cannabis were never introduced. Where would we be along the road to better drug laws? Probably not very far, not even close to where we are now.

    So let's look at a few statistics shall we?

    The latest global drug survey gave us an interesting insight in to New Zealand Drug Use, and it is hugely concerning;

    7.9% of New Zealanders have used LSD in the past year, 31.9% in their lifetimes.
    13.1% of New Zealanders have used "MDMA" in the past year, 36.4% in their lifetimes.
    4.9% have used Amphetamines and 3.2% have used Cocaine in the past year.

    Now let's not kid ourselves here, how sure are we, that organized crime syndicates and local drug dealers have the end users health in mind when they are cutting their products for greater profits?

    How sure are we that those 580 THOUSAND New Zealanders that have used "MDMA" in the past year actually got MDMA? How sure are we that those pills or bags of powder were not cut with HIGHLY HIGHLY dangerous chemicals or other synthetic drugs that are not regulated or tested?

    Have any of you actually seen the number of new RC's that are developed around the world on a monthly basis? Times are changing guys. We no longer live in the world of 'cocaine' 'ecstasy' and 'cannabis' - there are hundreds of thousands of drug dealers that don't give two shits about what they are selling as long as it gives the user "a buzz" - and you know what else? - A large majority of users probably don't give two shits about what they are taking either ... so long as it gives them "a buzz".

    The same can be said for the 350 THOUSAND New Zealanders that took what they thought was "LSD" in the past 12 months - most likely made in a lab somewhere with poor quality controls, most likely not even LSD half of the time.

    The same can be said for cocaine, meth, whatever people are taking these days. It's a truly STAGGERING number of people that are taking recreational drugs. Unreal if you ask me.

    So the reality is, people are going to use and abuse drugs, regardless of their safety profile, regardless or their legality and regardless of the cost.

    If we, as a country, can make steps towards giving well over half a million New Zealanders (likely a hell of a lot more), the chance to use some of these recreational substances, with the knowledge that they don't contain harmful adulterants, they are not cut to crap with god knows what, they are what they say they are on the pack (as if this happens with illegal drugs anyway) and they have the support of the health system if something goes wrong, then I truly believe we are going to be in a position where we are SAVING more lives than we are LOSING. Both in terms of fatalities and long term quality of life.

    The social and economic costs of NOT continuing down this path of regulation is, in my opinion, indescribable.

    Now ... back to where we stand at this very moment. We have synthetic cannabinoids that are awaiting trials and safety testing. We also we have a subset of people that are abusing them, not knowing that they could become addicted and cause some side effects. We also have legal high companies that are selling these products and are getting a hard time. Sure there are some bad apples like I said above, and we all know this, but there are also some people, that have a much greater vision for the future of this country, and the world. A world where good, honest, law abiding citizens aren't locked up or given a criminal record for cannabis possession ... a world where good, honest people, can relax or party hard on occasion with a safe regulated recreational pill, powder or substance without the fear of retribution, whatever that may be. And let's just remember that it takes time and money to get to that point. We wouldn't be half way down that path without this new law, we wouldn't have this new law without synthetic cannabis, and without the legal highs companies being in the financial position to afford to develop and test these substances, we will never reach that goal or that vision, and all the hard work would be unwound and the underworld will once again reign supreme.

    Let's just hope that even after all the media hysteria, bullying and abuse at least one or two of the "good apples" can make it through and make the world a better place.
    Last edited by Neo; 16-04-2014 at 03:15 PM.
    Every exit is an entrance to new experiences.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Neo For This Useful Post:

    Dizmal (17-04-2014)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •