Forums › Drugs › Legal & Herbal Highs › NZ: ‘Revolutionary’ legal high law means state regulated drug market in 2014
‘Revolutionary’ legal high law means state regulated drug market – National – NZ Herald News
Kronic-style drugs are expected back on the shelves under the new legal high law being crafted by Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne.
Experts say the law will create one of the world’s first open and regulated recreational drug markets with synthetic cannabis making a return.
The first legal highs will be offered for sale in 2014, based on estimates in papers released by health officials.
The new regime, announced by Mr Dunne last week, aims to end the uncontrolled legal high industry which is estimated to have made $250 million in 10 years. The unregulated market has seen drugs sold legally with effects mimicking illegal substances like P, cannabis and Ecstasy.
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.”
Papers released by Mr Dunne’s office show health officials estimate 10 applications would be made to have substances classified in the first year. Each application would cost up to $2 million and would include animal testing and human trials to ensure the drugs were low risk.
“There may only be one or two approvals in the first year or two,” stated the briefing papers.
Health officials found the cost of the trials – which would be carried by the company wanting to produce the drug – did not put the industry off. They reported one company considering testing now even though the new regime was not fully developed.
Mr Dunne’s paper to the Cabinet’s social policy committee said users would still assume some risk but it would be an improvement on the current system which had no harm-prevention measures.
Massey University drug researcher Dr Chris Wilkins said the system was “revolutionary”.
“Having a government-approved legal high industry is pretty radical. New Zealand is the only country in the world going down that path.”
New Zealand Drug Foundation executive director Ross Bell said the proposal was “22nd century thinking” which posed serious questions for society.
“What happens when someone invents the pill or the powder that gets you the high you want, is completely non-addictive … and is safe to drive on. Is there anything wrong with that?”
Thoughts? :bounce_fl:bounce_g::bounce_g::bounce_fl:bounce_fl:bounce_fl
@dubstep_joe 497741 wrote:
‘Revolutionary’ legal high law means state regulated drug market – National – NZ Herald News
Thoughts? :bounce_fl:bounce_g::bounce_g::bounce_fl:bounce_fl:bounce_fl
Wow… it sounds promising. So I’m feeling great optimism for New Zealand (bearing it mind it looks like it’s just a white paper, not an actual law yet), tinged with regret that nothing like that would ever be possible in this country in the foreseeable future, what with the current tabloid influence over drugs policy. The government openly admitted as such with the whole Professor David Nutt saga (great respect for that man) with its “Damn the science or evidence regarding relative harm, we make policy based on uninformed popular opinion!” admission.
Expect the USA to try to stomp on it, with their whole neo-fundamentalist “War on Drugs” policy. I’m sure this harkens back to the Puritan days, where anything that made you feel good was to be regarded as sinful. You could utterly prove that a drug has no side effects or causes any harm at all, but if it’s enjoyable, that’s worthy of banning it in itself in their minds. As for the rest of the New Zealand cabinet, with their minds constantly turned to re-election rather than what’s best for the country, who knows if they’ll go for it.
Interesting to note that New Zealand were the first nation in the word to give women the vote, so they’ve got form for progressive policies. Perhaps in 50 years we’ll look back at the current prohibitionist regime with bemusement that we persisted with an obviously flawed approach for so long.
Seems rational and pragmatic to me which politicians aren’t always renowned for.. Not sure how easy it would be for manufacturers to prove it though, seeing as scientists rarely agree on the actual safety or damage of long standing illegal drugs which they’ve had years worth of research (or though not always the funding that commercial enterprises may have). Wasn’t it NZ govt that originally endorsed those BZP/TFMPP piperazine pills as ecstasy harm reduction? IIRC that didn’t last all that long
@spangle 497750 wrote:
Seems rational and pragmatic to me which politicians aren’t always renowned for.. Not sure how easy it would be for manufacturers to prove it though, seeing as scientists rarely agree on the actual safety or damage of long standing illegal drugs which they’ve had years worth of research (or though not always the funding that commercial enterprises may have). Wasn’t it NZ govt that originally endorsed those BZP/TFMPP piperazine pills as ecstasy harm reduction? IIRC that didn’t last all that long
Yeah some guy from NZ started selling (not 100% sure if he made it cba to google) them as safer ecstasy pills.
in a small way they were safer as you knew the dose in the legal ones.. but the chemical was fucking grim.
what happened was the govt briefly tolerated them until greedy people ended up ill (same as everywhere else in the world).
BTW they did seriously consider making pills class B in England during the late 90s – those who were around then might remember a much more lenient attitude towards drugs and hedonism in that era, and although Tony Blair himself stopped short of openly supporting this, his first government did give a lot of leeway to other politicans what did.
it was also way easier to put on a club night and even if drug use was fairly blatant the feds left you alone as long as there wasn’t turf wars amongst dealers or anti social behaviour surrounding the venue. unfortunately the hedonistic scenes party drug tolerance depends on are energy and resource intensive so that only reinforced ours (and Europe’s) economic dependence on both cheap oil and the USA, making the good times what quieted a lot of angry opposition unsustainable and preventing any EU nation pissing off Washington too much. they don’t need to go to war to state their points, if they take away their investment it can cause as much damage as dropping a bomb!
NZ is however literally in the middle of fucking nowhere (even Australia is a fair few nautical miles away), sparsely populated (with a fairly harsh immigration policy), relatively self sufficient (in fact a net exporter of food) and “white” enough not to be viewed as a threat by the USA so they can get away with certain things (such as not allowing nuclear weapons and having a relatively strong Green movement).
the idea is good but I’m not sure about that particular politician as he previously introduced harsher laws than the UK, point blank has refused to allow medical cannabis trials, yet wants to license nasty chemical substitutes? also there are a fuckload more other controls on young people especially their road use (for instance driving tests have been made way harder) so its possibly a distraction tactic to stop them dissenting over other clampdowns on their lives.
0
Voices
3
Replies
Tags
This topic has no tags
Forums › Drugs › Legal & Herbal Highs › NZ: ‘Revolutionary’ legal high law means state regulated drug market in 2014