tripsis Posted May 9, 2011 Ban new drugs unless proven safe - Law Commission Published: Tue, 03 May 2011 1:01p.m. By Dan Satherley and staff New psychoactive drugs should be banned until proven safe, instead of the other way around, says the Law Commission in a report tabled in Parliament today. Currently, new substances can be manufactured and sold without restriction until authorities have gathered sufficient evidence of risk. New drugs are often very similar to banned substances, but because of their differing chemical structures, are not covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. "At the time that statute was enacted, the illegal drugs of choice were things like cannabis, cocaine, opiates and psychedelics like LSD," says Law Commission President Grant Hammond. "While the use of cannabis remains high, new drugs have appeared. In the 2000s party pills like Benzylpiperazine (BZP) and very harmful drugs like methamphetamine have joined cannabis at the forefront of New Zealand’s drug scene. The Law Commission wants the onus on manufacturers and importers to prove their product is safe Drug landscape has changed "In short, the drug landscape has changed." New, legal drugs currently available include cannabis simulators 'Puff' and 'Kronic', which Campbell Live's Tristram Clayton tried out last year. BZP, which has effects similar to amphetamine, was briefly popular before being banned in 2008. The Law Commission is proposing to flip the 1975 law on its head, instead putting the onus on manufacturers and importers to prove their product is safe, and get regulatory approval before putting their product on sale. "This would effectively reverse what happens now in practice, where a substance can be manufactured, imported and sold until it is proven to be harmful," says Mr Hammond. "This is therefore a preventive regulatory regime." If the product was deemed unacceptably risky, it would then be referred for classification as a prohibited substance. And if a new product was instead given the green light, it would automatically be subject to similar restrictions currently placed on tobacco and alcohol, including age limits and marketing. Minister welcomes report The Law Commission’s report has been welcomed by Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne, who says the Government will consider many of the recommendations. “The existing Act fails to adequately address the rapidly expanding market for new psychoactive substances, such as party pills and smokeable products. Mr Dunne says a “robust regime” is needed to prevent the easy availability of harmful products. “The Law Commission was tasked with considering options for developing such a regime and I look forward to fully examining its recommendations in weight up how to best provide a greater health focus and deal with drug addicts,” Mr Dunne said. In addition, the Law Commission recommends a "mandatory cautioning scheme" for all "personal possession and use" offences, to free up court resources and stop thousands of people getting drug convictions. "Quite large numbers of young New Zealanders receive criminal convictions – which might subsist for life – as a result of minor drug offences," says Mr Hammond. "This is a disproportionate response to the harm those offences cause." Instead, more funding should be channelled into treatment and education. “There is clear evidence that treatment can be cost effective. Some studies estimate that for every $1 spent on addiction treatment, there is a $4 to $7 reduction in the cost associated with drug-related crimes.” On the other hand, Mr Hammond says the law must keep heavy penalties for the manufacture and sale of prohibited substances. “Weak-kneed” approach criticized Family First has strongly criticised the Law Commission’s softening of drug punishment. “A weak-kneed approach to drug use will simply send all the wrong messages that small amounts of drug use or dealing aren’t that big a deal – the completely wrong message, especially for younger people. A cautioning scheme will simply be held in contempt by users, and fails to acknowledge the harm done by drug use which is undetected,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. Mr McCoskrie says Family First supports the Law Commision’s call for better treatment facilities but says they should be combined with a “zero tolerance” approach to drug use. Read the full report – part one - part two Source Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted May 9, 2011 It's a shame that "Ban new drugs unless proven safe" really just means "Ban new drugs" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ethnodude Posted May 9, 2011 I was waiting for this anoincement for some time. Its all part of Codex Alimentarius and the WHO free trade agreement, which kicks into gear this year. Its as if they allowed kronic to gain popularity so they could use it as a reason to justify this "new" proposal. Interestingly the proposal is only for "new drugs". Of course alcohol and tobacco will not be a part of the testing process, as they have already been shown to be 2 of the biggest killers. However the gov need the tax revenue to run campaigns like these. Of course the Gov only has people best interest a heart. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FancyPants Posted May 9, 2011 It's a shame that "Ban new drugs unless proven safe" really just means "Ban new drugs" Yeah. I'd really like them to retrospect alcohol laws and see how far that gets. What am I saying? Of course alcohol would pass as "proven safe" because the ones making the laws are the ones guzzling up a scotch or ten during lunch break and once they get home. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Distracted Posted May 10, 2011 In a fucked up way it makes sense, I see no reason why it wouldn't pass through parliament over there. It would all be fine and dandy if not for the fact that it's the government doing the studies to determine what's safe and what's not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted May 10, 2011 The same problem with the proposed plant laws exists though. Without a definitive list that specifically states what is illegal, it is going to be difficult for people to know if what they are in possession of is legal or not. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tripsis Posted May 10, 2011 It's more clear than the proposed plant laws. If it's not explicitly legal, then it will be deemed illegal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Quill Posted May 10, 2011 How exactly does one prove a substance safe, it seems to me that this could only really be done after decades of exhaustive research. It seems much easier to prove something unsafe than to prove it safe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ballzac Posted May 10, 2011 It's more clear than the proposed plant laws. If it's not explicitly legal, then it will be deemed illegal. It's not necessarily that simple. Obviously it only applies to drugs. How are drugs defined? Does it have to be psychoactive? Does it have to significantly alter perception? If so, then it will have to be shown to have such effects before it can be known to be illegal. If not, then it could cover all sorts of things unintentionally. Does it cover plants? If so, is there a minimum quantity, or would all plants containing poorly researched chemicals be illegal? What does "new" mean? Would something be "new" just because it's never been seen in this country before? Or would it literally be a new chemical that's never been synthesised before? Worst of all, it would not only stifle research into drugs, but would make it completely illegal, because as soon as a chemist synthesises a new drug, they are breaking the law. These are just some of the complications that could arise. I don't think it will be as simple as you make it sound. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tripsis Posted May 10, 2011 Nor do I, but that's the gist of the idea. Like all new laws, the creases need to be ironed out before they come into effect, at least if they are to be good laws. I agree there's a lot of ambiguity in the suggestion and each and every definition in the proposal needs to be clear. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mescalito Posted May 10, 2011 Minerals=pesticides=drugs???? Yep as per the Codex some scoffed at like yeah right. "Late last week our good friends at Life & Health Research Group mailed a copy of their Colloidal Silver Update newsletter to their 60,000 readers, warning them that colloidal silver was on the verge of being banned in Europe. Little did they know that while their analysis of the situation was amazingly prescient, the expected ban had already taken place as of January 1, 2010. Yes, you read that right: Colloidal silver has now officially been banned throughout the European Union! It can no longer be legally sold in any health food store or by any internet vendor in the EU as a nutritional supplement. A few short days from now I’ll publish the details of the ban on this blog, in an exclusive report which will include important new information from one of Europe’s leading health freedom groups. I’ll also explain how the ban was passed while the European public slept right through it, completely oblivious to what was happening right before their eyes. In the meantime, with the kind permission of Life & Health Research Group, I’ve reproduced below the text of the latest issue of Colloidal Silver Update newsletter which was mailed late last week to its readers. Be sure to read it in its entirety, so you’ll have the necessary background information for my upcoming report on the European ban on colloidal silver, and how it will ultimately affect the health freedom rights of all Americans, and all colloidal silver users like you throughout the United States, Canada and the rest of the world! Regards, Steve Barwick The Worldwide Battle to Ban Colloidal Silver and How You Can Help Us Stop It…For Good! A worldwide battle to ban colloidal silver is heating up…and your right to use colloidal silver as you see fit hangs in the balance! Would you help us fight for your right to continue to use safe, natural colloidal silver? Dear Fellow Colloidal Silver Advocate, Yesterday I received this letter from a contact in Sweden (see below) detailing the attempts to ban the sale of colloidal silver, not only in Sweden, but throughout the European Union. Hi Steve, My name is Anders Sultan and I am part owner of Sweden’s largest producer of colloidal silver. We call our brand Ionosil. We are currently battling the authorities in Sweden and the EU in regards to all of the disinformation that keeps coming out about colloidal silver. It’s an uphill battle. And the EU food authorities here, the EFSA, are probably banning the product sometime in early 2010. They are bound to blame this on safety issues and claim that there is no bioavailability data available for colloidal silver products. Supposedly, Natural Immunogenics is doing a bioavailability study on their product, but we will see if that is enough. I really enjoy your newsletter! Keep up the good work! Best regards, Anders Sultan Unfortunately, over the past few weeks and months I’ve received similar letters from our contacts throughout Europe, as well as in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and more. In short, there is a concerted worldwide effort to either ban colloidal silver completely, or to so heavily regulate it as a “toxin” or “pesticide” that you would need a prescription or permit to use it. Codex Alimentarius This is all part of the looming one-world plot to “harmonize” all nutritional supplement laws on a global basis, and dramatically restrict your rights to use natural substances like colloidal silver as you see fit. It’s called Codex Alimentarius, which simply means “food law” or “food code.” And while the looming Codex agreement consists chiefly at this point of thousands of pages of rules and regulations creating new uniform global standards for such things as pickling cucumbers (yes, there are 11 pages of stringent regulations in the Codex for pickling cucumbers), the real threat to health freedom comes in the sections of the Codex governing nutritional supplements." SOURCE Thing is this stuff is not harmful,has been in use for god knows how long and I'm getting results...hmmm but I can make a generator to make my own....shit! that would be manufacture! WANKERS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mescalito Posted May 10, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyLI8UVdTzQ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
qualia Posted May 10, 2011 this codex shit disturbs me quite a bit, any news on Australia's eagerness to adopt it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gilligan Posted May 10, 2011 Or how to stop it in it's tracks? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mescalito Posted May 10, 2011 @ qualia: Whaddya you think? The thing that pisses me off is how many people do you know that have suffered or died as a result of Tobacco and Alcohol....prescription med's!!!???...all friggin LEGAL yet they cause harm....meanwhile we have the budget going on to scare the shit out of the low income earners and people on Disability Payments,like LEGIT ONES..co-incidence? You betchya it's designed to put you in fear or a state of WTF do they mean? If this was in place a long time ago then Benzo's and other PHARMA drugs would be illegal as they are harmful...but that's not the Agenda....do people like ME and others here on the forum alone have re-course for the lost years/pain and time? NO! WHY? Population reduction,Control,Numbing down those the Elite deem useless or useful,depending on what "they' want..probably YOU! WE have to De-Rail this thing,it's not just about "novel chemicals" that may harm your health..like FUCK THAT, inside the box you will find a surprise and not a good one...start think outside the box and if this shit is "just starting to worry you!" LEARN AS MUCH AS YOU CAN!!!!!! United we stand Divided we fall....that's what they are counting on. Sorry for the outburst but shit so many people are just not getting the message and think that someone or some magic organisation will stop the madness. It is our generation that has to act for the sake of our future generations. Go back through the threads and do ya best to stop supporting the Organisations that hold this Codex upright! *takes a breath* 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
synchromesh Posted May 10, 2011 Definitely a good time to purchase a colloidal silver kit... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mescalito Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxoxsgczWFY or The silver Guys WebsiteSource for the silver wire,probably better than strips,not overly cheap but finer silver for a finer product.The particle size is the important part,I would use PURE water.The finer the particle,the better.Take no notice of the infamous "Blue Guy" with Argyria...it's stupidity and propaganda See also www.allansutton.com,I'm using his atm,15 bucks for the 300ml aint bad. Edited May 10, 2011 by mescalito Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ethnodude Posted May 11, 2011 Or how to stop it in it's tracks? Collective rebellion. If a law is so insane that everyone ignores it, it ceases to exist. This is very much a smoke and mirrors, black magickal illusionary mind control tactics. Designed to make people fear freedom of choice, and consume products of addiction. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mescalito Posted May 11, 2011 It's going to come down to it ethnodude unless anyone wants to be someones bitch. Not this little black duck. Why are the masses afraid of the small group? Programming. Y'all want a single? say ..... ..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yeti101 Posted May 12, 2011 In related news in the UK: The UK government is introducing legislation to temporarily ban new "legal highs" until they are proven to be medically safe by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13354294 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
qualia Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) ^^ maybe we'll see this as the new way to ban substances which can get you high without actually saying "we're banning drugs". to me it seems a likely measure, in the face of an increasingly liberal (in the sense of progressive/non-conservative) world view which advocates at least decriminalising drug use. I mean, how does a government impose control on substances without losing face to liberal voters, while still appeasing the conservative "anti-drug" faction? simple, make out that you're not necessarily opposed to drug use, but you're banning it because of "safety reasons". Edited May 13, 2011 by qualia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
synchromesh Posted May 23, 2011 The War on Consciousness Winners and losersWho benefits from this colossal stupidity and systematic wickedness? And who loses? The beneficiaries are easy to spot. First, the large and ever expanding armed bureaucracies, funded with large and ever growing sums of public money to suppress the use of drugs, have benefited enormously. Everyone who works for them, including the PR men and spin merchants who concoct the propaganda used to sell their policies to us, including their subcontractors both public and private, and including the (often privately-run) prisons stuffed to bursting point with their victims, are the beneficiaries of this catastrophic failure on the part of our governments to think laterally, generously and creatively. Whether you are a DEA agent or a prison guard you naturally have a deeply vested interest in maintaining the miserable status quo, justified by the "war on drugs", that keeps you in your job, that ensures your monthly pay checks continue to come in, and that continuously expands your budgets. The second main category of beneficiaries are - of course! - the criminal gangs and cartels that the present misguided official policies have empowered as the sole source of drugs in our societies. Over the past forty-plus years they have earned countless billions of dollars from the sale of illegal drugs which, had they only been legal, would not have earned them a single penny. Who are the losers? First and most directly those millions upon millions of good, non-violent people in our societies who have been jailed or otherwise punished for the possession and use of drugs. Second, virtually everyone else in our societies as well, regardless of whether or not they use illegal drugs themselves. For the quality of life of all of us has been diminished by the growth of the police state and by the murderous activities of the criminal gangs enfranchised, and kept in business, by the blind and mindless perpetuation of this failed and bankrupt "war on drugs". So, in summary, the criminalisation of drug use has brought no positive effects, only negative ones, and it has not stopped, nor even reduced the use of dangerous and harmful drugs. On the contrary, we have been so little "saved from ourselves" by this phoney war that the use of almost all illegal drugs, far from decreasing, has dramatically increased during the past forty years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dude Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) Why are the masses afraid of the small group? Sometimes a graphical representation makes it easier to understand the absurd. Worth watching, quite funny. Edited May 23, 2011 by The Dude Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
