legal highs to be tested on animals

[qualia]

Animal rights activists are in disbelief that animals could be tested on so legal highs can go back on New Zealand shelves.

In a bill due to be introduced to parliament in the next few months, Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne has outlined testing to be done before the products can legally be sold again.

In article 29 of the Regulation of Psychoactive Substances proposal, it was recommended that:

''The minimum pre-clinical data required is acute toxicity, repeat dose toxicity, pharmacokinetics and genotoxicity. These tests are undertaken on small animals, such as rats and will take between 6 - 12 months to complete and report''.

Campaign manager for Save Animals From Exploitation (SAFE), Mandy Carter said toxicity testing generally involves administering the drugs or chemicals to the animal by force feeding, inhalation, injection, or on the skin to gauge immediate reactions and lethal dosages.

This causes immense suffering and the animals are usually killed at the end to moniter internal and long term effects of the chemicals. Ms Carter said 300,000 animals are already tested on each year in New Zealand and SAFE were disappointed the government would add to that for a ''completely unnecessary'' cause.

''We're completely apalled and opposed to it. It's only going to add to what's already an appalling figure [and] most definitely not for this,'' she said. ''We would also wonder about the validity of drug trials because it's often been proven that something that's okay for animals might not be okay for humans. We're not the same. So they're suffering for something that doesn't even guarantee human safety.

''NZ needs to concentrate on reducing animal testing, not adding to it. A lot of scientists are moving away from animal testing now because there's so many more modern techniques... that get better results. It's akin to cosmetic testing [because] most people think that's not okay because it's not even going to benefit anyone, it's just for recreational use.''

Kevin McCarthy, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Health, said the recommendation came from consultations with toxicology and pharmacology experts. When asked if other avenues of testing were considered, he said the expert's advice was that animal testing was required to establish the risk of harm before the psychoactive drugs could come to market.

Companies will have to apply for the testing and shell out up to $2 million dollars if they want their synthetic product to go back on the shelves. ''It will be illegal to sell any product which has not been through an assessment. The new regime will put in place strict restrictions on where these products can be sold, the purchase age, and marketing restrictions.''

Dr Pawel K. Olszewski, senior lecturer for the department of biological sciences at the University of Waikato, said unfortunately, animal testing is still sometimes unavoidable. While New Zealand scientists are following the world-wide ''3-R'' trend to reduce animal numbers, refine methods and replace with alternatives, if none of those alternatives provide reliable answers, animal studies then become necessary.

''Turning to animal experimentation is never an easy decision for a scientist. That's why researchers always try to replace animal studies with alternatives and the scientific community is constantly looking for reliable methods to substitute animal experiments. [some] techniques have already replaced certain tests in animals, and we are developing more. When alternatives do not exist, we require that the most refined techniques be used in order to minimize the number of animals in experiments.

''We have independent animal ethics committees that decide on a case-by-case basis which studies should be permitted. They care about the well-being of animals, the purpose of the proposed research, and allow only those experiments that are absolutely necessary to be performed and cannot be replaced by alternatives.''

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/7652411/Legal-highs-to-be-tested-on-animals

how do you feel about this? would you consume a "legal high" knowing that animals have been tested on, and possibly harmed and/or killed in the process?

[goneski]

would you consume a "legal high" knowing that animals have been tested on, and possibly harmed and/or killed in the process?

 

No, I wouldn't.

They could just avoid the whole situation by banning all these shitty legal highs that seem to be doing a bit of damage,

and legalising the 'proper' drug which is being mimicked and most likely has been studied a lot more.

If there really was interest in proper harm minimisation, it would extend beyond humans to animals and this wouldn't

be happening in the first place.

I'm starting to fantasise about an alien race enslaving humanity and using humans for testing.

Edited September 15, 2012 by SYNeR

[qualia]

They could just avoid the whole situation by banning all these shitty legal highs that seem to be doing a bit of damage,

and legalising the 'proper' drug which is being mimicked and most likely has been studied a lot more.

that would be sending the wrong message that, er, drugs are ok?

it really is a little backward though, isn't it.

Edited September 15, 2012 by qualia

[Anodyne]

Are they talking about specific "legal highs" here? I'm assuming some recently-withdrawn RCs, or synthetic cannabinoids?

Anyway, it seems that the article confuses some issues. The animal-rights side said:

A lot of scientists are moving away from animal testing now because there's so many more modern techniques... that get better results.

Which is true, you can learn alot from in vitro tests. But the specific tests that are required here...

'The minimum pre-clinical data required is acute toxicity, repeat dose toxicity, pharmacokinetics and genotoxicity.

...doesn't most of that stuff have to be done with whole, live animals?

I think it's actually a positive thing, in a way. Clinical tests are required of all pharmaceuticals, so requiring the same of psychoactives might help to make them more socially-acceptable. And I do find this massive influx of new RCs with absolutely no toxicity data to be a bit concerning.

In answer to your question, qualia, yes. If a particular legal high appealed to me, I would take it. All of my prescription medications have been tested on animals, and plenty of herbal ones too. My particular shampoos and so on may not have been, but their active ingredients probably have. I would be much happier about taking a drug with some toxicity studies to its name, than an untested new analogue. But if that poll is anything to go by, I am in a clear minority.

Let me ask the complementary question - would you take a "legal high" knowing that it was totally untested? Would you be happy that such a product was on the shelves, and that every stoner was acting as guinea pig for it?

Edited September 15, 2012 by Anodyne

[qualia]

Let me ask the complementary question - would you take a "legal high" knowing that it was totally untested? Would you be happy that such a product was on the shelves, and that every stoner was acting as guinea pig for it?

the key here is choice. if a stoner chooses to take a chemical knowing it's totally untested and may carry potential risks, then so be it. it's up to them to research every chemical they take and weigh up if it poses an unacceptable risk. animals on the other hand, have no choice. and especially as it's in conjunction with a purely recreational activity, then i don't think that's acceptable to me.

All of my prescription medications have been tested on animals, and plenty of herbal ones too.

i'm not sure what you're referring to here whether you're talking therapeutic medication or what, but there's difference. i accept that therapeutic meds need to bed tested on animals, even though i'm uncomfortable with it. cosmetics etc. are totally unacceptable imo. so it's a matter of application, whether you you can potentially save lives of millions of people** or whether animals are suffering just so some stoner can kill a few hours.

**naturally leads to the question of "are humans more important than animals"? well, humans are animals so i think that question's largely academic.

[goneski]

I'm okay-ish with the testing of pharmaceutical drugs on humans for a 'greater good' (although i think a lot of the time this is questionable)..

But I don't agree with the testing of recreational drugs on animals just so people can get off chops.

Of course, like everything, it's not a black and white issue..

People are going to take drugs regardless, so there is potential for harm minimisation just as there is potential to save lives with pharmaceutical drugs.

I believe the latter can definitely be prioritised over the former -- what use are recreational drugs if people aren't healthy enough to take them in the first place?

There's definitely a grey area, but at the same time I believe we can distinguish different ends of the spectrum.

And, as already stated, the third option (of many) is to legalise the drugs which legal highs are attempting to mimick, as there is bound to be more

clinical data (generally speaking). I'm sure most people would prefer to take LSD over Drug X which attempts to mimick LSD..

Edited September 15, 2012 by SYNeR

[whitewind]

It's pretty outrageous really, governments are so weird on the drugs issue I find it mind-boggling to see the loops they tie themselves into to legally look like they are into harm minimisation when they refuse to look at the core issues and studies behind it. I think also that government is getting increasingly beaurocratic to make themselves useful, especially noticeable once they sold everything off to the private corporations for short-term profit.

The system has tied itself in knots and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, starting with basic principles.

[Anodyne]

the key here is choice. if a stoner chooses to take a chemical knowing it's totally untested and may carry potential risks, then so be it. it's up to them to research every chemical they take and weigh up if it poses an unacceptable risk

 

What I was saying is that, for many of the new psychoactives, there is no data for them to research. Requiring that these drugs be tested before they are sold is a positive step, in my view. But I'm still not clear what particular drugs are being talked about here.

i'm not sure what you're referring to here whether you're talking therapeutic medication or what, but there's difference. i accept that therapeutic meds need to bed tested on animals, even though i'm uncomfortable with it. cosmetics etc. are totally unacceptable imo. so it's a matter of application, whether you you can potentially save lives of millions of people** or whether animals are suffering just so some stoner can kill a few hours.

Yes, I was talking about therapeutic medications. But not life-saving ones. What level of improvement in "quality of life" would be necessary to justify animal testing? The synthetic cannabinoids might be used for recreation, but they were originally developed for medicinal purposes, to minimise side-effects of chemo and symptoms of various diseases. Even if these tests are done with commercial "legal high" sales in mind, the results may have medical applications at some point.

They could just avoid the whole situation by banning all these shitty legal highs that seem to be doing a bit of damage,

and legalising the 'proper' drug which is being mimicked and most likely has been studied a lot more.

Yes, all the synthetic cannabinoids have been a bit crap, but getting them accepted is probably going to be an easier battle than getting pot legalised. And there are many many herbal medications where the synthetic version, or some extract, has been superior in terms of efficacy and safety.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Anodyne

[LikeAshesWeFade]

Aren't they only using rats/mice for the testing? If so.. then why all the fuss? Those things are bred by the millions, daily. I personally think NZ is taking the right step forward with testing the legal highs before selling them.

[waterboy 2.0]

The cynic in me makes me thinksuch testing will done in the vein of the infamous 1970's study of Dr Robert Heath which "proved" brain damage through weed usage. (through forcing 100% smoke depriving them of oxygen...)

The required answer will reverse engineer the experimental design no doubt.

I think there has been enough two legged guinea pigs for the synthetic cannabinoids amongst other compounds cooked up..... such research may be required in the future to establish how to treat them.

I see the potential for positive health outcomes however, and its a bold bit of research being proposed.

Edited September 15, 2012 by waterboy

[Distracted]

This should just be about animal testing in general, unless someone disagrees that legal 'recreational' drugs should have animal testing but agrees that legal 'medicinal' drugs should have animal testing.

animal testing is a very normal procedure for anything to be declared food safe, it would be news if they didn't do animal testing

[incognito]

This is where "work for the dole" may actually take off. Results would be more accurate yes?

Could I act as middle

Man? I could provide subjects for the nz govt for a fee. I know 5 or 6 that would do it for free.

Edited September 16, 2012 by incognito

[goneski]

Aren't they only using rats/mice for the testing? If so.. then why all the fuss? Those things are bred by the millions, daily. I personally think NZ is taking the right step forward with testing the legal highs before selling them.

 

Since when does quantity outweigh quality when it comes to life?

Rats are quite intelligent animals and probably have a greater capacity for suffering than other animals.

You could use the same twisted logic to justify the experiments of Nazi scientists / eugenicists.. Force people to breed and then do testing on them (often killing unborn and newly born babies in the process).

Round up millions of Jews (or whoever), get them to breed, and do all sorts of crazy experiments on them -- what's the fuss?

Of course, there's more to the argument than "it's okay to use <insert animal> for testing because they breed heaps anyway".

Edited September 17, 2012 by SYNeR

[Anodyne]

This should just be about animal testing in general, unless someone disagrees that legal 'recreational' drugs should have animal testing but agrees that legal 'medicinal' drugs should have animal testing.

 

There seem to be a few someones with that exact opinion. While I know the % of people generally opposed to animal testing is quite high (have seen numbers around 40-50%), I don't think its anywhere near 84%, so the difference must be due to the "recreational" aspect.

[dionysus]

how do you feel about this? would you consume a "legal high" knowing that animals have been tested on, and possibly harmed and/or killed in the process?

 

yes. i have taken ketamine, and a large number of other drugs (in hospitals and as medication) that produce psychoactive effects and have definately been tested on animals. no, this is not ideal, but apparently they do not want my help as an LSD test subject

[OPP]

When I lived over in London I was a test subject in two clinical trials.

One was for a drug relating to memory and Alzheimers. The other was to test a new drug that effected blood sugar levels for diabetes.

Of course it was all about the humanitarian aspects and nothing to do with being poor and needing the money......

All drugs need to go through testing before release on human population and seeing as we consider animals to be inferior, they will always be the first to suffer.

I don't like the idea of animals suffering and have seen some pretty horrible videos of scientific testing although alot of human lives have benefited as a result

[Anodyne]

The more I think about this the more bewildered I get. If polls are anything near accurate, then around half our adult population are opposed to animal testing. Do none of those people take medication? Or eat meat? Do they want to take untested antidepressants or blood pressure medications or whatever? Why is it ok to mistreat and kill animals for recreational vittles, but not for recreational drug use? I don't understand.

[Mycot]

All of this is BS and a furby ensuring that nothing interesting beyond beaurocratic talk will ever occur within our lifetime.

Any progress will only occur when they call off the witchhunt / war on some drugs.