Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
CLICKHEREx

NZ - Government to ban all unapproved legals highs within two weeks

Recommended Posts

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/720846-NZ-Government-to-ban-all-legals-highs-within-two-weeks

androoo
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
View Blog Entries
View Articles
Add as Contact
Send Email
Bluelighter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join Date
Feb 2001
Location
UK
Posts
2,015

Yesterday 17:15

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11245159

Government to ban all legals highs within two weeks
4:53 PM Sunday Apr 27, 2014

The Government will ban all synthetic drugs within two weeks until they can be proven to be low-risk, Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne has revealed.

The move comes as Labour plans to announce its own policy on psychoactive substances tomorrow, and follows increasing protest from local communities to legal highs.

Mr Dunne told the Herald this afternoon: "Last Tuesday, Cabinet agreed on a proposal from me to introduce legislation under urgency when Parliament resumes to remove the remaining 41 products from the shelves until such time as their low-level of risk can be proven."

What do you think of the Government's move? Contact the Herald with your experiences of legal highs here.

He said he would have made the announcement earlier but he did not want to encourage stock-piling of the drugs.

The emergency legislation will be introduced when Parliament resumed on May 6, and will be passed under urgency.

"I'm expecting it to be passed that particular week and to take effect pretty much immediately afterwards," Mr Dunne said.

This meant there would be no psychoactive substances for sale in New Zealand for "some considerable amount of time".

There are currently 150 outlets selling legal highs nationwide.

The Psychoactive Substances Act required synthetic drug manufacturers to prove their drugs were low-risk before they could be sold.

But a Ministry of Health testing regime and several other regulations were not yet in place.

In the interim, drugs which had temporary approval from an expert committee were permitted to be sold.

Forty-one products are on shelves at present, compared to around 300 before the bill was passed.

"I think that the reason we didn't include those 41 products initially was that they hadn't been identified as problematic," Mr Dunne said.

"The public concern of recent weeks has led me to revisit that question and I've been working on the legislation for some time now.

"In effect what this will mean is that there will be no products until such time as the new regime takes effect and they've been able to be tested."

The ministry's testing regime is expected to be similar to pharmaceutical drugs and could cost manufacturers more than $1 million per product to get drugs approved.

Labour leader David Cunliffe was expected to announce in Mangere tomorrow that Labour would pull all products from shelves if elected.

This policy would be made redundant by Mr Dunne's emergency bill.

Labour would also ban the use of animal testing to prove products were low-risk, which would make it even more difficult to get products approved.

- NZ Herald


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



#2
Si Ingwe
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
View Blog Entries
Visit Homepage
View Articles
Add as Contact
Send Email

Bluelighter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join Date
Mar 2002
Location
UK
Posts
2,389

Yesterday 20:19

I am not in favour of testing recreational drugs on animals.

But I am surprised that NZ would implement a new law on "Legal Highs" without having the testing facilities up & running. The sudden removal of products seems like a knee jerk reaction to the cannabinoid scare stories that have been appearing recently. I wouldn't be surrprised if a fair percentage of those 41 compounds were cannabinoids. Anyone got in info on what exactly these 41 compounds are?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



#3
oldirtybizza
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
View Blog Entries
View Articles
Add as Contact

Bluelighter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join Date
Dec 2011
Posts
372

Today 02:31

Without testing on animals the great majority of psychoactive substances will never get to market. The whole animal test angle seems to be less about animal rights than it is to hamstring even this pathetic attempt at drug reform in NZ.

I can't see any real change happening there anytime soon if anything it's becoming less liberal towards drug use.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



#4
iamthesuck
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
View Blog Entries
View Articles
Add as Contact

Bluelighter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join Date
Sep 2013
Posts
141

Today 05:30

A lot of these have been tested on animals. But this seems like the end of a good thing. Fuck.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



#5
edgarshade
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
View Blog Entries
View Articles
Add as Contact

Bluelighter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join Date
Aug 2010
Location
UK
Posts
2,332

Today 13:44

Every substance that humans come into contact with is probably tested on animals including non-essential cosmetics and the stuff you clean the loo with. If touching or drinking brake fluid is harmful to humans then this harmfulness needs to be quantified somehow. Animal testing is most likely the way to assess that. I'm not condoning animal testing but to single out one particular application of animal testing like this, especially when it seems like prohibitionist scaremongering, is short-sighted and hypocritical.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



#6
CLICKHEREx
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
View Blog Entries
View Articles

Bluelighter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Join Date
Sep 2012
Posts
78

Today 14:54

If it's alright to test vaccines and medications on animals, as well as cosmetics, (or to permit the importation of such cosmetics) then it should be alright to test them on animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd imagine that some of the more forward-looking consumers of these substances were already using the relatively straight-forward legal situation to stock up beforehand. This will just shift naive drug-users back to whatever is sold illegally. Admittedly most people will shift back to using pot, which is probably a good thing in many ways. Others won't find it easy to get high off normal weed anymore and choose "harder" drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most definitely will see stockpiling of anything and everything over the counter until then. :blink:

If these substances have be shown to be low-risk why the fuck doesn't alcohol? Oh wait, that's because it's soon to be in powder-form. Sorry I forgot about that little harm-minimisation gem. :huh::rolleyes:

Roll-on with fucking idiotic policy western governments of the world, it's been fantastic and successful thus far. :slap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will be making synthetics illegally, and selling from "tinny houses" (AKA drug houses) and online.

There will be no quality control, and more harm will result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The move comes as Labour plans to announce its own policy on psychoactive substances tomorrow, and follows increasing protest from local communities to legal highs.

 

Is that really true about increasing protest from communities?

I've never seen anyone give a shit about legal highs where I live, the community is being ripped apart by illegal drugs like ice so most people are more concerned about that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt it's true Sally. It's just a media ploy - where they basically create something from nothing. Most of the time there's a spin doctor behind it...same as the whole "debate" about global warming. There really is no debate about the basics of global warming amongst climate scientists, but the PR campaign orchestrated by the fossil fuel lobby has portrayed the oppsosite through underhanded media tactics and done so quite effectively. Switch out global warming for legal highs, and fossil fuel lobby for conservative tossers trying to get votes by appearing to be tough on drugs, and you get the same dynamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that really true about increasing protest from communities?

I've never seen anyone give a shit about legal highs where I live, the community is being ripped apart by illegal drugs like ice so most people are more concerned about that.

There have been small groups of protesters, including some parents of teens addicted to synthetic cannabis, and the religious right, but there has been a concerted media campaign against them, probably funded, or heavily influenced by th alcohol industry, via shareholding in media companies such as Fairfax (they buy more shares, to gain more influence and pressure editors).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×