Here‘s the page where the Ministry of Health tells us that synthetic cannabinoids pose no more than a low risk of harm to people using them.
Here‘s the page where the Ministry of Health goes into further detail.
(What did you understand we meant by “no more than a low risk of harm”? Let us tell you, because I think you misinterpreted us. We meant …)
difficulty breathing
feeling cut off from the world or what is happening
seeing, feeling or hearing things that are not real
high blood pressure
chest pain
racing heart rate
chest pain
shaking and twitching
eyeballs move up an and down rapidly
nonstop vomiting
fainting or loss of speech and eyesight
extreme anxiety and panic
paranoia
loss of contact with reality (psychosis)
seizures
extreme anxiety and panic
paranoia
on-going nausea and vomiting
confusion and memory problems
depression
suicidal thoughts
high blood pressure
racing heart
anger
aggression and violence
reduced self-care
less school attendance
less motivation
more apathy
less thought about the consequences of actions
less ability to focus and pay attention
Disorientation
Painlessness
Head rush when smoking cigarettes
Heightened sense of awareness
Mood changes (some reporting happier moods, some reporting an increase in anxiety)
Loss of co-ordination
Loss of balance
Nausea and vomiting
Inner unrest
Disorientation
Sensitivity to light
Nausea and vomiting
Sleeplessness
Anger outbursts
Heightened sense of awareness
Head rush when smoking cigarettes
Inner unrest
Pins and needles sensation
Low mood
Altered perceptions
Sense of hopelessness
Feeling “left with all the dumb sh**”
Feeling faint
Willing to take more risks
Dehydration
Sleeplessness
Anger outbursts
Altered perceptions
Disorientated
Low mood
Pins and needles sensation
Use of cannabis to self-medicate symptoms
Dehydration
Cold flashes
Now look here, Ministry of Stupid. I’m a libertarian and I don’t think you should be involved in regulating psychoactive substances at all. But I’m a realist too. I know it’s not like I have a choice. But didn’t I hear you say, “it’s for your own good”? If you really must get all paternalistic about it, couldn’t you at least get that bit right?
You know, you really dug yourselves into a hole when Peter Dunne was calling the spadework. Stupid is as stupid does. Stupid Dunne. But maintaining blatant contradictions on your website? That’s a special kind of stupid. Hasn’t anyone told you? When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
Notwithstanding what I said a couple of days ago, the moles from the Ministry of Stupid really have abdicated their tiny minds and evicted themselves from the realm of reality. Will they ever find their way back? They’ve lost their moral compass so maybe we should send out a search party.
Research chemicals are chemical substances used by scientists for medical and scientific research purposes. One characteristic of a research chemical is that it is for laboratory research use only. A research chemical is not intended for human or veterinary use.
I first encountered the term on Erowid—the original go-to website for recreational drug users and “a trusted resource for drug information—both positive and negative”—and here’s what Erowid has to say about research chemicals.
Chemicals marked on Erowid by our Research Chemical Symbol should be considered experimental chemicals. Although some people are willing to ingest these chemicals for their effects, it is not reasonable to assume that these chemicals are in any way ‘safe’ to use recreationally. Although all psychoactive use involves risk, this class of chemicals has undergone virtually no human or animal toxicity studies and there is little to no data on possible long term problems, addiction potential, allergic reactions, or acute overdoses.
Publication of information by Erowid about human use of these chemicals is not intended to endorse their non-laboratory use.
Consider carefully before choosing to use these substances.
When used to describe recreationally used psychoactive drugs, the term “research chemicals” generally refers to substances that haven’t yet been thoroughly studied. The term “research chemical” partially came from the fact that some substances on the recreational markets were drugs that had been discovered in labs and only examined in test-tube (in vitro) or low-level animal studies.
Some are very new, while others may have been around for years but haven’t had adequate enough medical investigation to quantify health risks, have not been consumed by many people over a long period, or had much data accumulated about their use. Little is known about them, and a good deal of what is known is based only on first-hand psychonautical reports. Scant to no research has been completed on the toxicology or human pharmacology of these drugs. Few, if any, formal human or animal studies have been done. Because of this, some have suggested that they would more appropriately be called “unresearched chemicals”. Another term for them is “experimental chemicals”, and this may better communicate the unknown risks associated with ingesting these drugs.
Unlike better-known drugs such as ecstasy (MDMA), which has been taken by millions of people over the last 30+ years, or marijuana which has been used by billions of people over millennia, in some cases the most novel of research chemicals may only have been used by several dozen people for a few months. The risks involved with research chemicals are greater than with many other drugs, since they’re unknowns. …
Are research chemicals safe to ingest?
No! While no drug use can categorically be characterized as “safe”, using research chemicals may be riskier than using older, better-studied drugs. This is not to say that the chemicals themselves are necessarily more dangerous… the risk lies in the fact that very little is known about them. There haven’t been enough people using them in high enough doses for long enough periods of time for us to have an idea what sort of damage the chemicals are capable of producing. When one takes a new and unstudied drug, one makes oneself a human guinea pig. The drug may be perfectly safe. It may even be beneficial. On the other hand, after three uses one might suddenly find one’s body frozen-up with symptoms resembling Parkinson’s disease. If you think this is an exaggeration, do some research on MPTP, a neurotoxic by-product that was produced during underground synthesis of the opioid MPPP, which contributed to the 1984 change in law that allowed the DEA to have “emergency scheduling” powers.
When taking a research chemical, one is stepping into the unknown, and could be the unfortunate person to discover a new drug’s lethal dose. One could find oneself addicted. Or, if one overdoses and ends up at the hospital, the doctors may only be able to guess at the appropriate course of treatment. Some drugs, like Cannabis, LSD, and psilocybin, have a wide safety range over which there is little to no possibility of pharmacologically induced death (perhaps 1,000 times or more the active dose), while other substances become dangerous at much lower amounts such as mescaline (perhaps 24 times the active dose), MDMA (perhaps 16 times the active dose) alcohol (perhaps 10 times the active dose), GHB (perhaps 8 times the active dose) or iv heroin (perhaps 6 times the active dose). Accidental overdoses happen to most people who consume psychoactives for long enough, and overdoses of research chemicals have unknown consequences. One who is not prepared to accept these risks should avoid taking research chemicals.
Believe it or not, a variety of research chemicals, with little to no history of human use, is what the New Zealand government has just approved for sale to the general public. (See here.) I listed some of them in my previous post. Here they are again.
What do we know about PB-22 (also known as QUPIC)?
No information regarding the in vitro or in vivo activity of QUPIC has been published, and only anecdotal reports are known of its pharmacology in humans or other animals.
The physiological and toxicological properties of this compound are not known.
It was originally developed by Pfizer in 2009 as an analgesic medication, but was never pursued for human use.
(BTW, it looks like Pfizer has a 2009 international patent on AB-FUBINACA and related indazole derivatives with cannabinoid (CB)1 receptor binding activity. Pfizer and the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority—working together for a healthier world.)
No information regarding the in vitro or in vivo activity of 5F-PB-22 has been published, and only anecdotal reports are known of its pharmacology in humans or other animals.
No information regarding the in vivo activity of AB-005 has been published, and only anecdotal reports are known of its psychoactivity in humans.
What do we know about 4F-AM-2201? We know its chemical structure. It’s a fluoro analogue of AM-2201.
The toxicity of AM-2201 is still a matter of debate and there may be long term side effects.
What do we know about CL-2201, LDD-3, or any of the chemicals in the SGT series? Nothing whatsoever. In fact, the SGT series might as well be named the SFA series.
Now, please don’t get me wrong.
I’m a psychoactive substances enthusiast and I’ve tested a few research chemicals myself in the past. But I did so fully cognizant of the risks. I exercised due caution. (Mostly.) And I’m unscathed. (Pretty much.)
I’m a libertarian and I think that ALL drugs should be legal. And that what drugs are made widely available to the general public should be decided by a responsible, self-regulating legal highs industry. But what responsible, self-regulating legal highs industry would even dream of peddling untested research chemicals to the general public?
Sadly, what we have now is the polar opposite of my envisaged libertopia. Everything government touches turns to crap. Untested research chemicals are the only psychoactive substances the legal highs industry is allowed to offer for sale. All the safe recreational drugs have been banned. So the legal highs industry is caught between a rock and a hard place. Thanks to the prohibitionist tendencies of the New Zealand government, which is demonstrably unfit to have any involvement whatsoever in regulating the sale and use of psychoactive substances.
The Psychoactive Substances Act is a sick joke. On you.
Welcome to Part 4 of the series. This one’s a little different. Different because this time you know what you’ve been smoking *before* you smoke it! And that’s how it should be.
The list below is sourced from the Interim Product Approvals page on the Ministry of Health website.
The status of (products that contain) the following 10 chemicals is ‘Licence issued’.
There’s no doubt that the Psychoactive Substances Act is a watershed. Whereas previous posts were lists of synthetic cannabinoids that the government had *banned*, this is a list of synthetic cannabinoids that the government has *approved*. It’s unprecendented! But is it a good?
You might think that as both a libertarian and a psychoactive substances aficionado I’d be all for this ground-breaking, world-leading legislation. But I’m not. I haven’t resiled from my previous assertion that, when all is said and done, the Psychoactive Substances Act is pure evil. Here’s why.
Succinctly (in the words of Ringo Starr), “everything government touches turns to crap.”
Let’s take a closer look at the list.
Chemically speaking, we know the structure (identity) of PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, 5F-PB-22, CP-55,244 and AB-005. But what about SGT-7, SGT-19, SGT-24, SGT-42, SGT-55, SGT-56 and LDD/3? No one but the manufacturer seems to know what they are. I doubt that even the Ministry of Health knows what they are. Mere names mean nothing. See that bird? There is a difference between the name of the thing and what goes on.
What about CL-2201? No idea. I’d hazard a guess that it’s a chlorine analogue of AM-2201. Who knows?
What about Fluoropentyl, fluoro-1-naphthoyl? Chemically speaking, this is pure gibberish.
Essentially, the government has approved for manufacture, sale and use a bunch of *unidentified* chemicals. But it gets worse.
The compound on the left is PB-22 which has interim approval. The compound on the right is BB-22 which was banned as from 9 May 2013 by Peter Dunne. They are structurally similar. They are analogues.
Supposedly, under the now repealed section 4C of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Peter Dunne was (with respect to BB-22) “satisfied that the substance, preparation, mixture, or article that is to be specified in the notice poses, or may pose, a risk of harm to individuals, or to society.” According to the Ministry of Health FAQ, PB-22 is “shown to pose no more than a low risk of harm to people using [it]” but BB-22 is “known to have adverse effects on people using [it].” How’s that supposed to work? I call bullshit.
But it gets even worse.
The compound on the left is AB-005 which has interim approval. The compound on the right is XLR-11 which was banned as from 13 July 2012 by Peter Dunne. They are structurally similar. They are analogues.
The problem here is that XLR-11 has been linked to acute kidney injury in some users. Now the Ministry of “Health” has seen fit to approve an analogue of a suspected kidney toxin for human use. But it’s legal so it must be safe, right? Yeah right.
The Psychoactive Substances Act has nothing to do with your freedom or your health. It has everything to do with big government and mammon worship.
The government has lost the War on Drugs. Now it’s taking an “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” approach. And we should be afraid. Very afraid.
Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is:
“Because the animals are like us.”
Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is:
“Because the animals are not like us.”
Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.
— Charles R. Magel
Party pills testing will mean dogs have to die. That was the headline when what is now the Psychoactive Substances Act made its first splash in the Parliamentary pan. Thanks to public protest and some hard work by the Greens and a few like-minded Labour MPs there are now tight restrictions on the use of animal testing in the legislation. I think the Act now states that where there are alternatives to animal tests, those alternatives must be used. But what if there are no alternatives?
The Act establishes a Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority within the Ministry of Health. But the Psychoactive Substances Regulations aren’t in place yet. We know that manufacturers will be required to provide “sufficient pre-clinical and clinical information to satisfy an independent expert advisory committee that the product poses no more than a low risk of harm.” But we don’t know what that information is yet. And the devil is in the details.
The bottom line is that there is still no clause in the Act that guarantees that suppliers of psychoactive substances will NOT be required to test those substances on animals. There’s been a lot of sound and fury in Parliament, signifying nothing. The Psychoactive Substances Act is still a turd. Let’s flush it.
Please join me in protest on Tuesday 30 July. That’s when Parliament’s back. In Wellington there is a march organised by HUHA. The strategy is to come out strong and show our Parliamentarians that we’re not happy the moment they return.
There is a famous anecdote about a conversation Winston Churchill once had with a woman at a party.
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds? Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill … Well, I suppose … we would have to discuss terms, of course … Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds? Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?! Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
The moral of the story is obvious. If you sleep with someone for money—any amount of money—then you are a prostitute. Even if that someone is Winston Churchill.
Even though it was Winston Churchill, it was rather a cruel trick he played. But not as cruel as testing recreational drugs on animals. And that brings me to the point of this post.
The government has played a cruel trick on those in the drug law reform movement who give the thumbs up to the Psychoactive Substances Bill.
Government minister: Activist, would you accept significant drug law reform if it meant some limited amount of animal testing? DLR activist: My goodness, Mr. Dunne … Well, I suppose … we would have to make submissions to the Select Committee, of course … Government minister: Would you accept significant drug law reform if it meant that thousands of the nation’s beloved family pets are made to suffer slow, agonising deaths? DLR activist: Mr. Dunne, what kind of drug law reform activist do you think I am?! Government minister: Activist, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the depth of your depravity.
Five pounds or five million pounds? If you accept animal testing—any amount of animal testing—as the price of drug law reform, then you are a sadist. Even if the drugs are really, really good.
Now, I’m not suggesting that any of my friends in the drug law reform movement are sadists. But I am suggesting that they’ve been cruelly tricked. And I am suggesting that they think carefully about how far down this particular slippery slope they’re prepared to slide. And I’m suggesting that after they’ve thought about it they claw their way back up to the moral high ground.
Today Graham McCready laid four changes against Peter Dunne in the Wellington District Court.
Peter Dunne was, until recently, the Minister of Revenue and Associate Minister of Health. He remains in Parliament as leader and sole MP of the ailing United Future Party.
Graham McCready is a retired accountant and Wellingtonian.
Mr McCready is currently taking a private prosecution against John Banks, alleging he knowingly filed a false electoral return over $50,000 in donations from internet tycoon Kim Dotcom in his failed 2010 Auckland mayoral campaign.
He also prosecuted Labour MP Trevor Mallard in 2007 over a stoush with National MP Tau Henare.
Mr Banks denies the charged while Mr Mallard pleaded guilty to fighting in public and was fined $500.
Mr McCready said he was prosecuting Mr Dunne “to take on these wayward people”.
All strength to McCready.
Three of the charges relate to the GCSB scandal, over which Dunne was forced to resign his ministerial positions. They allege breaches against the Crimes Act, but it’s the fourth charge of alleged fraud in particular that I hope succeeds.
Mr McCready told NZ Newswire Mr Dunne continued to receive parliamentary funding of $100,000 a year, despite knowing United Future didn’t have enough members to be registered as a political party by the Electoral Commission.
Specifically, McCready has accused Mr Dunne of fraud by receiving $3846.10 between 30 April and 1 June as a fortnightly instalment of his $100,000 payment as a leader of a registered political party. McCready issued a statement saying
Mr Dunne finds himself in the same position as a welfare beneficiary who has had a substantial change of circumstances, takes no steps to alert WINZ of the change and continues to receive the money when he has no ‘colour of right’ to receive it.
Nor did he take any steps to return the money or hold it in trust.
Is he immune from prosecution? If I don’t advise WINZ of a change in my circumstances they would come after me. Why shouldn’t they go after Dunne?
The analogy holds good, but Dunne’s offending is (at least) an order of magnitude worse for the simple fact that Dunne is (or, thankfully, was) a government minister not a WINZ beneficiary.
Dunne saw fit to “take liberties” with the Parliamentary rules. He granted himself some “leeway” in the uncertain hope that he could persuade enough people to sign up and restore his party’s membership to the minimum of 500 required to stay registered.
It’s a very fine line indeed between Dunne’s behaviour and corruption. So blurry, in fact, that I can’t see it. Corruption in government and officialdom is an insidious evil that must be stamped out.
In most of the African continent corruption is rife at all levels of government. I submit that such corruption is the #1 reason that Africa (e.g.) remains the impoverished shithole that it mostly is. Feel free to challenge me on this, but in my view Graham McCready is a hero and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for seeking to nip this bad behavior in the bud.
This is an update to the lists here and here of synthetic cannabinoids banned by Peter Dunne.
Banned as from 9 May 2013
BB-221-(cyclohexylmethyl)-8-quinolinyl ester-1H-indole-3-carboxylic acid 5F-AKB48 or APINACA 5-fluoropentyl analog or 5F-APINACA N-((3s,5s,7s)-adamantan-1-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
This is another blow to the industry and one of many we have delivered – but I fully acknowledge it is more of the cat-and-mouse game until we can deliver the killer punch in August when the Psychoactive Substances Bill will become law
said Peter Dunne when he banned BB-22 and 5F-AKB48 last month.
But take a look at the trend here. There were 20 synthetic cannabinoids banned in 2011, 11 banned in 2012 and, so far this year, just 2.
I think the cat is getting tired.
And the industry is in very good health, despite having had to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous prohibitions. Tonight on Cuba Street, Wellington, I counted 9 synthetic cannabinoid products, in 2 different stores, probably containing 3 or 4 different synthetic cannabinoids. (And that’s not even to mention the flourishing herbal cannabis industry.)
I think the mouse won this cat-and-mouse game a long time ago.
I spotted this bumper sticker on the way to work today. (The driver and the vehicle were also looking a bit the worse for yesteryear, which is why I noticed them.)
Mature readers from Wellington might like to try to remember the year that Wellington’s morning paper The Dominion and Wellington’s evening paper The Evening Post merged to become today’s metropolitan daily The Dominion Post.
I drafted this letter to Peter Dunne while sitting on the train this afternoon.
Dear Peter,
Re: Psychoactive Substances bill
I understand that your main motivation for promoting this legislation is safety.
I am concerned that the safety testing process for potentially approved psychoactive substances will be unnecessarily long-winded, prohibitively expensive, cruel (if tested on animals) and either too stringent or too lax to be effective. It will not be practically possible to establish likely adverse long-term effects of new psychoactive substances.
Drug users did not ask for this legislation.
Why not legalise substances such as cannabis, methylphenidate, BZP and MDMA?
All these substances have been trialled on humans and have good safety profiles.
Methylphenidate is routinely prescribed to children. Why not legalise it for adult recreational use?
Cannabis has been used safely for millennia. No one has ever died from a cannabis overdose.
If cannabis were already legal, demand for synthetic cannabinoids would be negligible and the proposed legislation would be unnecessary.
