Category Archives: Psychoactive Substances Act

Jihad on Drugs™, Peter Dunne, Pink Floyd, Prohibition, Propaganda, Psychoactive Substances Act, Regulation, What Have You Been Smoking?

Ministry of Dissimulation

2 Comments

Dissimulation is the truth and nothing but the truth. But it’s not the whole truth.

Dissimulation is a form of deception in which one conceals the truth. It consists of concealing the truth, or in the case of half-truths, concealing parts of the truth, like inconvenient or secret information. Dissimulation differs from simulation, in which one exhibits false information.

Now there’s nothing wrong with forgetting to mention key facts. But there’s something very wrong with intentionally omitting to mention them for one’s own nefarious purposes. That’s dishonesty.

5224114

Remember Juicy Puff?

It is, or was, a Cosmic Corner brand of fake cannabis. It has an interesting history. Back in July 2011 it was suddenly ordered off the shelves by the government and removed from sale .

A company ordered by the Ministry of health today to remove a legal alternative to cannabis says it had no idea it contained a prescription drug.

Director-general of health Kevin Woods ordered Cosmic Corner Limited today not to sell Juicy Puff Super Strength because it contained a benzodiazepine called phenazepam.

The same medicine was found in Kronic Pineapple Express ordered off the shelves by the government on Thursday.

Dr Woods said phenazepam could only be legally supplied when prescribed by a doctor or other prescriber.

It was not available in New Zealand and used only in one country for the short-term treatment of anxiety and as an anticonvulsant.

Phenazepam is an obscure benzodiazapine. So obscure, in fact, that many countries have not gotten around to making it illegal. So it is readily available online from legal high suppliers. The same suppliers who supply the synthetic cannabinoid(s) that are the active ingredients in fake cannabis products such as Juicy Puff!

However, the company said it was only a retailer of the product and did not manufacture or import the product.

Company spokesman, Mark Carswell said Juicy Puff Super Strength was one synthetic cannabinoid blend out of the fifteen sold by Cosmic to have been contaminated by a small amount, 240 parts per million, of the prescription medicine phenazepam.

The product had been purchased in good faith from an Auckland firm, London Underground, he said.

“Juicy Puff Super Strength is not intended to contain phenazepam, and Cosmic was not aware that it contained phenazepam.”

Cosmic would cooperate with the Ministry of Health to ensure a safe and efficient recall, Mr Carswell said.

People should return all unused Juicy Puff Super Strength product to any Cosmic store and they would be given a store credit.

Industry leaders would meet on Monday to consider a code of practice incorporating a testing standards to ensure materials were screened for contaminants.

It was a clear case of contamination. (Warning: May contain traces of nuts phenazepam.)

Of course, Juicy Puff was soon back on the shelves. Minus the phenazepam. Also, I expect its active ingredient(s) changed from time to time over the next couple of years, each time Peter Dunne banned its active ingredient(s) at the time with a Temporary Class Drug Notice.

duncan-garner-smokes-juicy-puff2

duncan_garner_live

duncan-garner-bloodpressure

Does Duncan Garner remember Juicy Puff?!

If the existence of idiots who ignore simple instructions, well-intentioned advice and plain old common sense is a sufficient reason to ban a psychoactive product, then Garner made a convincing case! Perhaps that was his intent. Duncan Garner is a prohibitionist. Whereas spokesman for the legal highs industry, Grant Hall, also smoked the product on camera at Radio Live. Recreationally. No worries.

That was back in May this year. By that time, and since, the active ingredient in Juicy Puff was, and has been, AB-FUBINACA.

frank01

Do I remember Juicy Puff?

I certainly do. It was one of my favourite fake cannabis brands. AB-FUBINACA is one of the best synthetic cannabinoids out there. It’s very trippy. You only need ONE toke of the stuff and you’re stoned as! (Someone should have told Duncan Garner.) In my experience, another couple of tokes will get you a bit more stoned, but after that don’t bother. The effects of the drug seem to have a ceiling. Also, tolerance builds very rapidly. And it leaves a truly disgusting chemical taste in your mouth. For flavour, the naturally occurring terpenes in cannabis can’t be beat. In fact, smoking herbal cannabis is a better, safer experience in all respects.

Cannabis can get you through times of no money better than money can get you through times of no cannabis. But in times of no cannabis, I’ve sometimes gone into Cosmic Corner and scored myself some Juicy Puff. But last time I went to buy some Juicy Puff at Cosmic Corner it wasn’t there. I asked Cosmic Corner where it had gone, but they were unforthcoming with any information other than confirming that it had gone.

todd-mcclay-1200

Does the Ministry of Health remember Juicy Puff?

I figured that if it had been banned, the Ministry of Health would have notified us of the fact on their Interim product approvals web page.

In the past, when products given interim approval have subsequently had their interim approvals revoked, they’ve been *cut* from the page section headed Interim product approvals and *pasted* into the page section below headed Interim product approvals refused and revoked. Minus the information about the identity of the now banned active ingredient and its quantity. Why would the MoH delete that information?

But this time, it’s worse. Juicy Puff has altogether *disappeared* from the MoH web page. It’s not just that the Ministry has acted to conceal the identity of the active ingredient in Juicy Puff and its quantity. They’ve acted to conceal the fact that Juicy Puff ever existed!

Do you think I’m being paranoid? Well, recently I’ve been worrying a lot that I’m being paranoid. I figure that means that either I’m paranoid or I have an anxiety disorder. Either way, I’m not a well man. But I digress.

It came to my attention recently that Juicy Puff has, in fact, been banned or discontinued. Well, it has according to the Dominion Post, and here’s why.

Juicy Puff: Unconsciousness, seizures.

I think I know why Juicy Puff is gone from the official records. Back when it was still on the official records, and available to buy from Cosmic Corner, this is what the MoH told us about Juicy Puff.

Product name Psychoactive substance(s) Quantity Company name Physical address  Status Interim product approval number
Juicy Puff AB-FUBINACA 30mg per gm Cosmic Corner Limited 26-28 Essex Street, Christchurch 8006 Under consideration P0035

 
This is what the MoH tells us now about nine other products still on the market.

Product name Psychoactive substance(s) Quantity Company name Physical address  Status Interim product approval number
Apocalypse AB-Fubinaca 100mg/g Eversons International Ltd 5 Fitzroy Place, Christchurch Licence issued P0005
Outbreak AB-Fubinaca 100mg/g Eversons International Ltd 5 Fitzroy Place, Christchurch Licence issued P0006
illusion Peak AB-FUBINACA 40mg per gm Platinum Marketing Limited c/o Shieff Angland, P O Box 2180, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140 Licence issued P0026
Amsterdam Havana Special AB-FUBINACA 35mg per gm Platinum Marketing Limited c/o Shieff Angland, P O Box 2180, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140 Licence issued P0028
Blueberry Crush AB-FUBINACA 35mg per gm Platinum Marketing Limited c/o Shieff Angland, P O Box 2180, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140 Licence issued P0031
Tai High Bubble Berry AB-FUBINACA 45mg per gm Herbal Exports Limited P O Box 305062, Triton Plaza, Auckland 0757 Licence issued P0044
Master Kush AB-FUBINACA 45mg per gm Herbal Exports Limited P O Box 305062, Triton Plaza, Auckland 0757 Licence issued P0046
Lemon Grass AB-FUBINACA 40mg per gm Orbital Distribution Ltd 8 Cranwell St, Henderson, Auckland Licence issued P0051
Choco Haze AB-FUBINACA 40mg per gm Orbital Distribution Ltd 8 Cranwell St, Henderson, Auckland Licence issued P0052

 
Yes, that’s right. ALL contain the active ingredient AB-FUBINACA. All contain the active ingredient in amounts per gram GREATER than the amount per gram contained in Juicy Puff.

I put it to you that the Ministry of Dissimulation doesn’t want us to know that NINE products whose approval they haven’t revoked contain the very same ingredient—that purportedly causes UNCONSCIOUSNESS and SEIZURES—in amounts per gram greater than the one product whose approval has gone.

“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.” (NIV)

See also Ministry of Stupid.

Affordable City, Jihad on Drugs™, Peter Dunne, Prohibition, Psychoactive Substances Act

Banning legal highs ‘not core council business’

3 Comments

community_targets_store_selling_legal_highs

This is a recent press release from New Zealand’s #1 libertarian.

Banning legal highs ‘not core council business’

“There have been intermittent calls for further government crackdowns on the legal high industry by those involved in local body politics, most recently from the Team Manurewa organisation, who believe New Zealand should emulate steps taken in New South Wales to ban all psychoactive substances. In the interests of harm minimisation, individual freedom and small local government, these calls should be ignored by Auckland Council,” says Stephen Berry.

Berry is right. Crackdowns on the legal high industry are outside the mandate of local government. They’re outside the mandate of national government, too.

“This year the National Government passed pragmatic legislation aimed at maintaining some standards of safety in psychoactive substances. While I have long been on public record as opposing the unrealistic and hypocritical threshold involved in proving a substance to be safe, and continue to maintain that position, I concede that the law did at least set up a framework for these substances to continue to be sold without resorting to the ineffective club of total prohibition.”

It’s a bold concession. This is the same law I have elsewhere described as pure evil. But Berry is right, again. One good thing the Psychoactive Substances Act has done is set up a regulatory framework for the sale and purchase of psychoactive substances.

Actually, it hasn’t. The Act delegates the task of setting up a regulatory framework for the sale and purchase of psychoactive substances to the Ministry of Health, a task that has yet to see completion. While we wait, we have interim product approvals of untested research chemicals. Hopefully, this situation doesn’t contribute to the larger “die while you wait” public health system. (In the event of sudden death, call the National Poisons Centre.)

Actually, it’s not a good thing, either. It’s the lesser evil. A regulatory framework is the best we libertarians can expect. But does it have to be this one, implemented by the Ministry of Stupid? (I’d sooner have one from Colorado, Washington, or even Uruguay. $1 per gram!)

Stephen Berry recognises that some nasty substances have resulted from the legal high industry but claims this is the result of prohibition rather than the legal high industry itself. “New Zealand previously had some relatively safe recreational legal substances in the form of benzyl piperazine and the ingredients in the very earliest forms of cannabis substitutes. Unfortunately a combination of a small number of cases of irresponsible use, coupled with nosey neighbourhood crusaders and a scandal driven media eventually resulted in their ban. As time has gone on, activist pressure has resulted in more products being banned and what has replaced them has often been filthier, nastier and more harmful. Many of the synthetic cannabis products on the market prior to the new laws were harmful because of prohibition rather than because of a lack of it. Indeed there is a strong case for the claim that if relatively benign genuine cannabis were legal, the market for synthetic alternatives would disappear.”

Berry is right that some nasty substances (causing all of the harms listed on the protest placard pictured above) have resulted from the legal high industry and right, again, that this is the result of prohibition rather than the legal high industry itself. As he goes on to illustrate.

I’ve said before that the legal highs industry is caught between a rock and a hard place. Indeed, it is. Thanks to the past prohibitionist policies of the New Zealand government, the only substances the legal highs industry can offer consumers are novel, untested research chemicals about which we as yet know next to nothing. Bring back BZP! And legalise cannabis.

Should the legal highs industry offer consumers novel, untested research chemicals about which we as yet know next to nothing? Because, legally, now they can. ‘Because it was there’ was the reason George Mallory gave for climbing Mount Everest. He disappeared in 1924 attempting to reach the summit. Is ‘because we can’ a good enough reason for the legal highs industry to peddle potentially dangerous drugs? K2 takes you higher.

“The crusaders for bans on new liquor stores, gambling venues and legal high retailers are usually driven by a wowserish desire to ensure the lives of everyone else are as miserable as their own. They’re convinced that their idea of how one should live their day to day life is so superior that everyone else should be forced to adopt it.” Manurewa Action Local Board member Simeon Brown is a prime example of moral crusaders who value personal prejudice over logic. “Mr. Brown advocates the Manurewa Local Board ban sales of legal highs in their board area even if they are proven completely safe. That position is ridiculously totalitarian.”

It’s not pleasant accepting the fact that there are shades of totalitarianism. Nonetheless, evidence-based policy premised on harm minimisation is a much lesser evil than the ridiculously totalitarian position of the likes of killjoy Brown. We’ve had more than enough of the latter and not nearly enough of the former. In fact, none. We’ve yet to see the implementation of any significant evidence-based policy premised on harm minimisation in New Zealand.

Mr. Berry believes the concepts of individual choice and personal responsibility are far better than any prohibitionist approach to the various vices hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders choose to enjoy. “Our country does not have issues with alcohol because of its availability. Issues with alcohol are the result of a culture that promotes excess and individuals that do not take responsibility for their own behaviour. No amount of new laws and regulations will make a dent in this. It is for individuals to willingly change their own behaviour, not politicians to implement more and more bans. One only needs look at the result of US alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and the result of widespread drug prohibition today to see that more laws will not only be ineffective but actually exacerbate the problems associated with enjoying vice.”

Change comes from within.

“Preventing new liquor stores does not prevent the supply of alcohol, nor dent the profitability of its sale. What it does do is entrench the existing operators and maintain their profits. Were the market allowed to decide how many alcohol retailers are appropriate, the sales of the product would be spread amongst a greater number of players in a more crowded market resulting in liquor retailing actually being less profitable than it is under the current regime.”

Berry identifies some of the less immediate outcomes observable by viewing council crackdowns on the liquor industry through the lens of the Law of Unintended Consequences. These less immediate outcomes—crony capitalism and a lucrative liquor industry—are among the costs overlooked by the authors of overzealous drug policy

“The Government has put in place regulations to deal with alcohol and legal highs at a national level and those regulations are more than enough. Local government should not be getting more involved. Councils and local bodies already tax, spend and borrow far too much. The last thing they should be doing is getting involved in the personal lives of individuals as well.”

More than enough is too much.

Stephen Berry was the Affordable Auckland candidate for Auckland Mayor in the 2013 local body elections. He finished in third place receiving 13,560 votes. Affordable Auckland’s five core policies did not include how legal high regulation should be approached and the party membership includes a range of views.

Alcohol, Jihad on Drugs™, Libertarianz, Prophecy, Psychoactive Substances Act, Regulation

A plea for BLTC

7 Comments

bltc-logo

My speech to the Libertarianz Party Tenth Birthday Conference in July 2006.

arguably, the greatest harm caused by the War on Drugs has been to stifle research into new and better and safer recreational drugs.

Here‘s a summary as live blogged by Peter Cresswell.

Here are my speech notes. Neolithic Technology …

Fellow libertarians …

Let’s go back in time. Lindsay took us back 10 years. Let’s go back 10,000 years to the beginning of the Neolithic era, also known as the late Stone Age. The Neolithic is when humans quit the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and took up farming.

Technologically, we have come a long way since the start of the late Stone Age, 10,000 years ago.

In terms of materials and manufacturing technology, there was a good reason it was called the Stone Age, although some scholars have suggested renaming the era the Wood Age. Pretty much everything was made out of wood, or stone, or crude pottery. The potters wheel and kiln had yet to be invented. Today we have a huge choice of materials to work with from metals, thru plastics to carbon nanotubes. Technologically, we have come a long way since the Stone Age.

What about weapons technology? Stone Age fighters had maces and axes and other varieties of rocks for bashing people attached to wooden handles. They had the bow and arrow, and the sling. Today, we have handguns, tasers, cruise missiles and anthrax. Technologically, we have come a long way since the Stone Age.

Transport technology. In the Stone Age, it was Shank’s pony all the way. There were no roads in the Stone Age. The oldest so-called road dates from 3806 or 3807 BC. It was in fact a walkway over a peat bog in Somerset, England. Although Neolithic people had domesticated the horse, they hadn’t learn to ride it. They hadn’t invented the wheel. (But they had rollers.) Today we have motor cars, mag-lev trains, space rockets and the Segway. Technologically, we have come a long way since the Stone Age.

Communication technology. Strictly word of mouth. No alphabet, no writing, no printing presses, no telecommunications. No smoke signals, no carrier pigeons. Today we have the World Wide Web.

We have, indeed, come a long way since the dawn of the Neolithic. But there’s one area in which we hardly seem to have progressed at all. That’s in the technology of recreational mood alteration.

At the start of the late Stone Age, a newly discovered drug was rapidly gaining popularity, viz. alcohol. We know this because archeologists have unearthed late Stone Age beer jugs.

Alcohol, like all Stone Age technology, is most charitably characterised as “crude but effective”.

But, I put it to you that alcohol is more crude than effective.

Alcohol produces disinhibition and facilitates social interactions. It eases pain and anxiety and aids relaxation. It is indispensible for the Libertarianz leadership selection process. Best of all, it causes euphoria.

But it has a huge range of unwanted side effects.

A blood alcohol concentration of 0.1 grams of alcohol per deciliter causes slurred speech, and impaired ability to perform complex tasks, such as driving.

Higher doses, such as 0.3 BAC (blood alcohol concentration) cause confusion and impaired ability to perform simple tasks such as walking.

0.4 BAC causes stupor, 0.5 BAC causes coma, and 0.6 BAC causes respiratory failure and death.

Ever wondered why you feel so shitty the day after a good night of hard drinking? Why you feel like you’ve been poisoned? It’s because you have been poisoned. Not by alcohol, but by acetaldehyde which is what alcohol dehydrogenase converts alcohol to in the liver. The dangerous acetaldehyde is quickly converted to harmless acetate by another enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase.

Unfortunately, if we overdose on alcohol, we can overload the body’s enzyme systems, flooding the bloodstream with toxic acetaldehyde and highly dangerous oxidative breakdown products called free radicals… resulting in an increased risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, premature skin wrinkling, cataracts, liver damage, brain damage…

20 years ago, I read this book, Life Extension, by Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, in which they describe how to minimise the harmful effects of using alcohol by taking various nutrients and antioxidants.

A passage which jumped out of the page and stuck in my mind ever since is this one,

“An ideal solution to the alcohol problem would be to develop new recreational drugs which provide the desired alcohol high without the damaging side effects. There is, in fact, such a drug. It was invented by Alexander Shulgin, synthesized, and tested in humans (test subjects couldn’t distinguish between the drug and a few martinis).”

Shulgin is famous for having synthesised, and tested (on himself) literally hundreds of novel psychoactive drugs, principally drugs in the tryptamine and phenethylamine families of chemicals. His most famous work is called PIHKAL or Phenethylamines I Have Known And Loved.

Shulgin, of course, self-tested his proposed alcohol substitute.

he described a “mild, pleasant intoxication.” It produced “free-flowing feelings” that he likened to “the second martini.” Believing he had indeed found a synthetic alternative to alcohol, Shulgin brought it to parties, holding up a little baggie of white powder he called “a low-calorie martini.” Testing among his research group, however, revealed the full range of warmth and euphoria of the [new] high… it evoked in most people feelings of empathy and self-acceptance …

[Shulgin’s test subjects] lovingly nicknamed the new compound “empathy” and thought of it as “penicillin for the soul.”

What is this drug, and what happened to it? I’m sure you can guess what happened to it. In New Zealand, it was made Class B in 1986.

My speech notes were a bit sketchy in places … that was methylenedioxymethamphetamine.

In the last few years it has been gaining popularity as a “recreational” drug offering a pleasant, alcohol-like, hangover-free “high” with potent prosexual effects (5). Most users find that GHB induces a pleasant state of relaxation and tranquility. GHB induces “remarkable hypotonia” (muscle relaxation) (1). Frequent effects are placidity, sensuality, mild euphoria, and a tendency to verbalize. Anxieties and inhibitions tend to dissolve into a feeling of emotional warmth, well-being, and pleasant drowsiness. The “morning after” effects of GHB lack the unpleasant or debilitating characteristics associated with alcohol and other relaxation-oriented drugs (3).

Over the years, numerous researchers have extensively studied GHB’s effects. It is has come to be used in Europe as a general anesthetic, a treatment for insomnia and narcolepsy (a daytime sleeping disorder), an aid to childbirth (increasing strength of contractions, decreasing pain, and increasing dilation of the cervix), and a treatment for alcoholism and alcohol withdrawal syndrome (5).

GHB has been called “almost an ideal sleep inducing substance” (3). Small doses produce relaxation, tranquility and drowsiness, which make it extremely easy to fall asleep naturally. Higher doses increase the drowsiness effect and decrease the time it takes to fall asleep. A sufficiently large dose of GHB will induce sudden sleep within five to ten minutes (3). The most remarkable facet of GHB-induced sleep is its physiological resemblance to normal sleep…

That was gamma-hydroxybutyrate. I talked it up. Some people like it. I don’t and I don’t recommend it. A somewhat larger than sufficiently large dose of GHB will induce coma within five to ten minutes …

New Zealand has had a National Drug Policy since 1998. The policy sets out the government’s policy and legislative intentions for tobacco, alcohol, illicit and other drugs.

Recently I attended a consultation meeting organised by the MOH, where I put forward a libertarian viewpoint, and put in a written submission for the second National Drug Policy, which is the Government’s 5-year-plan for 2006 to 2011.

New Zealand’s National Drug Policy has an overarching goal:

To prevent and reduce the health, social and economic harms that are linked to tobacco, alcohol, illicit and other drug use.

My view is that, if we want to influence drug policies, we must engage with this fundamental goal, and we can do so in a limited way.

The overarching goal of the Policy, to prevent and reduce the harms that are linked to drug use, is a noble one. However, we must distinguish between three main kinds of drug-related harms

  1. Harms which individuals inflict upon themselves, or inflict upon others with their consent
  2. Harms which individuals inflict upon others without their consent
  3. Harms which governments inflict upon their citizens

Libertarianz says that the government should not seek to save people from themselves, and most certainly should not harm its own citizens. The government should seek to bring to justice those who commit thefts, assaults, rapes and murders, whether such criminal acts are drug-fuelled or not.

It’s by focussing on this third category that I believe we can, as libertarians, make a contribution to National Drug Policy while maintaining our philosophical integrity.

Moreover, the harms inflicted upon citizens by their own governments, in the name of the War on Drugs™, are widespread and severe. These harms are of the same order of magnitude as the drug-related harms which individuals inflict on themselves, and, unlike the harms which individuals inflict on themselves, they are preventable.

You are all probably familiar with the other main harms that the government inflicts on us, in the name of the War on Drugs™.

For example, a criminal conviction is an indisputable harm in itself. Thousands of these are handed down each year merely for smoking a psychoactive herb. Far worse is a sentence of life imprisonment, routinely handed down to some of our most daring entrepreneurs, for nothing more than supplying consumer demand for psychoactive chemicals.

This document identifies “four broad strategy areas for action” as means to achieve “harm minimisation”.

The government’s attempts at supply control and demand reduction do not decrease demand, and do not control supply, but they do alter the availability of specific drugs. With the result that relatively safe drugs are difficult to come by, and relatively harmful drugs (alcohol, tobacco, methamphetamine) are easy to come by.

One of the greatest harms of the War on Drugs™ is the way it’s stopped research into Better Living Through Chemistry. All of Alexander Shulgin’s new psychoactive drugs are illegal in New Zealand and most other countries, proscribed by the Analogues Amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Why would you spend your research dollars developing designer drugs which will be criminalised as soon as they go to market?

This stymieing and stifling and stultification of research into new and better recreational drugs, research which would bring us forward from the Stone Age to the 21st century, is one of the greatest but most overlooked harms of the War on Drugs™.

Fast forward to today and we have the Psychoactive Substances Act.

Do we have new and better recreational drugs?

Or is the government inflicting new harms on its citizens?

Jihad on Drugs™, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act, What Have You Been Smoking?

Government to fund construction of large wooden badger

8 Comments

345162b

Remember how Peter Dunne sold us the Psychoactive Substances Act?

Here‘s what he told the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs when he took the world stage in Vienna, Austria six months ago.

While we have placed more than 30 synthetic cannabis-like substances under temporary bans, but we are aware that there are potentially hundreds more that could replace them.

Last month, the New Zealand Government introduced new legislation into our Parliament that will end the game of catch-up once and for all.

We are going to reverse the onus of proof so the manufacturers of these products have to prove they are safe before they can bring them on to the market.

He said the same thing last year. It’s what he’s said all along, time and again. In his capacity as a Cabinet minister. On behalf of the New Zealand government.

As promised, we are reversing the onus of proof. If they cannot prove that a product is safe, then it is not going anywhere near the marketplace

Like some codswallop with your porkies? Lies. That’s how we got sold the PSA. But what we got was not as advertised. Quite the reverse.

1. Pass safety tests.
2. Approve for sale.

That was Plan A.

This is Plan B.

1. Approve for sale.
2. Build a large wooden badger.

Here‘s what Dunne said back in May, in his final bout of banning.

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.

Deliver the killer punch?! He makes the Psychoactive Substances Act sound like the Jonestown Massacre! Could be something in the analogy.

Jihad on Drugs™, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act, Regulation, What Have You Been Smoking?

Ministry of Stupid

2 Comments

2103-youre-a-special-kind-of-stupid-arent-you

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

problems sleeping
nightmares
heavy sweating
nausea
low appetite
headaches
moodiness
irritability
restlessness
craving drugs

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.

Right now I’m

Feeling “left with all the dumb sh**”

I think I need a smoke.

Keeping It Real, Marketing is Everything, Psychoactive Substances Act

Party pills now on sale at supermarkets

2 Comments

pepe

Party pills are now on sale at supermarkets. You know, the ones that

assist you in remaining ALERT and WIDE AWAKE!

and that

relieve mental fatigue, drowsiness and general inertia, keeping you BRIGHT and ALERT!

NO-DOZ® AWAKENERS. $7.45 for a box of 24 tablets. Way better value than Cosmic Corner’s Pepe party pills which go for a cool $25 per 4-pack.

Focus, energy and a clear head. These guys are great for sports, study, shift work, or partying and are OK with alcohol.

I got my NO-DOZ® AWAKENERS at the local New World. But you can shop smarter and get them online at Countdown for only $6.79.

SHARPEN UP WITH NO-DOZ!

exhorts Countdown.

EACH TABLET HAS THE SAME AMOUNT OF CAFFEINE AS A CUP OF COFFEE, GIVING YOU THAT EXTRA KICK NEEDED TO KEEP YOU GOING

no-doz

The active ingredient in both products is caffeine. NO-DOZ® AWAKENERS contain 100 mg caffeine per tablet. (And glucose.) Pepe contains caffeine in an unstated amount. (And black pepper extracts, vitamin B6 and a proprietry blend of amino acids.)

So what does this have to do with the Psychoactive Substances Act?

Section 9 of the Act gives the meaning of psychoactive substance.

9 Meaning of psychoactive substance
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, psychoactive substance means a substance, mixture, preparation, article, device, or thing that is capable of inducing a psychoactive effect (by any means) in an individual who uses the psychoactive substance.

On the face of it, that includes both NO-DOZ® AWAKENERS and Pepe and their active ingredient caffeine.

Section 5 of the Act gives its application.

5 Application of Act
(1) This Act applies to the importation, manufacture, sale, supply, or possession of a psychoactive substance or approved product for the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive effect in an individual who uses the substance or product.

On the face of it, the Act applies to both products and their active ingredient caffeine.

But Section (9)(3) of the Act tells us that the Act does not apply to any dietary supplement or to any food.

Cosmic Corner hopes that the Act does not apply.

our understanding is that it will not affect products which are classed as herbs or dietary supplements. For example, caffeine has a psychoactive effect, but it is classed as a food product/dietary supplement. This means the COSMIC range of party pills should continue to be available because their ingredients are classed as dietary supplements and herbs.

So does the Act apply? I don’t know. But I do know that Cosmic Corner has submitted an application for an interim product approval and presumably paid the $10,000 application fee. If their application is either approved or declined (rather than returned and the fee refunded) then I expect the Ministry of Health to come down on New World, Countdown and any other supermarket chain selling the unapproved product NO-DOZ with the full force of the law, i.e., a $500,000 fine per supermarket. (Troughers gotta fill the coffers.)

Silly supermarkets. You don’t go selling caffeine “for the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive effect.” You’ve got to be way more subtle than that. Here’s how it’s done.

Intellectual Property, Intelligent Design, Jihad on Drugs™, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act, Regulation

Research chemicals

27 Comments

research_chemical

What are research chemicals? Wikipedia says

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.

and from their Research Chemical FAQ

What are research chemicals?

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.

PB-22
AB-FUBINACA
5F-PB-22
CP-55,244
an analogue of ADB-FUBINACA
AB-005
4F-AM-2201
CL-2201
LDD-3
SGT-7
SGT-19
SGT-24
SGT-42
SGT-55
SGT-56

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.

What do we know about AB-FUBINACA?

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.)

What do we know about 5F-PB-22?

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.

What do we know about CP-55,244?

It has analgesic effects and is used in scientific research.

What do we know about ADB-FUBINACA (or its analogue (S)-N-(1-amino-3, 3dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl-1H-indole-3-carboxamide)?

Nothing is known of the pharmacological activity of ADB-FUBINACA in humans or other animals.

What do we know about AB-005?

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.

Jihad on Drugs™, Peter Dunne, Psychoactive Substances Act, What Have You Been Smoking?

What have you been smoking?

6 Comments

Everything government touches turns to crap

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’.

PB-22 1-pentyl-1H-indole-3-carboxylic acid 8-quinolinyl ester
AB-FUBINACA N-[(1S)-1-(aminocarbonyl)-2-methylpropyl]-1-[(4-fluorophenyl)methyl]-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
5F-PB-22 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylic acid 8-quinolinyl ester
CP-55,244 (2S,4S,4aS,6R,8aR)-6-(hydroxymethyl)-4-[2-hydroxy-4-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)phenyl]-1,2,3,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-decahydronaphthalen-2-ol
* (S)-N-(1-amino-3, 3dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl-1H-indole-3-caboxamide
AB-005 [1-[(1-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl]-1H-indol-3-yl](2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)-methanone
SGT-24
SGT-42
CL-2201
Fluoropentyl, fluoro-1-naphthoyl

The status of (products that contain) the following 6 chemicals is ‘Under consideration’.

LDD/3
1-(5-fluoropenty)-3-(4-fluoro-1-naphthoyl)indole
SGT-7
SGT-19
SGT-55
SGT-56

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.

PB-22 BB-22

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.

AB-005 XLR-11_structure

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.

Jihad on Drugs™, Psychoactive Substances Act

What’s in a man’s mind?

5 Comments

Am I a closet authoritarian? I don’t think so. But what if I suffer from Capill syndrome? Well, I don’t. No way! Give me Liberty, or give me Death!!

But isn’t there a little bit of authoritarian in every libertarian? It used to be that libertarians had a fetish for public libraries. “I think libraries are great,” declares Jeff Landauer, author of The Scourge of Public Libraries. None but a cad could possibly argue against the existence of public libraries, isn’t that so?

The little bit of authoritarian in me has a fetish for mandatory labelling. I like to know what I’m eating. And smoking. So I took some small solace in Section 58(2)(a) in Part 3 of the recently enacted Psychoactive Substances Act.

58 Restrictions and requirements relating to labelling of approved products
(1) A label for an approved product must not be designed in a manner or way, or using a medium or form, so as to particularly appeal, or to be likely to particularly appeal, to minors.
(2) A label for an approved product must include the following information in a prominent position on the label:
(a) a list of the active ingredients of the product and the appropriate quantity of each active ingredient; and
(b) the appropriate health warning relating to the product; and
(c) the contact details of the importer, manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of the product; and
(d) the telephone number of the National Poisons Centre information service or any other telephone service prescribed in the regulations; and
(e) any other information prescribed by the regulations.
(3) A person must not sell an approved product with a label that does not comply with subsection (1) or (2).
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1), (2), or (3) commits an offence and is liable on conviction,—
(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $5,000:
(b) in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $10,000.

It’s only been a couple of weeks and already fake cannabis products are back on the market. The government has been quick to grant applications for interim approvals of psychoactive products. And why wouldn’t they at $10,000 per product?

5 Control of psychoactive products granted interim approval
Part 3 applies, with any necessary modifications, to a psychoactive product granted interim approval as if it were an approved product.

So now do I get to indulge my fetish?

Well, let’s see what we have here … some Red Kryptonite by Lightyears Ahead Ltd. And the new label says

Ingredients: SGT-7 (25mg per gram),
Damiana herb and flavouring.

Seems legit. Only problem is … no one knows what SGT-7 is. Even Google’s never heard of it.

I think Lightyears Ahead Ltd. is taking the piss. Perhaps they’re prepared to risk a fine not exceeding the licence fee they already paid. What do you think?

But it gets worse. Another new label says

Ingredients: This product is made with a blend of herbs and a single synthetic cannabinoid. The cannabinoid is not enhanced, adulterated or contaminated with any other substance.

Seems legit. I can’t name the active ingredient. And I can’t name the product or the retailer. But they know who they are. 🙂

6299277914_cb9a24b8ec_z