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.
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.
All My Friends Are Stoners Everyone I Know Gets High
Maybe there’s A Reason Why Weed’s Not Legalized
[Richter:]
Why People Always Be Afraid Of What They Don’t Know
I Understand can’t Comprehend The Infos So Old
The Reefer Madness video is Purely Propaganda
A Movie Made To Scare All Of The Kids In Alabama
Maybe they’re Afraid To Think That They Might Lose Control
Instead Of Embracing It’s Many Uses Performing The Medical
It’s All Pathetic Though A Pharmaceutical Company
Can Make You Feel High Than Low
It Seems It’s All About The Money
Funny Cause
[Chorus]
All My Friends Are Stoners Everyone I Know Gets High
Maybe there’s A Reason Why Weed’s Not Legalized
Maybe they’re Afraid Of Too Much Peace And Harmony
Maybe they’re Afraid Of Open Minds And People Free
No Rest Upon My Feet Until My People Free
When They Turn The Ganja Plant Into An Evil Weed
It’s Reefer Madness
[Dirtball:]
Check this
So Many Friends that I know Have Suffered The Lies The Governments Strangle
Into The Ground illegal Bound In Every Angle
Even The Lawmakers Making The Laws Are Smoking The Bong And Vapin The Chronic
And Nobody Hearing The Voice Of The Weed I Find It Ironic
So How Do We Govern The Danger Of Not Becoming To Hostile
Not Losing The Mind Not Crossing The Line Not Feeling Colossal
There’s Only One Avenue We Can Be Sure That We Getting Our Justice
The legalization of it, of the weed, they tryin’ ta bust us.
[Chorus]
[Daddy X:]
We Got A Black President Before Weed’s Legal
In My Mind In My Time That Shits Unbelievable
I Love Obama I Love All People
I Just can’t Believe That The Plants Not Legal
A Plant, A Seed, That Grows In The Soil
And They’re Still Fightin’ Bloody Wars Over Oil?
Reefer Madness Is Useless Propaganda
Fear Is The Tool That They Use To Command Us
So Understand Us We Don’t Fear No Plant
We don’t fear no plant
[Chorus]
Obama does not deserve any respect from Cannabis users.
He has maintained the oppression, and actually worked to hinder the independent states from legalising it for medical use.
Fortunately many of the States have ignored the Federal government and gone ahead and legalised it anyway.
When Realisations like this happen it’s called a personal Enlightenment.
I Salute any person who realises they were wrong about supporting an oppressive Law, and comes clean about it…. and says sorry…esp if they then actively work for the cause they once oppressed…
They Redeem themselves thereby.
There is every reason to believe that Western society is at this moment waking up to the follies and delusions which underpin The prohibition of Cannabis and restring it’s reverenced Status as a blessing to Humanity which it previously enjoyed since the dawn of time..
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. 🙂
