Synthetic Drugs

[boxy]

NSW has slapped a temporary ban on synthetic drugs. I've never come across them, myself. Perhaps this is an opportunity to remove the monopoly that organised crime has over something that is obviously in demand, and has been throughout history and across all cultures.

"It is not acceptable for you to continue selling these products that cause harm," said Mr Roberts (NSW Minister for Fair Trading).

*cough, cough*. You've got to laugh

(hint: cigarettes)

John Rogerson (The Australian Drug Foundation, CEO) said the Federal Government should treat synthetic drugs like other products that require approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

"I don't think we going to be able to ban our way out of this problem," he said.

"They need to be taken off the market immediately and then they need to come back on the market once the producers and the resellers can show these products are safe.

"We've got to stop mucking around with these drugs now."

Sounds like a great idea. The problem so far, with effectively banning these drug substitutes, seems to have been that the legal system cant keep up with development. Each time you try to ban a synthetic drug, you have to spend considerable time getting the legislation through, and by that time, another has been developed and you need to start again.

Define them as medications, and make the developers provide evidence that they are harmless before selling them.

Consumers win. Law enforcement wins. Business wins.

Win, win, win.

The only losers are the morally outraged and organised criminals.

[IQS.RLOW]

That would be like a cocaine cartel being told to get their coke tested for safety...ain't gonna happen.

This problem is only going to get worse as the authorities play 'whack a mole' with chemistry.

As much as it pains me to say it, this could lead to the legalisation of normal drugs as the safer alternative to synthetics that are constantly changing as they try to skirt drug laws. Their effect on the mind and body both long and short term are unknown and could be a few molecules and valence bonds away from turning a rave party into a mass face chew off.

Maybe time to make the stuff that has known problems more available than the stuff that has unknown problems...

[boxy]

On what do you base your assumption that "normal" drugs are safer? Sounds a bit like the "natural fallacy" to me.

But I do agree that it's a whack a mole situation. If you're going to legalise and regulate anything, I'd have thought that the synthetic would be easier to define, and therefore regulate.

[Mattus]

Define them as medications, and make the developers provide evidence that they are harmless before selling them.

But you can't just declare something a medicine. To be such it needs to have a therapeutic use.

[boxy]

Then declare them recreational drugs, and place similar (or even more stringent) regulations upon them?

[Mattus]

That would be like a cocaine cartel being told to get their coke tested for safety...ain't gonna happen.

Now cocaine actually is a scheduled medicine. Still used in dentistry as a local anaesthetic.

[Mattus]

Then declare them recreational drugs, and place similar (or even more stringent) regulations upon them?

But recreational drugs are all prohibited.

[Super Nova]

The war on drugs is the real cause.

Legalise all recreational drugs but have them distributed through legal outlets/shops.

Control the quality and purity. Tax the bloody things and allocate the taxes to rehab and education.

If they introduce new drugs, they have a pharma type process to go through to ensure they are... relatively safe or come with warnings.

The new drugs only have a market because the traditional drugs are so hard to get and they see the loop holes in the law to allow them to be distributed as they are not classified yet.

We need an alterative to prohibition. It does work... we all know it but still try to implement the model the US mandated on the world in the early 20th century.

[boxy]

Then declare them recreational drugs, and place similar (or even more stringent) regulations upon them?

But recreational drugs are all prohibited.

So how did these types of drugs slip through the cracks? I'm drinking a beer now. Could be happily taking a drag on a ciggy, if I wanted, and wake up with a coffee in the morning.

Na, they're not universally prohibited.

[IQS.RLOW]

On what do you base your assumption that "normal" drugs are safer? Sounds a bit like the "natural fallacy" to me.

But I do agree that it's a whack a mole situation. If you're going to legalise and regulate anything, I'd have thought that the synthetic would be easier to define, and therefore regulate.

They are safer in that they are a known entity. Their effects are well known and the effect on the mind and body are relatively well understood.

Synthetics are not easier to define. That's the whole issue with them. It's why the manufacturers can skirt current drug laws and detection- they are undefinable for regulation which is why Australia has analogue drug laws in an effort as a catch all which then acts as an incentive for the manufacturers to further push the envelope in chemical composition.