Chemistry complicating synthetic drug debate

[OZ Stoners]

South Australia's Attorney-General has backed calls for a strong national effort to combat the rise of synthetic drugs, but admits the chemistry involved makes it difficult to come up with suitable legislation.

 

View the full article

[Sir PsychoHashy]

I aint no scientest or legislator but to me there does seem to be an obvious solution.  No new substances coming into that particular marketplace can go on sale until they have been approved. Obviously that would need to be translated into indecipherable legalese, and a lot of thought into defining the market that is being targetted in order to avoid more exploitable loopholes, but surely putting the onus onto the producers/marketers instead is the simplest way to stop them playing the change the chemistry game.  Unless of course some sections of our government don't want to upset the corporate entities behind these products (I've got to stop being such a cynical old bastard).

 

Unfortunately I don't believe legalising cannabis and/or other drugs would stop this trade, as it would appear that a big part of the problem is people needing to avoid drug testing for their empoyment etc.  Maybe if they developed testing that showed whether a person was under the influence (eg 0.05 blood alcohol for driving), and used that instead of "you have traces of cannabis in your system, you're fired" even though it's been a day since consumption.  At least then people could truly keep their home life separate from their work life.

[Ford Fairlane]

I aint no scientest or legislator but to me there does seem to be an obvious solution.  No new substances coming into that particular marketplace can go on sale until they have been approved. Obviously that would need to be translated into indecipherable legalese, and a lot of thought into defining the market that is being targetted in order to avoid more exploitable loopholes, but surely putting the onus onto the producers/marketers instead is the simplest way to stop them playing the change the chemistry game.  Unless of course some sections of our government don't want to upset the corporate entities behind these products (I've got to stop being such a cynical old bastard).

 

Unfortunately I don't believe legalising cannabis and/or other drugs would stop this trade, as it would appear that a big part of the problem is people needing to avoid drug testing for their empoyment etc.  Maybe if they developed testing that showed whether a person was under the influence (eg 0.05 blood alcohol for driving), and used that instead of "you have traces of cannabis in your system, you're fired" even though it's been a day since consumption.  At least then people could truly keep their home life separate from their work life.

I think legalizing traditional drugs would stop the rise of synthetic crap. Outlawing the use of piss tests and making swab testing the standard means that people being tested have at least 10 hrs (the literature is saying 6hrs, so I round up to 10) to get it out of their system prior to showing up at work.

[iTiC]

I aint no scientest or legislator but to me there does seem to be an obvious solution.  No new substances coming into that particular marketplace can go on sale until they have been approved. Obviously that would need to be translated into indecipherable legalese, and a lot of thought into defining the market that is being targetted in order to avoid more exploitable loopholes, but surely putting the onus onto the producers/marketers instead is the simplest way to stop them playing the change the chemistry game.  Unless of course some sections of our government don't want to upset the corporate entities behind these products (I've got to stop being such a cynical old bastard).

 

Unfortunately I don't believe legalising cannabis and/or other drugs would stop this trade, as it would appear that a big part of the problem is people needing to avoid drug testing for their empoyment etc.  Maybe if they developed testing that showed whether a person was under the influence (eg 0.05 blood alcohol for driving), and used that instead of "you have traces of cannabis in your system, you're fired" even though it's been a day since consumption.  At least then people could truly keep their home life separate from their work life.

u hit the nail on the head... but wich market are u taking about- if it is packaged as bath salts now it will be plant food later or root enhancer or plastic conditioner, all marked not for human consumption... this thing is a friggn mess. the precursers have a legitmate place in an legitimate lab... policing chemicals making the scientists needd to fill bulk paper work b4 they can get anything will only be a hassle for legitimate operators

[Sir PsychoHashy]

Yeah, which market is a problem, at the moment they are pretty much openly sold (or at the least that's what everyone views them as) as synthetic recreational drugs, and in theory legislating against that would be problematic without having them marketed as something else.  But that's what the legal eagles on the big money get paid to figure out, and I'm surprised that they don't seem to be able to.  Obviously making individual chemicals legally restricted will have negative impact on legitimate usage without stopping the market in synthetic drugs, so it makes no sense to keep going down that path.  Which is why they should be looking at broader categories, markets etc, and earn their money instead of prevaricating while people keep getting messed up.  I suppose another option might be to legislate that the retailers of any of these products, if they cause death or serious injury, can be sued for big money with no real defence, to the point that the risk outweighs the profits.  I'm sure there would be problems with that as well though.

 

Here's a bit of a thought, is it only a matter of time before one of these newly developed synthetics comes out with addictive qualities to rival smack and crystal meth.  If it happens, you can be sure as shit that after they ban it, there will be enough demand to create blackmarket opportunities, and then we'll have a new drug on the illegal market at a higher price with no quality control.

[DoctorWho]

These synthetic drugs simply can't be stopped unless the entire production of all chemicals is completely handled by the state with complete oversight as to how they are used.  If the impossible happens though you can be damn sure people will find ways to naturally source these drugs such as wattle bark for dmt and the only thing that will change is the places you can purchase said drugs from.  This is the major problem the government faces.  It is literally impossible for them to stop them being made, they can't keep up with how many are created to ban them by chemical structure or name and the can be marketed as almost anything.  This is why there is such a scare campaign going on now.  The only hand they can truly play now is trying to scare people into not wanting to use them but it will fail miserably as tens of thousands of people use them all the time, they actually work, it doesn't kill them and it never shows up in drug tests.  There will always be a market for drugs like that as long as the war on drugs continues and the government only has a few options as I see it.  First is play catch up forever trying to make the drugs illegal and constantly having their work undone on a weekly basis.  Second is accept defeat for the new legal drugs while still continuing to hunt us traditional users down and lastly is ending the war on drugs as the traditional ones are safer to use.

 

Personally I see them trying to make them illegal, accepting defeat while continuing the scare campaign and hunting us down and then in 50-100 years finally accepting entire defeat and legalising all drugs.  I hope that happens in 5-10 days instead of 50-100 years but lets be honest here our government is full of dick heads and that is unlikely to change anytime soon.

[burner]

A story. I saw this on a documentary, on synthetic/legal highs. In it, it focused on an individual who got involved for what I do consider, a just reason. He lost a friend to a bad batch of illicit drugs, mdma or amphetamine, all I recall is it was a party drug.

This person did his homework, found legal substitutes to replace the banned, or controlled substances required to manufacture the illicit substances,( the loophole), and proceeded to manufacture and distribute his legal high. He faced government resistance, who in process began to place controls on this manufacturers substitutes, which in turn forced said manufacturer to find alternatives to these newly controlled substances, and continued like this, until manufacturer finally packed it in.

He stated, that his main reason for starting up this business, was so consumers knew what they were taking, in regulated dose provided by his manufacturing company.

This is a good reason for drug law reform, you don't know what your getting with any illicit drug, and produced in a modern facility instead of a clandestine lab would save a lot of lives. But all these substances have potential to lead to death via overdose, except for cannabis. You know good from bad generally on sight when you are forced to buy, and the stuff won't kill you if you consume more than you oughtta, synthetic on the other hand?

More so, you don't hear of somebody's plants blowing up the backshed now, do you?