Good to see that synthetic highs are being taken off the shelves.

Forums › Off topic › Good to see that synthetic highs are being taken off the shelves.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

5590 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1032428 28-Apr-2014 10:38

Nanny state politics at their finest.

If consenting adults wish to ingest any manner of crap, let them. Legalise and tax everything.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1032459 28-Apr-2014 11:16

Lias: Nanny state politics at their finest.

If consenting adults wish to ingest any manner of crap, let them. Legalise and tax everything.

Replace "Nanny State" with "responsible Government"

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1032476 28-Apr-2014 11:34

Replace 'crap' with 'unknown chemical compounds that not only effect you but everyone around you'

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1032775 28-Apr-2014 19:07

nakedmolerat:
This is a short sighted view.

Booze associates with injury, ACC payments, hospital costs etc.

Easily dealt with - a combination of age regulation on purchase, breathalyser tests to manage drunk driving, and excise tax on alcohol set at an appropriate level to recover the costs. What economists refer to as pricing in the externality. By the way, if you run the argument banning just because of some associated costs to the taxayer do you also want to ban rugby (spinal injury costs), tramping (search and rescue costs), and all motorsport (cost of injuries)? If not, why not?

nakedmolerat: Smokes - those who develop lung cancer - hospital cost, disability payments, home oxygen etc etc.

Firstly, I suspect this isn't actually true. The health costs of a smoker are certainly earlier, but overall they are probably actually lower. The thing about smokers is they tend to get a condition earlier and then die. That saves them the cost of treating a different, and likely cost equivalent, health condition later in life. Along the way, on average, they save the taxpayer a bundle on pension costs, aged care etc. So on a pure cost argument, I doubt there is one. And if there is, same as for alcohol, calculate it and make sure you set the tax per pack at the right level to recover it.

nakedmolerat: Addiction (drugs etc) - lose job, no home, resorts to petty crime.

Granted. But most of the crime associated with drug addiction is probably because the drugs are illegal and expensive. Studies on legalisation and prescribing to registered addicts of heroin for instance (in Portugal and the UK etc) pretty much show that consumption falls, and the addicts getting what they need reliably and safely are actually able to stop committing crime to feed their habit and find work.

nakedmolerat: Guess what, in the end, the mantra "my body, my life, my choice" cause problem to others.

Some times, but so do a lot of other things. Actually, starting from a standpoint of liberty and freedom for adults to make their own choices and wear the consequences of that isn't a bad one. I would take it over repressive, pettifogging micro-management of peoples lives by the state any day.

driller2000

935 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#1032809 28-Apr-2014 20:35

jeffnz: Always the same that some use Alcohol, marijuana and cigarettes in their argument when it is irrelevant in this discussion and pointless comparing them.

Lets just deal with legal synthetic highs as per the thread title as comparing it to the others will cloud the discussion.

that's your opinion

it is not one i share

first up - i am actually ok with the banning and the implementation of the Acts requirement for synth manufacturers to prove that their products are low risk ie. the government has taken a conservative / precautionary approach - and that's fine by me as there seems to be mounting anecdotal evidence that synths are bad news for many people

what i find interesting is that the same test is not applied to smokes and alcohol - and it's not about clouding the issue, it's about highlighting the application of a different threshold to one substance and not to others

it would also be interesting to see evidence based studies on the harm of synths vs other substances (ref: https://www.fyi.org.nz/request/1213-copy-of-drug-harm-index-methodology AND http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm)

all the while acknowledging the difficulties as noted in this article from the nz drug foundation re such indices https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/where-angels-fear-to-tread

if these studies show that the harm index for synths is high then we will at least have a basis for developing sensible policy and decision making - and at the moment this data is sorely lacking.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1032815 28-Apr-2014 20:43

driller2000:
jeffnz: Always the same that some use Alcohol, marijuana and cigarettes in their argument when it is irrelevant in this discussion and pointless comparing them.

Lets just deal with legal synthetic highs as per the thread title as comparing it to the others will cloud the discussion.

that's your opinion

it is not one i share

first up - i am actually ok with the banning and the implementation of the Acts requirement for synth manufacturers to prove that their products are low risk ie. the government has taken a conservative / precautionary approach - and that's fine by me as there seems to be mounting anecdotal evidence that synths are bad news for many people

what i find interesting is that the same test is not applied to smokes and alcohol - and it's not about clouding the issue, it's about highlighting the application of a different threshold to one substance and not to others

it would also be interesting to see evidence based studies on the harm of synths vs other substances (ref: https://www.fyi.org.nz/request/1213-copy-of-drug-harm-index-methodology AND http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm)

all the while acknowledging the difficulties as noted in this article from the nz drug foundation re such indices https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/where-angels-fear-to-tread

if these studies show that the harm index for synths is high then we will at least have a basis for developing sensible policy and decision making - and at the moment this data is sorely lacking.

both tobacco and alcohol have been around for years so harder to deal with and prohibition didn't work in the states way back when. also tobacco is being dealt with and the taxes are making it less attractive albeit slowly but it is working. The argument on whetehr it should be deal with the same is one that should be explored elsewhere as it does cloud the issue regardless of what you say.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

driller2000

935 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#1032866 28-Apr-2014 21:45

jeffnz:
driller2000:
jeffnz: Always the same that some use Alcohol, marijuana and cigarettes in their argument when it is irrelevant in this discussion and pointless comparing them.

Lets just deal with legal synthetic highs as per the thread title as comparing it to the others will cloud the discussion.

that's your opinion

it is not one i share

first up - i am actually ok with the banning and the implementation of the Acts requirement for synth manufacturers to prove that their products are low risk ie. the government has taken a conservative / precautionary approach - and that's fine by me as there seems to be mounting anecdotal evidence that synths are bad news for many people

what i find interesting is that the same test is not applied to smokes and alcohol - and it's not about clouding the issue, it's about highlighting the application of a different threshold to one substance and not to others

it would also be interesting to see evidence based studies on the harm of synths vs other substances (ref: https://www.fyi.org.nz/request/1213-copy-of-drug-harm-index-methodology AND http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm)

all the while acknowledging the difficulties as noted in this article from the nz drug foundation re such indices https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/where-angels-fear-to-tread

if these studies show that the harm index for synths is high then we will at least have a basis for developing sensible policy and decision making - and at the moment this data is sorely lacking.

both tobacco and alcohol have been around for years so harder to deal with and prohibition didn't work in the states way back when. also tobacco is being dealt with and the taxes are making it less attractive albeit slowly but it is working. The argument on whetehr it should be deal with the same is one that should be explored elsewhere as it does cloud the issue regardless of what you say.

from where i stand you are being a bit of a prat trying to shut down a discussion when you no right to do so - so lets agree to disagree and leave it at that

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

gzt

17160 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1032867 28-Apr-2014 21:47

I'm in two minds about this. In one part I am glad the synthetic cannabinoids are off the shelves. The whole genre was designed for medical research into disease development, and profiteers chose to manufacture and wholesale these substances despite obvious issues. The other part is, the market is now firmly established. That is a fact. It seems very likely organised-ish crime will move to fill the gap in supply with identical or worse rubbish. Generally this is not a good thing, because of the prohibition effect.

gzt

17160 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1032875 28-Apr-2014 22:09

The manufacturers and wholesalers of these products do make claims about safety. Surely there is enough evidence for an addict or group of addicts or persons affected by the medical effects to mount a civil case in some form? Perhaps regarding failure to warn of the severe symptoms?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1032894 28-Apr-2014 22:31

gzt: The manufacturers and wholesalers of these products do make claims about safety. Surely there is enough evidence for an addict or group of addicts or persons affected by the medical effects to mount a civil case in some form? Perhaps regarding failure to warn of the severe symptoms?

It's probably too hard to prove that for example psychosis was directly attributed to these drugs, the individual was predisposed and something else triggered it, the individual self-medicated because of the otherwise unrelated onset of psychosis, or it was just coincidence.

When you consider the hoops and extremely high costs that makers of therapeutic drugs need to go through in order to prove efficacy and show side-effects - including in combination with other drugs - it's mind-boggling that psychoactive recreational "legal highs" were ever able to be sold on the basis of some anecdotes suggesting that they might be safe.

gzt

17160 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1032904 28-Apr-2014 22:51

Fred99:
gzt: The manufacturers and wholesalers of these products do make claims about safety. Surely there is enough evidence for an addict or group of addicts or persons affected by the medical effects to mount a civil case in some form? Perhaps regarding failure to warn of the severe symptoms?

It's probably too hard to prove that for example psychosis was directly attributed to these drugs, the individual was predisposed and something else triggered it, the individual self-medicated because of the otherwise unrelated onset of psychosis, or it was just coincidence.

I was thinking the severe cases of very obviously physical withdrawal symptoms (vomiting and so on) would be the best grounds, but there are also other measurable physical effects according to users and medical practitioners.

gzt

17160 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1032934 28-Apr-2014 23:14

Breaking news! The National Party have selected a legal high executive for a safe seat!

Paul1977

5058 posts

Uber Geek

#1033206 29-Apr-2014 15:50

Lias: Nanny state politics at their finest.

If consenting adults wish to ingest any manner of crap, let them. Legalise and tax everything.

That's probably a step too far, however I agree to a limited extent.

As has been stated, if marijuana was legally available there would be none of these synthetic "legal highs". Government could tax it as they do cigarettes and alcohol. Long term health consequences of synthetic highs are not available, but marijuana has been around for a very long time.

I can't remember the last time I heard about a brawl started by a bunch of people high on marijuana, or someone coming home baked and beating their wife and kids.

If used in moderation smoking marijuana is no more harmful to health than smoking cigarettes, and is far less socially harmful that alcohol.

Just because something has the potential to be used irresponsibly or abused doesn't mean it should be banned. Otherwise better give up, cigarettes, alcohol, cars, motorbikes, bicycles, fast food, the Internet,....

The system in Amsterdam as so well explained in Pulp Fiction seems like a reasonable approach:

"...it's legal, but it ain't a hundred percent legal. I mean you can't walk into a restaurant, roll a joint, and start puffin' away. You're only supposed to smoke in your home or certain designated places... it's legal to buy it, it's legal to own it and, if you're the proprietor of a hash bar, it's legal to sell it. It's legal to carry it..."

And for those wondering, I am not a smoker of marijuana, or any synthetic highs.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1033216 29-Apr-2014 16:02

driller2000:
jeffnz:
driller2000:
jeffnz: Always the same that some use Alcohol, marijuana and cigarettes in their argument when it is irrelevant in this discussion and pointless comparing them.

Lets just deal with legal synthetic highs as per the thread title as comparing it to the others will cloud the discussion.

that's your opinion

it is not one i share

first up - i am actually ok with the banning and the implementation of the Acts requirement for synth manufacturers to prove that their products are low risk ie. the government has taken a conservative / precautionary approach - and that's fine by me as there seems to be mounting anecdotal evidence that synths are bad news for many people

what i find interesting is that the same test is not applied to smokes and alcohol - and it's not about clouding the issue, it's about highlighting the application of a different threshold to one substance and not to others

it would also be interesting to see evidence based studies on the harm of synths vs other substances (ref: https://www.fyi.org.nz/request/1213-copy-of-drug-harm-index-methodology AND http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm)

all the while acknowledging the difficulties as noted in this article from the nz drug foundation re such indices https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/where-angels-fear-to-tread

if these studies show that the harm index for synths is high then we will at least have a basis for developing sensible policy and decision making - and at the moment this data is sorely lacking.

both tobacco and alcohol have been around for years so harder to deal with and prohibition didn't work in the states way back when. also tobacco is being dealt with and the taxes are making it less attractive albeit slowly but it is working. The argument on whetehr it should be deal with the same is one that should be explored elsewhere as it does cloud the issue regardless of what you say.

from where i stand you are being a bit of a prat trying to shut down a discussion when you no right to do so - so lets agree to disagree and leave it at that

I don't think there is any need to call me a prat as I'm just trying to keep discussion on topic instead of some trying to bring in irrelevant side issues. If you want to have a slanging match i would suggest you go to the likes of the Trademe forum where thats normal practice, here we try to respect the other persons right to post as long as it conforms to the FUG

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

driller2000

935 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#1033374 29-Apr-2014 19:35

its not a slanging match, it's a difference of opinion about what is OT and what is not - I tried to walk away once - i will try again....

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5