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

932 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1032285 27-Apr-2014 23:13

neoprint:

final comment - in my world - adults should be able to do what ever they want to themselves as long as it ain't hurting anyone else - whether that be booze / smokes / fast food / fast cars / illicit drugs / legal highs etc etc

my body / my life / my choice

I mostly agree with you, but it becomes society's problem when tax dollars are being used to fix you up

fair point

however, this is one of the downsides of where we the collective pay for the riskier behaviour/activities of others

but we ain't gonna stop people smoking cigarettes, or drinking booze, and we ain't gonna ban sugar or fat, or adventure sports, or hunting, or motor racing, or rugby - or any other multitude of high risk activities

but what we will ban is a legal high industry that has had how many deaths? (not a trick question - and if the legal high lobby can be believed - the number is zero)

anyhoo - will be interesting to see if any of the promoters can pony up the $1 - 2M to prove their products are low risk

disclaimer - i don't smoke/promote/sell the legal stuff - so i have no vested interest other than an interest in what y'all think :)

MyHeritage

Shop MyHeritage and uncover your origins and find new relatives with a simple DNA test. (affiliate link).

Yabanize

2348 posts

Uber Geek

#1032289 27-Apr-2014 23:22

driller2000:
neoprint:

final comment - in my world - adults should be able to do what ever they want to themselves as long as it ain't hurting anyone else - whether that be booze / smokes / fast food / fast cars / illicit drugs / legal highs etc etc

my body / my life / my choice

I mostly agree with you, but it becomes society's problem when tax dollars are being used to fix you up

fair point

however, this is one of the downsides of where we the collective pay for the riskier behaviour/activities of others

but we ain't gonna stop people smoking cigarettes, or drinking booze, and we ain't gonna ban sugar or fat, or adventure sports, or hunting, or motor racing, or rugby - or any other multitude of high risk activities

but what we will ban is a legal high industry that has had how many deaths? (not a trick question - and if the legal high lobby can be believed - the number is zero)

anyhoo - will be interesting to see if any of the promoters can pony up the $1 - 2M to prove their products are low risk

disclaimer - i don't smoke/promote/sell the legal stuff - so i have no vested interest other than an interest in what y'all think :)

None yet, But have you seen this? http://www.3news.co.nz/Life-on-the-streets-with-legal-high-addiction/tabid/817/articleID/340088/Default.aspx
Have you seen this? When he doesnt use it he cant eat, he once stopped eating for weeks because of it but had to start taking it again so he could eat or he wouldve died

gzt

15205 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1032290 27-Apr-2014 23:24

neoprint:

final comment - in my world - adults should be able to do what ever they want to themselves as long as it ain't hurting anyone else - whether that be booze / smokes / fast food / fast cars / illicit drugs / legal highs etc etc

my body / my life / my choice

I mostly agree with you, but it becomes society's problem when tax dollars are being used to fix you up

Interesting point about tax dollars. The fact is that the excise tax and gst on booze does not come close to compensating the government for the material harm caused by the product. There is some merit in turning the excise tax into a health levy to properly fund these expenditures.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1032295 28-Apr-2014 00:01

driller2000: i am also of the view the decision is largely political - based on predominantly anecdotal evidence and a desire to be SEEN to be doing something

that said - implementing the piece of the Psychoactive Substances Act now which requires synthetic drug manufacturers to prove their drugs were low-risk before they could be sold makes sense to me as it is the key benefit the Act brings

it does however amuse me the double standard applied to alcohol and cigarettes given the endless harm and deaths they cause - but meh - what is acceptable and what is not is rarely based on evidence or logic

final comment - in my world - adults should be able to do what ever they want to themselves as long as it ain't hurting anyone else - whether that be booze / smokes / fast food / fast cars / illicit drugs / legal highs etc etc

my body / my life / my choice

So in 'your ideal world' you dont think anything needs to be done to prevent people harming themselves?

riahon

946 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1032314 28-Apr-2014 05:01

Geektastic:
CruciasNZ: Yeah. Glad to see it. There's been a few incidents I've heard of where accidents have been caused and blamed on these things.

Shouldn't we have got alcohol off the shelves by now, then?!

Agreed 100000000%

MikeB4

18131 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1032319 28-Apr-2014 06:38

MaxLV:
driller2000: i am also of the view the decision is largely political - based on predominantly anecdotal evidence and a desire to be SEEN to be doing something

that said - implementing the piece of the Psychoactive Substances Act now which requires synthetic drug manufacturers to prove their drugs were low-risk before they could be sold makes sense to me as it is the key benefit the Act brings

it does however amuse me the double standard applied to alcohol and cigarettes given the endless harm and deaths they cause - but meh - what is acceptable and what is not is rarely based on evidence or logic

final comment - in my world - adults should be able to do what ever they want to themselves as long as it ain't hurting anyone else - whether that be booze / smokes / fast food / fast cars / illicit drugs / legal highs etc etc

my body / my life / my choice

So in 'your ideal world' you dont think anything needs to be done to prevent people harming themselves?

Their actions harm and kill others and damage our society of course prevention is needed.

jonathan18

6991 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1032322 28-Apr-2014 07:34

JimmyH: Cigarettes just involve risk to the person concerned.

Tell that that to the young baby I saw on Saturday, being carried by a man smoking (a cigarillo of all things!) - she was probably about 15 cm away from his cigarillo, and clearly would be inhaling a decent amount of all the goodness in that product.

Further, isn't there evidence that smoking can cause genetic mutation in sperm? And damage to babies while in the womb?

So, I'd agree there is the possibility of smoking not causing risk to others, but the reality is for many this isn't the case - and these people often have no choice as to their exposure (or the impact on them).

shrub

715 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#1032323 28-Apr-2014 07:38

KiwiNZ:
MaxLV:
driller2000: i am also of the view the decision is largely political - based on predominantly anecdotal evidence and a desire to be SEEN to be doing something

that said - implementing the piece of the Psychoactive Substances Act now which requires synthetic drug manufacturers to prove their drugs were low-risk before they could be sold makes sense to me as it is the key benefit the Act brings

it does however amuse me the double standard applied to alcohol and cigarettes given the endless harm and deaths they cause - but meh - what is acceptable and what is not is rarely based on evidence or logic

final comment - in my world - adults should be able to do what ever they want to themselves as long as it ain't hurting anyone else - whether that be booze / smokes / fast food / fast cars / illicit drugs / legal highs etc etc

my body / my life / my choice

So in 'your ideal world' you dont think anything needs to be done to prevent people harming themselves?

Their actions harm and kill others and damage our society of course prevention is needed.

when was the last time you saw headlines like these from someone smoking weed?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/9870905/Synthetic-cannabis-a-factor-in-bashing
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/9902792/Synthetic-cannabis-led-to-bad-behaviour

The only reason these people started smoking this stuff is due to our stupid laws that put people in prison for smoking a plant.

MikeB4

18131 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1032326 28-Apr-2014 07:46

shrub:
KiwiNZ:
MaxLV:
driller2000: i am also of the view the decision is largely political - based on predominantly anecdotal evidence and a desire to be SEEN to be doing something

that said - implementing the piece of the Psychoactive Substances Act now which requires synthetic drug manufacturers to prove their drugs were low-risk before they could be sold makes sense to me as it is the key benefit the Act brings

it does however amuse me the double standard applied to alcohol and cigarettes given the endless harm and deaths they cause - but meh - what is acceptable and what is not is rarely based on evidence or logic

final comment - in my world - adults should be able to do what ever they want to themselves as long as it ain't hurting anyone else - whether that be booze / smokes / fast food / fast cars / illicit drugs / legal highs etc etc

my body / my life / my choice

So in 'your ideal world' you dont think anything needs to be done to prevent people harming themselves?

Their actions harm and kill others and damage our society of course prevention is needed.

when was the last time you saw headlines like these from someone smoking weed?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/9870905/Synthetic-cannabis-a-factor-in-bashing
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/9902792/Synthetic-cannabis-led-to-bad-behaviour

The only reason these people started smoking this stuff is due to our stupid laws that put people in prison for smoking a plant.

There is never any news stories about marijuana is there. The weed argument is a smoke screen.

driller2000

932 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1032339 28-Apr-2014 08:41

Yabanize:
driller2000:
neoprint:

final comment - in my world - adults should be able to do what ever they want to themselves as long as it ain't hurting anyone else - whether that be booze / smokes / fast food / fast cars / illicit drugs / legal highs etc etc

my body / my life / my choice

I mostly agree with you, but it becomes society's problem when tax dollars are being used to fix you up

fair point

however, this is one of the downsides of where we the collective pay for the riskier behaviour/activities of others

but we ain't gonna stop people smoking cigarettes, or drinking booze, and we ain't gonna ban sugar or fat, or adventure sports, or hunting, or motor racing, or rugby - or any other multitude of high risk activities

but what we will ban is a legal high industry that has had how many deaths? (not a trick question - and if the legal high lobby can be believed - the number is zero)

anyhoo - will be interesting to see if any of the promoters can pony up the $1 - 2M to prove their products are low risk

disclaimer - i don't smoke/promote/sell the legal stuff - so i have no vested interest other than an interest in what y'all think :)

None yet, But have you seen this? http://www.3news.co.nz/Life-on-the-streets-with-legal-high-addiction/tabid/817/articleID/340088/Default.aspx
Have you seen this? When he doesnt use it he cant eat, he once stopped eating for weeks because of it but had to start taking it again so he could eat or he wouldve died

anecdotal or otherwise - some of these stories do make grim reading

and not wanting to diminish valid concerns re these products - but we all know we can take this story and multiply it by 100,000 in terms of similar (and worse) harm based stories related to alcohol or cigarettes

two wrongs don't make a right - but the uneven attention applied to synths is strange.....

MikeB4

18131 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1032340 28-Apr-2014 08:48

driller2000:
Yabanize:
driller2000:
neoprint:

final comment - in my world - adults should be able to do what ever they want to themselves as long as it ain't hurting anyone else - whether that be booze / smokes / fast food / fast cars / illicit drugs / legal highs etc etc

my body / my life / my choice

I mostly agree with you, but it becomes society's problem when tax dollars are being used to fix you up

fair point

however, this is one of the downsides of where we the collective pay for the riskier behaviour/activities of others

but we ain't gonna stop people smoking cigarettes, or drinking booze, and we ain't gonna ban sugar or fat, or adventure sports, or hunting, or motor racing, or rugby - or any other multitude of high risk activities

but what we will ban is a legal high industry that has had how many deaths? (not a trick question - and if the legal high lobby can be believed - the number is zero)

anyhoo - will be interesting to see if any of the promoters can pony up the $1 - 2M to prove their products are low risk

disclaimer - i don't smoke/promote/sell the legal stuff - so i have no vested interest other than an interest in what y'all think :)

None yet, But have you seen this? http://www.3news.co.nz/Life-on-the-streets-with-legal-high-addiction/tabid/817/articleID/340088/Default.aspx
Have you seen this? When he doesnt use it he cant eat, he once stopped eating for weeks because of it but had to start taking it again so he could eat or he wouldve died

anecdotal or otherwise - some of these stories do make grim reading

and not wanting to diminish valid concerns re these products - but we all know we can take this story and multiply it by 100,000 in terms of similar (and worse) harm based stories related to alcohol or cigarettes

two wrongs don't make a right - but the uneven attention applied to synths is strange.....

Talking with my son over the weekend was an eye opener, the risks and evidence of the short term and longer term use of these substances are substantial and scary. The speed of deterioration of the user is alarming and profound.

driller2000

932 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1032347 28-Apr-2014 08:53

MaxLV:
driller2000: i am also of the view the decision is largely political - based on predominantly anecdotal evidence and a desire to be SEEN to be doing something

that said - implementing the piece of the Psychoactive Substances Act now which requires synthetic drug manufacturers to prove their drugs were low-risk before they could be sold makes sense to me as it is the key benefit the Act brings

it does however amuse me the double standard applied to alcohol and cigarettes given the endless harm and deaths they cause - but meh - what is acceptable and what is not is rarely based on evidence or logic

final comment - in my world - adults should be able to do what ever they want to themselves as long as it ain't hurting anyone else - whether that be booze / smokes / fast food / fast cars / illicit drugs / legal highs etc etc

my body / my life / my choice

So in 'your ideal world' you dont think anything needs to be done to prevent people harming themselves?

it depends....

first point - "ideal" is your word not mine

and like all worlds it aint black and white - it's shades of grey

i stand by my original position re personal choice - but i am old enough and ugly enough to know that "my" decisions impact others and in this case the qualifier i stated above would kick in - "as long as it ain't hurting anyone else" - and this is why i personally wont drink / smoke etc myself to death as it would harm my kids, wife, family etc

however this should be MY choice and not the states - and this should also apply to synths imho

but when it comes to direct and sudden self-harm - i am of the view that most in this space are not well and need help and therefore would support state intervention

but on the other hand - when it comes to euthanasia - i support the right to choose to die as long as the right frameworks, support and checks and balances are in place

so yeah - shades of grey throughout.....

MikeB4

18131 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1032351 28-Apr-2014 08:56

driller2000:
MaxLV:
driller2000: i am also of the view the decision is largely political - based on predominantly anecdotal evidence and a desire to be SEEN to be doing something

that said - implementing the piece of the Psychoactive Substances Act now which requires synthetic drug manufacturers to prove their drugs were low-risk before they could be sold makes sense to me as it is the key benefit the Act brings

it does however amuse me the double standard applied to alcohol and cigarettes given the endless harm and deaths they cause - but meh - what is acceptable and what is not is rarely based on evidence or logic

final comment - in my world - adults should be able to do what ever they want to themselves as long as it ain't hurting anyone else - whether that be booze / smokes / fast food / fast cars / illicit drugs / legal highs etc etc

my body / my life / my choice

So in 'your ideal world' you dont think anything needs to be done to prevent people harming themselves?

it depends....

first point - "ideal" is your word not mine

and like all worlds it aint black and white - it's shades of grey

i stand by my original position re personal choice - but i am old enough and ugly enough to know that "my" decisions impact others and in this case the qualifier i stated above would kick in - "as long as it ain't hurting anyone else" - and this is why i personally wont drink / smoke etc myself to death as it would harm my kids, wife, family etc

however this should be MY choice and not the states - and this should also apply to synths imho

but when it comes to direct and sudden self-harm - i am of the view that most in this space are not well and need help and therefore would support state intervention

but on the other hand - when it comes to euthanasia - i support the right to choose to die as long as the right frameworks, support and checks and balances are in place

so yeah - shades of grey throughout.....

If the choice affected only the individual concerned and at no point would it impact on the greater community or family then you may have a small point, the fact is the affects are community wide, very risky and damaging.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1032372 28-Apr-2014 09:30

driller2000:
MaxLV:
driller2000: i am also of the view the decision is largely political - based on predominantly anecdotal evidence and a desire to be SEEN to be doing something

that said - implementing the piece of the Psychoactive Substances Act now which requires synthetic drug manufacturers to prove their drugs were low-risk before they could be sold makes sense to me as it is the key benefit the Act brings

it does however amuse me the double standard applied to alcohol and cigarettes given the endless harm and deaths they cause - but meh - what is acceptable and what is not is rarely based on evidence or logic

final comment - in my world - adults should be able to do what ever they want to themselves as long as it ain't hurting anyone else - whether that be booze / smokes / fast food / fast cars / illicit drugs / legal highs etc etc

my body / my life / my choice

So in 'your ideal world' you dont think anything needs to be done to prevent people harming themselves?

it depends....

first point - "ideal" is your word not mine

and like all worlds it aint black and white - it's shades of grey

i stand by my original position re personal choice - but i am old enough and ugly enough to know that "my" decisions impact others and in this case the qualifier i stated above would kick in - "as long as it ain't hurting anyone else" - and this is why i personally wont drink / smoke etc myself to death as it would harm my kids, wife, family etc

however this should be MY choice and not the states - and this should also apply to synths imho

but when it comes to direct and sudden self-harm - i am of the view that most in this space are not well and need help and therefore would support state intervention

but on the other hand - when it comes to euthanasia - i support the right to choose to die as long as the right frameworks, support and checks and balances are in place

so yeah - shades of grey throughout.....

We are all 'connected' in one way or another. everything we do has an 'effect' on someone somewhere/sometime..

Legalise/keep legal synths for everyone because you/users see it as a 'right to partake' that you/they should have because you/they are 'not harming anyone else, what do you say about your right to the family of someone who either dies or kills another person while using 'synths' about your 'rights'. What about the medical staff that have to deal with your 'use' of this 'legal recreational' drug?

And before you ask, yes I do apply the same standard to alcohol users and cigarette smokers, *including* myself. I like an occasional beer, wine and/or nip of the stronger stuff, but in no way do I see my legal right to partake supersedes any prohibition, law, or even social 'disquiet' about the availability of alcohol.

As for tobacco, IMO it needs to be made illegal as soon as the 'synth drugs' are for the harm it does to users and third parties.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1032375 28-Apr-2014 09:35

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.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5