Hard News: Not so insane
34 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Firstly I guess the real question is did he stop using Kronic after the second incident?
He says so, but I can’t know for sure. Gut feeling is that he would rather just use cannabis, which has never led to the police pulling a gun on him. But then people poison themselves with alcohol all the time, and yet continue to use it. Blackouts, vomiting, unconsciousness, long hangovers, injuries from falls and fights etc. All part of a great night out, for some.
do you imagine that the banning of this new substance would sway him were he able to acquire (quite possibly without the required health warnings, a list of the active ingredients, contact details for the manufacturer or distributor, and the telephone number of the National Poisons Centre for unbanned substances) it on the black market?
No, I’m sure that it wouldn’t*. He was only using it in preference to dope because it was a lot easier to get, and you didn’t have to take precautions carrying it, storing it, etc. If it were illegal it would be in direct competition with a well known drug with many advantages. One of the things that’s also most compelling about dope is that it’s a plant. You can actually look at it to ascertain what you’re buying, and if you know what you’re looking for, you can get an idea of quality visually, and firm that up by sampling it. You quite probably even know the person who makes it, if you’re habitual enough.
Thirdly were it not banned, would he still be likely to purchase and use this product were these negative effects (blackouts/ psychotic breaks) clearly stated on the packaging?
If there were good quality evidence of any kind of the likely effects being mostly negative, I think he’d take that into account whether it is on the packaging or not. But there are so many of these blends, and they’re changing all the time, that the sample sizes are not really good enough to draw strong conclusions except in the most extreme cases. But even if they are, as is the case with alcohol, it’s not clear that it’s a strong enough deterrent to stop people who simply rate harm to themselves far lower and pleasure far higher, than the average person would. Then there’s the chance of addiction, whether physical, psychological, or a bit of both, at which point the decisions aren’t really that rational anyway – smokers happily buy boxes of stuff with pictures of disgusting tumors all over them, and massive warnings, and everyone knows people who have died because of smoking.
ETA: Ooops reading fail. You were asking whether it would sway him to stop? Yes, it certainly would, for the reasons given.
-
"chris", in reply to
Thanks for taking the time Ben, that was very coherent. I’m pleased to hear he’s (hopefully) not using that now and I was struck by this:
using it in preference to dope because it was a lot easier to get, and you didn’t have to take precautions carrying it, storing it, etc.
What I find most unsettling is that second clause could be read as a perception, if you will, that the potential ramifications of being busted for possession of cannabis would seem less attractive than the alternative: losing consciousness, having a psychotic break and inadvertently calling the armed offenders squad to one’s domicile, or far worse.
Were this symptomatic of the larger demographic, then the profitability of this synthetics industry, and the countless incidents that have stemmed from the use of these products hinge largely on the Government’s prohibition of cannabis, the potential decriminalization of which could potentially unravel that whole sorry mess.
That the Government continues playing ‘Here we go round the mulberry bush’ – juggling legislation for this second wave of (unknown quantity) psychoactive substances (with their ever changing constituents), while your friend remains in the cross-hairs as a prospect for the justice system, is deeply troubling and shows very little regard for the true safety and security of New Zealanders.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
the potential ramifications of being busted for possession of cannabis would seem less attractive than the alternative: losing consciousness, having a psychotic break and inadvertently calling the armed offenders squad to one’s domicile, or far worse.
Yup, the law is that stupid. The safer (but not totally safe) drug that everyone would prefer is less attractive than random barely tested unlabelled chemicals. The consequences of a cannabis prosecution are serious enough that this perverse outcome occurs. I’m sure some people might choose a synthetic high, even if both were legal, as I’ve heard that some of them leave you feeling less lethargic when they wear off than dope, but I’d say that it’s certainly the case that the law causes anyone who would use dope to use synthetic instead, and that’s a LOT of people, in particularly, a LOT of children.*
*ETA: Consider that practically every dairy in the country was selling the stuff a few years back. Talking to the owners, they said the stuff was making them a lot of money.
-
"chris", in reply to
I’m sure some people might choose a synthetic high, even if both were legal, as I’ve heard that some of them leave you feeling less lethargic when they wear off than dope,
On the flipside, now that six new substances are prohibited, will the matured demand for these ‘advantages’ simply tip some of these substances onto the black market, enhancing the web of criminality?
I’d say that it’s certainly the case that the law causes anyone who would use dope to use synthetic instead, and that’s a LOT of people, in particularly, a LOT of children.*
And despite my earlier flippant comment re: forensic psychiatry, the Act itself was a step forward in that regard:
The sale of psychoactive products to people under 18 years of age is prohibited
No-one under 18 years of age is permitted to purchase or possess psychoactive products
Which is as it should be, and it would seem to be an ideal framework not to prohibit more substances but to take positive steps forward in terms of beginning to decriminalize/ legalize the more traditional psychoactive substances, and then allow the market to do it’s work.
The intention of the Act seems pretty clear but it conflicts somewhat with the way it’s being implemented:
The purpose of this Act is to regulate the availability of psychoactive substances in New Zealand to protect the health of, and minimise harm to, individuals who use psychoactive substances.
Kids still be sidling up to punga fences, purchasing anorexic tinnies laced with horse tranquillizer, so who’s to know what kind of additives will now find their way into a helping of Kronic skunk.
Banning a substance is not regulating its availability, quite the opposite in fact, they're washing their hands of it.
*ETA if that read like a rant Ben, it certainly wasn’t directed at you or anyone here.
-
Very good Erowid backgrounder on the risky NBOMe drug series which has filled the psychedelics gap since the authorities managed to make LSD too hard to obtain.
It also says this:
The best hope on the horizon for stopping this recurring cycle of drug criminalization and new drug development comes from New Zealand. A new "Psychoactive Substances Bill" has been developed through a collaboration between the New Zealand Ministry of Health, law enforcement, and Stargate International, a harm-minimization organization that began as a commercial "legal highs" distributor. If implemented as expected, this unprecedented law will create a framework by which vendors will be allowed to distribute products containing novel, not-yet-controlled, recreationally-used substances to those 18 and older. Vendors will be required to pay an initial registration fee, demonstrate the basic safety of their products, and track adverse reactions after sales begin.
-
"chris", in reply to
by which vendors will be allowed to distribute products containing novel, not-yet-controlled, recreationally-used substances
Perhaps it's willful misinterpretation, but to me that reads as 'Government sanctioned experimentation on humans'.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
if that read like a rant Ben, it certainly wasn’t directed at you or anyone here.
I didn't read it like that, don't worry. As for horse tranquilizer, the one time I tried Kronik, I formed a belief that something like that might be in it. I had a sense of paralysis which affected my respiration, and had laboured breathing for the next hour or so. It was really unpleasant. I had quite a strong fear that I might have a heart attack or asphyxiate. This effect was limited to that brand though, not that I sampled very widely.
-
"chris", in reply to
You’re game Ben, that doesn’t sound at all like what the doctor ordered.
it’s certainly the case that the law causes anyone who would use dope to use synthetic instead
I wonder how much of a spike in sales the synthetics dealers enjoy during that dry period (Februrary/ March?) just prior to the outdoor cannabis harvest.
-
I tried 25i nbome a couple of times earlier this year. Actually it is not a bad time at a lower dose, elevated mood, slight acid style visuals and notably increased appreciation for music. At a higher dose the visuals become much more intense, but without the feeling of profundity that i appreciate about LSD. The feeling is more agitated and comes with lots of sweating and raised blood pressure. I don't think I would take it again.
I bought it on the Silk Road and it was delivered to my mailbox. Big news this morning is that this site has been shut down by the FBI and the lead admin arrested.
http://boingboing.net/2013/10/02/silk-road-ends-feds-arrest.html
Personally I don't think this is great news for drug safety as I found Silk Road vendors to be on the whole to be more honest and to have higher quality products than what you would find on the street, and like the legal highs market was democratic in that there was no need to know a dealer, although the process of buying was tricky enough, (tor, bitcoin, ecryption) and time delayed so perhaps kept it somewhat exclusive.
I will miss this service.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.