Which is a shame, because someone really needs to give them a shake-up.
Yup. When I was working at the Drug Foundation we put in some OIA requests about the cost of drug-related operations. After ignoring it for a month, and then asking for an extension for another month, they asked us to come down to the HQ and we had a meeting in the very lovely police cafe (you should go there, great view, average coffee). They told us some bull about their accounting systems not tracking costs on a per operation basis — which I find negligent. Eg.
Me: How much did Operation Nebraska cost?
Police: Sorry, we have no idea.
Now there's an idea…
I'm hanging out to celebrate the Drug Peace
That was something else that Nadelman was talking about. What happens next. Well there are all sorts of other things to keep us busy on the human rights front, because it's not just about drugs, it's about racism and inequality too.
What if I put Roman numerals or Khmer (១, ២, ៣, ៤, ៥)?
Thanks for the link, Russell. Great story too. I think the thing for me is the massive disconnect between what the law does and what the public thought it would do. The job of communicating what it did kind of fell into a gap for an issue that had attracted such widespread public interest. Compare and contrast that to Uruguay's public education campaign while they were debating cannabis legalisation and we come up short.
You should apply.
Correct me if I'm wrong
Okay: You are correct that the law means companies must prove their drugs meets safety standards before they can go on the market. However, products that were already on sale in the three months prior to the Psychoactive Substances Act passing were given an interim period where they could be sold if they a) applied for an interim license and b) deemed low-risk a risk assessment model developed by the Ministry of Health. c) continued to be deemed low risk and were not reported to the Psychoactive Substances Authority as causing harm. If a product is/was reported, then an investigation would be carried out and the product could lose license.
The interim period is a stop gap so not to push people or the products to the black market.
To address the rest out of order:
So doesn't the Act effectively ban all new psychoactive substances?
Kinda. It deems them "unapproved products" and flips the onus of proof onto the manufacturer. They can't legally sell without out a license. You get a license through clincal testing. This leads me to the middle point you made.
Surely then, these trials should not be able to receive ethics committee approval.
Which is why the Ministry of Health needed to set up a regulatory framework for this testing process which would resemble clinical trials but would be specific to this regime.
Why does Russia have such a big problem with poppy seeds? Did Putin eat a poppy seed bun before a major speech only to have his teeth riddled with little black dots and his confidence shaken by the slight chuckles and groans of disgust from the audience?
It's Matters of Substance, man!