Pubdate: Fri, 12 Oct 2012
Source: Nelson Mail, The (New Zealand)
Copyright: 2012 Fairfax New Zealand Limited
Contact:  http://www.nelsonmail.co.nz/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1069

LEGAL HIGHS LAWS ARE STEP IN RIGHT DIRECTION

The front cover features a wiff of cheeky marketing. "K2 takes you
higher" is the pitch on the black packet of synthetic cannabis,
available for $25 at a dairy near you.

There is also an R18 sign and the obligatory warning that smoking is a
health hazard. The back is more explicit. Don't toke on the legal dope
if you intend to drive or use heavy machinery within six hours.

Don't use to excess, as it may cause anxiety. Don't use if you are
pregnant or breastfeeding. Or, if you have a heart condition,
compromised lung or liver, history of mental illness - in particular,
depression, anxiety, panic attacks or schizophrenia. Or, mix it with
drugs or medicines, especially ones that lower blood pressure.

"Frequent or daily use is not recommended," it warns.

"Users should be aware that development of dependence on this type of
product has rarely been reported, and appropriate limitations on use
may be required in some individuals."

Similar disclaimers could apply to any number of other potentially
dangerous, legal, products, from solvent-based aerosols to meths or
gas.

A difference between such items and legal cannabis is that the former
all have primary household uses - they also happen to produce a cheap
high if abused.

K2, Magnum and the like have been made for one reason: to slither
around New Zealand's drug laws and make healthy profits.

The most common argument put up by supporters of cannabis is that
alcohol is the most harmful drug by far, and the inconsistency from
law-makers is unfair and discriminatory. That line is becoming tiresome.

It might be "discriminatory" to ban children from driving cars on the
highway. But it's also a commonsense attempt to stop youngsters
damaging themselves and other road-users.

Indeed, the harm done daily because of alcohol abuse is a strong
argument in itself for setting high thresholds before other
recreational drugs are allowed in.

That is what the Government intends with new laws attaching the burden
of proof on safety to manufacturers.

The makers of legal highs will have to pay $200,000 application fees
to introduce new products and up to $2 million to properly test them.
Existing products will have to be tested too.

That seems fair enough, though it will give the black market fresh
impetus. Prescription medicine is tightly controlled. Some consistency
in approach makes sense.

One concern about some recreational drugs gracing the market is the
lack of proven quality control over their manufacture, reliable and
comprehensive ingredients list, and absence of scientific testing of
their safety. Then there is the K2 claim, "dependence on this type of
product has rarely been reported".

The mother of a young Nelson man she says has been addicted for a
year, quoted in yesterday's Nelson Mail, might disagree.

So, too, the Dunedin teen who spoke last week of a K2-induced manic
episode in which she battered her own face. Not to mention the police,
ED and addiction specialists around the country, including those in
Nelson, who regularly express alarm about the drug.

If K2, Magnum and the like are harmless, then the onus switches,
rightly, on those who would profit to prove it.

The new law is a step in the right direction. Meantime, how about some
controlled retail "stings" to check the R18 rule is being
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt