We don't do drugs, other than those prescribed by our very trusted GP. So we were initially a bit detached from the current controversy over the "legal high" Kronic, and derivatives of it. But when we read last week that the scientist who developed the active ingredient in these products (JWH 018) strongly recommended that people NOT use the artificial cannabis saying that "It can lead to serious psychological problems... It's not known if they are irreversible."our interest was piqued a little.
Our interest with further piqued over the last few days when two brands of these artifical cannabis products have been banned by the Health Ministry because they contain prescription medications. But it's thrown the whole issue open to wider debate.
Yestreday morning, Breakfast interviewed Tom Claunch from the Capri Trust, a private addiction clinic in Auckland. You can watch the interview by following this link. Mr Claunch pulled no punches, and described the offer by the legal high industry to self-regulate as akin to "leaving a pervert in charge of the Sunday School picnic". It's hard to disagree with that; it's hard to imagine anyone with a more vested interest in these products than those who profit from them.
Assoociate Health Minister Peter Dunne has signalled moves to restrict these "legal highs", but he's copping it from both sides. One one hand, he's been accused of taking too long to restrict Kronic sales; on the other hand, he's accused of being heavy-handed. We believe that the government, via the health ministry is the right source of regulation in this instance; we certainly don't like the idea of self-regulation of products such as these by those who benefit from their sale.
As parents of two young adult children in the age range targetted by the distributors of these products, we hope that they have the common-sense to give them a wide berth. Young people have a difficult enough path to navigate without resorting to products which could cause them long-term harm.
11 comments:
"We believe that the government, via the health ministry is the right source of regulation; we certainly don't like the idea of self-regulation."
Those words will return to haunt you Inv2.
That is, I'll be reminding you of your fondness for Nanny.
Perhaps I need to change the wording Rob = - the right source of regulation IN THIS INSTANCE. Peter Dunne is enough of a nanny already!
All sorted; quote now reads:
We believe that the government, via the health ministry is the right source of regulation in this instance; we certainly don't like the idea of self-regulation of products such as these by those who benefit from their sale.
Thanks for helping me to edit!
I haven't written about this myself, despite following the story closely, and also having children in the age bracket that these products are targeting.
I don't know what to say. It saddens and frustrates me that it appears there will always be something out there, some new product that encourages people to alter their state of reality.
These are nothing more than gateway drugs that will inevitably lead to more serious addictions in a high percentage of their users.
I had never touched an illegal drug in my life. At 35 i took a legal party pill...enough said.
This whole topic frustrates and saddens me. It really does. The fact that there is always a new one, to replace a banned one fills me with a sense of helplessness that i have not been able to muster the energy to even write about.
I had never touched an illegal drug in my life. At 35 I didn't take a legal party pill...enough said.
Good for you Moist.
Way to be an absolute waste of font.
You beat me to it Jackie.
MVL; most of us have done things in our youth (or even when not-so-young) that we regret, and to her credit, Jackie's been completely up-front about her past; she has my admiration for breaking a destructive cycle.
Lets ban it!
Yesterday on another blog everyone was all for banning the tents with eyeholes some sheilas choose to wear so let's just ban everything.
Why not just tax it?
I'm an old fart.
Over the years I have tried many drugs, both legal and otherwise - including methamphetamine (called "speed" by us years ago and used to work very long hours).
I've never yet been addicted to one (including tobacco which I stopped using at age 30 after 15 years of smoking) to the point where it has affected my life adversely.
It's called being responsible.
Make it legal for employers to ban Kronic and whatever else pisses them off from their premises and to fire employees affected by such things, ensure information on the damage things like this can do and shoot any bastard who pollutes it with genuine nasties and tax the shit out of it yes.
Ban it? NO!
Anyone, Jacqueline included, deserves admiration for "breaking a destructive cycle". I did not, nor would I suggest otherwise.
Jacqueline introduced her personal experience into the argument,which I believe is about the merits of banning a substance, and I countered with mine.
We were both faced with the same "legal party pill". I chose not to imbibe. She did the opposite, and to follow her reasoning, it was the mere existence of this pill that sent her into her spiral of despair.
I hold no brief, nor find a use for so-called party drugs of any kind. But given that the only solution to the perceived problem postulated in your post (now there's some alliteration for you), is regulation and banning, may I respectfully introduce the word "choice".
By the way, paraphrasing a previous post and changing one word, I would consider a frugal use of "font".
Cheers for that MVL; it wasn't intended as a dig at you; apologies if it came across that way. But everyone's metabolism is different, and sometimes just a taste can lead to an addiction.
Our service club heard from a youth drug and alcohol counsellor a few months ago, and he told us that most of the teens he was working with were getting their first taste of drugs at home. In addition, the gangs were giving young people a free taste of P to lure them into the scene; that really angers me, because I've seen first-hand how destructive a P addiction can become.
Whether Kronic is that toxic, I don't have a clue. But it's certainly something that should be on the MoH's radar at the moment.
I have no doubt that choosing to take a legal party pill was the beginning of my path down a very dark road. It is no coincidence that my whole life, i had always been very anti drugs - had even been offered P previously and declined that offer, then made a different choice once i had been stupid enough to try a legal party pill.
That was my experience. Everyone's experiences are different and not everyone who tries these legal highs will carry on down that destructive path - but a lot will.
One is too many.
What saddens me about this whole topic is that there is even a market out there for these legal highs. There is nothing positive about these products. There is nothing positive that can come from their use. So why is there such a huge market out there in New Zealand?
Nothing is ever going to change. No amount of banning is going to stop new products being put on the shelves until the demand for them is gone.
Why do so many New Zealanders want to use them? That is the problem that our health ministers need to look at, and until they do i guess banning is the next best thing.
Too bad it all seems a bit like trying to get rid of my dog's fleas - just when i think i have killed them all - a new bath of eggs have hatched.
Post a Comment