Reefer Madness 2.0 – ‘Synthetic Drug’ Ban Extended

On Thursday the 15th of August 2013, a 60 day interim ban on various products generally labelled as ‘Synthetic Drugs’ came to completion.
On Friday the 16th of August 2013, Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury decided to extend the ban by 30 more days.

“The interim ban applies to the supply of certain consumer goods containing psychoactive substances (generally referred to as synthetic drugs) that are a form of synthetic cannabinomimetic, NBOMe type substance, or synthetic cocaine type substance that are proscribed by Schedule 9 of the Poisons Standard 2012 as well as other named products believed to be synthetic drugs. The taking of unapproved psychoactive substances is hazardous to consumer’s health and may result in death, serious illness or serious injury.”

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 – Consumer Protection Notice No. 5 of 2013 – Extension of the Ban Period for the Interim Ban on Certain Consumer Goods Containing Synthetic Drug Substances

The claims are broad and frightening.  The Explanatory Statement notes, “The Assistant Treasurer decided that the imminent risk of death, serious illness or serious injury in relation to the use of these drugs warranted a national interim ban on their supply.”

IMMINENT RISK

With such dire sounding consequences coming from someone with such a prestigious place is our parliament, you’d think he must have pretty good reasons for his decision.

Here is a list of the banned products*:

White Revolver, Ash Inferno, Kyote, K2, Kronic, Black Widow, Buddha Express Black Label, Iblaze Tropic Thunder, I blaze, Galaxy Ultra Nova, Skunk, Circus Deluxe, Vortex Inferno, Herbal Incense, King Karma, Montana Madness, Sharman, Iceblaze, Slappa.

* Please note that what is being banned here is NOT a drug or substance, but a product.  These bans come from a different legislative instrument than that which controls currently illicit substances.

This list of products nearly only represents herbal mix products which have been sprayed with one of the many cannabinoid receptor agonists that have been synthesised lately.
(SEE EROWID’S CANNABINOID RECEPTOR AGONIST EXPERIENCES PAGE)
There are several products that are listed which are not CBR-Agonists such as the MDPV-containing product, White Revolver.

No NBOMe product has ever been proven to be sold from any legitimate business.  Claiming that they are protecting people from NBOMe products using this consumer law is an outright lie or profoundly ignorant.

HENRY KWAN – The Anti-Drug Moralist’s Martyr

17 year old Sydney boy Henry Kwan died in a particularly unfortunate incident earlier this year.  After taking a substance that he was not well informed about and may have been misled over, an incident occurred between him, his mother and sister and Henry ran out onto their balcony and jumped off, leading to his death.

The media attention following his death was unprecedented but it seems that fact-checking and careful demarcation of key concepts was not part of the vast majority of journalist’s skill-set when it came to reporting on this issue.

Henry Kwan’s death was linked with the overall ‘Synthetic Drugs’ narrative pushed by pop-media outlets.  Novel psychoactive substances have proved to be a particularly confusing issue for those trying to wrap their heads around the issue.  The truth is that most drugs (including pharmaceuticals) are synthesised by chemists and psychoactive substances are always novel at some point in time.
When MDMA (ecstasy) first began to be used widely in a recreational setting in the 1980’s, it was a novel psychoactive substance and is a ‘synthetic drug’.  After years of research, it has been found to be of a relatively low-level of harm, with the former chairman of the Home Office’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Professor David Nutt infamously commenting that, “There is not much difference between horse riding and ecstasy,” when the potential harms of both are compared.

Kwan’s death was an unfortunate incident indeed and perhaps one that could’ve been avoided if good regulatory controls were in place for a market gone wild.  Prohibition and bans would not have helped Henry.

KRONIC HYSTERIA!

In an article entitled, “Kronic hysteria: exploring the intersection between Australian synthetic cannabis legislation, the media, and drug-related harm” recently published in the International Journal of Drug Policy it was concluded that:

“Policies implemented within in the context of ‘moral panic’, while well-intended, can result in increased awareness of the banned product and the use of new yet-to-be-scheduled drugs with unknown potential for harm. Consideration of regulatory models should be based on careful examination of the likely intended and unintended consequences. Such deliberation might be limited by the discursive landscape.”

The article looked at the significant recent media attention paid to ‘synthetic cannabis’ with a particular focus on the product Kronic.  It found that the media attention resulted in a ‘moral panic‘ which fostered an atmosphere of fear, leading to ill-thought-through policy responses.  Although many of the stories were negative, the moral panic also increased awareness of the products, driving up sales.

At the core of the ‘Synthetic Drugs’ issue lies the same beating heart which drives psychoactive substance prohibition.  It has become almost a cognitive reflex to disdain ‘drugs’ in our culture, regardless of evidence or perceived benefit from those who choose to consume them.  Rather than critically address the issue at hand, it is easier to contain that entire issue within flimsy definitions and then develop a way to spin a fiction around these new definitions.

 SHOULDN’T WE EXPECT BETTER?

Which brings me back to David Bradbury and the bans.  Bradbury noted that the bans are targeted at, “synthetic cannabinomimetic, NBOMe type substance, or synthetic cocaine.”  There is no evidence of any NBOMe type substance ever being sold from a bricks and mortar retailer or any other legal means.  The ‘synthetic cannabinomimetic’ substances have not proven to be the threat posed in the moral panic scenario and the ban has been largely ineffective at regulating an innovative industry.  Overall, the consumer legislation used to enact these bans appears to have been utilised in order to appease an imaginary scenario.

Shouldn’t we expect better from our elected officials?
Shouldn’t we expect a higher quality of analytical and critical engagement skills?

We are all worse off because of this ban.  When our elected officials choose to appease problems which do not exist, they throw money down the pit.
These are not solutions to any problems, but rather appeasing-looking acts which are purely intended as a ‘message’, rather than for intended effect.  The message appears to do little more than appease those who drummed up the moral panic in the first place, while consumption continues and resources are wasted on ineffective regulatory options.
These are Wicked Problems, indeed.