United Future
Since: Aug 2007
Posts: 314

Dunne: Further 3 synthetic cannabis substances to be banned

Posted in Discussion Forum at 05:26PM, 7 Oct 2011 ∞ Permalink

A further three synthetic cannabis substances are in the process of being banned this week and are expected to be off the shelves late next week, Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne said today.
This brings the total number of substances now banned under Temporary Class Drug Notices which became law in August to 19, with 43 actual products containing these substances already removed from the market.
Mr Dunne said while it was concerning to see new products such as Amsterdam Café, which was in the media today, in shops, but he has instructed health officials to investigate and test these new products.
“If it shows that they contain substances already banned, they will be gone. If it shows they contain new untested substances, I will put in place the necessary Temporary Class Drug Notices to deal with it.
“I have removed 43 products already; if I have to remove another 43, so be it,” Mr Dunne said.
“If the industry thinks they can get around the law by changing a couple of ingredients, repackaging, re-branding and back to business the way they always have, then they have seriously misread the scope and potency of this law... Read the full text of this article.

John Smith
Since: Sep 2011
Posts: 3

Posted at 05:26PM, 7 Oct 2011 ∞ Permalink

This is just going to go on and on. With each new ban, something new will appear. You can't take away the demand for things like this, and the people that use them are NOT a minority. They are a community. Quite a large community, in fact. When it comes to legal highs, I think we need proper age restrictions, strength and quality controls, directions for use, and so on. But banning them isn't necessarily going to solve anything. I think people are better off smoking the real thing, but it's illegal, and it seems like any politician who so much as THINKS of decriminalizing cannabis is held up for ridicule in parliament and in the press. Look at Don Brash. He has the courage to bring up an important issue and all some people can do is ridicule him, call him names. Can't we even have a serious debate about this? Is it not worthy of debate? I think it is. I think it's time for a real PUBLIC debate on this, a referendum. How anyone can look at our current drug laws and still think that pot prohibition is working is beyond me. Seems to me it's hurting more people than it's helping.

Jamie Karl
Since: Oct 2011
Posts: 1

Posted at 01:26PM, 10 Oct 2011 ∞ Permalink

Hello.

I would like to understand more about your selection criteria for substances to be temporarily banned- _beleived_ to be of potential risk or harm. That statement in itself, almost does seem like a playground for personal bias and prejudice.

For example, a great number of people are concerned about health risks from cell phones, power stations, wi-fi, eco light bulbs and a number of other things (some additives in foods, colourings, artificial sweetners) - I suspect many people will _beleive_ that there is a potential risk, or even an actual risk. In some cases this is backed up by science and experiement. Why are these items not on your prohibited list but cannibinoids are? (They are all of unassessed risk, by the standard and wording of this law)

Is your criteria really (and I ask you to be honest here) - is it like cannabis and I personally dont like it.....? Or is it really about potential risk...

I am not interested in argument, or points scoring, Id like you to consider the actual criteria for the temp ban, ask yourself if its consistant, and then reply if you feel inclined.

Enjoy your day, and hey, isnt it sad that people dont have faith anymore? people need faith in something higher, even if it aint god.

Peace,
Jamie

Please login to post a reply. Go to Login page »