Legal highs: the new 'social tonics'?

[Thirdedge]

Monday 23rd October 2006

Britain's drugs laws are in a mess, and into the confusion has stepped a new breed of drugs entrepreneurs who claim they have the answer: safe, substitute substances. By Stephen Armstrong

I meet my dealer, Matt Bowden, in the plush foyer of a Kensington hotel. He welcomes me with a big smile on his boyish face, hands over his business card and opens up his laptop. "I've got a PowerPoint presentation on the pills if you'd like to see it," he offers.

Matt Bowden isn't exactly an ordinary dealer. Indeed, in the truest sense of the word, he isn't a dealer at all. For one thing, the pills he's selling are perfectly legal. He's a smart marketing man from New Zealand who sees Britain's unquenchable desire for "social tonics" - his favourite phrase - as a big opportunity.

"There needs to be a move away from prohibition in drug laws," he argues in his soft Kiwi accent. "Today the laws reward gangsters and that's completely dysfunctional. What I'm saying is: let's look at it from a marketing perspective and see what consumer needs are currently being met by criminals. Are people looking to relax? Is it a social lubricant? People take E, for instance, to break down barriers so they can communicate in a social environment. I'm saying we should meet those consumer needs with something that has a lower risk profile."

Until last Friday, Bowden had hoped this country was going to be receptive to his arguments. In January, the then home secretary, Charles Clarke, announced a full review of the UK's drugs classification system. In July, the Commons science and technology select committee described the current arrangements as "not fit for purpose". Charities such as DrugScope argued that drugs should be classified according to the personal and social harm they inflicted. Even David Cameron believed that Ecstasy should be downgraded from Class A. On 13 October, however, the new Home Office regime announced its disagreement, and - while moving to upgrade crystal meth (a highly addictive form of amphetamine) from Class B to Class A - decided that things are fine as they are. According to the Home Office minister Vernon Coaker, "It is important that there is a coherent system in place to categorise drugs. I believe the existing classification system does this effectively, allowing for clear distinctions to be made between drugs."

DrugScope was hugely disappointed. Its chief executive, Martin Barnes, believes the UK's drugs policies "have clearly failed". "The current system was introduced 35 years ago and during that time we have seen a significant increase in levels of drug use and drug-related harms," he argues. "There is no silver bullet, no ideal system, but the government should not be afraid to lead a debate as to whether there are better alternatives."

The problem in working out exactly what to do about drugs is the vast amount of conflicting data. Despite dire warnings from Jimmy McGovern's Cracker, Britain's streets don't seem to be awash with Afghan heroin. Indeed, the most recent official figures, which cover 1998-2003, show that seizures of heroin, like for all drugs except cocaine, have been falling since 2001. Data from the British Crime Survey 2005/2006 - also released 13 October - shows levels of crack, Ecstasy and heroin use remaining stable, with only cocaine on the up. Despite cocaine use doubling since 1998, just 2.4 per cent of the population have ever tried the stuff. And surprisingly - or perhaps obviously - cannabis use has plummeted since the drug was downgraded in 2004.

At the same time, however, the street prices of all drugs are continuing to fall. Cocaine can be picked up for about £45 a gram, Ecstasy for £3 a pill and heroin for roughly £40 a gram. Market deflation is rampant, suggesting that all attempts to restrict supply have failed. This summer also brought an explosion in illegal outdoor parties. Police forces in Cornwall, Gloucestershire, Thames Valley, Norfolk and Essex have reconstituted their "rave units", disbanded in the mid-1990s after the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 outlawed open-air parties. With dance culture on the rise again, experts predict that demand for drugs will surge.

The basic problem any drugs policy faces is simple: people are always going to want to take them. On that, Bowden and Barnes agree. Whether through alcohol or Ecstasy, most people want to get high now and then. Barnes believes tackling social deprivation will reduce any harm. And yet the typical cocaine user - the only growth area of the drugs market - is white, college- educated and well off. With terrorist attacks being funded by drug money, maybe Bowden's legal alternatives theory is worthy of attention.

Bowden has already tested his arguments. He developed his legal highs from a compound called benzylpiperazine (BZP) - originally synthesised in 1944 to tackle agricultural parasites - to combat his and his wife's crystal meth addiction. BZP bonds to the same receptor as meth, but its effects are softer, making it far less destructive. In 1999, the New Zealand government was facing a rising crystal meth problem and took the unusual step of creating a new class for "harm reduction" drugs, Class D, allowing licensed companies to make and sell piperazine-based highs. So far, five million BZP pills have been sold in New Zealand and Bowden's Stargate business has the lion's share. The company also sells the pills to Britons via its website.

Indeed, BZP is suddenly very widely available in this country. The chemical is banned in the US, Denmark and Australia, but is legal here. Companies such as Spiritual High and Everyonedoesit have started marketing their own versions. Taking a leaf from Bowden's book, most offer the pills as a "harm minimisation programme". "These products offer a safe, highly effective and proven alternative to illicit substances," asserts the website funkpills.co.uk.

Bowden definitely believes this mantra. An astonishing 20 per cent of the New Zealand population tried party pills when they became legal, he explains. "The Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation found that 44.1 per cent - 60,000 people - who used party pills and other illegal drugs stopped using. That's a lot of people getting their lives back." He wants to develop pills to replace a variety of illicit substances, starting with MDMA. Initial trials of his alternative - called Ease - ran into problems in New Zealand because its active ingredient, methylone, is chemically similar to a controlled drug. For now, trials have been suspended.

Ronald Siegel, a psychopharmacologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, fears BZP has moved from the lab to the street far too quickly. "It can take 14 years for a new drug to pass through all the protocols in the US," he says. He admits, however, that pharmaceutical companies are researching mood-altering chemicals - including one attempt to alter the cocaine molecule chemically and create an antidepressant chewing gum. To date, Bowden insists, there has been only one reported death associated with BZP: in Zurich in 2001, a 23-year-old took two tablets as well as Ecstasy and drank more than ten litres of water in 15 hours. She later died from hyponatraemia, or water poisoning - the same thing that killed the school student Leah Betts.

"If you restrict supply, that doesn't decrease demand," Bowden tells me, as we finish drinking our coffee. "All that happens is that the price goes up and the rewards are greater. Why don't we reduce demand instead? Let's say we needed uppers to get us through this meeting and the cops took away most of our speed. We might then decide to cut what's left with something, or we might just order a couple of cups of espresso instead." He grins as I drain my cup. "There you go. That's demand reduction through a safer alternative for you . . ."



Legally relaxed?

So do these legal "party pills" actually work? I took a BZP pill and was surprised how potent it was. The physical manifestations of Ecstasy - dry mouth, hot flushes - were there, but the all-consuming rush didn't arrive. Instead, there was a general feeling of well-being, with a little spaciness.


Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/200610230025

Reputation Comments on this post:

Great, thanks for sharing!

[Paracelsus]

Very interesting point of view. The guy is right when he calls his products "social tonics". That gives the impression that it is everyones right to consume those products, like with alcohol, tobacco and coffee, and not a "loophole" / "grey area" / "semi-legal product".

It would be nice if people would see legal highs as what they are, not as new drugs that the government has failed to schedule but will do so soon.

[D.U.M.B]

Yeah I also agree with the social tonics point of view. And as Paracelsus said it would be nice if people would see these legal highs for what they are.

It seems that no matter what "tonics" become available they will have complaints against them. Legal highs are a step in the right direction if you ask me. Who doesn't want potential safer and cleaner drugs rather than the dirt that can be on the streets

[Nagognog2]

His using "harm minimisation programme" as a sales-gimmick lulls people into a false sense of security. For this reason alone, I'd like to hear about his being run over by a steam-roller.

[Alfa]

If this approach gets research chemicals accepted by the governements, then I am happy with that, but I highly doubt so.

[Trebor]

I find that the people who buy legal highs are people wo just want a quick "buzz", Swim was in his head shop and found that three people, cahvs, came in complaining that the Mg's they bought made them sick. Had the done research they'd have known thins. The just abuse these substances.

[Sky Walker]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

His using "harm minimisation programme" as a sales-gimmick lulls people into a false sense of security. For this reason alone, I'd like to hear about his being run over by a steam-roller.

Come on now nag he isn't really trying to trick people into thinking they are totally safe drugs only that they ARE a "harm minimisation programme" in that all drugs can be/are dangerous but harm is reduced by his drugs because they are regulated and pure. It is a real sense of security, maybe he's a tad misleading but the security from regulated substances is far from false.

[Alfa]

Although off topic:

Originally Posted by Trebor

Swim was in his head shop and found that three people, cahvs, came in complaining that the Mg's they bought made them sick. Had the done research they'd have known thins.

If they had received proper information from the headshop, they would have as well.

[Riconoen {UGC}]

Well chavs are idiots anyways .

[Trebor]

Here here Riconoen.

[Euphoric]

Originally Posted by Sky Walker

Come on now nag he isn't really trying to trick people into thinking they are totally safe drugs only that they ARE a "harm minimisation programme" in that all drugs can be/are dangerous but harm is reduced by his drugs because they are regulated and pure. It is a real sense of security, maybe he's a tad misleading but the security from regulated substances is far from false.

Hasn't research been done on legal highs (piperazines specifically) that says the doses on the package can vary astronomically from the actual contents? Don't remember if any particular brand/maker was mentioned, but SWIM is sure he read it here.

[Paracelsus]

Euphoric: I think that was posted in a thread in the RC forum, about measuring RCs without a scale.
EDIT: Here it is: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3029

Originally Posted by radiometer

This is the underlying problem. When you receive it, you do NOT KNOW how much you have. SWIM has ordered 500mg of a product from a reliable supplier in the past, but received 1g! There are many examples of this occuring, on this and other forums. Imagine if the product SWIM ordered had been, say, DOI, and SWIM followed your instructions and ended up taking double the normal dose. WHOOPS! Another DOI-related emergency room report - just what we need!

Alfa: I also doubt this approach would get RCs accepted by the governments, but if people start to use those drugs (i mean the average citizen, not only drug users who ran out of money for meth), this would make the government think twice before banning those items.

I just had an idea: Any new (still legal) and "good" RC should be studied by research groups like MAPS to discover their benefits in psychotherapy or other pharmaceutical uses, so they are less likely to become Schedule I drugs. That might work I think, but only in some cases.

[Alfa]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

I just had an idea: Any new (still legal) and "good" RC should be studied by research groups like MAPS to discover their benefits in psychotherapy or other pharmaceutical uses, so they are less likely to become Schedule I drugs. That might work I think, but only in some cases.

That may mean that they would likely be scheduled as a medicine, which places them out of reach of consumers. Although the enourmous cost of proving research chemicals safe for human use, will be a problem, I do see strong benefits for this approach. More research into research chemicals, before they become commercially available, would be a safer basis for consumers and would make scheduling research chemicals as a controlled substance more difficult for governments.

[Euphoric]

Actually, this may have been what I was thinking of, however, I thought I'd read something very similar in the news section too. http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/sho...+dose+contents

Originally Posted by Alfa

I have spoken to the company which sells these products about the contents. They do not know what is in their products, besides that BZP and TMFFP are in there in unknown amounts. The product is not produced in the UK, but in New Zealand.

[Trebor]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

I just had an idea: Any new (still legal) and "good" RC should be studied by research groups like MAPS to discover their benefits in psychotherapy or other pharmaceutical uses, so they are less likely to become Schedule I drugs. That might work I think, but only in some cases.

Why didn't they do that before Acid was made illegal? Or Mushrooms for that matter.

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by Trebor

Why didn't they do that before Acid was made illegal? Or Mushrooms for that matter.

They did. LSD, shrooms and other psychedelics were used in psychotherapy before they became illegal. The cause why they are illegal is because shitloads of hippies started using them uncontrolled, had bad trips and shit (official reason). And now LSD and Psilocybin are Schedule I, with "high abuse potential and no recognized role in medicine". Bastards.

Alfa: I know that they would still be scheduled as a medicine, but at least not Schedule I. If they will be scheduled II,III or lower they would be more available (diversion of pharmaceuticals).