Rant about Stargate / Matt Bowden not following his own guidelines.

[cosmicruler]

"Matt Bowden, a party pill supplier and head of the industry's Social Tonics Association, said he believed party pills should have to go through the same testing process as medicines but the lack of regulation was the reason there were breaches."

Why is he selling products himself that have not been put thru the same testing regime as medicines then???(BZP,TFMPP,MeOPP,Methylone etc etc)
SWIm is sick of listening to the BS that comes from the mouths of these so called 'party pill' representatives and thinks its time they themselves started following there own guidelines.
How can you expect others to adhere to these guidelines when the 'godfather' of herbals and founder of the STANZ group in N.Z doesnt follow them himself???

[radiometer]

Stargate has funded scientific studies on some compounds. I can think of no other maker of such products which has done likewise.

There is no lack of research on BZP and TFMPP, these drugs have been around for a long time. Methylone also has been the subject of numerous studies.

Do not take this as a blanket apologia for Stargate, but merely my thoughts on your comments.

[Mint boi]

TBH in my ferrets experience stargate always let their customers know whats in their pills and are very honest about the effects, they are the only party pill company that he knows that have an actual research section (not saying others dont, i just dont know of them), stargate never make statements like " strongest legal high" or "best legal alternative". There are many companies I would be moaning about before stargate.

[Zaprenz]

It would be interesting to make a drug-forum poll on "party-pills" - will they help to progress drug policy in the future (I.e the idea of regulated fully legal highs) or backfire horribly - YES/NO etc

(or words to that effect)

Research has been performed which can only be a good thing compared to some legal high companies (like radiometer mentions). However it is beggars belief that this is of any standard close to what has to be done in relation to licensed medicines. When SWIM read about the ease (methylone) trials he was surprised that didn't get them in to FAR more legal trouble or get them shut down for good.

It's sad how even being slightly pro-active and supporting trials it often creates more legal responsibility [demonstrates intent to supply for human consumption, unlicensed clinical trials, unlicensed medicines, etc etc] even though in the real world any type of clinical trial/research is better than no research.

It's the bizzare adverse drug reactions that occur every 1/1000 that could not only cause serious problem but could completely destroy everything these companies supposedly stand for. [You just have to look at drugs like vioxx which wen't through ALL the framework of bringing a licensed drug to market and it still slipped through the net, party pills will have had absolutely no where near the level of research ]

Hard to predict the outcome with party pills.

[cosmicruler]

Quote:Zaprenz."When SWIM read about the ease (methylone) trials he was surprised that didn't get them in to FAR more legal trouble or get them shut down for good.

It's sad how even being slightly pro-active and supporting trials it often creates more legal responsibility [demonstrates intent to supply for human consumption, unlicensed clinical trials, unlicensed medicines, etc etc] even though in the real world any type of clinical trial/research is better than no research."

It did get them in trouble and the trial was stopped immediatly after all the relevant information and recommendations were made by the ESR!
SWIM agree that some trials are better than none(and swim really enjoyed the methylone) but the reality of the situation is that stargate were selling class C drugs to the public for about 6 months and making a huge profit from this and there was NO real legal action taken!!!!
What sort of a message does this send to other 'herbal' companies....Sell illegal analogues of drugs and youl just get a slap on the wrist, get to keep your profits and forfit(spell?) the rest of your product.

swim is not hear to bash Matt, but he is the voice and face of 'herbals in N.Z and some1 needs to put there foot down before the RC market is ruined for all, esp those who are just in it for the research and not for the huge profits.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good post: to quote text

[Zaprenz]

Anyone know how to set up a poll (this would be interesting) ?

In 10 years times if people look back on "party pills", will they have:

1. Progressed policy *towards* more realistic drug laws (in someway)
2. Stayed essentially neutral (always coming up with new ones)
3. Forced governments to tighten up
4. backfired horribly
5. other prediction

To SWIM it seems one BIG error could end it all in seconds (I.e multiple deaths from party pills) & destroy individual "researching" & the party pill industry in one go. However if they were extremely lucky(SWIM is unconvinced of this) it might somehow force a certin change in public opinion on the idea of taking a pill when someone isn't ill (I.e purely for fun) which could lead to potentially fully licensed pills (which have been officially researched).

If SWIM had to predict though (as talked about above) these companies are not investing all their effort & money in the future they are making hugh profits today.

SWIM would probably predict they will fissle out (after more & more legislation passes) and ultimately destroy the industry. SWIM hopes a big error doesn't happen as this will just speed the process.

It would of course be nice to think they helped progress things but SWIM is not convinced.

[paranoid_android]

Sonofabitch. I thought this was about the show.

[CrakkBakk]

Does OP not realize that he is just saying this to back him up? Like he really cares?

[Iggypoop]

I think the legislations on party pills will backfire horribly as people rush to make more concoctions with obscure chemicals, eventually something dangerous will be used :\

Diphenyl-prolinol is a good example which has already been mentioned in this forum.

[starboy]

Hi,

I have the flu today so excuse me if I am a bit grumpy but as this appears to be a personal attack thread - looking like it is from somebody I went on holiday with I guess I should reply to it.

What is your problem with me today?

Matt Bowden.

[cosmicruler]

i merely made a comment in an other thread in regards to herbals and a mod has opened this AND MADE IT ITS OWN thread up and blown it out of proportion...my problem and argument is still the same as i have expressed many times on several forums before...
its not a personal attack,it is an attack on the industry and the waY ITS BEING HANDLED IN nz!!

[starboy]

the quote is an indirect quote - it is not something I said, it looks like a misquote - where is it from

[Paracelsus]

Maybe his "statement" was just wishful thinking? I have the same opinion - in an ideal world, new psychoactives should go through testing (like it happens with pharmaceuticals today) and unauthorized sale of unapproved new drugs (RCs) would be illegal. Same would stand for unauthorized private "research," although it should not be punished severely.

[starboy]

OK

Here are some thoughts about the way that I am conducting myself in the industry that I started 10 years ago.

I am just going to start typing and it might be long but too bad - the thread has my name on it so here's my thoughts courtesy of ibuprofen and codeine and maybe some other stuff I had around the house.

WHERE DO I WANT TO TAKE DRUG POLICY?
I do believe that future drug policy should be based around allowing access to drugs rather than the prohibition approach. That risks can be better managed without prohibition by putting a risk management system in place like we do with medicines in most of Western society.

I watched drug prohibition for decades and I decided that I would do something about it, so I started this industry in New Zealand and I created standards and I am gradually raising them.

It's cost a lot more money - more than I have made out of this industry to do this.

WAS THE EASE TRIAL CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE ARE LOBBYING FOR?
Absolutely. What we did with methylone was a trial, everybody who tried the commercial product was certifiably fully aware that the drug had not been tested yet. This is what the informed consent form was for that they signed. Basically "YES I UNDERSTAND THIS DRUG HASN'T BEEN TESTED."

We didn't pretend it had been through formal testing already. It is the same with medicines, some humans have to be the first humans to try them. As you know, we took ethical advice on this and we followed the ethical advice.

This is not in conflict with our goal of higher standards or anything else. There are plenty of research chemicals we have decided not to market because there is no history of human use. If I had a purely profit motive I would have been selling any of the highly addictive low dosage, cheap to produce stimulants that are out there but I have chosen to leave them alone as they don't fit the profile of what I am looking for. I don't even give them to my friends.

WHAT AM I LOBBYING FOR?
What I am lobbying for is a system whereby under a new misuse of drugs act, products which are safe enough can be made available to the public, but only through a licensed system - where the person behind the counter between the drugs and the consumer has a qualification - like at the chemist store.

WHERE ARE WE AT WITH IT?
Where we are up to in the public debate at the moment is not whether or not this is a good idea, we have established that already through numerous amounts of meeting with individual policy analysts, advisors, members of parliament and government committees and we have already got legislation through parliament to mark this progress - I am not a lawyer but I think this can be used as precedent for other common law countries.

WHAT HAVE WE ACHIEVED TO DATE?

We got a new category in our country for non traditional designer substances to have some degree of regulation around them - age limits, advertising restrictions, restrictions around the sorts of places that sell them. This came out of our proposals made to government. This is already progress which came out of the BZP movement - we are already clearly moving forward from prohibition. (In NZ & Ireland anyway)

I have spoken to drug policy analysts at international conferences and in other countries and it is clear that many favour this approach over prohibition. The example we have set is already progressing drug policy, so perhaps your poll could be based on awareness of what has happened in the past rather than what is going to happen in the future, but a lot of people carry around a negative mindset that "nothing will ever change for the better" so they won't see it. It would be interesting to see if a poll reflects this. It's a shame really, if more people had a bit more hope and belief maybe they would get off their arses and do something useful themselves.

REVIEW MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT AGAINST BILL OF RIGHTS ACT
One of the goals I discussed with my political advisors when I began this was to have our entire Misuse of Drugs Act reviewed against the Bill of Rights Act. 10 years ago it seemed impossible but in 2008 it is actually going to happen. This is progress in a common law country such as New Zealand.

We kept enough pressure on our government, consistently reminding them by funding reports and risk analyses and legal arguments that the risks associated with recreational drug use are far less than those associated with other normal daily activities. They are sold on this now as evidenced by various Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advice to ministers, by Ministry of Health advice to minister on potential steps to regulate party pills (December 2006) etc ad infinitum

ISN'T [insert complaint here] GOING TO STUFF IT ALL UP THOUGH?
So often I hear different people with different perspectives saying that one thing or another is going to "stuff it all up for everybody." Speciality retailers think broader retailers are going to stuff it all up, established marketers think every new marketer is going to stuff it all up, the liquor industry thinks the party pill industry is going to stuff it all up and vice versa. It is all uneducated paranoia, like the noob on the forum who pops up every month telling everybody to stop talking about DMT or something because the cops are all reading it and it will get banned. Read the surveillance docs, it's not forum discussions that do it. Or the guy who says the cops are listening to his cellfone when it is switched off, read the court documents - no evidence has been put forward in that medium - with me?

My perspective is this. As far as NZ is concerned I am in regular contact with the people behind the scenes writing the policy advice, the experts on the committees, the strategists in the leading parties, various other string-pullers. The problems that come up which paranoid people who're in the dark point at in fear crying "THIS IS GOING TO STUFF IT ALL UP" generally highlight risks of prohibition and under-regulation and strengthen the resolve to progress everything forward.

I have lived and breathed this stuff for 10 years now. I think I have a reasonably good grip on what is going on.

IS IT BETTER TO OBEY LAWS NOT YET IN EXISTENCE TO HELP USHER THEM IN?
Good point. Probably. We tried this. We set our voluntary dosage limits and pack sizes and most of the industry made a pact to stick to them in the hope that the government would make these voluntary measures into law but guess what ... it didn't work. They didn't act honourably and they left us high and dry. What happens if something isn't law yet is that commercial reality comes into play and somebody else comes along and exploits the situation for financial gain. We set a limit of 200mg per pill somebody just comes along selling 300mg pills.

Lesson learned.

Today we keep playing the game a certain way but at the same time say "Hey I think we should set rules in place that say such and such."

WHAT SHOULD THE STATEMENT HAVE SAID?
As I said, the next thing that is happening is that New Zealand's entire Misuse of Drugs Act will be reviewed by the Law Commission because the Minister keeps trying to use it to ban things when he knows he is just doing this to keep votes, and the independent committee of experts he set up to advise him on how to categorise new drugs is complaining (in meeting minutes) that they feel under pressure from government to produce a certain result (ban everything) and we have called him on this publicly.

His lawyers have told him to get his hand off it before it burns him or he is going to get his arse sued off so the Act is getting reviewed and the question that's being asked is whether the onus can be put on sponsors of a new product to prove safety for new drugs before they come to market, and if the sponsor can prove safety then can government allow them to sell it. i.e. can govt discharge responsibility (and industry insure themselves)

In the context of this next review, the question arises "HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH"

My proposal is that UNDER THE NEW MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT that new drugs should meet the same safety standard as medicines.

Is this all going to stuff everything up for everybody else in the whole world?

I doubt it.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	thanks for reply
	Thanks for the reply. Hope your cold is better.

[Zaprenz]

Hi,

Btw thanks for the reply: certainly in terms of SWIMs own posts in this thread - they were not mean't to be an attack on any company but just general discussion on the topic. Also SWIM does appreciate the standards which some companies are trying to set.


Modern licensed medicines though can cost up to $1billion to bring to market, take 5 to 15 years to become available and often going through up to 10,000 different compounds before a viable one is found. (HERG, carcinogenic, teratogenic, multi-recetor assays & the list goes on in safety research)

As much as SWIM would like to see some form of regulation, what makes SWIM think it might require considerably greater change in public opinion is the vast sums of money involved if people want standards which are equivalent to modern medicines. A company will also have to invest such large sums during a time of uncertain future whether such drugs would be accepted in the future during marketing.

There is of course the other arguement that current known recreational/illegal drugs be legalised or regulated in some way (which again SWIM would see as beneficial) but party pill manufacturers are currently (for whatever reasons) using chemicals which have little research associated with them (Agreed this may be due to the pressure of current drug legislation) and distributing them in however many millions of doses.

Even when pharmaceutical companies have invested such large sums major problems can occur (e.g vioxx) & other major catastrophes have gone unnoticed till it is to late (e.g thalidomide). It will only take one party pill (usually with no ingredients listed!) to be taken by Xthousand people to cause a serious problem which could force public opinion back harshly AGAINST any form of regulated drug use.


SWIM strongly believes in the idea of freedom of choice in using drugs as an individual and does appreciate part of the problem is convincing governments to adapt their thinking but...


SWIMS opinion:

A person either should be informed of the ingredients & risks (and from that choose whether or not they want to ingest *newdrugx*) OR if the ingredients are not listed (which is becoming more and more frequent) the safety should be the responsibility of the manufacturer (which comes back to the large sums of money needed for proof of safety and the complete lack of research by some companies)