Legal Highs

murrayp4

Powerhouse wrote: »

1) there is no such thing as a victimless crime. Only those too dumb to think it through.

What about blasphemy? :-)

penguin88

penguin88 wrote: »

Not true, you're wrong about not being able to sell unlicensed drugs. But anyway, mephedrone isn't classified as a drug here (at least, it won't be until this June) so it is not trying to circumvent medicines legislation either.

So I'll go again: Why is it sold as a plant feeder/bath salt then?

That's the only reason that I can think of. Given that I neither work for a head shop nor a mephedrone distributor, I can't exactly say why they do it, but this is the only reason I have heard. If I'm incorrect about this being the case in Ireland, is may be so in the UK, as products available here are also available there.

I'm sure they would label their products "Mephedrone, 1000mg, 4-methylmethcathinone" along with safety information if they could.

Edit: In either case, mephedrone isn't a bath salt or plant food.

poppyvalley

seamus wrote: »

But you don't otherwise know? And you're consuming it?
Whatever about the danger of illegal narcotics, at least you can do some research before you take it and make the best informed decision on whether to take it.

With these yokes, you just have some undereducated mop head handing you a bag of it and telling you that it's great. You haven't a fncking clue what risks you're taking. Insanity.

and you'll wake up next day and wish you had'nt

Kurtosis

Deleted User wrote: »

That's the only reason that I can think of. Given that I neither work for a head shop nor a mephedrone distributor, I can't exactly say why they do it, but this is the only reason I have heard. If I'm incorrect about this being the case in Ireland, is may be so in the UK, as products available here are also available there.

I'm sure they would label their products "Mephedrone, 1000mg, 4-methylmethcathinone" along with safety information if they could.

Edit: In either case, mephedrone isn't a bath salt or plant food.

No bother, it's just curious that medicines legislation is the oft quoted reason for selling them as plant foods/bath salts, and is not a reason in actual fact.

Not so sure if they really want to put detailed information on the label, there doesn't seem to be any substantial reason why they can't. Perhaps it's simply a shrewd move to try and absolve the manufacturers/sellers of any responsibility if things go wrong when the products are consumed...

OutlawPete

There was around 40 people queuing up last night to buy this crap from a hatch at a headshop just down from Spy nightclub last night.

As we were walking past I heard a dealer asking the queue if they wanted Hash .. genius place to be selling it

DepecheHead101

penguin88 wrote: »

Not true, you're wrong about not being able to sell unlicensed drugs. But anyway, mephedrone isn't classified as a drug here (at least, it won't be until this June) so it is not trying to circumvent medicines legislation either.

So I'll go again: Why is it sold as a plant feeder/bath salt then?

To cut a long story short : So they can get away with selling it. That's it. Case closed. End of argument.

It's not actually plant feeder. Never was. Never will be. Find me one page on Google that discusses it's virtues as a plant growth accelerant.

Why would plants need amphetamines?

Kurtosis

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

To cut a long story short : So they can get away with selling it. That's it. Case closed. End of argument.

Glad you've solved the problem. Well done. :rolleyes: Why would they not get away with it selling it as a "dietary supplement" or even simply as something for human consumption?

It's not actually plant feeder. Never was. Never will be. Find me one page on Google that discusses it's virtues as a plant growth accelerant.

Why would plants need amphetamines?

Yeah, I know that it's not a plant feeder! I'm wondering why it is sold as one.

DepecheHead101

penguin88 wrote: »

Glad you've solved the problem. Well done. :rolleyes: Why would they not get away with it selling it as a "dietary supplement" or even simply as something for human consumption?



Yeah, I know that it's not a plant feeder! I'm wondering why it is sold as one.

Liability. A mother goes to the store with her son who is drooling all over his Tiesto T-Shirt and the guy behind the counter calmly points out that it wasn't for human consumption and that it's none of his business.

Stuff for human consumption still has to pass some sort of act as well, I'm guessing.

rubadub

LoopyLaura wrote: »

My legal high,

a triple shot skinny latte in storbucks.

not surprising, caffeine is the most commonly abused psychoactive drug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine

Caffeine is a bitter, white crystalline xanthine alkaloid that is a psychoactive stimulant drug.

Caffeine intoxication
An acute overdose of caffeine, usually in excess of about 300 milligrams, dependent on body weight and level of caffeine tolerance, can result in a state of central nervous system over-stimulation called caffeine intoxication (DSM-IV 305.90),[91] or colloquially the "caffeine jitters". The symptoms of caffeine intoxication are not unlike overdoses of other stimulants. It may include restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushing of the face, increased urination, gastrointestinal disturbance, muscle twitching, a rambling flow of thought and speech, irritability, irregular or rapid heart beat, and psychomotor agitation.[89] In cases of much larger overdoses, mania, depression, lapses in judgment, disorientation, disinhibition, delusions, hallucinations, and psychosis may occur, and rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of skeletal muscle tissue) can be provoked.[

300mg, while...

A recent laboratory test sampled a series of Starbucks Breakfast Blend brewed coffees. The caffeine dose varied from 299.5mg right up to a massive 564.4mg per 16oz cup

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/caffeine/caffeine_dose.shtml

Oral Caffeine Dosages
Threshold 10 - 20 mg
Common 50 - 150 mg
Strong 150 - 400 mg
Heavy 400 + mg
Lethal 3-20 grams oral

ToniTuddle wrote: »

Alot of folks have been saying the legal stuff is alot more dangerous than the illegal stuff?? Why is that?

A lot of the illegal drugs are relatively safer than the legal alternatives - and this is not just unregulated drugs, I would sooner take amphetamine than caffeine if I could get a legal regulated pure supply. A drug being illegal is not a sign of how dangerous it is, in fact the opposite is often the case, if a drug is physiologically safe to use then it has a higher potential for abuse. Using the same term you did "dangerous"

Research published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows:
1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines
8. Amphetamine
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine
11. Cannabis
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl nitrates
20. Khat

There is a documentary about this here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6108672696241807159&ei=kcFkStTmIJWj-AbOpvC0CQ&q#

penguin88 wrote: »

So I'll go again: Why is it sold as a plant feeder/bath salt then?

Probably just the same labelling as in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone

United Kingdom: Mephedrone/4MMC is currently not covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; psychiatrists have lobbied for it to be banned.[17] It is, however, an offence under the Medicines Act to sell it for human consumption, so it is often sold as "plant food"

I have bought psychoactive substances in supermarkets and hardware shops like woodies for years, I never saw any warnings against human consumption on them. It makes more sense for sellers to specifically say it is not for human consumption, so they can say they did give fair warning and were not in suggesting it should be ingested. I think the gardai were going to use some twisted way of seizing these substances under current legislation.

Kurtosis

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

Liability. A mother goes to the store with her son who is drooling all over his Tiesto T-Shirt and the guy behind the counter calmly points out that it wasn't for human consumption and that it's none of his business.

Stuff for human consumption still has to pass some sort of act as well, I'm guessing.

Ah so you agree with my speculation, it is a fickle attempt to avoid any responsibility when things go wrong...does that set alarm bells off? Sure, even the dodgiest chipper will admit some liability if they give you food poisoning.

Stuff for human consumption would not have to conform with any more strict requirements than prepacked food items sold in shops. Surely these simple requirements would it be worth it if it allowed the valiant headshop product manufacturers to properly label them with proper name, quantity and warnings/side effects?

DepecheHead101

penguin88 wrote: »

Ah so you agree with my speculation, it is a fickle attempt to avoid any responsibility when things go wrong...does that set alarm bells off? Sure, even the dodgiest chipper will admit some liability if they give you food poisoning.

Stuff for human consumption would not have to conform with any more strict requirements than prepacked food items sold in shops. Surely these simple requirements would it be worth it if it allowed the valiant headshop product manufacturers to properly label them with proper name, quantity and warnings/side effects?

Ah but I never disagreed with said speculation. Stop trying to desperately twist it to some silly 'victory' for yourself.

I personally don't agree with the notion of selling untested, poorly packaged products. No. I favour regulation.

Kurtosis

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

Ah but I never disagreed with said speculation. Stop trying to desperately twist it to some silly 'victory' for yourself.

Haha, hardly desperate. I'm just pleased to be getting somewhere, it takes some digging in this thread to get down to the reality of why headshops sell their products as plant foods.

First it's to avoid medicines legislation - nope.
Then it's "so they can get away with selling it" - nothing to stop them selling it if a human product.
Finally it's hit upon - absolving themselves of responsbility.

So nothing to do with any costly, complex or time-consuming barriers to bringing these products to market, it's just to cover themselves when things go wrong...doesn't fill one with confidence.

DepecheHead101

penguin88 wrote: »

Haha, hardly desperate. I'm just pleased to be getting somewhere, it takes some digging in this thread to get down to the reality of why headshops sell their products as plant foods.

First it's to avoid medicines legislation - nope.
Then it's "so they can get away with selling it" - nothing to stop them selling it if a human product.
Finally it's hit upon - absolving themselves of responsbility.

So nothing to do with any costly, complex or time-consuming barriers to bringing these products to market, it's just to cover themselves when things go wrong...doesn't fill one with confidence.

No, it's a combination. All of them. Not just the way you want to twist it.

Of course it's also to get the products to the market easier and without having to pass through acts.

Scenario 1 : Obscure hippy shop starts selling innocuous looking plant feeder.

Scenario 2 : 'Hey guys, obscure hippy shop here. We wish to sell this new drug, Mephedrone. It's got a hell of a whack. Here, have a line on us and let us know when we have the go ahead'.

Which scenario do you think would have gotten the products to shelf quicker? I don't know about you, but I think the balance *tips* ever so slightly in favour of scenario 1.

rubadub

penguin88 wrote: »

Finally it's hit upon - absolving themselves of responsbility.

I thought this was blatantly obvious. Its certainly not news to me.

Kurtosis

rubadub wrote: »

Probably just the same labelling as in the UK.

Ah, so economies of scale for the producers? I suppose nothing to stop the retailers to overlabel/include a leaflet giving actual relevant information and warnings though.

I have bought psychoactive substances in supermarkets and hardware shops like woodies for years, I never saw any warnings against human consumption on them. It makes more sense for sellers to specifically say it is not for human consumption, so they can say they did give fair warning and were not in suggesting it should be ingested.

But there is the difference. The things you buy have a legitimate purpose apart from being psychoactive. As has been mentioned and mentioned again on here, headshop products to not have legitimate purposes apart from being psychoactive. Bit sinister to claim they are "not for human consumption" when, that is in fact the only thing they are for...

Kurtosis

rubadub wrote: »

I thought this was blatantly obvious. Its certainly not news to me.

It certainly took a few posts and a bit of questioning for coconutlulz and Depechehead to admit this. You'd think it would have been mentioned straight away being so blatantly obvious...

DepecheHead101

penguin88 wrote: »

It certainly took a few posts and a bit of questioning for coconutlulz and Depechehead to admit this. You'd think it would have been mentioned straight away being so blatantly obvious...

No, you sort of answered your own question. I didn't point it out because it was blatantly obvious. But it's not the only reason they market them misleadingly. I refer you to my two scenarios, if you will.

What's your point anyway? It's like slithering into the thread and going on a mission to convince everyone 'lads, just own up, these are drugs'.

Jesus.

Kurtosis

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

No, it's a combination. All of them. Not just the way you want to twist it.

All of them? Did I twist the fact that mephedrone is not a medicinal product, regardless of whether it is for human or plant consumption? Feel free to show me where it is mentioned in the relevant legisaltion.

Also, you're yet to say how what would stop them getting away with selling it if they did label it for human consumption.

Of course it's also to get the products to the market easier and without having to pass through acts.

Ok, but why should it take longer to bring these products to market than a dietary supplement sold in a health shop or a box of cornflakes sold in a shop?

Scenario 1 : Obscure hippy shop starts selling innocuous looking plant feeder.

Scenario 2 : 'Hey guys, obscure hippy shop here. We wish to sell this new drug, Mephedrone. It's got a hell of a whack. Here, have a line on us and let us know when we have the go ahead'.

Firstly, mephedrone, not a drug.

Secondly, there are options somewhere between plant food and drug.

Which scenario do you think would have gotten the products to shelf quicker? I don't know about you, but I think the balance *tips* ever so slightly in favour of scenario 1.

I would agree I think you're overestimating the importance of speed of getting products to market, if every other health supplement product can do it, why not them? I feel it is the more sinister "get out clause" they do it for.

DepecheHead101

Mephedrone, not a drug?

Come again?

Look I don't know why you want to practically beat me into admitting things everybody already knows. But the fact of the matter is Mephedrone, stimulant, for human consumption, would have lasted all of four minuets on headshop shelves. It's lasted slightly longer as a plant food.

It's so ... obvious. Jesus wept. Common sense.

If you would rather have seen them take a middle ground between plant food and drug, would you care to tell us what this would be? Diet pill or plant food, they would still be lying through their teeth. And as we have already established that they are trying to remove themselves of responsibility ... you know ... BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT ... I think I'm done here. This is a waste of time.

Kurtosis

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

What's your point anyway? It's like slithering into the thread and going on a mission to convince everyone 'lads, just own up, these are drugs'.

Jesus.

Nope, not Jesus, sorry.

My point was to correct someone who had said headshops can't sell mephedrone products for human consumption or else they would fall under medicinal products legislation (which is not true). I was then curious as to what the user believed to be the reason then that they are sold as plant foods.

As I have said, I believe this reason to be an underhand absolution of responsibility, which seems to be quite unique to these sorts of products.

Thank you for your snake analogy. Firstly, I did not just slither in here, I have taken part in a number of discussions on this issue. Secondly, I am the one saying these are not drugs (yet), thank you for paying such close attention.

DepecheHead101

Yes, they are drugs. Yes, the sellers are circumventing responsibility. No, this is not the only reason the products are being sold as plant food. It's because the products have lasted longer this way. Simple fact.

Pedantic bugger, aren't you

Kurtosis

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

Mephedrone, not a drug?

Come again?

Look I don't know why you want to practically beat me into admitting things everybody already knows. But the fact of the matter is Mephedrone, stimulant, for human consumption, would have lasted all of four minuets on headshop shelves. It's lasted slightly longer as a plant food.

It's so ... obvious. Jesus wept. Common sense.

If you would rather have seen them take a middle ground between plant food and drug, would you care to tell us what this would be? Diet pill or plant food, they would still be lying through their teeth. And as we have already established that they are trying to remove themselves of responsibility ... you know ... BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT ... I think I'm done here. This is a waste of time.

As of yet, mephedrone is not listed in either the Medicinal Products (Prescription and Control of Supply) Regulations of Misuse of Drugs Regulations...so it's a psychoactive substance. This is why it is not subject to medicines legislation here, regardless of how it is sold.

If it was sold as something for human consumption, this would allow it to be labelled correctly and accurately, with strength, with appropriate warnings, precaution and side-effects. Also, they would then be liable if the product intended for human consumption is consumed by a human and something goes wrong.

DepecheHead101

penguin88 wrote: »

As of yet, mephedrone is not listed in either the Medicinal Products (Prescription and Control of Supply) Regulations of Misuse of Drugs Regulations...so it's a psychoactive substance. This is why it is not subject to medicines legislation here, regardless of how it is sold.

If it was sold as something for human consumption, this would allow it to be labelled correctly and accurately, with strength, with appropriate warnings, precaution and side-effects. Also, they would then be liable if the product intended for human consumption is consumed by a human and something goes wrong.

Absoloutely, but do you honestly think it would have made it to market regardless of safety? It's a deerug. We can't be having deerugs being sold. Prohibition mentality 101.

Shulgin

And the reason why all this stuff is mislabled and sold as plant feeder etc is because of prohibition.

These new designer drugs only exist because the governments of the world refuse to legalise cannabis,mdma and other substances even though the side effects of those are well documented.

rubadub

penguin88 wrote: »

It certainly took a few posts and a bit of questioning for coconutlulz and Depechehead to admit this. You'd think it would have been mentioned straight away being so blatantly obvious...

I honestly didn't understand what you were trying to get at, I do not think they have "admitted" anything they would have denied to begin with. It was like you had this secret phrase you want to spring on them, but they were saying pretty much that same thing all along.

penguin88 wrote: »

First it's to avoid medicines legislation - nope.

This would certainly be true. I am not sure how the whole thing works, but if Pfizer had introduced viagra as a "food" for human consumption then I expect it would have been picked up on by the Irish Medicine Board, it would probably be banned from sale by them, I am not sure under what legislation but I would presume they could do it easily.

penguin88 wrote: »

Then it's "so they can get away with selling it" - nothing to stop them selling it if a human product

If sold it would be investigated by the likes of the IMB or some other body, and they would no doubt demand full testing to be done. I expect this might need an initial step, like a citizen complaining or bringing it to the relevant bodies notice. I expect if it is labelled not for human consumption that they person could not complain about its effects on humans. Like I could not go to the IMB and complain that domestos is unfit for human consumption.

penguin88 wrote: »

So nothing to do with any costly, complex or time-consuming barriers to bringing these products to market.

There would be massive barriers, just like any new drug introduced to market. Pfizer (for a while) probably could have got away flogging viagra as plant food, or even a dietary supplement intended for human consumption. They would have lost all credibility and respect in the industry though. It is probably the IMB or similar who will determine if it is just a "food", or a medicine/drug.

penguin88 wrote: »

I suppose nothing to stop the retailers to overlabel/include a leaflet giving actual relevant information and warnings though.

There is something to stop them, common sense, they do not want to draw attention to themselves and have the drugs under investigation and most probably banned.

penguin88 wrote: »

But there is the difference. The things you buy have a legitimate purpose apart from being psychoactive.

They claim to have a legitimate purpose, I never use them for that. I don't see any difference really, people could use these substances for the suggested uses listed, but it would be quite an expensive bath.

Kurtosis

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

Absoloutely, but do you honestly think it would have made it to market regardless of safety? It's a deerug. We can't be having deerugs being sold. Prohibition mentality 101.

Oh hello again, sorry, thought you were gone. Well, it did make it to the market regardless of safety. That is technically because it is not classified as a deerug (sic) yet. If sold as a sweetener for instance, this would have allowed effective labelling and it would still have made it to market - plants foods and sweeteners are both outside the remit of the IMB, however one exempts them from culpability.

Shulgin wrote: »

And the reason why all this stuff is mislabled and sold as plant feeder etc is because of prohibition.

These new designer drugs only exist because the governments of the world refuse to legalise cannabis,mdma and other substances even though the side effects of those are well documented.

I hope I'm understanding you correctly. Are you suggesting these are sold as plant foods because they are prohibited to be sold for human consumption? Or that they are sold (full stop) as alternatives due to the prohibition of cannabis? Sorry reading back myself I may have figured it out to be the second.

Kurtosis

rubadub wrote: »

I honestly didn't understand what you were trying to get at, I do not think they have "admitted" anything they would have denied to begin with. It was like you had this secret phrase you want to spring on them, but they were saying pretty much that same thing all along.

Erm, not really. They would not be covered by medicines legislation in the event that they would be sold for human consumption.

This would certainly be true. I am not sure how the whole thing works, but if Pfizer had introduced viagra as a "food" for human consumption then I expect it would have been picked up on by the Irish Medicine Board, it would probably be banned from sale by them, I am not sure under what legislation but I would presume they could do it easily.

No, Pfizer filed a patent on the chemical in viagra as soon as they began to develop it. Then when they began to produce it in their plants here in Ireland they had to apply to the IMB to gain a marketing authorisation for Viagra, and a variance to their manufacturing licence to allow them to manufacture it. Since a manufacturer may not produce anything other than the sunstances they are licensed to produce, hence why Pfizer would have to go to the IMB. Products containing the active product are then automatically classified as prescription-only medicines for 3 years after being released to market, as they are "new chemical molecules". So Pfizer could not introduce Viagra as a food.

If sold it would be investigated by the likes of the IMB or some other body, and they would no doubt demand full testing to be done. I expect this might need an initial step, like a citizen complaining or bringing it to the relevant bodies notice. I expect if it is labelled not for human consumption that they person could not complain about its effects on humans. Like I could not go to the IMB and complain that domestos is unfit for human consumption.

The IMB don't fully test dietary supplements, sweeteners or cornflakes. Even if they did test these plant foods, the fact that they contain such substances as mephedrone would not be of concern to them, they are not legally classified as drugs, they might as well have sugar in them from their point of view.

There would be massive barriers, just like any new drug introduced to market.

But mephedrone is not legally classified as a drug yet. Currently, there would be no greater barriers to bringing it to market as a product for humans like a sweetner or food supplement.

They claim to have a legitimate purpose, I never use them for that. I don't see any difference really, people could use these substances for the suggested uses listed, but it would be quite an expensive bath.

Well their claimed "purpose" should be universally disbelieved as some users in this thread have said. Do you not agree that it is underhand to deny the exact intentional purpose (i.e. human consumption) on the label, as well as being potentially dangerous?

DepecheHead101

penguin88 wrote: »

Oh hello again, sorry, thought you were gone. Well, it did make it to the market regardless of safety. That is technically because it is not classified as a deerug (sic) yet. If sold as a sweetener for instance, this would have allowed effective labelling and it would still have made it to market - plants foods and sweeteners are both outside the remit of the IMB, however one exempts them from culpability.



I hope I'm understanding you correctly. Are you suggesting these are sold as plant foods because they are prohibited to be sold for human consumption? Or that they are sold (full stop) as alternatives due to the prohibition of cannabis? Sorry reading back myself I may have figured it out to be the second.

What are you ... eleven? Of course selling it as a sweetner for human consumption would not remove them from culpability!

''Hi, is this The Whacky Space Closet? Yeah, my son collapsed after using your sweetner, WTF?''.

Yeah, that will go down well.

FinnLizzy

Not as good as the real thing!
Before Sligo got a head shop, I could be sure that any joint my friends were smoking had weed (or a bit of hash if times were tough).
I wont put my tobacco or money towards the ****e! And the head shop has moved from a hippie phenomenon, to a knacker/chav/12-17 year old/lazy druggie/cheap druggie phenomenon.
But! They do sell seeds, I'll give em that.

Kurtosis

DepecheHead101 wrote: »

What are you ... eleven? Of course selling it as a sweetner for human consumption would not remove them from culpability!

''Hi, is this The Whacky Space Closet? Yeah, my son collapsed after using your sweetner, WTF?''.

Yeah, that will go down well.

Let's not get into these products being sold to children. Whole different debate altogether.

At least sold as a sweetener in the shop selling drug paraphernalia, there could be some consequences for the headshop and producers if something did go wrong as a result of someone taking these things. This would afford some protection to vulnerable users who may suffer as a result of taking these products...surely this would be better than the shops scapegoating with their plant food.

What greater barriers would such a "sweetener" face coming to market over a box of good old Splenda?

And thank you for suggesting I'm a pedantic 11-year old bugger. Hate to disappoint you but I am none of these things I'm afraid. Maybe stick to attacking my points.

rubadub

penguin88 wrote: »

If it was sold as something for human consumption, this would allow it to be labelled correctly and accurately, with strength, with appropriate warnings, precaution and side-effects. Also, they would then be liable if the product intended for human consumption is consumed by a human and something goes wrong.

Why would they want to be liable? Why would they want to take responsibility? I am not sure where you are going with these posts, you come across like an arrogant smug patronizing lawyer or something, trying to put people down and picking apart everything they say when you already know fine well what they really meant or what they supposed to be true. Its like you are trying to squeeze out "confessions" and then point and laugh at how wrong they were, but nobody seems to care if they were "technically mistaken" -they know, and 99% of other people know what was meant or inferred.

penguin88 wrote: »

If sold as a sweetener for instance, this would have allowed effective labelling and it would still have made it to market - plants foods and sweeteners are both outside the remit of the IMB, however one exempts them from culpability.

So what happens if a highly psychoactive "sweetener" come on the market and kids are all high as kites and addicted to it? I bet you already know the answer already and so I am wondering why you have not pre-empted such a question and stated what will happen. All I can think is you want a bit more pedantic sneering.

penguin88 wrote: »

No, Pfizer filed a patent on the chemical in viagra as soon as they began to develop it.....

So Pfizer could not introduce Viagra as a food.

So their first mistake was filing a patent or otherwise inform authorities it was a drug. But it seems you saying if they kept their mouth shut from the start(like the mephedrone manufacturers) that it could have been sold as food. -which is what I was getting at.

penguin88 wrote: »

The IMB don't fully test dietary supplements, sweeteners or cornflakes. Even if they did test these plant foods, the fact that they contain such substances as mephedrone would not be of concern to them, they are not legally classified as drugs, they might as well have sugar in them from their point of view.

I expect people can complain and then they would test them, I do not know the protocol for these situations. I have no doubt the psychoactive sweetener would be investigated and if the drug was not classified it soon would be.

penguin88 wrote: »

Do you not agree that it is underhand to deny the exact intentional purpose (i.e. human consumption) on the label, as well as being potentially dangerous?

It is very underhanded, and very dangerous and also very clever.

Kurtosis

rubadub wrote: »

Why would they want to be liable? Why would they want to take responsibility?

I am not saying they want to do either of things, and rightly so. But they should have to do these things. They should also include proper labelling and warnings, however a lot of people claim and believe they cannot so as to avoid medicines legislation or other barriers, which is not true. As I've said, they avoid labelling with precautions and call it a plant food purely to avoid responsibility in the event of an accident etc. People would not accept this with any other products, I do not understand why people think it's cool for the headshops to do so.

So what happens if a highly psychoactive "sweetener" come on the market and kids are all high as kites and addicted to it? I bet you already know the answer already and so I am wondering why you have not pre-empted such a question and stated what will happen. All I can think is you want a bit more pedantic sneering.

I bet you already knew the answer too, nice pre-empting with a question though. Same thing that happens when a psychoactive "plant food" comes on the market, it eventually gets controlled.

So their first mistake was filing a patent or otherwise inform authorities it was a drug. But it seems you saying if they kept their mouth shut from the start(like the mephedrone manufacturers) that it could have been sold as food. -which is what I was getting at.

To be honest it is not the perfect analogy since Pfizer were an existing pharmaceutical company before Viagra and so could not have manufactured anything non-pharmaceutical and non-authorised at their plants. If some non-pharmaceutical manufacturer started churning out some active chemical as a food supplement or something, technically nothing to stop them (aside from regular food supplement controls), until the regulatory authorities get wind of it/find it to be problematic and decide to control the substance (much like they are doing with mephedrone etc.)

I expect people can complain and then they would test them, I do not know the protocol for these situations. I have no doubt the psychoactive sweetener would be investigated and if the drug was not classified it soon would be.

Again though, this is what effectively happened with the psychoactive plant food. So whether marketed as a plant food or a sweetener, same end result. Oh, except liability when a problem occurs.

rubadub

penguin88 wrote: »

however a lot of people claim and believe they cannot so as to avoid medicines legislation or other barriers, which is not true.

What people meant was that by saying not for human consumption it keeps it a grey area product which is then somewhat less likely to be investigated and eventually banned. I think you already know all this though and you are just feigning confusion for the sake of an argument.

penguin88 wrote: »

People would not accept this with any other products, I do not understand why people think it's cool for the headshops to do so.

Again I think you are feigning confusion.

penguin88 wrote: »

Same thing that happens when a psychoactive "plant food" comes on the market, it eventually gets controlled.

I think it would be controlled a lot sooner if it was marketed as a sweetener. This is why people accept it, they do not want it banned so go along with the "nod, nod, wink, wink" loopholes that the headshops do, they want the eventuality put off as long as possible.

penguin88 wrote: »

technically nothing to stop them (aside from regular food supplement controls), until the regulatory authorities get wind of it/find it to be problematic and decide to control the substance (much like they are doing with mephedrone etc.)

Exactly, and I bet I could get such authorities to investigate something sold for human consumption faster than the same item which specifically and clearly says it is not intended for consumption. My having a supposed legitimate use a manufacturer could say it is not intended for the use it might be primarily bought for. Rizla papers are mostly used for illegal purposes, and teenagers buying glue are not making airfix models.

penguin88 wrote: »

What greater barriers would such a "sweetener" face coming to market over a box of good old Splenda?

The sweetener is psychoactive so would draw more attention from authorities.

Kurtosis

rubadub wrote: »

What people meant was that by saying not for human consumption it keeps it a grey area product which is then somewhat less likely to be investigated and eventually banned. I think you already know all this though and you are just feigning confusion for the sake of an argument.

Again I think you are feigning confusion.

Feel free to think that. I asked on thread here why they were sold as plant foods. I was told to avoid medicines legislation and so that can get away with selling it. Mephedrone is not controlled under medicines legislation and there are no other barriers to selling it as something other than plant food. GO figure.

I think it would be controlled a lot sooner if it was marketed as a sweetener. This is why people accept it, they do not want it banned so go along with the "nod, nod, wink, wink" loopholes that the headshops do, they want the eventuality put off as long as possible.

You are basing this purely on speculation. Why should loopholes only apply to plant food? The IMB has no more interest in sweetener than it does in plant food. As soon as the government would get wind of either being psychoactive, they'd move on it.

My having a supposed legitimate use a manufacturer could say it is not intended for the use it might be primarily bought for. Rrizla papers are mostly used for illegal purposes, and teenagers buying glue are not making airfix models.

Fine, but can you not see Rizla papers and glue have other legitimate uses, while mephedrone from a headshop does not?

The sweetener is psychoactive so would draw more attention from authorities.

Think you're missing the point. Sweetener or whatever can get onto the market as easy as a genuine one. It will undoubtedly get taken off the market eventually, but there's nothing to stop it being marketed as a sweetener in the first place.

I'm getting dizzy...

Shulgin

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7481469/I-took-mephedrone-and-I-liked-it.html

I took mephedrone and I liked it

What's 'meow meow' actually like? Dr Max Pemberton found out for himself.

At first, I felt nothing except a slight burning sensation in my nose. Then, as I went to the kitchen to get a drink, it occurred to me how much I loved my friend Rhiannon. I came back in and sat down on the chair and stared at her. “You OK?” she asked. “I am absolutely fine,” I replied, smiling widely. “I really love you.” “It’s working then,” she replied sardonically. A few minutes later, we were all sitting round in a euphoric haze, smiling benignly but with an incomprehensible, overwhelming desire to dance. It was nearly impossible to keep still.
Then things became very vivid and real and everything everyone said suddenly became very important. Before we knew it we were piling into a cab, laughing and giggling uncontrollably and going to a club. The effects lasted for about another two hours. Then, as suddenly as they had appeared, they vanished. I was left standing in the club with a pounding headache, wondering what on earth had possessed me to go out. I can now understand why people re-dose as soon as the effects wear off because the contrast between being intoxicated and not is sharp and sudden.

fcussen

And then I went gaga and hallucinated and before I knew it I was under the car and the Local Fianna Fail councillor had to come pull me out

Kurtosis

fcussen wrote: »

And then I went gaga and hallucinated and before I knew it I was under the car and the Local Fianna Fail councillor had to come pull me out

Scary side effects is right

fcussen

I've no doubt that if I took another one I would have been remorsely driving a stolen car into a schoolyard.

indough

penguin88 wrote: »

Think you're missing the point. Sweetener or whatever can get onto the market as easy as a genuine one. It will undoubtedly get taken off the market eventually, but there's nothing to stop it being marketed as a sweetener in the first place.

you dont think the food safety authority might have something to say about it? all products for human consumption are regulated here, not just drugs

it would never have made it onto shelves as any product officially intended for human consumption

molloyjazz

I been smoking headshop blends for a year now on and off, but quite regulary the last few months.. And i have noticed, and i want to see if other have too, the blends are either getting weaker and you have to move to the "latest one" ie. bonzai, red eye as opposed to a few months back when it was XXXX and King B..

Do you think they are deliberatly making them weaker after producing for a few months as they know they will sell, as they have built up a reputal brand name at this stage?

Or could this be an affect of these relativly new chemicals, JWH et al, where we build up a tolerance every quickly?

Mint Sauce

nah, would safely say its just your body getting used to it, so you then need something stonger to get the orriginal hit

oh, and ibtl

o1s1n

I smoked half of one of those pre rolled XXX joints the other night.

Never again, absolutely horrible stuff

WIZE

Thats how soft drugs lead onto harder ones .

TheZohanS

There are plenty of other sites that you can discuss this on.

molloyjazz

TheZohan wrote: »

There are plenty of other sites that you can discuss this on.

thanks for merging/re-opening this thread.

molloyjazz

o1s1n wrote: »

I smoked half of one of those pre rolled XXX joints the other night.

Never again, absolutely horrible stuff

funny that, XXX wouldn't do jack to me now

molloyjazz

irish-stew wrote: »

nah, would safely say its just your body getting used to it, so you then need something stonger to get the orriginal hit

oh, and ibtl

i never had this problem with the real stuff

Pace2008

Most Haunted wrote: »

Thats how soft drugs lead onto harder ones .

Or rather, how the use of soft drugs leads to the use of soft drugs in greater quantities.

molloyjazz

is there any regular smokers here that could shed some light?

WIZE

Pace2008 wrote: »

Or rather, how the use of soft drugs leads onto the use of soft drugs in greater quantities.

and what happen when you reach you max input of these so called soft drugs