Tale of Designer Drugs


In his terrific book on the world of narcotics titled Narconomics, Tom Wainright has a chapter on “designer drugs”. So what are designer drugs?
“(Designer drugs are) synthetic drugs (that) mimic the effects of more mainstream narcotics.”
In other words, they are “concocted in laboratories rather than on Andean hillsides or in Afghan poppy fields”. Also, they are legal (more on that later), which is why they’re also called “legal highs”. While “legal” sounds like “safer”, they are actually riskier than good old cocaine and heroin (more on why later).

It all began in New Zealand! Since New Zealand is in the middle of nowhere (“where Hobbits frolic”) and has a tiny population, it just wasn’t economical for drug cartels to smuggle their drugs to the Kiwis. But of course, the Kiwis being human, needed drugs like the rest of us… which led to the creation of designer drugs. And then they began to spread to other parts of the world.

But why are they legal? Aha, it’s a cat-and-mouse game:
“A new synthetic narcotic is developed, becomes popular, is identified by the government, and gets banned – by which time the narco-chemists have come up with a slightly different variation.”
This also explains why they are riskier than cocaine or heroin:
“(R&D teams of synthetic drug makers) are simply trying to devise something that is new enough to be allowed on sale.”
Safety be damned; just stay one step ahead of what the law forbids.

The authorities (world over) woke up and decided to put a blanket ban on all legal highs. But this didn’t solve anything. Why?
“New substances have to be proved to ‘psychoactive’ before they can be outlawed, and in the time it takes for that to happen, manufacturers can do a brisk trade.”
The “industry” wasn’t breaking the law, just staying ahead of the law.

The New Zealand government then decided to establish a regulatory authority to certify (and regulate) the legal highs. While some may be outraged and it is indeed a controversial move, the alternative was a “spiral of new, ever-more-dangerous alterations” aka Frankenstein drugs. So problem solved?

No, but for a totally unexpected reason. The Kiwis added a clause forbidding the testing of these legal highs on animals. Humane and compassionate it may be, but the side-effect of that clause is that designer drugs cannot be tested, let alone certified (who’d allow them to be tested on humans directly?).

This is an excellent example of why framing good laws is so hard: too many aspects to consider, unintended consequences, and compromises to be made. Something those who call for regulation of social media should remember…

Comments

  1. Ramiah KumarMay 9, 2018 at 11:24 AM

    While I was reading this informative blog, I got caught in something that a good number of people all over the world find fallacious. The blog says in passing: "But of course, the Kiwis being human, needed drugs like the rest of us…" Well, well, not once I have taken in any narcotic drug in my life. Isn't true that most human population is not in 'need' of drugs, no? It was a sentence slip; of course and I need not take it up seriously, agree. Yes, one understands the implied meaning - not the literal one.

    Though the detail about Designer Drugs is partly informative, how New Zealand or any government would combat the illegal trading of narcotics through it is far from clear. Maybe those who try themselves are clueless! :-)

    Coming to the finish lines, while it it true that framing of laws is never easy knowing how much of as ass any law can become, let alone laws sometimes turning into full-fledged injustice, the blog seems to be critical only about those who raise objections, social media being one example in that. Yes, people may find some laws improper and will object or expose the flaws. Sometimes these forums can be whimsical, obstructive and ego-centric - nothing worthwhile maybe. Having admitted to it without reservations, is it really true that lawmakers are wholly trust-worthy? Is there any assurance that lawmakers would not sometimes be unilateralists to the point of being Hitlers and Stalins, or, who are psychos cooking up laws of perversion, one example being Tugluk (there are plenty of whom we may not refer freely)? In India, to win votes laws do get suitably flexed and misused. And, isn't true that most politicians cannot take any criticism however and any number times they use the legal machinery to gag, take vengeance, maim and all? All of us need systems that protect people against one another and against those in power who want to be medieval kings, preferring no law unto them! Safeguards are more needed in politics than in nuclear plants, I would say.



    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

Image
As a toddler, my daughter loved Alia Bhatt’s songs, esp. the ones from Student of the Year . (That movie did have many good songs and well-choreographed dances). Fast forward to present day, when she is 12 yo. She rarely watches Hindi movies now, but one of the few ones she likes of late, Raja aur Rani ki Prem Kahani has, yes, Alia Bhatt.   If I had any hopes that there was anything to be read in the name of her toddler-time favorite ( Student of the Year ), they have been dashed. Our conversations come exam time are perfectly captured by this photo and its caption: In fact, the pic below captures how she and I look at her answer sheets – me intently, she with an expression of “It’s over, so why are you even looking at it?”   Of late, we pull her leg and tell her that she isn’t showing any signs of academic prowess, she’d better find a rich guy to marry. Some time later, she showed us this meme on the Internet: “Me No Study, Me No Care Me Go Marry Millionaire If He Die
Read more

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"

Image
Coming up with biting and witty retorts. It’s something we dream of, but rarely manage to pull off. Worse, the more we stew over the offending remark, the more likely we are to come up with that dream retort, as Calvin ruefully points out: During our last holiday at the Taj Resort, seeing my wife carrying towels to our poolside chairs, one of the kids there mistook her for a member of the staff and asked for a towel. When my wife narrated this to us, I did not imagine that my 8 yo daughter would come up with her own retort. But a day later, my daughter recapped the incident, an incident that didn’t even involve her in the first place , and said, “You know what I’d have told that kid who asked for the towel?”. And without waiting for an answer, she told us anyway: “I don’t work here. I too am a luxury person who is living at this resort. Go get your own towel.” We were highly amused by the phrase she had coined: “luxury person”. It certainly captures the kind of holid
Read more

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch

Instinctively, we think touch is based on contact. Not entirely true, explains Ed Yong in Immense World – there’s a more important aspect than contact: “These incredible feats are possible through movement. If you rest a fingertip upon a surface, you can get only a limited idea of its features. But as soon you’re allowed to move, everything changes. Hardness becomes apparent with a press. Textures resolve at a stroke.” As you run your fingers over a surface, they hit the tiny peaks and troughs and set off vibrations in the mechanoreceptors at their tips.   At the tip of its snout, the star-nosed mole has many pairs of hairless appendages. It uses them to touch things around itself. Alive or dead? Food or ignore? It does these movements at an insane speed. In the time it takes to blink our eyes, the star-nosed mole can probe, identify and swallow its food. “Light may be the fastest thing in the universe, but light sensors have their limits, and the star-nosed mole’s sense of
Read more