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…
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.
ReplyDeleteThough 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.