Argument for regulating legal highs

There is a growing argument that the government’s lack of action with regard to tackling the growing problem of legal highs is resulting in many people playing ‘Russian roulette’ with drugs.

To describe the new range of psychoactive substances as ‘legal highs’ is misleading at best, as they often contain illegal substances. The greatest problem is that users have no idea what they are taking. Manufacturers are constantly changing the ingredients to ensure that they stay one step ahead of the law, while at the same time producing a drug that provides the user with a satisfactory mind-altering experience – sometimes these drugs kill though.

The argument to regulate them is simple, through regulation the government can ensure that the drugs sold are safe. New Zealand has already regulated legal highs and part of the new policy requires manufacturers to send products for clinical testing before they can legally be sold.

Nobody in government wishes to implement any drug policy that will be seen to relax drug laws and to make drugs more readily available, however; such an action could be political suicide.

In New Zealand the government created a policy to encourage manufacturers to produce low-risk drugs. This is not possible in an unregulated market where a manufacturer’s only concern is to provide the best high possible without using a currently banned combination of chemicals.

Ross Bell, of the New Zealand Drug Foundation, explained: “The New Zealand government finally lost patience and did something counter-intuitive. It moved new synthetic drugs from a legal grey area to a well-defined and robust regulatory framework. It forces producers into the light of day and makes them responsible for the safety of their products. These substances will be better regulated than tobacco or alcohol.”

Last year PMA, which is often used in legal highs, was attributed to 23 fatalities. Regulation may have prevented many of these deaths.