Legal highs: is the party over already?

On April 1 2008, New Zealand youth’s love affair with BZP came to an end. No longer is your friendly neighbourhood party pill store allowed to sell you BZP products of varying quality, and your own personal stash is only legal for another four and a half months or so. Amy Joseph talks to Jim Anderton – the man behind the ban – his critics, and looks into your (currently) legal alternatives, including a test drive on the ride that is
salvia divinorum.

Progressive party poopers
Jim Anderton, Progressive Party leader and Associate Minister of Health, is the man in charge of drug policy in Aotearoa – so he’s the one you can thank for the ban on benzylpiperazine products. “The move against BZP was based on firm scientific evidence of its potential for harm, and it would have been irresponsible to ignore that evidence,” he says. While the ban has achieved the most publicity, Anderton says that it is “only one initiative in a general series of initiatives against the serious problem of substance abuse (including alcohol abuse) which are being carried out under the auspices of the Governmental Policy Committee on drugs, which I chair – indeed there are some 30 initiatives underway or under consideration.”

Professor Kevin Dawkins

Associate Professor Kevin Dawkins of the University of Otago Law faculty would disagree with Anderton’s assertion that the ban is based on “firm scientific evidence.” The expert on international and criminal law took a slight detour at NORML’s recent roundtable discussion on the legal status of alcohol and cannabis, taking Anderton to task over the BZP ban. I caught up with him later to discuss his concerns.

In 2004, the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs (EACD) – who advise
the Ministry of Health on drug policy – couldn’t recommend that BZP was as harmful as cannabis, Dawkins says. “There wasn’t enough evidence to warrant its inclusion as a Class C1 drug.”

The EACD recommended regulation short of prohibition. This was the
principle cause for the Amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act of 2005,
which created a new category, Schedule D. Dawkins supports the creation of a schedule for restricted but not prohibited substances, but says that the Government has spectacularly failed to use it. “Under this new regime of restricted substances there were to be prohibitions on the sale and supply to under 18 purchasers, prohibitions on advertising in the mainstream media … plus some other prohibitions…. So there was a cluster of offences created by the Amendment, which were never really policed…. But, more importantly, all kinds of elaborate provisions were made, to be introduced by regulations, governing quantities and dosages sold, labelling, packaging, signage, advertising other than in mainstream media, health warnings. There was going to be a code of practice for manufacturers … and then enforcement officers were to be
appointed…. Nothing happened – none of those provisions was ever introduced by regulation, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. So we create this new model, with a schedule with just one substance in it – BZP and a couple of its analogues … and then they did nothing about it.”

What Anderton did do, according to Dawkins, was to deliberately set out to find the evidence he wanted to classify BZP as Class C. “Quite soon thereafter, Anderton, wearing his hat as chair of the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy, commissioned research in order to determine whether BZP was more harmful than it was thought…. Of course, what he was really up to was making a case for it to be a class C1 drug like cannabis. So, with his mates on this committee, he spent to the tune of $300,000 to $400,000 commissioning this research.”

The two main studies used to support the ban came from the Medical
Research Institute of New Zeland (MRINZ) and the Pharmacology Department of Auckland University. Dawkins feels that the results of these studies were used with obscene haste.

“They started to come in in draft, interim, summary or preliminary form – not peer reviewed. And let me just give you the dates, because this is important: the EACD meet on the 29th of November, 2006, and it recommended that BZP be classified as a Class C1 drug, alongside cannabis, because it now posed a moderate risk of harm…. If you look at the dates of the research reports presented to them, they’re dated between the 23rd and the 28th of November [the day before the decision was made].”

“The evidence [was] more or less procured for the purpose, and the
committee [was] primed to receive it, and the result [was] known in advance, really. But it gets worse – none of the research that was presented was peer reviewed.”

This process was heavily criticised during the submission period, so peer reviewers were appointed. The reviewers raised “significant concerns about specific aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of the study, and [said] the evidence was insufficient in support or against the conclusion that BZP causes serious adverse events,” Dawkins says.
But now New Zealand’s policy on BZP is seriously out of step with the rest of the world (with a handful of exceptions, including the United States, who have since admitted they based their ban on seriously faulty science, and Australia, who tagged along with the States).

“In May 2007, when the [EACD] reconfirmed its earlier recommendation
that BZP be banned because it carries a moderate risk of harm, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Assessment completed its final report on BZP, and it reached the conclusions, ‘BZP is a relatively low-risk substance, and the evidence of harm arising from it is not strong,’” Dawkins says. “So on the one hand, you have the rushed assessment of the New Zealand committee, based on unpublished and unreliable research, compromised by conflicts of interest, and on the other, the European report, based on an extensive review of the BZP literature and information gathered from more than 20 member states of the European Union, and also on further information provided by the
European Commission, the European Medicines agency, and the European police office…. But who am I to say [who’s right]?”

Furthermore, the World Health Organisation, which is responsible for
monitoring and superintending the international drugs treaties to which most states are parties, has said it has not launched any investigation into BZP, nor does it intend to do so.

Back in New Zealand, Anderton says he has “a large amount of feedback” on the reclassification of BZP. “The responses range from enthusiastic support to condemnation, but have been overwhelmingly supportive in nature,” he says.

One criticism of the ban is that it may cause pill users to turn to untested substitutes. Currently, there is no onus on manufacturers, importers or retailers to prove the safety of recreational substances not already scheduled. For once, Anderton and Dawkins are in agreement that this needs to change.

“One of the risks of banning BZP … is that other non-BZP drugs, which
may have been in circulation but which had been infrequently used, will now become more frequently used, and only now as a result of banning BZP will we see if they’re more harmful,” Dawkins says. “It would be socially irresponsible to condone the current system, where you can make whatever you like and just put it on your shelves and it’s unregulated. There ought to be some onus to demonstrate safety. [This] would probably drive out a lot of the smaller and less reputable operators, but I don’t think it would bother terribly much the major
players, because the stakes are so high that they’re prepared to spend the money and the time, and would willingly accept the responsibility.”

Anderton says that a law change is in the works, as part of the Law
Commission’s upcoming review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. “I am currently in discussions with the Law Commission about a law change that would shift the onus of proof of safety for all so-called ‘recreational’ substances to manufacturers and retailers before they are released to the public. We do that now with food and pharmaceuticals and it seems common sense to extend it into this area,” he says.

Dawkins must surely be hoping that further drug law changes will be sane and more rigorously evidence-based than the BZP reclassification process. “[New Zealand’s BZP law is] a scam, a great hoax on the public, because we were told that BZP would be regulated. And not having regulated, or tried this model, they then prohibited. Why?” Dawkins asks. His answer is that Anderton never had any serious intent to regulate BZP, that he always wanted to prohibit it and created Schedule D to buy him some extra time; or that politicians hold the misguided belief that prohibition is cheaper than regulation. “So the problem disappears by transferring enforcement and monitoring to police, customs and the criminal justice system. But of course, as we know, the cost of prohibition is staggering…. And you can’t recoup anything from prohibition, whereas under a regulatory model, you can recoup the costs of enforcement via licensing fees for sellers and manufacturers, and you can put an excise tax on it, as you do for alcohol and tobacco, which produces an enormous revenue…. With a bit
of imagination, expertise, and some hard work that model could have been created.”

Floradene – WTF?
As a national chain established before the BZP floodgates opened, Cosmic Corner probably counts as one of those bigger, more reputable retailers of party pills that Dawkins mentions. I headed in for a chat with manager Matai Parai about your pill-popping options in the wake of the BZP ban.

There are no regulations governing the sale of BZP substitutes, but
Cosmic had a policy of not selling to underage ravers in place before BZP was placed in Schedule D. Parai says that some of the more caffeinated pills are designed to increase “drinking longevity,” but that Cosmic Corner have always recommended that party pills should not be mixed with alcohol.

Cosmic’s current range of party pills are based on a mixture called Floradene, a product with the unsettling honour of resulting in absolutely no hits on Google (see box). Apparently it will keep you in “an energised wakeful state for four to six hours.”

The new pills are “not as potent as BZP, but do provide a great fun and safe alternative to illegal drugs.” Apparently the Cosmic crew have tested much of the range on themselves, but Parai gives no indication that any independent scientific studies have been made on Floradene.

Parai tells me that sales of the new range “are slow at the moment,” but he’s had positive feedback. While individual users will metabolise the chemicals contained in the pills differently, “some people are very pleased with it.” Others seem a little disgruntled they are not getting the effects they had grown used to with BZP.

The information that Cosmic provides about their Floradene-based pills
promises, “this is the first batch of what is expected to be a large range of legal highs that will be available.”

Only time will tell what new substances you will be able to enhance your nights out with, how safe they will be, and just how long they will stay legal.

**The information sheet that Cosmic keeps on hand to provide to
customers lists the ingredients of Floradene as:

Hamelia patens: scarlet bush, a tropical plant with a variety of uses in folk medicine, which has not been the subject of any medical research. Cosmic calls it “the new ephedrine.”

Pelargonium graveolens: rose geranium, used in the perfume industry
to create scents ranging from rose to coconut to nutmeg. Apparently it
contributes a “calming effect” to Floradene.

Polygonum multiflorum: ho shou wu, widely used in traditional Chinese
medicine. It rejuvenates the body, and if you’ve got a fragile yin, it’ll balance that right out. It also has a laxative effect when taken internally.

Paulinia cupana: guarana, which you’ll be familiar with from energy drinks, contains three times the caffeine of coffee.

Citrus aurantium: bitter orange, used in perfume, flavourings, and herbal medicine. It’s also used as an appetite suppressant and weight loss drug, and contains synephrine, a stimulant linked to ischemic stroke and heart problems.

Amino acids: the building blocks of protein, to give your body fuel to get
you through the night.**

Critic’s own Expert Advisory Committee take on ‘Magic Mint’
The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has recommended that the salvia divinorum plant be put in Schedule D, which could see it the subject of sensible regulations – or could mean the beginning of the end for legal salvia. While it’s still available from outlets such as Cosmic Corner, Critic decided it would take the diviner’s sage for a spin. Three intrepid psychonauts put their brain cells on the line for your edification, and got three very different results.

I bought a sachet of the drug from Cosmic Corner after having a friendly
chat with the manager about preparing to take it. His advice was to use a butane lighter and a water pipe (salvia works best under a hot flame) and to ensure we didn’t stand up under the influence. The standard form of salvia offered for sale is dried herb infused with a concentrated extract, and Cosmic had a variety of strengths ranging from 5x to 45x. Establishing that I hadn’t tried salvia before, the manager suggested I try the 10x strength first. I asked him if all the necessary directions were provided on the packaging and he assured me that they were.

Having made my purchase, I noted that the blurb on the back recommended that first-time users start with the 5x preparation and work up from there. It didn’t really give any indication as to dosage beyond “until it arrives as a giggle.”

Upon gathering to conduct our rigorous scientific trial, Subject A
volunteered to go first, having had a positive experience with salvia in the past. He got settled into a beanbag, we packed up the hookah and lit up. Subject A inhaled deeply and held each toke for as long as he could. After two cones, he sprawled backwards and began laughing uncontrollably, chortling and gurgling to the great amusement (and occasional concern) of spectators.

“I think I probably got about three lungs in before I started feeling hot
and tingly on all the outside surfaces of my body, and a pull backwards, like someone had put hooks inside me somewhere – mainly in my head – and was pulling backwards down into the earth.”

Subject A struggled to describe the sensations of his trip. “Things started feeling ‘cutty’, like not exactly vision, but the feeling of everything around me…. The idea of sight, that normally you see, was changed into something completely different, and was changed into compartmentalised puzzle pieces. I could feel the edges of things…. I travelled backwards through time first – it was kind of like a slingshot getting pulled backwards, and then all of a sudden that was let go and I was shot forwards through time until the rubber band kind of bounced back to the middle and I was in my right time – still laughing uncontrollably.”

“I was trying to let you guys know that I was OK, so I was trying to speak but that just made my laughing even worse. All this was going on still with the heat and the pulling back, almost feeling like I was standing while lying down, and I had to keep moving backwards because I felt like my whole world was tilting forwards…. It was almost like there was the rope from behind pulling me, with the world tilting forward, so I had to kind of help the rope pull itself back.”

“Once I could actually say something – but still kind of talking in gurgling sounds – things kind of returned to normal time and normal speed, and I came back to where I was and felt like I’d just been woken up from a very deep sleep, that kind of groggy feeling of disassociation of things around you, an ‘Oh, where am I?’ kind of feeling. And very much the after effects – if anyone’s had nos [nitrous oxide], that kind of after effect.” The most “full on” sensations lasted two to three minutes.

A promising start, indeed! Subject B (hypothetically, let’s call her ‘Amy’)
suddenly had high expectations for her first salvia experience. However, three cones later she hadn’t experienced anything other than that mild nos effect. The heat and sweating often associated with salvia were absent as well. Subject B’s chronic inability to hold smoke for any length of time without coughing may have had something to do with it, as might the fact that she is rather more, uh, voluptuous than Subject A (who has roughly zero percent body fat, and a corresponding susceptibility to all drugs).

Subject C, another scrawny bugger, was the final participant in the
experiment, and had a different experience again, the most distinctly negative of the three (he had also tried salvia in the past, but says he had experienced no effect on his first try). After two cones, Subject C suffered “brief mild disorientation, followed by feeling just warm and uncomfortable … and itchy.” After his final exhalation, he looked around him very quietly, apparently rather dazed. He then stood up, took a few hesitant steps across the room, and then looked confusedly around again for a minute or so, before shaking off the most acute effects and heading outside to have a cigarette and cool down in the chilly evening air outside. Subject C reported no lingering effects: “A few minutes of discomfort, and that was it.”

Subject B, however, felt quite jaded for the next couple of hours, despite experiencing no strong immediate effects. “I felt like it was past my bedtime and I’d had a big session a couple of hours ago. After a nap on the couch and a nice hot shower I was feeling much better, though.”

Once again, the after effects were much stronger for Subject A, and
lingered longer. About ten minutes after returning to his “normal time,” Subject A returned to his computer, where he had been mixing tracks his band had recorded. “I could understand the sound in a completely different way. It was almost as if it was moveable shapes in my ears, and every bit of the music stood out in a completely different way. I could see the frequencies, not as waves or anything, but as almost objects moving around, and understand the music.” This milder second wave of effects lasted around an hour, but Subject A reports that several days later he was still feeling the psychic residue of his salvia trip, as “a slight change in the mind.”

Based on the current experiment, when salvia is good, it’s very, very good, but when it is bad, it’s not so hot – and with a 33% hit rate it seems a bit of a gamble that you’ll get value for money.

“I think it’s an experience that’s not for everybody, but if you’re open to
new things, and you’re comfortable with yourself, I think it’s quite an amazing experience,” Subject A says. “But people need to know that it [can be] really, really powerful.”