Plot the graph of this equation:
And this is the result:
I bet René Descartes is rolling in his grave.
Your browser is no longer supported.
Please upgrade to a modern browser.
Plot the graph of this equation:
And this is the result:
I bet René Descartes is rolling in his grave.
Or at least, how to light a cigar under some kind of awesome cocktail!
The wife & I have just got back from the Dominican Republic where we celebrated our first anniversary. Got tonnes more work to do though, but I’ll try and update this blog again soon!
I just pissed my pants for about 15 entire minutes at the 30 second clip from Family Guy. We immediately rewatched it during the episode a good three or four times, if only because we missed the previous reply laughing like a pair of bastards.
Watch it Immediately.
This post has been robbed in its entirety with permission from the always-eloquent Neurobonkers.
A newly leaked cable exposes the intense international pressure the United States placed on the United Nations to block the successful drug harm reduction strategies we have in Europe. The scientific facts are astoundingly clear regarding this issue. Harm reduction is a particularly serious issue because it does not only save the lives of drug users but prevents the spread of HIV. Due to our strategies of harm reduction such as methadone programmes and needle exchanges for intravenous drug users Europe has some of the lowest HIV rates in the world. America and Russia have the worst HIV rates in the developed world because both of these countries do not practice harm reduction measures. This message is particularly serious coming from the US because according to US law items which prevent HIV being transmitted are not only denied to health authorities but they are actually illegal to possess, therefore pushing harm reduction charities such as needle exchanges underground. If this were to happen here we would see levels of HIV sky-rocket towards the appalling levels seen in the United States and Russia. If this is not worrying enough the rhetoric being used to support the US strategy is frankly sickening. The rhetoric is that the more dangerous drug taking is, the less people will take drugs. The fact that this results in countless unnecessary deaths and transmission of HIV which would otherwise be completely preventable is not considered.
In the cable the European standard of harm reduction is described as an “EU Crusade on Harm Reduction” (sic). The irony here is on a number of levels. Firstly, a “crusade” is a war based on the imposition on moral/religious values. The US is conducting a crusade based on the morality of drug abuse yet it is the US however who are accusing Europe of a “crusade on harm reduction”. Secondly, this is clearly not a European crusdade on harm reduction, perhaps it could conceivably be a crusade for harm reduction but definitely not on harm reduction. Thirdly, assuming that is what they meant, a “crusade for harm reduction” is perhaps the most poetically, paradoxically absurd description of a basic health care principle I’ve ever heard. Fourthly, it is patently obvious that it is the US and not Europe who is actually entering a “crusade on harm reduction” namely because they are the only ones crusading in any way shape or form with regard to this issue. (Ok, so are the Russians but they’re just as barmy). Finally, I hope I need not explain the final tragic irony of describing the imposing of a new morally driven blanket ban on a basic health care principle that stops the spread of HIV as a “crusade”. The original crusades resulted in a still existing blanket ban on the primary barrier to HIV transmission and this is of course, the main reason we have a global HIV crisis in the first place. My only conclusion is that this wording was a failed attempt at very dark humour. Trust the Americans to fail at irony. Damn, I’ve just pissed off both of the world’s largest superpowers and the world’s largest religion in one fell swoop. Maybe we should keep the nukes afterall. At least nukes don’t give us AIDS.
Footnote: The title of paragraph four of the leaked cable is “Is it EU Solidarity or (the) UK Leading the Crusade?“. If the Americans insist on calling life saving harm reduction a crusade and suggesting it is us that are leading the charge then this is perhaps the first crusade in our history that we can actually be proud of.
“Would the UN Member States assemble a political declaration almost identical to the last one? The 1998 version dealt with drug demand reduction by adopting what we now know to be the expensive, ineffective, and disastrous law-and-order route that has cost the US alone 40 billion per year – without significantly reducing either supply or demand – and made us the world’s largest jailer of our own people.
…Or would this be the year that member states would move towards a public health and human rights approach to drug policy?…
…to reject the inclusion of the term “harm reduction” in the Political Declaration being endorsed at this meeting is extremely short sighted and problematic. It puts the US in the position of sitting in judgment of successful programs being run by many countries globally; it also ignores the very successful use of harm reduction in the United States to stem the tide of overdose deaths, low threshold drug treatment and Hepatitis C treatment and care in major centers including New York City. Worst of all, it negates the sound science behind interventions like safer injection spaces or heroin prescription programs.
…This meeting is unfortunately timed. Whereas the new Obama administration is making steps to move in a more progressive human rights based direction, the groundwork for the drafting of the Political Declaration has taken place with State Department employees who took their direction from the previous administration and haven’t yet been presented with a new agenda. Sadly it will be another 10 years before there will be an opportunity to revisit UN drug policy again.”
The full Leaked cable…
|09UNVIEVIENNA31||2009-01-27 16:04||2011-04-28 00:12||UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY||UNVIE|
VZCZCXYZ0000 RR RUEHWEB DE RUEHUNV #0031/01 0271621 ZNR UUUUU ZZH R 271621Z JAN 09 FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8938 RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1453 RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000031 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SNAR KCRM UN PGOV AORC UK CO RS JA CA FR SW GM EI, IT SUBJECT: Breaking the UNGASS Impasse on "Harm Reduction" REF: A) UNVIE 00001, B) Tsai-Pala 1/23 email ¶1. (U) This is an action message for INL/PC and IO/T. Please see paragraph 7. ------- Summary ------- ¶2. (SBU) Negotiations for the UNGA special session have hit an impasse, created by EU insistence on adding the controversial term "harm reduction" to various parts of the draft UNGASS action plan and political declaration. While Canada, an opponent of the term's inclusion, is considering conceding to EU demands, other opponents are standing firm with the U.S. in preventing such a problematic element's inclusion. Mission has engaged counterparts at every level, from experts to ambassadors in an attempt to break the impasse and find compromise language. Mission believes there is increasing pressure within the EU to resolve this gridlock and avoid an embarrassing showdown at the March Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) but some delegations will be inclined to hold this issue hostage up until the opening of the CND, in hopes the US will relent. To facilitate EU compromise, Mission recommends that the Department reach out to various capitals and the European Commission to help underscore the firmness of U.S. resolve-both to our allies and to the EU, before the EU horizontal group meeting in Brussels on February 4. Mission has urged like-minded countries here (Japan, Russia, Colombia) to take similar actions. End Summary. ------------------------------ EU Crusade on "Harm Reduction" ------------------------------ ¶3. (SBU) There have been difficult negotiations in Vienna on the "harm reduction" issue in the demand reduction chapter of the draft UNGASS action plan (Ref A) and political declaration. The Czech Republic reiterated this demand on January 26 on behalf of the presidency. The plan will be annexed to the political declaration expected to be issued by ministers attending the high-level segment of the UNGASS review meeting in Vienna March 10-12, 2009. The main divide is between EU advocates for including "harm reduction" in the plan, and those who oppose such inclusion, namely U.S., Russia, Japan, Colombia and possibly Canada. Although opposed to harm reduction, Canada's experts in Ottawa are receptive of a recent compromise (including the term in a footnote rather than in the text), and we understand that Ottawa will have a discussion on the political level to decide how to handle this issue. ----------------------- Is it EU Solidarity or UK Leading the Crusade? ----------------------- ¶4. (SBU) Recent meetings to reach a compromise with EU had been inconclusive. The USG (United States Government) cannot accept including the specific term "harm reduction" in any part of the action plan. The USG also wants the section to focus on "prevention, treatment and rehabilitation" in the consideration of any demand reduction strategy. The EU, on the other hand, appears less concerned about treatment and rehabilitation. The EU presented a very hard-line position in the opening rounds of these negotiations in mid-January. Subsequently, Mission conducted extensive consultations at all levels, including between Ambassador and the DCM with their counterparts. Mission's conclusion is that the EU may not have a tightly united front. The UK is the primary and most vocal crusader on this issue, although Netherlands does lend occasional support, as do Spain and the EC. Importantly, other EU countries, initially implacable, appear to be wavering (e.g., Germany). Still others have expressed varying degrees of flexibility, including France, Belgium, Ireland, and Italy, as well as Sweden, which is closest to the U.S. position. ---------------------- Next Steps for Mission ---------------------- ¶5. (SBU) Mission continues to engage with both skeptics and proponents of "harm reduction." To that end, Mission plans to offer alternative language, previously sent to INL/PC (Ref B) at the next informal consultations. Mission's language is based on the November 2008 UNGA resolution on international drug control (A/63/432), which found consensus in New York. Importantly, that language was co-sponsored by 58 countries, including the U.S. and at least 7 EU countries. Mission will propose inserting "care" into the language as a way to address EU concerns. U.S. proposed language for paragraph 9 of the draft Action Plan, therefore, would read, "Develop, review and strengthen, as appropriate, prevention, treatment, care and rehabilitation of drug use disorders and to take measures to reduce the social and health consequences of drug abuse as governmental health and social priorities, in accordance with international drug control treaties, and where appropriate, national legislation." (Note: The 7 EU co-sponsors of the November 2008 UNGA resolution are: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, and Latvia. End Note.) ¶6. (SBU) Mission has shared this language with Japan, Russia, and Colombia, as well as the CND chair Namibia, who is chairing the current negotiations on the political declaration. Offering this language will allow Mission to more constructively engage the EU and the chair of the working group (Iran) (who has taken a very active role in trying to find consensus). Although Iran chair had originally scheduled another informal meeting for the afternoon of January 27, Namibian ambassador told Missionoffs and their Japanese and Russian counterparts the morning of January 27 that she would announce the cancellation of that meeting until further notice. She said she had heard from many delegations that there should be a "cool down" period on this issue. According to her, many delegations are opposed to the EU position, even though they did not speak up on the floor. ¶7. (SBU) Mission has suggested like-minded countries (Russia, Japan, Colombia) to intervene at the ambassadorial level in Vienna. We have also suggested that their capitals demarche relevant countries. Mission will also ask the G-8 chair in Vienna, the Italian ambassador, to convene a meeting of the G-8 members to underline the same. By engaging EU member states in a different context, it may help them to reevaluate their dogmatic and unproductive approach. ------------------- Recommended Actions ------------------- ¶8. (SBU) Action Request: The EU's horizontal group will have its next coordination meeting on drugs in Brussels on February 4. In order to break EU unity on this issue, and thereby create a climate in Vienna conducive to compromise, Mission recommends engagement both with skeptics and supporters of the issue. Specifically, Mission recommends; (i) Department instruct USEU to contact the European Commission's horizontal group on drug control (Carol Edwards at the EC). Instructions should note that the potential for embarrassment is great for the EU, should the EU hold hostage an entire document because of one sub-issue in one section of the action plan.. Mission believes that each passing week without compromise will add increasing pressure within the EU to resolve this issue and prevent embarrassment for national ministers planning to attend the CND. Instructions should also note that the March CND will be the first foray of the Obama administration into the international drug arena, and all sides should be keen to make it a positive one. (ii) Department instruct U.S. Embassies Tokyo, Moscow, and Bogota to reach out to host governments and emphasize our need to continue supporting each other, as well as the firmness of U.S. resolve and the continuity of our policy vis-`-vis "harm reduction." It is important that our allies on this issue remember that the burden is on the EU, as the proponent of the term, to convince other delegations-not the other way around. (iii) Department instruct U.S. Embassy Ottawa to persuade Ottawa at a political level that it should at least consider remaining silent on the EU proposal for the time being, and/or until the EU shows more flexibility. Although there is pressure in Vienna on all delegations to commit to the EU proposal, Ottawa should remember that there is no need to accede to hard-ball tactics, and that the goal is for all sides to find common ground. (iv) Department instruct U.S. Embassy London to underscore the need to find common ground. Mission believes that UK's expert in Vienna is a driving force behind the current EU approach, and that she may find herself isolated within the EU as other delegations begin to feel the urgency for compromise. (v) Department instruct U.S. Embassy Prague to reaffirm with the EU presidency the importance of finding common ground. Instructions should note the importance the USG places on getting US-EU relations off on the right foot, and that nothing related to the CND jeopardizes that common goal. Instructions should also note that the Czech Republic was one of the co-sponsors of the November 2008 UNGA resolution on International Drug Control (A/63/432). (viii) Finally, that Department instruct U.S. Embassies Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Dublin, Rome, and especially Stockholm (as well as any other capital who may be more sympathetic to the need for compromise) to underline the firmness of our position, and the importance of finding common ground for the March ministerial meeting. Instructions should also note that Belgium, Ireland and Italy co-sponsored the November 2008 UNGA resolution A/63/432. In particular, it should be noted that the current EU proposal effectively eliminates the draft's previous focus on prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. Although there may be some disagreement on "harm reduction," Mission believes all delegations should be concerned that the elimination of prevention, treatment and rehabilitation from their prominent place in the draft may give the wrong signal that member states are no longer focusing on the critical need to reduce the demand for drugs.
Sorry about the lack of activity. We’ve been dead busy since the new year — Coffeesh0p’s had more orders for legal highs and such so far this year than for all of 2008, and I’ve been optimising like a bastard, among other things.
Hopefully, I’ll write something soon about what I’ve been up to when I’ve the time, but for now, here’s some music while you wait:
Seriously. Going out for New Year’s Eve is our idea of hell. Don’t get me wrong, we’re not a pair of miserable bastards who hate fun — in fact, here’s an old rave photo to prove it:
While I might look unintentionally serious as shit in the above picture, I can assure you, we were having a brilliant time.
So, why is going out on NYE a terrible idea? Well…
More people out means you’ve got less personal space, so less room to dance or sit, and more person/person collisions of every magnitude — whether that be an accidental elbow to the ribs or some wazzock spilling your pint, more people in one location will always lead to more than the usual amount of violence. Massive gangs of people seem to think their shared invincibility is exponentially proportional to the size of their group, which inevitably ends up with more dickish behaviour in general.
More people also means more competition for both the bar and in summoning appropriate transport for the journey home. Both of those situations also bring to mind my next point…
£79.95 for a pint and 4x the usual taxi price (the latter isn’t an exaggeration) coupled with the terrible “consumer experience” I just mentioned automatically make me resent the entire night. This is coming from someone who’s routinely paid £2.50 for a bottle of water without complaining because it didn’t take him fucking for-ever to get served.
Apparently, if your liver doesn’t explode from acute alcohol poisoning or you can’t ignite your breath, then it’s not a good night out. For a minority of drinkers, that applies to every Saturday night, but that school of thought becomes all the more inclusive in the context of New Year’s Eve. As we all already know, this leads to more violence & aggression, dangerous driving and both the average size and frequency of sick splatters that adorn the pavements. Oh, and the toilets… my god, the toilets. Anyway, moving on…
“The turning of the stars bring a time when my secrets can give you immortality. But when that time has passed, those fleeting minutes gone, the secret is worthless, until once again the stars unlock its power.”
During a single orbit of Neptune around our own star, we get to celebrate NYE less than 165 times. As such, it’s imperative that the night be TOTALLY AWESOME!!!1eleven!! because its ages ’til the next one. A tall order for any other night, but when you’re already having to compensate for the increased dickhead population, time-to-service at the bar and the king’s ransom you’re expected to fork over per drink, it’s no wonder everyone has such a short fuse. This might manifest itself as violence, streams of tears & mascara or anything in between.
Venues can get away with murder on NYE. They just have to book some alright DJs before they inevitably sell out. Why book the best of the best when you’ll get literally zero more people attending? That extra cash saved can be put towards booking someone big to draw a bigger crowd on any other night.
Jesus Christ, is it cold. I have a beard and tend to wear jeans on a night out and I think it’s cold. A typical girl out on Birmingham’s Broad Street, however, somehow continues to survive wearing much, much less — I’d be cold on a breezy summer’s afternoon wearing the kind of thing they obviously find acceptable. The smoking ban also means that your venue of choice will probably have some doors permanently ajar, as though the doorway itself were designed as the most efficient way to transfer thermal energy out of the building.
…so that’s why we stayed in.
Last week saw the release of the UK Government’s 2010 drug strategy, and so far, this is all I’ve had time to say on the matter:
While I may have spent the time since doing some hardcore diversification (more on that at a later date…), what the government actually proposes sounds more ridiculous as each day passes, so I’ve gone through all the new publications, pulled out everything related to legal highs and displayed them below for your convenience. I’ve also listed a few other choice quotes that stood out at the time (I’m sure there’s more to be found, but I’ve only skimmed it). My comments are in dark red.
The Government is determined to address the issue of so called ‘legal highs’. We know that these substances can pose a serious threat, especially to the health of young people. We need a swift and effective response and are therefore redesigning the legal framework through the development of temporary class drug orders so we can take immediate action. We will improve the forensic analytical capability for new psychoactive substances and will establish an effective forensic early warning system.
UKBA are undertaking enforcement action at the border to target and intercept consignments of these new substances. The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) is currently developing approaches to identify importers, distributors and sellers of ‘legal highs’ and disrupt their ventures, including activity against websites. We are also introducing technology at the borders to identify these new types of drugs.
These enforcement activities will be combined with prevention, education and treatment. We will
continue to emphasise that, just because a drug is legal to possess, it does not mean it is safe and it is
likely that drugs sold as ‘legal highs’ may actually contain substances that are illegal to possess.
Description and scale of key monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’
Reduce the risk of harm from new psychoactive substances, so called “legal highs”: by introducing a system of temporary bans while the health issues are considered by independent experts
We will establish an effective forensic early warning system
We will introduce technology at the borders to assist with the identification of new drugs
Work with UK based internet providers to ensure they comply with the letter and spirit of UK law
Cost / Benefit
|Policy||Summary of Costs / Benefits|
|Reduce the risk of harm from new psychoactive substances, so called “legal highs”: by introducing a system of temporary bans while the health issues are considered by independent experts||Costs|
It is not possible to quantify the costs of these provisions. As the provisions introduce an enabling power for temporary bans, rather than controlling any specific substance, it has not been possible to quantify the costs. The use of this provision will depend on the rate at which new potentially harmful “legal highs” are introduced to the UK market. A full Regulatory Impact Assessment will be completed on each occasion that the power is used, taking into account any evidence on prevalence of availability and use, in the same way when a drug is brought under permanent control under 1971 Act.
For the reasons given, it is not possible to quantify the benefits of these provisions. The overarching benefit of a faster legislative response is to reduce the likelihood of a criminal market developing with associated enforcement costs as well as limiting both potential harm to individual users health, including dependency, with associated treatment costs and wider societal harms.
|We will establish an effective forensic early warning system||Costs|
There will be forensic and general administrative costs incurred by Government as a result of this policy. However, we cannot monetise these costs owing to the early phase of development of this policy option and the potential commercial sensitivity of such analysis.
There will be non-monetised benefits incurred by Government as a result of this policy. The use of this provision will depend on the rate at which new harmful ‘legal highs’ are introduced to the market. We can expect the societal benefits of reduced harm from new ‘legal highs’ through the ability to identify and therefore ban them more quickly.
|We will introduce technology at the borders to assist with the identification of new drugs.||Costs|
There will be forensic and technological costs incurred by Government as a result of this policy. However, we cannot monetise these costs owing to the early phase of development of this policy option and the potential commercial sensitivity of such analysis.
It is not possible to quantify the benefits of these provisions. The use of this provision will depend on the rate at which new harmful ‘legal highs’ are introduced to the market. We can expect the societal benefits of reduced harm from new ‘legal highs’ through the ability to identify and therefore ban them more quickly.
What else do you think we can do to keep one step ahead of the changing drugs markets?
Changing drug trends can be identified at many levels, all of which should be monitored and information gathered so as to be aware of changing drug markets and ultimately, harms to users. Reports may be gathered from the National / European level to local level concerning initially, (among others), seizures, forensics, accident and emergency admissions, internet based sales, service users etc. Such evidence should be used to inform drugs that are to be considered.
The internet has become a critical vector in the development of drug markets for novel / legal highs. Monitoring sales sites and conducting test purchasing (with forensic examination of the products) provides key information on emerging trends and markets. At present this is an occasional academic activity but there is a strong case for this to be routine.
Do you have a view on what factors the government should take into consideration when deciding to invoke a temporary ban on a new substance?
The ACMD are responding separately to the Minister for Crime Prevention on this issue. The ACMD’s consideration of the ‘trigger point’ for a Temporary Banning Power (i.e. factors), as sent to the Minister is:
The ACMD does not believe the point at which consideration is given to invoking a Temporary Banning Power should be too prescriptive. The purpose of the temporary banning power should be the prevention of harms. Therefore, the ACMD considers that the trigger point should be ‘[on the available evidence] there are reasonable grounds for considering that a substance does, or has, the potential to cause harm’. As part of the ACMD’s initial consideration as to whether a temporary banning power should be invoked it will look to understand the identity of the substance, consider related substances, consider any legitimate uses and gather evidence internationally and locally regarding the substance and its harms (including, for example, A&E admissions, known pharmacology, dependency and social harms etc.). However, it is not possible to detail the ‘level’ of evidence that would be required, nor what that evidence would be – evidence, and the relative importance of each type of evidence, will depend on the substance being considered.
Should there be a greater focus on treating people who use substances other than heroin or crack cocaine, such as powder cocaine and so called legal highs?
See earlier answer regarding prevention. Service needs should be delivered based on the harms experienced by each individual drug (although a full service for all drugs would be the ideal). This principle is even more important during a period of austerity. It would be difficult to ask for a widening of remit whilst reducing available resources. The ideal answer to this question is different from the pragmatic one. Reduce the risk of harm from new psychoactive substances, so called “legal highs”: by introducing a system of temporary bans while the health issues are considered by independent experts.
Action on stopping ‘legal highs’ coming on to the market is a priority for the government. The coalition agreement states, ‘We will introduce a system of temporary bans on new “legal highs” while health issues are considered by independent experts. We will not permanently ban a substance without receiving full advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.’
‘Legal highs’ pose a significant health risk, so banning is a public health measure. A ban sends a clear message to users of ‘legal highs’ (including young people who may be considering trying them), and to those selling them. Young people in particular may equate legal with safe and do not always understand that these drugs carry real risks.
Mephedrone (often referred to as ‘meow meow’), an earlier legal high, was made a class B drug in April 2010, while Naphyrone (often sold as ‘NRG-1′) was made a class B drug on 23 July 2010. Both these drugs are now illegal to have, sell or give away.
This is the only place with any specifics about the banning process.
It is estimated that 1.6 million people have mild, moderate or severe alcohol dependence. About a third of these will face some challenges that are similar to those dependent on drugs in needing support to help them recover. It is specialist alcohol treatment, for those in this group who would benefit from treatment, that this strategy aims to improve.
The illicit drug market in the UK is worth an estimated £4 – 6 billion per year.
Treatment should not be linked to financial sanctions. In this scenario a few may benefit, however the majority may not as it does not take into account the genesis of the addiction.
Defining drug and alcohol dependency may cause some problems – even though there are clear definitions there may still be differing opinion. Sharing information also presents the ACMD with some concerns.
Well, that’s the lot, but you might be interested in my Top 10 Reasons Why Legal Highs Should Stay Legal.
Here’s a generic news report you’ve probably all read already:
DEA Moves to Emergency Control Synthetic Marijuana
Agency Will Study Whether To Permanently Control Five Substances
NOV 24 — WASHINGTON, D.C. – The United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is using its emergency scheduling authority to temporarily control five chemicals (JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497, and cannabicyclohexanol) used to make “fake pot” products. Except as authorized by law, this action will make possessing and selling these chemicals or the products that contain them illegal in the U.S. for at least one year while the DEA and the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) further study whether these chemicals and products should be permanently controlled.
A Notice of Intent to Temporarily Control was published in the Federal Register today to alert the public to this action. After no fewer than 30 days, DEA will publish in the Federal Register a Final Rule to Temporarily Control these chemicals for at least 12 months with the possibility of a six-month extension. They will be designated as Schedule I substances, the most restrictive category, which is reserved for unsafe, highly abused substances with no medical usage.
Over the past year, smokable herbal blends marketed as being “legal” and providing a marijuana-like high, have become increasingly popular, particularly among teens and young adults. These products consist of plant material that has been coated with research chemicals that mimic THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and are sold at a variety of retail outlets, in head shops and over the Internet. These chemicals, however, have not been approved by the FDA for human consumption and there is no oversight of the manufacturing process. Brands such as “Spice,” “K2,” “Blaze,” and “Red X Dawn” are labeled as incense to mask their intended purpose.
Since 2009, DEA has received an increasing number of reports from poison centers, hospitals and law enforcement regarding these products. Fifteen states have already taken action to control one or more of these chemicals. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 amends the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to allow the DEA Administrator to emergency schedule an abused, harmful, non-medical substance in order to avoid an imminent public health crisis while the formal rule-making procedures described in the CSA are being conducted.
“The American public looks to the DEA to protect its children and communities from those who would exploit them for their own gain,” said DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart. “Makers of these harmful products mislead their customers into thinking that ‘fake pot’ is a harmless alternative to illegal drugs, but that is not the case. Today’s action will call further attention to the risks of ingesting unknown compounds and will hopefully take away any incentive to try these products.”
This all happened in the UK a year ago, and it took about 7 months before anything decent returned to the shelves. Which is good news for you ‘Mer’cans– there’s already loads of stuff available that’s still legal.