By Mike Power, The Guardian
Friday, November 1, 2013 2:48 EDT
How easy is it to invent and manufacture a recreational drug that
does not break any UK drug laws? I just spent the last two months doing
exactly that – and the answer might surprise you.
Since 2008, the emergence of legal highs has wrong-footed
policymakers, parents and police. These drugs imitate the effects of
cocaine, amphetamines, MDMA and cannabis. They are popular, legal to
take and supply, and their use is growing. Barely a week goes by without
a press or TV report of a death, or major psychological consequences,
as a result of using them. These reports often claim that it is a
trivial task to take a banned drug and, with a little molecular
trickery, get a Chinese lab to produce a new, legal version.
Most stories about legal and illegal drugs in the mass media are at
best hysterical and inaccurate, and at worst simply untrue, so I decided
to put this particular claim to the test.
The market in legal highs is growing. In 2009, the European
Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’s early warning system
discovered 24 new drugs. In 2010, it found another 41; in 2011, another
49; and in 2012, there were 73 more. By October 2013, a further 56 new
compounds had already been identified: a total of 243 new drugs in just
four years.
Or rather, make that 244, because as part of a two-month
investigation for the online science and technology publisher Matter, I
just devised a new, legal drug, had it synthesised in China, and
delivered to a PO Box in central London. It is a close chemical cousin
of a substance that was well-loved by some of the world’s most famous
musicians, and, it’s rumoured, by John F Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis
Presley, and Truman Capote – but was banned decades ago.
There’s a bag of it sat in its courier packaging on my desk as I
write. There’s also a sample at Cardiff University, where Andrew
Westwell, a brilliant chemist at the
WEDINOS
project, a Welsh government-funded initiative that tracks and
identifies new drugs. He has analysed it and proved its authenticity and
guessed at its likely effects if taken: a stimulant.
All it took me was a few dozen phone calls to Shanghai, a gmail
account, a bank transfer, a PO Box set up in a false name, a few emails
to contacts on web forums that gave me the synthesis and the
modification and the name of a friendly laboratory, and a bit of
reading. Job done....
...
The real issue is this: we are confusing cause and effect. The reason
so many new drugs are appearing is precisely because we keep banning
them. That approach worked in the 1960s and 1970s, and even perhaps
until the 1980s. But in the internet era, it is impossible to control
this market. More laws equals more drugs. If I, a journalist who until
recently knew nothing of chemistry, can commission a new drug in a
matter of weeks, so can many more people. And they will.
Policymakers’ prime concern should not be which drugs are legal or
illegal, but which are the most harmful. Their next problem is how to
regulate the market in psychoactive chemicals. That will be more
complicated than anyone – even those who advocate radical new
approaches, including decriminalisation – dare consider.
• You can read Uncontrolled Substances, Mike Power’s
investigation into the past, present and future of the designer drugs
scene, for $0.99 (60 pence) on the science and technology site MATTER
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2013
FULL ARTICLE AT
RawStory
Ecstasy Effects