There has been much written about legal highs this summer – not only in the national papers but on the television, as well as recently being added to the British government’s drugs advisory resource “Talk to Frank”. One of the main issues surrounding legal highs is their dubious contents - legal highs can be made by slightly changing the chemical formula of known drugs to create a new compound. These variants, though similar, are not covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act so are in effect legal but unmonitored. By branding products as plant fertiliser and labelling them ‘not for human consumption’ the producers have no legal obligation to test their merchandise and are not liable for any adverse effects upon consumers despite taglines such as “Activate Pills…For energy and stimulation when you need it most. Help your body work hard and party harder” which imply the pills are intended for ingestion.
One third year Drama student has noticed a disturbing attitude “It is weird how people who never take illegal drugs now see [legal highs] as an acceptable form of getting trashed. This worries me because they don't know the dangers of taking it.” Arts student Lucy shares these concerns: “Mephedrone wise, I have been chatting to my friends and their friends about it…it is quite disturbing, it seems like there are a lot of people who wouldn't touch MDMA but are freely taking meth.”
Dr John Ramsay a toxicologist from University of London is concerned by the wealth of legal highs available and the casual attitude many people have to taking them, “The problem is we don’t know what the toxicity is, tinkering with molecules is a pretty risky thing to do, you fiddle with it and you don’t really know what the effects are likely to be until you test it…pharmaceutical companies spend ten years and millions testing [prescription drugs] when the people who make [legal highs] may have done no testing at all”. A brief Google search reveals an abundance of willing lab rats; hundreds of forums are dedicated to the comparison and analysis of legal highs. Dr John Ramsay voiced his fear about the contents of these products “It might give you cancer it might give you birth defects in women it might give you anything, who knows unless they’ve been tested? …we don’t know what the risks are, we’d rather they take MDMA”. Taking into account Dr Ramsay’s comments it seems bizarre that possession of drugs, with well-researched effects can result in a prison sentence while legal highs are readily available and may be equally if not more harmful.
Channel Island Guernsey, which has its own government and different legislation to mainland Britain, has banned the import and sale of legal highs. Dr Peter Turner, a consultant psychiatrist in Guernsey, said: "Recently I have seen mental health problems associated with the use of legal highs and have advised the people concerned not to use these substances." The popularity of legal highs on the island was magnified because is virtually impossible to obtain the ‘conventional’ drugs available on the mainland such as cannabis, MDMA and cocaine due to the very strict drug laws and isolation of the island. Writing in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, ex-Bristol Professor David Nutt wrote controversially "Drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts of life. There is not much difference between horse-riding and ecstasy. This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates - indeed encourages - certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others such as drug use," Nutt proposed a classification based upon the harmful effects of drugs, it was his attitude towards the classification of Cannabis that led to his sacking from the government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). The harm Nutt takes into account is separated into three categories; the physical harm to the user, the drug’s propensity to induce dependence and the wider effect of use upon families, communities and society. Heroin tops Nutt’s list succeeded by Cocaine, while Alcohol is considered sixth most harmful above Ketamine, Tobacco, Cannabis and LSD. Ecstasy, the original ‘party drug’, however, languishes at number 18. He has since proposed the establishment of an alternative independent council.
A Second year History student at Bristol says “I feel a lot less safe taking meth than some illegal drugs, as there has been hardly any research into its effects. Although everyone thinks that people who take drugs are idiots, my friends and I really research effects and consequences of things before we do them, and with this current batch of stimulants there is very little to go on.” It is worrying that students, despite these reservations are still willing to take such risks with their health. Especially since the handling of mephedrone became a criminal offence in Sweden last December shortly after an 18-year old girl died in Stockholm having taken mephedrone in combination with other drugs. She reportedly went into convulsions and turned blue, a side effect reported on several online forums after excessive consumption.
A lobbyist from New Zealand, Matt Bowden, has been dubbed the “Godfather of Legal Highs” for seeking regulation of the legal high market. His campaigning led to the temporary legalization of BZP in New Zealand, an amphetamine-like synthetic chemical sold most commonly in pill form. Bowden promoted BZP (originally produced as a cattle worming pill) as a less addictive and safer alternative to methamphetamine ‘crystal meth’ to which he lost many friends in the nineties. While advocating BZP, a component of many legal highs on sale in Britain, Bowden concedes that there are still risks that should be made clear to consumers.
Despite warnings from toxicologists, the popularity of legal highs does not look like it’s fading any time soon. Decidedly unimpressed Second year English student Holly Roughan posed the valid question: “Horse tranquiliser, plant fertiliser, what next?”
Tessa Griffith
16/11/2009
