K2 Synthetic Marijuana

[The Drunk Girl]

It smokes like marijuana, gets users high like marijuana, it even sells at prices similar to marijuana – but a new blend of herbs and spices called K2 is completely legal and law enforcement is struggling to figure out how to handle it.

Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/18/crimesider/entry6219654.shtml)

I read this article the other day and it took me two days to remember the name and find this article. As I was searching for it, I found this article that came out today in Philadelphia.

Federal agents are cracking down on imports of a synthetic marijuana that has started appearing in the Philadelphia area.


It is not illegal in any state to possess the substance, but Food and Drug Administration regulations bar its import and sale because it is not a tested and approved drug.


Eighty-five parcels arriving from Amsterdam at a UPS facility at Philadelphia International Airport were detained and then seized after tests proved positive for the drug, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.


Source (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/84835717.html)

So this stuff seems to be making quite the scene (google is full of recent articles) and a few states are already trying to make it illegal. Is this seriously something to be wasting time and money on?

Fucking idiots and to think that the excuse that was used for the airport was because K2 isn't approved by the FDA! :ummm: I guess we should all just raid GNC now. That fucking store is chalk full of supplements that aren't FDA approved

[Americano]

Haven't seen any here as we're a big growing area but heard it's definitely being marketed in major cities.

All the feds have to do to outlaw it is put it on their list. I'm sure DEA donut chompers are slobbering at the thought of a new entry meaning more money for their stupid and failed war on drugs.

[Donkey]

If it's completely legal, how law enforcement should handle it should be a no brainer.


*sigh*

[Americano]

If it's completely legal, how law enforcement should handle it should be a no brainer.


*sigh*

Unfortunately its composed of natural ingredients. Big pharma lobbyists move quickly to eliminate that sort of potential competition for their painkillers.

My god man, think of the new LE jobs, justice system clogging, legal fees, prison expansion and parole jobs another illegal drug can furnish. Real Americans will fight for this natural drug to be made illegal and mandatory serious prison time served for possession without a physician's prescription.

[Michael]

It’s banned in much of Europe, but not yet regulated in the States.

Very interesting. I wonder how it is illegal in Europe?

[The Drunk Guy]

Very interesting. I wonder how it is illegal in Europe?
When did all of Europe join together to ban a drug? :lol:

[Americano]

When did all of Europe join together to ban a drug? :lol:

Whenever it came into competition with their pharmaceutical industries.

[partofme]

I wish I could find a place to buy some of this stuff online to give it a try. I have my resume out there and never know when I may have to take a drug test. Having an alternative to the real thing would be nice.

[Americano]

I wish I could find a place to buy some of this stuff online to give it a try. I have my resume out there and never know when I may have to take a drug test. Having an alternative to the real thing would be nice.

Google K2 incense or go here (http://www.k2incense.org/).

[The Drunk Girl]

Or google this too: JWH-018 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWH-018)

[Multiplum]

Very interesting. I wonder how it is illegal in Europe?

Norway: "What, people are getting comfortably high off something?"

*bans substance*

[Michael]

Norway: "What, people are getting comfortably high off something?"

*bans substance*
Yes, the authoritarian character of American government is annoying, but hardly to compare to the authoritarian character that is the foundation of European governance.

At least people in America can fight against the government. That's mostly impossible in Europe and consists of begging for mercy (which is sometimes granted). My point is that citizens cannot force a European government to back down on a law (as can be sometimes done in USA and Canada with constitutional challenges).

[Americano]

Yes, the authoritarian character of American government is annoying, but hardly to compare to the authoritarian character that is the foundation of European governance.

At least people in America can fight against the government. That's mostly impossible in Europe and consists of begging for mercy (which is sometimes granted). My point is that citizens cannot force a European government to back down on a law (as can be sometimes done in USA and Canada with constitutional challenges).

The recent UK example of immediately sacking their government drug expert for him using ten years of research to declare marijuana less dangerous than alcohol comes to mind.

[Michael]

The recent UK example of immediately sacking their government drug expert for him using ten years of research to declare marijuana less dangerous than alcohol comes to mind.
Yes exactly.

In Canada or USA, the government would be facing a nasty lawsuit for 'wrongful dismissal'.

[SMadsen]

Unfortunately its composed of natural ingredients. Big pharma lobbyists move quickly to eliminate that sort of potential competition for their painkillers.
Why don't big pharma lobbyists lobby for removing the entire set of safety regulations that are involved in drug approval instead of lobbying for drug prohibition? Being big pharma it would take no effort to crush all competition once all regulations were done away with.

[Americano]

Why don't big pharma lobbyists lobby for removing the entire set of safety regulations that are involved in drug approval instead of lobbying for drug prohibition? Being big pharma it would take no effort to crush all competition once all regulations were done away with.

From any corporate viewpoint government regulation/enforcement is far less expensive and more effective in crushing smaller competition to control markets than merely offering product based on claimed merits.

[Michael]

Why don't big pharma lobbyists lobby for removing the entire set of safety regulations that are involved in drug approval instead of lobbying for drug prohibition? Being big pharma it would take no effort to crush all competition once all regulations were done away with.
Because the lawsuits for defective products would likely put big Pharma away for good.

Do you realize how many billions they pay out annually already - even with strong regulatory monitoring for safety?

No, Big Pharma accepts the regulations because they are cheaper than a blockbuster class-action suit which could wipe out a company entirely.

Indeed, wiping out regulations opens the market up to the generic drug suppliers and that would also wipe out Big Pharma' fat profits that are 100% dependent upon regulatory control over the marketplace.

Big Pharma doesn't like free markets at all. I think they have far more to loose than gain from eliminating all regulations.

[Multiplum]

Yes, the authoritarian character of American government is annoying, but hardly to compare to the authoritarian character that is the foundation of European governance.

At least people in America can fight against the government. That's mostly impossible in Europe and consists of begging for mercy (which is sometimes granted). My point is that citizens cannot force a European government to back down on a law (as can be sometimes done in USA and Canada with constitutional challenges).

Maybe, but I think the drug laws we have are influenced by the American approach. Portugal pretty much disposed of the old ones, and decided they didn't work. So to say that Europe is less flexible is a fairly harsh generalization. It's certainly true for my country, but the fact is that most people still live by the idea that alcohol is alcohol, drugs are drugs, and drugs are bad. I suggest you look up Portugal's drug policies, I believe Time had an article on it. Most countries seem to prefer ignoring this success story. It's the same here, hardly any political parties dare touch the issue of drugs at all. There's not enough public interest anyway, although it is steadily rising from what I can tell. Being a tiny country, we are easily influenced by neighboring and more powerful western countries. Look at all the shit the dutch get for the drug tourism.

I'm not that sure if the little man stands a better chance in the US. At least I would be surprised if it's that black and white.For some/a lot of issues, certainly, but for some again - perhaps not. Being a small democratic nation has its perks, and I think that despite the obsession with rules and regulations (not always a bad thing, by the way) - my social liberties at least feel safe and sound. I'm pretty sure political movements change laws, considering that politicians are whores for votes. A populist movement can most certainly get shit done.

[Americano]

Maybe, but I think the drug laws we have are influenced by the American approach. Portugal pretty much disposed of the old ones, and decided they didn't work. So to say that Europe is less flexible is a fairly harsh generalization. It's certainly true for my country, but the fact is that most people still live by the idea that alcohol is alcohol, drugs are drugs, and drugs are bad. I suggest you look up Portugal's drug policies, I believe Time had an article on it. Most countries seem to prefer ignoring this success story. It's the same here, hardly any political parties dare touch the issue of drugs at all. There's not enough public interest anyway, although it is steadily rising from what I can tell. Being a tiny country, we are easily influenced by neighboring and more powerful western countries. Look at all the shit the dutch get for the drug tourism.

Spain, while not reforming drug laws, has taken the stance of ignoring marijuana unless being imported in large quantities. That 'look the other way' LE attitude includes personal cultivation. That simply won't happen in the US because of state and local LE dependency on federal funding to operate their departments.

I'm not that sure if the little man stands a better chance in the US. At least I would be surprised if it's that black and white.For some/a lot of issues, certainly, but for some again - perhaps not. Being a small democratic nation has its perks, and I think that despite the obsession with rules and regulations (not always a bad thing, by the way) - my social liberties at least feel safe and sound. I'm pretty sure political movements change laws, considering that politicians are whores for votes. A populist movement can most certainly get shit done.

[Multiplum]

Spain, while not reforming drug laws, has taken the stance of ignoring marijuana unless being imported in large quantities. That 'look the other way' LE attitude includes personal cultivation. That simply won't happen in the US because of state and local LE dependency on federal funding to operate their departments.

This is normal practice in many western European countries by now. Slow progression. This kind of leniency, along with widespread use and no obvious dangers to it, further promotes the /care attitude. In Portugal, I believe drug use is tolerated, period. People were smoking pot with the police walking past them, at least, and coke was absolutely everywhere.

[SMadsen]

From any corporate viewpoint government regulation/enforcement is far less expensive and more effective in crushing smaller competition to control markets than merely offering product based on claimed merits.
Well, that's certainly big kudos to US drug enforcement agencies.

How come more industries don't use the same approach? Should fashion houses, for example, start to lobby for approval regulations of textiles (whatever the criteria) so that the government could crush potential competitors that circumvent, can't or won't spend what it takes to achieve approval?

[Michael]

Well, that's certainly big kudos to US drug enforcement agencies.

How come more industries don't use the same approach? Should fashion houses, for example, start to lobby for approval regulations of textiles (whatever the criteria) so that the government could crush potential competitors that circumvent, can't or won't spend what it takes to achieve approval?
Bemused giggles. All industries try to use the government to close down competition.

The fashion industry is doing quite well - they already have very stiff tariffs and regulations to protect themselves from competition.

Indeed, the textile industry is probably the number one most tariff-protected industry in the USA (as it is in most countries).

I agree with Americano - rigging the regulations and buying the regulator is a very good investment for most companies. Most of them have been playing this game for decades. Small investments pay huge dividends here.

[SMadsen]

Because the lawsuits for defective products would likely put big Pharma away for good.

Do you realize how many billions they pay out annually already - even with strong regulatory monitoring for safety?

No, Big Pharma accepts the regulations because they are cheaper than a blockbuster class-action suit which could wipe out a company entirely.

Indeed, wiping out regulations opens the market up to the generic drug suppliers and that would also wipe out Big Pharma' fat profits that are 100% dependent upon regulatory control over the marketplace.

Big Pharma doesn't like free markets at all. I think they have far more to loose than gain from eliminating all regulations.
Are you saying that pharmaceutics as an industry runs a higher risk with defective products than any other industry? If so, how come?

[SMadsen]

Bemused giggles. All industries try to use the government to close down competition.

The fashion industry is doing quite well - they already have very stiff tariffs and regulations to protect themselves from competition.

Indeed, the textile industry is probably the number one most tariff-protected industry in the USA (as it is in most countries).
That's what I meant before. If pharma lobbyists went for removing the entire set of safety regulations then they'd be on equal footings with the non-regulated drug-"suppliers", which they could then crush competitionwise. Sure, non-regulated drug-"suppliers" can still skew competition by circumventing trade and worker regulations, as can fashion industry pirates, but it's not a regulation on the product.

[Americano]

Well, that's certainly big kudos to US drug enforcement agencies.

How come more industries don't use the same approach? Should fashion houses, for example, start to lobby for approval regulations of textiles (whatever the criteria) so that the government could crush potential competitors that circumvent, can't or won't spend what it takes to achieve approval?

As Michael pointed out, all private sector industries use government regulation to stifle and eliminate competition. US drug enforcement agencies have no competition, they're the enforcement arm of that particular regulation (drugs) and in that instance support big pharma's monopolys at public expense.

[Michael]

That's what I meant before. If pharma lobbyists went for removing the entire set of safety regulations then they'd be on equal footings with the non-regulated drug-"suppliers", which they could then crush competitionwise. Sure, non-regulated drug-"suppliers" can still skew competition by circumventing trade and worker regulations, as can fashion industry pirates, but it's not a regulation on the product.

That wouldn't work at all since big Pharma would still be open to civil law suits for its products (and wouldn't benefit from regulatory laws designed to thwart them).

This is asymetrical since the illegal drug producers can't be sued because they don't provide a nice handy incorporated body to sue.

Bottom line is that Big Pharma gains way too many benefits from government regulatory rules and would lose too much without them. Besides which, illegal drug cartel types tend to fight dirty when pressed hard. I don't think Big Pharma has the balls to deal with that kind of 'we'll kill your family' type competition.

[SMadsen]

That wouldn't work at all since big Pharma would still be open to civil law suits for its products (and wouldn't benefit from regulatory laws designed to thwart them).

This is asymetrical since the illegal drug producers can't be sued because they don't provide a nice handy incorporated body to sue.

Bottom line is that Big Pharma gains way too many benefits from government regulatory rules and would lose too much without them. Besides which, illegal drug cartel types tend to fight dirty when pressed hard. I don't think Big Pharma has the balls to deal with that kind of 'we'll kill your family' type competition.
Which is why "Big Pharma" should lobby for complete liberalization so that illegal drug cartel types become legal drug cartel types. No more approval regulations, no more criminal action on account of production and distribution, no more "we'll kill your family" type competition, and no more "Big Pharma" 'monopoly' on civil law suits.

[Michael]

Which is why "Big Pharma" should lobby for complete liberalization so that illegal drug cartel types become legal drug cartel types. No more approval regulations, no more criminal action on account of production and distribution, no more "we'll kill your family" type competition, and no more "Big Pharma" 'monopoly' on civil law suits.

But then it becomes a straight market competition between Prosac and Pot. Which do you think would win in the marketplace? Big Pharma loses all its advantages and would have to actually compete in a market they don't control.

I think Big Pharma is massively profitable the way they are and they'd be nuts to rock their golden boat (which is why Big Pharma NEVER rocks the boat of public policy).

[SMadsen]

But then it becomes a straight market competition between Prosac and Pot. Which do you think would win in the marketplace?
Whoever has the means of production. Which means "Big Pharma".

I think Big Pharma is massively profitable the way they are and they'd be nuts to rock their golden boat (which is why Big Pharma NEVER rocks the boat of public policy).
And I'd be nuts to disagree with this.

But it's way too cheap and Rand'ish to say that something is illegal because an industry doesn't like the competition.

[Michael]

Whoever has the means of production. Which means "Big Pharma".
You are kidding right?

There is no competetion on this particular metric. The distributed character of pot growing is massively larger in volume/value than pharmaceuticals.

Big Pharma also spends about 25% of revenue on advertising and kickbacks to doctors that are necessary in order to push their present level of sales.

Pot dealers spend roughly 0% on advertising and achieve present levels of sales despite the fact that governments spend billions on law enforcement trying to prevent it.

And I'd be nuts to disagree with this.

But it's way too cheap and Rand'ish to say that something is illegal because an industry doesn't like the competition.
But what if it is true?

But Big Pharma isn't the culprit. Pot is illegal because of the oil industry's aggressive campaign to get it made illegal in the 1920s. They feared that hemp could be used to make ethanol and that would prevent US farmers from becoming addicted to gasoline-power.

[SMadsen]

You are kidding right?

There is no competetion on this particular metric. The distributed character of pot growing is massively larger in volume/value than pharmaceuticals.

Big Pharma also spends about 25% of revenue on advertising and kickbacks to doctors that are necessary in order to push their present level of sales.

Pot dealers spend roughly 0% on advertising and achieve present levels of sales despite the fact that governments spend billions on law enforcement trying to prevent it.
No, I'm not kidding. Removing regulations on pot means that "Big Pharma" is free to compete on pot; not with a product produced under safety regulations such as Prozac but with an unregulated product such as .. pot!

[Americano]

No, I'm not kidding. Removing regulations on pot means that "Big Pharma" is free to compete on pot; not with a product produced under safety regulations such as Prozac but with an unregulated product such as .. pot!

Big pharma has made no attempt to enter the unregulated US pot market, medical marijuana now being legal in 14 states.

[SMadsen]

Big pharma has made no attempt to enter the unregulated US pot market, medical marijuana now being legal in 14 states.
Well, USA has made no attempt to unregulate it (illegal is the complete opposite of unregulated).

Anyhow, it's a hypothetical situation.

[Americano]

Well, USA has made no attempt to unregulate it (illegal is the complete opposite of unregulated).

Anyhow, it's a hypothetical situation.

Not hypothetical, the medical marijuana market being highly regulated, complete with physician required prescriptions, state issued licensing and draconian law enforcement. Patients may legally transfer their right to grow plants for self-medication to another party, a perfect scenario for big pharma.

The current public image (war on drugs with unbelievably high corruption) and an expanded legal market are all that's holding them back.

The total US marijuana market for domestically grown product, dependent on one's sources, is currently estimated at $70-100billion. That's without imports, estimated to be 50% of total market sales.

[partofme]

Well I just learned that a bill is working it's way through my state's government to make both K2 and Salvia illegal.

[Americano]

Well I just learned that a bill is working it's way through my state's government to make both K2 and Salvia illegal.

Next step is requesting additional federal funding for local enforcement purposes.

[Michael]

No, I'm not kidding. Removing regulations on pot means that "Big Pharma" is free to compete on pot; not with a product produced under safety regulations such as Prozac but with an unregulated product such as .. pot!
Well that's an entirely different point! :lol:

That type of strategy would bring the whole game full circle back to pure capitalism and actual free market competition - which is exactly the one thing that modern corporations fear and try hardest to avoid. On that basis, I'd say the executives and shareholders would never approve the plan. That's just way too scary and risky.

Besides which, the formerly illegal suppliers just might decide to remain 'incognito' since that's a functioning business model for them and that would be asymetrical because the corporation needs formal legal existence to function. And if it has a formal address, it can be sued.

Not to mention the fact that it is not realistic to imagine going from a 'war on drugs' to 'wide open free market' systemic conversion. I'd expect any legalization/decriminalization to be gradual and measured, with barriers against concentrated large-scale suppliers.

Unless the state enforcement apparatus starts to weaken, then all bets are off. :)

[Michael]

Maybe, but I think the drug laws we have are influenced by the American approach. Portugal pretty much disposed of the old ones, and decided they didn't work. So to say that Europe is less flexible is a fairly harsh generalization. It's certainly true for my country, but the fact is that most people still live by the idea that alcohol is alcohol, drugs are drugs, and drugs are bad. I suggest you look up Portugal's drug policies, I believe Time had an article on it. Most countries seem to prefer ignoring this success story. It's the same here, hardly any political parties dare touch the issue of drugs at all. There's not enough public interest anyway, although it is steadily rising from what I can tell. Being a tiny country, we are easily influenced by neighboring and more powerful western countries. Look at all the shit the dutch get for the drug tourism.
Yes, Europe provides a wonderful diversity of drug policies, no doubt of that. I definitely retract my statement in this respect - it was a foolish one. :whiteflag:

The Dutch have certainly provided some excellent data for the rest of us.

And yes, I've been following some of the 'surprising' political developments in Spain and Portugal over the last half dozen years, though your point about Portugal's drug laws is new to me - I'll check that out. :)

Indeed, this is one of the best features of 'federalism' - the way smaller states can experiment with policies that can be adopted at the federal level if they prove successful (that's the theory anyway!).

I'm not that sure if the little man stands a better chance in the US. At least I would be surprised if it's that black and white.For some/a lot of issues, certainly, but for some again - perhaps not. Being a small democratic nation has its perks, and I think that despite the obsession with rules and regulations (not always a bad thing, by the way) - my social liberties at least feel safe and sound. I'm pretty sure political movements change laws, considering that politicians are whores for votes. A populist movement can most certainly get shit done.
Yes, this is true.

And I agree that the 'little man' isn't going to win anywhere anytime. My point is more about the effect that a bunch of 'little men' can have when they leverage the courts. This is a powerful weapon in Canada and USA because of the nature of constitutionalism and the common law tradition. Put those two together and theoretically, the 'little man' is legally a very powerful force that can legally compel the government to surrender and even pay damages and restitution. I'm not aware of any European legal system that functions in this same way, though of course, there are many European avenues available to challenge or appeal laws certainly, but these function in a different way that isn't quite as powerful weapons if the state is at all determined in opposition.

Though, in all practicality, this weapon is rarely available to individuals anyway - one needs a group cause to get the machinery working on the scale necessary to make it happen. But it can and does work. Governments can (sometimes) be legally forced to do one's bidding - this is a powerful theoretical principle that is part of the idea of liberty derived from the Magna Carta.

[partofme]

The move to make it illegal unanimously passed the state senate and is now going to be taken up by the house. No surprise there.

[Americano]

The move to make it illegal unanimously passed the state senate and is now going to be taken up by the house. No surprise there.

Prohibition being a far faster legislative process than anything that directly benefits the populace with a measurable value like public health care? Build those prisons, expand that LE apparatus and make sure the state can support more criminal defense lawyers, all with an existing tax base.

A few states take those measures, then pressure the feds to classify it as illegal and suddenly the War on Drugs expands yet again to contain this new threat to Real Americans.

Sorry, I'm a little cynical as a nearby city with a population of 24k just had a 18% voter turnout for their city council election. That was to replace five of the seven council people who were so disliked by the good old boys that they were drummed out in a recall election last year.

In US political corruption, size doesn't matter.