BoxRec

Srebmun wrote:

Ketchel_2008 wrote:

Srebmun wrote:[
So you think it's better to leave it as it is, unregulated and in the hands of the criminal underworld? Tell us why then.

I never said it was better to leave it, just cant see a solution. Cant see a way to regulate class A drugs.

At the moment the cannabis coffee shop model, in Amsterdam for example, seems a reasonable one, or along the lines where (current) illegal drugs could be traded.

So youd be happy for your 16 / 18 year old kids to legally be able to go and buy crack / smack and get a habit ? There would still be prescribed drugs illegally being sold, to underage etc.

Sorry as I hate to be rude, but that's a very blinkered answer. I'd rather no 16 or 18 year old go and buy either, but if someone is going to buy something they're going to go and buy something, and at the moment it's unregulated, freely available, probably further down the line funding arms trading, certainly causing a massive blood trail, and probably adulterated with god knows what.

So let me ask you, a hypothetical question.

YOUR 16 year old is going to by a rock, or a wrap of smack and there's nothing you can do about it, the options are

1. buy it from some street scum dealer who doesn't give a monkeys about you and prob' hopes you get addicted, + you don't know the strength or adulterants in it, and encouragment to do it.

2. buy it from a licensed premises where you can learn about the effects, be educated how it can ruin your life, clean needles/pipes, a support network etc, + discouragement to do it.

I actually agree with the general point you're making and i used to be of the other opinion,one thing i would say is though is if drugs were made legal and were regulated to an extent would that actually fix the problem?The only argument id have against that is if something is legal are kids in particular be so interested in trying it?I mean I think part of the buzz people get from taking illegal drugs is the fact it is illegal and its naughty and a risk so to speak and that makes it attractive aswell.Along with that are illegal chemists and drug dealers,etc going to suddenly disappear or are they just going to create new drugs and subtances,one's that are more dangerous and stronger than ever before?!One's that couldnt possibly be legalised and regulated because of the serious risk they pose?!

Srebmun wrote:Reading that back, let me just say sorry for using the word blinkered. What I actually mean in hindsight is from 'that perspective'

But you are right, prohibition _does_ reduce access to drugs - it doesn't do it very _well_, but it makes it harder to get hold of them, particularly if you are only a casual user. And there are people who will eff themselves up with certain drugs who would not otherwise have done so if, say, that drug did not exist - not everyone will self-medicate with anything to hand, or eff themselves up with legal drug Y (or without drugs) as much as they would have with illegal drug X. Therefore, prohibition can be said to be effective in preventing some people from coming into contact with some drugs without which they would be better off.

I don't think it all balances out in the end, but if one only looks at it from that perspective it could be said to be a good. A lot of people only seem to look at it from that perspective, which I think is wrong.

Levels of drug consumptıon are totally unaffected by strıctness of laws, ıt ıs a questıon of culture, not drug law enforcement

The US has the strıctest drug laws of any western country, and spends the most on law enforcement of any western country, ıt ımprısons the most drug offenders of any western country and yet ıt also has the hıghest levels of drug use of any western country, ındıcatıng ıf anythıng, an ınverse relatıonsıp between drug war expendıture and drug consumptıon

The middle east has very strict laws on drug use though and i dont think there countries are as awash with drugs.

lefty wrote:

Srebmun wrote:Reading that back, let me just say sorry for using the word blinkered. What I actually mean in hindsight is from 'that perspective'

But you are right, prohibition _does_ reduce access to drugs - it doesn't do it very _well_, but it makes it harder to get hold of them, particularly if you are only a casual user. And there are people who will eff themselves up with certain drugs who would not otherwise have done so if, say, that drug did not exist - not everyone will self-medicate with anything to hand, or eff themselves up with legal drug Y (or without drugs) as much as they would have with illegal drug X. Therefore, prohibition can be said to be effective in preventing some people from coming into contact with some drugs without which they would be better off.

I don't think it all balances out in the end, but if one only looks at it from that perspective it could be said to be a good. A lot of people only seem to look at it from that perspective, which I think is wrong.

Levels of drug consumptıon are totally unaffected by strıctness of laws, ıt ıs a questıon of culture, not drug law enforcement

The US has the strıctest drug laws of any western country, and spends the most on law enforcement of any western country, ıt ımprısons the most drug offenders of any western country and yet ıt also has the hıghest levels of drug use of any western country, ındıcatıng ıf anythıng, an ınverse relatıonsıp between drug war expendıture and drug consumptıon

The middle east has very strict laws on drug use though and i dont think there countries are as awash with drugs.

Iran has one of the worst Heroin problems in the world, despite haveing the most brutal justice system

When alcohol was illegal in the States 1000s of people died from drinking poorly distilled moonshine which contained methanol. Some went blind from drinking methylated spirits. Another tipple was a cooking gel called "canned heat" which also contained methanol. Canned Heat did a glorious version of Freddie King's Boogie Funk at Woodstock, turn up the volume and enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqnKt19ds6U

Nightmare Roy wrote: Iran has one of the worst Heroin problems in the world, despite haveing the most brutal justice system

to be fair, location next to Afghanistan and Iran's status as the single main transit route for Heroin from Afghanistan to Turkey, etc, plays quite a big role there. But your point's well taken.

i can't remember all the facts but there have been some swings n roundabouts in Iran's heroin problem since the Islamists took over in Iran- i don't believe Heroin was a huge problem there in the days of the Shah, but then Afghanistan wasn't the huge producer then that it is now and iran wasn't the central hub/ transit route. i believe also the regime there have oscillated between zero tolerance and turning a *bit* more of a blind eye, but neither has had much effect, from memory.

lefty wrote:

Srebmun wrote:Reading that back, let me just say sorry for using the word blinkered. What I actually mean in hindsight is from 'that perspective'

But you are right, prohibition _does_ reduce access to drugs - it doesn't do it very _well_, but it makes it harder to get hold of them, particularly if you are only a casual user. And there are people who will eff themselves up with certain drugs who would not otherwise have done so if, say, that drug did not exist - not everyone will self-medicate with anything to hand, or eff themselves up with legal drug Y (or without drugs) as much as they would have with illegal drug X. Therefore, prohibition can be said to be effective in preventing some people from coming into contact with some drugs without which they would be better off.

I don't think it all balances out in the end, but if one only looks at it from that perspective it could be said to be a good. A lot of people only seem to look at it from that perspective, which I think is wrong.

Levels of drug consumptıon are totally unaffected by strıctness of laws, ıt ıs a questıon of culture, not drug law enforcement

The US has the strıctest drug laws of any western country, and spends the most on law enforcement of any western country, ıt ımprısons the most drug offenders of any western country and yet ıt also has the hıghest levels of drug use of any western country, ındıcatıng ıf anythıng, an ınverse relatıonsıp between drug war expendıture and drug consumptıon

The middle east has very strict laws on drug use though and i dont think there countries are as awash with drugs.

BULLSHIT.
Iran has a massive skag issue, where do you think Red Leb hash comes from ? Lebanon
There doesnt seem to be a problm cos it is very rarely reported.

Doesnt mean there isnt one.

J wrote:

lefty wrote:

Srebmun wrote:Reading that back, let me just say sorry for using the word blinkered. What I actually mean in hindsight is from 'that perspective'

But you are right, prohibition _does_ reduce access to drugs - it doesn't do it very _well_, but it makes it harder to get hold of them, particularly if you are only a casual user. And there are people who will eff themselves up with certain drugs who would not otherwise have done so if, say, that drug did not exist - not everyone will self-medicate with anything to hand, or eff themselves up with legal drug Y (or without drugs) as much as they would have with illegal drug X. Therefore, prohibition can be said to be effective in preventing some people from coming into contact with some drugs without which they would be better off.

I don't think it all balances out in the end, but if one only looks at it from that perspective it could be said to be a good. A lot of people only seem to look at it from that perspective, which I think is wrong.

Levels of drug consumptıon are totally unaffected by strıctness of laws, ıt ıs a questıon of culture, not drug law enforcement

The US has the strıctest drug laws of any western country, and spends the most on law enforcement of any western country, ıt ımprısons the most drug offenders of any western country and yet ıt also has the hıghest levels of drug use of any western country, ındıcatıng ıf anythıng, an ınverse relatıonsıp between drug war expendıture and drug consumptıon

The middle east has very strict laws on drug use though and i dont think there countries are as awash with drugs.

BULLSHIT.
Iran has a massive skag issue, where do you think Red Leb hash comes from ? Lebanon
There doesnt seem to be a problm cos it is very rarely reported.

Doesnt mean there isnt one.

I wouldnt really class Iran as a very stable country though!

lol Llefty you didnt specify stable..how many countries are stable in the middle east and what is your definition of stable?

what next there arent many Stable countries in the middle east with drug issues begining with the letter U...

J wrote:lol Llefty you didnt specify stable..how many countries are stable in the middle east and what is your definition of stable?

what next there arent many Stable countries in the middle east with drug issues begining with the letter U...

Well ok look at the likes of Saudi Arabia and Quatar and Kuwait,they dont have huge drugs problems like we do in the west!

DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN AS WEST..if you mean westernized world..aint many drugs in Singapore sunshine why is that..cos the fookin hang you for posession is that why way to go then?..how do you know there arent drug issues in Saudi / Kuwait and Qatar..the governments wouldnt admit it even if there were.

You arent comparing like for like here, you are comparing democratic countries who happily declare their data publicy with police states run by effectively dictattorships....who wouldnt admit to problems even there were.

also the "greater middle east" definition by the UN now includes Afgansitan and parts of Pakistan so that kinda fucks your argument completely.

J wrote:DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN AS WEST..if you mean westernized world..aint many drugs in Singapore sunshine why is that..cos the fookin hang you for posession is that why way to go then?..how do you know there arent drug issues in Saudi / Kuwait and Qatar..the governments wouldnt admit it even if there were.

You arent comparing like for like here, you are comparing democratic countries who happily declare their data publicy with police states run by effectively dictattorships....who wouldnt admit to problems even there were.

I dont take illegal subtances and i rarely take drink alchohol,etc so i couldnt care less what they do with people who consume illegal substances!

what a good boy you are, well done, bet you are a larf a minute, and how very caring and mature of you to take that attitude, ostrich mentality..if it dont affect me i dont give a monkees...well done. Waht abvout babies who grow up with addicitons cos of their parents ..born with them, or those form underprivilidged backgrounds whose only out are drugs......fornicate them aswell?

Its called a social conscience but then again you dont get those til you grow up and ur balls drop

heres a suggestion for ya why not you should fornicate off and live in the middle east then.

Incredible how the forum software changes 1 word into 3, just noticed that.

J wrote:what next there arent many Stable countries in the middle east with drug issues begining with the letter U...

I can only think of 1 beginning with the letter U.

uzbekistan?

centre of the ruissian whizz trade mate...my mate Ivan told me, thats how they can drink that much vodka and not get pished

That makes 2 then, UAE also.

dope fiends the lot of em, what do think they carry round in the head dresses?

J wrote:what a good boy you are, well done, bet you are a larf a minute, and how very caring and mature of you to take that attitude, ostrich mentality..if it dont affect me i dont give a monkees...well done. Waht abvout babies who grow up with addicitons cos of their parents ..born with them, or those form underprivilidged backgrounds whose only out are drugs......eff them aswell?

Its called a social conscience but then again you dont get those til you grow up and ur balls drop

heres a suggestion for ya why not you should eff off and live in the middle east then.

Why are you taking this so to heart?Are you a drug addict yourself or something?! Regarding Babies who are born with addictions due to there parents well thats a whole different ball game!The baby didnt take the drugs which gave them an addiction did they so obviously thats not the same!I would get the babies,etc the treatment they need!However your old pony about what about people who come from underprivileged backgrounds and there only outlet is drugs doesnt wash with me!!Lots of people come from underprivileged backgrounds and dont go on to become drug addicts!I come from an underpriviliged background myself so thats crap is a cop out!Regarding me not having a social conscience well thats BS,ive done a fair bit of voluntary work and stuff to do with the homeless so again your spouting rubbish!P.s regarding me "growing up and my balls dropping" maybe thats truen but wouldnt you say its a sign of immaturity when you personally attack someone for having a differing opinion to yours?!

lefty wrote:[I dont take illegal subtances and i rarely take drink alchohol,etc so i couldnt care less what they do with people who consume illegal substances!

Im not a drug addict but ive lost two dear friends to it.

thwe above is contradictory to your last post.

Im taking it to heart because of the above quoted comment. Make your mind up which stance you are taking . You make sweeping statements with no basis to back them up.

The midlde east has no drugs...errr based on what...your misguided stereotyped opinion?

I dont care about people who take drugs effectivly feck em..... but you care about the homelesss, some of which are undoubtedly gonna be on drugs and some probably homeless due to drug adictions....... so why you helping them then?!

MAKE YOUR MIND UP....

Fact is you , if you come form underprivilidged areas and backgrounds you are more likely to fall into a life of crime including drugs, thas proven fact not a cop out.

The above statment is something an immature pratt would say, thats why i got pissed off if you wish to know but kudos to you for last post, its proven you arent a complete tool..

I hope this little chat has made you see that, like your posts things arent always as black and white and consistent as to be able to just say...I dont care......

thankfully deep down i think you do care.

peace

The solution is to give all drug users free drugs, hard/nasty drugs that is.

Think about it - it would put every 'evil' heroin or cocaine dealer in the country out of business. Overnight. And just watch the crime rates plummet.

How much would a legal hit of Afghan (unstable middle east country) heroin cost? 50p? If the government don't want to give it free they could even make them pay for it and it wouldn't matter much.

Why free or cheap? there's not many alcoholics robbing people to get their £1.79 for a bottle of White Cider.

You might ask why not give alcoholics free booze too, the difference is that alcohol is physically damaging to your internal organs, while heroin is not. Alcoholics actually are prescribed a chemical substitute - diazepam which also doesn't damage the organs.

Do you have to get a habit first and then you get the free drugs or would anybody be able to go in to their docs or dispenser and get a hit?

Existing addicts only. But the fact stands that dealers would lose their whole client base straight away. Most street level dealers sell to fund their own habit so the need to supply would be gone anyway, 'new' users will still try things, so you'll still have a black market. :(

But if the dealers tried to get a new generation of kids hooked, what would be the point, knowing that those kids could just go down the drug clinic and get on a maintainance script right away?

Of course that's flawed, but it couldn't make the situation any worse...and seems likely, imo, it would make things better.

Fair enough right now it's fairly difficult to imagine a model for how it would work. The government wouldn't be able to handle the idea of them actually selling the drugs. But that, IMO, would be the way to go.

Imagine, drugs are sold in clinics attached to GP surgeries staffed with nurses, drug counsellors and a doctor.

You get your clinic card which shows which drugs you are authorised to buy. You become authorised by attending education sessions about a particular drug. You are told the safer doses, methods of consumption, risks, etc. Once you have your ticket you can buy a maximum amount of that drug each day. If you buy it frequently the system flags you as a potential problem user and you have to go and see a counsellor/medical practitioner to discuss your use. They will only stop your supply if you don't go and see them. You can elect to carry on taking the drugs after this session - that's your choice.

Habitual users of certain drugs go into an advanced programme where they get increased support to get clean if they choose.

Etc.. but surely worth some thought than there be the canyon of difference there currently is, and is demonstrated even on threads on here.

We so need change to how it is.

J wrote:

lefty wrote:[I dont take illegal subtances and i rarely take drink alchohol,etc so i couldnt care less what they do with people who consume illegal substances!

Im not a drug addict but ive lost two dear friends to it.

thwe above is contradictory to your last post.

Im taking it to heart because of the above quoted comment. Make your mind up which stance you are taking . You make sweeping statements with no basis to back them up.

The midlde east has no drugs...errr based on what...your misguided stereotyped opinion?

I dont care about people who take drugs effectivly feck em..... but you care about the homelesss, some of which are undoubtedly gonna be on drugs and some probably homeless due to drug adictions....... so why you helping them then?!

MAKE YOUR MIND UP....

Fact is you , if you come form underprivilidged areas and backgrounds you are more likely to fall into a life of crime including drugs, thas proven fact not a cop out.

The above statment is something an immature pratt would say, thats why i got pissed off if you wish to know but kudos to you for last post, its proven you arent a complete tool..

I hope this little chat has made you see that, like your posts things arent always as black and white and consistent as to be able to just say...I dont care......

thankfully deep down i think you do care.

peace

Fairdues!I do care its just that the current system isnt working and I dont think an ultra lenient apprach will fix it either.Im not saying there is no drugs in the middle east because clearly theres going to be but I do think countries like Saudia Arabia,Kuwait,Quatar and the United Arab Emirates do have less of a wide spread drug problem than say the U.K and the U.S due to the severity of the punishment of the crime which acts as a stong deterrent.I also understand to fully cure the world of drug addiction,etc you need to get to the root of the problem and understand the underlying causes but thats a very idealogical viewpoint which I doubt is ever going to be fully taken into account!Its sad I know but its the truth.Anyway Ive enjoyed our debate and no hard feelings! :)

you do have a point and yes nice debating with you, never any hard feelings from me, well unless you are lirva.

Srebmun wrote:The solution is to give all drug users free drugs, hard/nasty drugs that is.

Think about it - it would put every 'evil' heroin or cocaine dealer in the country out of business. Overnight. And just watch the crime rates plummet.

How much would a legal hit of Afghan (unstable middle east country) heroin cost? 50p? If the government don't want to give it free they could even make them pay for it and it wouldn't matter much.

Why free or cheap? there's not many alcoholics robbing people to get their £1.79 for a bottle of White Cider.

You might ask why not give alcoholics free booze too, the difference is that alcohol is physically damaging to your internal organs, while heroin is not. Alcoholics actually are prescribed a chemical substitute - diazepam which also doesn't damage the organs.

Do you have to get a habit first and then you get the free drugs or would anybody be able to go in to their docs or dispenser and get a hit?

Existing addicts only. But the fact stands that dealers would lose their whole client base straight away. Most street level dealers sell to fund their own habit so the need to supply would be gone anyway, 'new' users will still try things, so you'll still have a black market. :(

But if the dealers tried to get a new generation of kids hooked, what would be the point, knowing that those kids could just go down the drug clinic and get on a maintainance script right away?

Of course that's flawed, but it couldn't make the situation any worse...and seems likely, imo, it would make things better.

Fair enough right now it's fairly difficult to imagine a model for how it would work. The government wouldn't be able to handle the idea of them actually selling the drugs. But that, IMO, would be the way to go.

Imagine, drugs are sold in clinics attached to GP surgeries staffed with nurses, drug counsellors and a doctor.

You get your clinic card which shows which drugs you are authorised to buy. You become authorised by attending education sessions about a particular drug. You are told the safer doses, methods of consumption, risks, etc. Once you have your ticket you can buy a maximum amount of that drug each day. If you buy it frequently the system flags you as a potential problem user and you have to go and see a counsellor/medical practitioner to discuss your use. They will only stop your supply if you don't go and see them. You can elect to carry on taking the drugs after this session - that's your choice.

Habitual users of certain drugs go into an advanced programme where they get increased support to get clean if they choose.

Etc.. but surely worth some thought than there be the canyon of difference there currently is, and is demonstrated even on threads on here.

We so need change to how it is.

I completetly see the point which you are making and its a very good one but if we did legalise all these current substances like Heroin,cocaine,etc would illegal drug dealers disappear or just create more powerful and deadly drugs?There will always be corrupt chemists out there who will be willing to create new substances which will be more addictive and more dangerous than the current ones for a few bob!

lefty wrote:

Srebmun wrote:The solution is to give all drug users free drugs, hard/nasty drugs that is.

Think about it - it would put every 'evil' heroin or cocaine dealer in the country out of business. Overnight. And just watch the crime rates plummet.

How much would a legal hit of Afghan (unstable middle east country) heroin cost? 50p? If the government don't want to give it free they could even make them pay for it and it wouldn't matter much.

Why free or cheap? there's not many alcoholics robbing people to get their £1.79 for a bottle of White Cider.

You might ask why not give alcoholics free booze too, the difference is that alcohol is physically damaging to your internal organs, while heroin is not. Alcoholics actually are prescribed a chemical substitute - diazepam which also doesn't damage the organs.

Do you have to get a habit first and then you get the free drugs or would anybody be able to go in to their docs or dispenser and get a hit?

Existing addicts only. But the fact stands that dealers would lose their whole client base straight away. Most street level dealers sell to fund their own habit so the need to supply would be gone anyway, 'new' users will still try things, so you'll still have a black market. :(

But if the dealers tried to get a new generation of kids hooked, what would be the point, knowing that those kids could just go down the drug clinic and get on a maintainance script right away?

Of course that's flawed, but it couldn't make the situation any worse...and seems likely, imo, it would make things better.

Fair enough right now it's fairly difficult to imagine a model for how it would work. The government wouldn't be able to handle the idea of them actually selling the drugs. But that, IMO, would be the way to go.

Imagine, drugs are sold in clinics attached to GP surgeries staffed with nurses, drug counsellors and a doctor.

You get your clinic card which shows which drugs you are authorised to buy. You become authorised by attending education sessions about a particular drug. You are told the safer doses, methods of consumption, risks, etc. Once you have your ticket you can buy a maximum amount of that drug each day. If you buy it frequently the system flags you as a potential problem user and you have to go and see a counsellor/medical practitioner to discuss your use. They will only stop your supply if you don't go and see them. You can elect to carry on taking the drugs after this session - that's your choice.

Habitual users of certain drugs go into an advanced programme where they get increased support to get clean if they choose.

Etc.. but surely worth some thought than there be the canyon of difference there currently is, and is demonstrated even on threads on here.

We so need change to how it is.

I completetly see the point which you are making and its a very good one but if we did legalise all these current substances like Heroin,cocaine,etc would illegal drug dealers disappear or just create more powerful and deadly drugs?There will always be corrupt chemists out there who will be willing to create new substances which will be more addictive and more dangerous than the current ones for a few bob!

It's already happening mate, the most recent one 'meow meow' aka mephedrone, banned without any real testing, what do the chemists do tho', change a molecule or 2, come up with a variant, sell that....

Time and test have made certain chemicals those of choice, there's been many a pharmacologist over the years, Alexander Shulgin probably being the most famous, he even wrote 2 books and synthesized 100's of drugs with subtle molecular differences. All tested and tried.

Society chooses and has choosen what it likes already, the best drugs (in the eyes of users) are already available, just illegally mostly.

Srebmun wrote:

lefty wrote:

Srebmun wrote:The solution is to give all drug users free drugs, hard/nasty drugs that is.

Think about it - it would put every 'evil' heroin or cocaine dealer in the country out of business. Overnight. And just watch the crime rates plummet.

How much would a legal hit of Afghan (unstable middle east country) heroin cost? 50p? If the government don't want to give it free they could even make them pay for it and it wouldn't matter much.

Why free or cheap? there's not many alcoholics robbing people to get their £1.79 for a bottle of White Cider.

You might ask why not give alcoholics free booze too, the difference is that alcohol is physically damaging to your internal organs, while heroin is not. Alcoholics actually are prescribed a chemical substitute - diazepam which also doesn't damage the organs.

Do you have to get a habit first and then you get the free drugs or would anybody be able to go in to their docs or dispenser and get a hit?

Existing addicts only. But the fact stands that dealers would lose their whole client base straight away. Most street level dealers sell to fund their own habit so the need to supply would be gone anyway, 'new' users will still try things, so you'll still have a black market. :(

But if the dealers tried to get a new generation of kids hooked, what would be the point, knowing that those kids could just go down the drug clinic and get on a maintainance script right away?

Of course that's flawed, but it couldn't make the situation any worse...and seems likely, imo, it would make things better.

Fair enough right now it's fairly difficult to imagine a model for how it would work. The government wouldn't be able to handle the idea of them actually selling the drugs. But that, IMO, would be the way to go.

Imagine, drugs are sold in clinics attached to GP surgeries staffed with nurses, drug counsellors and a doctor.

You get your clinic card which shows which drugs you are authorised to buy. You become authorised by attending education sessions about a particular drug. You are told the safer doses, methods of consumption, risks, etc. Once you have your ticket you can buy a maximum amount of that drug each day. If you buy it frequently the system flags you as a potential problem user and you have to go and see a counsellor/medical practitioner to discuss your use. They will only stop your supply if you don't go and see them. You can elect to carry on taking the drugs after this session - that's your choice.

Habitual users of certain drugs go into an advanced programme where they get increased support to get clean if they choose.

Etc.. but surely worth some thought than there be the canyon of difference there currently is, and is demonstrated even on threads on here.

We so need change to how it is.

I completetly see the point which you are making and its a very good one but if we did legalise all these current substances like Heroin,cocaine,etc would illegal drug dealers disappear or just create more powerful and deadly drugs?There will always be corrupt chemists out there who will be willing to create new substances which will be more addictive and more dangerous than the current ones for a few bob!

It's already happening mate, the most recent one 'meow meow' aka mephedrone, banned without any real testing, what do the chemists do tho', change a molecule or 2, come up with a variant, sell that....

Time and test have made certain chemicals those of choice, there's been many a pharmacologist over the years, Alexander Shulgin probably being the most famous, he even wrote 2 books and synthesized 100's of drugs with subtle molecular differences. All tested and tried.

Society chooses and has choosen what it likes already, the best drugs (in the eyes of users) are already available, just illegally mostly.

Yeah i do remember reading about meow meow.I guess if people want drugs there will always be suppliers!