28 Comments - Anonymous Coward - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 8:14 am: K2 - It’s also the 2nd highest mountain on the planet.. - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 8:19 am: Oh no, not another drug criminalization discussion. I’m going to try not to read any more comments on this post. - Obamarama - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 8:21 am: ===“Because it is a synthetic, all you got to do is make a very minor tweak to it, and it’s no longer a banned substance,”=== Something similar happened with the roll your own cigarettes. The taxes on loose tobacco skyrocketed and the tobacco industry just started calling it pipe tobacco with only minor changes. Rep. Fritchey makes a good point. - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 8:43 am: I bet those who are selling it are claiming that it’s ten times more potent. Sounds like synthetic ditchweed to me. - Oscar - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 8:49 am: You can buy it on amazon.com, albeit from a 3rd party vendor. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 8:51 am: There was a report on NPR a few weeks back. They are moving to ban it in Kansas as well. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124087307 - siriusly - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 9:06 am: I don’t know much about it but I recently heard a story about K2 and a Kansas effort to ban it. I’m sure this is one of those pieces that makes its way state by state through NCSL channels. Here’s the link to the NPR story- doesn’t say anything about potency. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124087307 I think the most important argument for a ban is that there is no way to know how harmful the chemicals can be to the users. However, if they prove to be non-harmful, non-addictive - then what’s the beef? As the story points out, lawmakers tend to like to ban all new drugs regardless of harmfulness. - Plutocrat03 - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 9:57 am: Seems like a way to perpetuate the war on drugs. Is there a scientific basis for choosing to criminalize a substance? Does this new substance meet that standard? Or is it just a way to keep up law enforcement employment? Perhaps we should criminalize pomegranate juice as a way to keep up the size of the anti-drug effort. - Anonymous - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 10:03 am: Potato is from the deadly nightshade family — let us ban spuds too! - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 11:25 am: I think as long as you wear a helmet while you’re using it and make sure you recycle your brain after you pickle the thing it is all good. Besides, once universal health care is passed we can all screw ourselves up and get “free” health care to fix it all. =Or is it just a way to keep up law enforcement employment= Yeah, let’s fire all the cops. They don’t do anything anyway, just look for good donut shops and harrass all the cool people. Anarchy rules, dude! - Highland, IL - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 11:47 am: Dan beat me to a helmet comment. Why is the state trying to raise our children (/snark) - girllawyer - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 12:30 pm: Actually, current law only prohibits child sex offenders from being in a park AND “approaching, contacting or communicating” with a child. Also from “LOITERING” within 500 feet of a park and approaching, contacting or communicating with a child. It isn’t criminal under 720 ILCS 5/11-9.4 unless the convicted sex offender uses the park to make contact with a child. Eventually, it will be a crime for convicted sex offenders to breathe. Which might be fine except one wonders if the legislature has ever given any thought to the fact that every restriction - whether it improves community safety or not - makes it just that much harder to ever get these guys convicted. As much fun as it may be to make their lives miserable, every restriction makes it a little less likely that anyone will plead guilty to these crimes and thus more likely that there will be a trial. And if there is a trial, the child victim will have to testify. Wouldn’t it be nice if they would think these things all the way through? But I suppose that’s a lot to ask of the Illinois Legislature. - Anon - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 1:02 pm: I’ve actually tried it before. I would definitely say it is similar to marijuana in many ways, but not quite as intense. I have no idea where they got the “10x stronger”. I’d sort of say K2 is like being buzzed from alcohol, while marijuana is like being drunk. I don’t see a point in criminalizing it. In my experience, this isn’t your average “potpourri”. It would be sold in head shops (where the 6-10 year old kids talked about above wouldn’t even be allowed), and in my experience in other states, you had to be 18+ to buy it. The rest of my opposition just goes along with everything wrong with the drug war. Lets say they are right about this stuff being 10x stronger than marijuana. That means a lot of people are going to want it, right? They can no longer go to their local head shop to buy it. So who is going to supply this demand? Drug cartels and street gangs. Your average person involved in consuming K2 is more often than not experienced with smoking marijuana, so they know a few dealers. A few requests later, and they will be able to get it from dealers who easily purchase it across state lines and traffic it in. And these street dealers don’t ask for ID, like the owner of a headshop does. In the end, it’s just plain stupid. They are overstating it’s power and danger, potentially adding all the revenue to gangs and cartels, and in the end, there are several other types of “marijuana alternatives” that I don’t think would fit under this bill, but have similar effects. - vole - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 1:04 pm: From a quick Google search, K2 appears to be various blends of up to 7 different species of plants. So, not sure what the “synthetic” chemical stuff means. So, unless you ban all the ingredients in these blends or specify which of the herbs actually has the active ingredient(s), there would seem to be some problem with enforcing a ban on K2. But, the state legislators will sleep better now that the kids have to resort to sucking on the real weed or sampling from the old man’s booze cabinet, the gateway to consciousness bending for many young minds. I think one of the problems with regulating such herbals lies with the lax federal laws/regulations that permit people to import a bunch of species from the far east or elsewhere, slap a “not for human consumption” label on it, and sell it in the herbal market as incense or whatever. I have heard that some people are making a quick fortune on these importations. They buy the crap in bales, get it through customs by calling it incense, grind it into fine powders, package it in tiny packets, and sell it for very high prices. Some of the online prices show that K2 is selling for up to $30 per 3 grams. Seems like the feds need to step up the action in taking a close look at this trade. Keep the kids confined to experimenting - vole - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 1:26 pm: “Keep the kids confined to experimenting” Ugh, well, who knows where that was going. Confined to experimenting is kind of an oxymoron anyway. - TaxMeMore - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 1:29 pm: 21 year old limit is reasonable, while also allowing science to study it and fully disclose to the public all the product information we have. Like we do with many things. Less than 20% of the population thinks people should go to jail for cannabis, and that a fine, if anything, is enough punishment. We’ve already gone to far with cannabis prohibition, and the prohibition is doing more harm than good, so this is another bad idea. - Anon - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 1:34 pm: It contains a synthetic cannabinoid called JWH-018. That’s what all the fuss is about. If it’s so dangerous, why not just decriminalize marijuana for people 21 and over & enforce stricter penalties for hard drugs like meth & heroin. - Jake from Elwood - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 1:36 pm: ==”I think this a tool we are going to need in the future.”== What’s the “tool” Ken? Is it the K2 itself or the law banning it? Given the state of affairs with the Gen. Ass’y. the former may be a plausible answer. - VanillaMan - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 2:17 pm: Good grief. See what happens when you don’t have a yardstick to really measure? You end up calling it whatever you feel like calling it. Is there a scientific basis for choosing to criminalize a substance? Does this new substance meet that standard? Almost the right questions! Our history of vice laws supercedes these measurements, not because a long time ago folks were stupid, but because they were controlling a substance that caused societal problems. The reason for vice laws is due to the side effects of the vice. Prostitution killed participants via untreatable deadly venereal diseases. It ran the underground economy and corrupted politics. It created the sex slave trade. It spread disease within the society. It wasn’t banned because folks suddenly got frigid and religious. It was banned because it was killing us. With every vice there is a history of societal side effects that harms society. Now, who manufactures K2? A reputable pharmaceutical firm with laboratory precision? Or does the amount of pychopharaceuticals within each pill vary because no one tries to be scientific about it? Who says it is 10X more powerful than marijuana? And since when can someone say how much pychopharmaceuticals are in each joint of marijuana? In both cases there is nothing scientific about these drugs. It isn’t science, and it isn’t medicine either. The purpose of both drugs isn’t to administer a specific amount of pyschopharmaceuticals into an individual - so we’re talking about letting god knows what into users. If it takes two minutes within each drug advertisement to list all the potential side effects of FDA approved medicines manufactured by pharmaceutical companies battling armies of hungry lawyers, has anyone ever considered just how haphazardly stupid it is to let uncontrolled and unregulated pyschopharmaceuticals to pass themselves off as “victim-free” or “safe”? Vice laws exist after the bodies are counted up and the societal costs exceed the limit a society is willing to tolerate dead bodies and ruined lives. No one is proposing vice laws because they don’t like to get high, drunk or have orgasms. We do it, and have been doing it for generations because we have to. - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 3:12 pm: There were a few substances that were created back in the ’70’s that avoided certain laws because the chemical composition was different enough from those already made illegal. Something new and different came onto the scene and all flocked to it. All the rage, ya know. Soon came the stories of bad effects, overdosing and even some deaths were recorded. All before the drug was declared illegal. We kids were looking for the easy high. What a waste. Studies have shown that if you avoid this nonsense until you are over 21 y/o the liklihood that you will start is reduced very much. I wonder why that is? Maybe ’cause your brain takes over from your stupid part. Why did cigarette makers target younger folk? Remember Joe Camel? I was a high school teacher in the ’80’s and my students just flocked to Camels for that very reason. Making these substances illegal may seem silly to many here. I see good reason to try everything to prevent young people from starting down that road. I accomplished nothing of value while under the influence. Wasted time. I did not see anybody around me accomplishing anything of value while under the influence. We made some awesome bongs - that was about it. - Rob - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 3:12 pm: Look here for potency discussion and additional history: http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2010/02/k2_spice_jwh018_marijuana.php - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 3:15 pm: ===I see good reason to try everything to prevent young people from starting down that road.=== Putting people in prison obviously hasn’t worked, so let’s try something else, shall we? - Rob - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 3:34 pm: Prison and/or felony drug possession convictions hanging around the necks of young people is a failed strategy . . . - RobRoy - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 4:11 pm: DuPage Dan, thanks for the LOL! - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 4:32 pm: @- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 3:15 pm: = =Putting people in prison obviously hasn’t worked, so let’s try something else, shall we? = Like what, free clean needles for everyone? Make it legal and let ‘em figure it out on their own? I look to the Netherlands to see our future if we begin to legalize many of the “soft” drugs as suggested here. It ain’t workin’ out so well. Try asking some of the people who have been saved by prison time. They swear they would be dead without it. Drastic, yes. Is there something better? Certainly, making it out to be a minor, mild drug, with minimal consequences to personal use only serves, IMO, to destigmatize its’ use and makes it more likely young people will use it. If there is a middle ground that would satisfy people here I would like to hear it. It seems, however, that many who post think it is suitable for making it legal. That ain’t much of a disincentive. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 5:08 pm: What you want is the same old, tired prison solutions that years of the drug war show do not work, wreck most of the prisoner’s lives and cost taxpayers billions. Yeah, stick with that. Insanity. - DuPage Dan - Friday, Mar 19, 10 @ 11:53 pm: I guess it is too much to ask what your solutions are. I have yet to see any proposed here by you or anyone else. Just sitting back and taking pot shots at those who would try to prevent the onslaught of a lost generation which would come from widespread legalization of these substances. I am left with the impression that you believe that there is no problem. Pot is benign. Widespread use of it would have no negative effect on society. Legalize it and the country will be fine. Read up on the Netherlands. They are coming to a realization that pot is not benign. The toothpaste is out of the tube there. Not a pretty sight. If you propose legalization that is insanity. If you propose some other program that can control the substance, share it. - kambone - Wednesday, Mar 24, 10 @ 6:16 pm: Vanillaman: You do realize that prostitution is legal in many places worldwide, such as Vegas? Because it is legal and properly regulated all of the negatives you mention pretty much don’t exist. The problems you mention, many are due to the fact that it is against the law and hence not regulated. Pretty much the same with your idea that we don’t know what’s in it so it can’t be safe. The reason the product is not consistent is due to the fact it is illegal. Blackmarket vendors don’t follow the same good manufacturing process (GMP) guidlines that drug companies are bound to. We don’t know what’s in it because its banned. Exactly as in the case of prostitution, prohibition is making it more dangerous, not less. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.