The images of a synthetic cannabis user in Auckland vomiting, staggering and collapsing after apparently using the product are confronting.
The CCTV footage was released this week by police to highlight the dangerous effects of the product.
Eight deaths in Auckland this month, and a significant number of hospitalisations, are believed to be related to synthetic cannabis use, prompting a public warning from police and the Chief Coroner. Reports about similar problems in Hawke’s Bay are emerging, along with reports household poisons have been used to create home-made products.
The reports bring to mind stories carried by this newspaper several years ago.
In 2012, there were fears over synthetic cannabis product K2, then a "legal high", which mimicked the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant.
In October that year, this newspaper reported on the experience of a group of University of Otago flatmates who tried the product for the first time. After reportedly only one puff of the product, several of the group vomited, some reported hallucinations, police were called and two visiting men were hospitalised temporarily after becoming aggressive and distressed.
That incident came only a week after an 18-year-old female, who had been using K2 for a year, told the newspaper about a manic episode in which she battered her own face and was hospitalised.
"I was possessed by a demon ... I started screaming so loudly that I did not even recognise my own voice ... this is horrendous stuff," the teenager said.
Police said then they were witnessing an increase in incidents involving the product. Users were behaving erratically, aggressively and out of character and police warned people could be liable for any crimes committed while under its influence and were potentially "putting their lives at risk".
At the start of 2013, this newspaper reported a spike in robberies involving the products, and that Dunedin dairy owners had started arming themselves in response. The rise of K2 occurred after the first temporary bans on synthetic cannabis substances were issued in 2011, removing more than 50 products from the market. That only partly alleviated the problem; manufacturers were keeping one step ahead of authorities and developing products that could evade the bans.
Authorities were holding out for a law change, which came in the form of the interim Psychoactive Substances Act of 2013 championed by Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne, which was amended the following year. It regulated the sale, importation and manufacture of psychoactive substances, and put the burden of proof on manufacturers to prove their products were safe, through hefty application fees and testing costs. It was world-leading, and removed a lot of products from shelves, but the amendments were enacted hurriedly ahead of the general election. Concerns remained about various aspects including whether the legislation would stop the manufacture or use of such drugs altogether and create a black market.
There will always be those who want to experiment with psychoactive drugs, those who seek to block out reality, and where there is money to made, there will always be a market for manufacturers and suppliers.
The re-emergence of products was inevitable, then. Of concern again, though, is the fact the unidentified chemicals make use risky, and create a nightmare for responding emergency services and health practitioners.
Calls have resurfaced to legalise "natural" cannabis. That is unlikely to happen under the present Government and, given the synthetic drug horse has well and truly bolted, it is arguable whether it would eliminate that market anyway.
This newspaper also has concerns about "natural" cannabis use, given research has shown its harmful effects on the brains of teenagers. With the debate reignited, the merry-go-round continues.
We can only ask manufacturers and retailers to re-examine their consciences, re-emphasise the personal choice mantra, and spread the word about the dangers, knowing full well that some of our most vulnerable will simply not hear — or heed — the message.
