Gov. Cuomo offers rhetoric, no specifics on how state will deal with synthetic drugs

Michael, I suggest you read this story

http://thebatavian.com/howard-owens/china-white-bath-salts-designer-drug...

We also need to unpack this statement:

"What more can Government do than banning their sale, making them illegal, and treatment?"

You make it sound as if NYS has banned their sale in an effective manner. The Department of Health issued a ban, but it has no teeth. There was no enforcement other than perhaps, maybe, a civil suit if the DoH ever got around to it.

"Making them illegal" ... the current "making them illegal" scheme requires the government to identify specific substances, determine they're harmful and/or need to be regulated and then specifically ban those substances. There are literally hundreds of current known substances that can be used in making synthetic drugs. Very few of them, relatively speaking, are specifically illegal to sell or possess.

"Treatment ... " Where does the governor address treatment, even after I specifically ask about doing more to get people into treatment?

So what more can the government do? A hell of a lot more.

And I'm not even talking about making illegal specific substances. The entire drug policy in this state and this nation needs a complete overhaul to more effectively deal with modern drug production, use and abuse.

People make a mistake, as Cuomo seems to do, when they equate the synthetic drug war with law enforcement issues related to the sale and possession of substances such as cocaine and heroin.

There are dangers and problems associated with the sale and distribution of synthetic chemicals that are untested, unregulated, inconsistent in manufacture, and are subject to ever-changing formulas and recipes that seem to deliver results far beyond merely getting somebody high. They have profound public safety implications.

It's the 21st Century and 20th Century notices of enforcement and control are simply ineffective for dealing with the synthetic drug trade.

And I have no confidence that the governor nor anybody else in Albany understands this.

What more can the government do? Plenty. Especially in New York.

Michael, the first step is very easy: New York needs an analog law.

The recent raid was a federal action. It took care of one alleged situation. Under normal circumstances, that situation wouldn't even be a blip on the DEA's map. It's just not big enough. As officials say over and over again, at the DEA level they want the big suppliers, not local dealers. Local law enforcement needs the tools to go after situations involving alleged small and medium size dealers at a local level. Right now, they don't have it.

MDPV and methadrone have been controlled substances in New York for a year, so why didn't local law enforcement raid the shops suspected of selling these substances? Because without an analog law, they can't be sure they will find illegal substances. The recipes change too quickly that without an analog law, then the raid could prove fruitless.

The governor was unable to confirm that he supports and the Legislature is considering the most basic of law enforcement tools at this junction: an analog law.

I believe, MIchael, I've been quite specific about the need for an analog law, so your accusation of no specifics is quite specious.

I also asked the governor about taking a more comprehensive approach, one that focuses more on the user and the governor's answer really said nothing at all about rewiring out state laws to more aggressively bring abusers into treatment. The governor said there needs to be a two-sided approach, but failed to articulate a two-sided approach.

"I also dispute the difference your trying to make with designer drugs and others more well know such as Meth, Crack, and Heroin etc."

Man, Michael, do you even know what you're saying?

I mentioned as different from synthetic drugs cocaine and heroin, which are plant based drugs that were the original target of the Harrison Narcotic Act (did you read the story I wrote a couple of weeks ago to help you understand this?) Meth, crack, etc. (which I didn't mention, but you bring up as if I did) are man made drugs and have some similar problems as synthetic drug manufacture, but also have some important differences. The formulas for these drugs are pretty well established, and while the dangerous effects of these drugs are quite harmful to users, they are also quantified effects in most cases (there's always outlier cases, of course). The same can not be said of the modern designer drug market. If you can't see that very basic and real difference, I can't help you. It's just blindness to facts.

"no legislation, in itself, will ever eliminate drug use"

And where have I ever argued for the elimination of drug us? You're arguing with a fiction.

We're talking about management and control as a matter of public safety, not elimination and eradication. People have been finding ways to get high as long as there have been kindling to burn and wheels to roll, and probably earlier than that.

The case can be made that our law-and-order approach to drug use has been wrong for 100 years, but in an era when new drugs are being invented at a rapid pace and distribution of untested, unregulated drugs is easier than ever, we need new approaches to drug use and abuse.

An analog law is an imperfect tool, because it's really focused on the supply side and not a comprehensive approach, but it is a tool that is easy to create and would give local law enforcement some measure of ability to tap down hot spots when the feds don't find the situation of sufficient interest.

Beyond that, you're defending the governor's remarks as if he said something of substance. Where is the substance, Michael? Quote back one phrase from the governor's remarks that isn't just hot air?

Keep twisting, Micheal. My meaning is clear no matter how you try to distort it to fit your own narrative.