Imagine we found that some imported Ready-to-Drink product were adulterated with prescription-only pharmacological compounds. Would the correct response be:
- Lawsuit against the manufacturer and importer under the New Zealand's Consumer Protection laws for selling adulterated product
- A big new licensing regime for alcohol with mandatory government testing of all products
I'd lean pretty heavily to the first one.
Peter Dunne recommends the second.
The Ministry of Health is recalling one of the brands of synthetic cannabis Kronic, called Pineapple Express, because it contains the prescription medicine phenazepam.
Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne said phenazepam was an anti-anxiety and anti-convulsion drug. It could be harmful to people with a mental health condition or on other medications, as well as to pregnant women and children. Its effects were more pronounced when combined with alcohol.
...
The discovery of the medicine confirmed the dangers of suppliers putting unregulated drugs on the market when their safety was unproven, Dunne said.
''This clearly shows the worth of the Government's moves to change the onus of proof so producers and suppliers of these products need to prove they are safe before they can sell them.''
Currently authorities had to prove such products were unsafe before they could be taken off the market.
If the producer of any other legal product would get in serious trouble under normal consumer protection legislation for including prescription medicines as an unlabelled ingredient, why shouldn't we just use that process for party pills too? Am I missing something?
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten