Worries over legal drugs

a proposal to ban trade by Sweden and the US was defeated. The coral is harvested in the Mediterranean and elsewhere and turned into expensive jewellery in several Asian countries. The coral has no international protection, resulting in significant trade, according to the conservation group SeaWeb. Opposition to the coral trade ban was led by Japan, supported by coastal states, including Indonesia, Malaysia and Iceland, all of whom argued the corals are crucial to the survival of local communities and are not over-harvested. But internet trade remained a main point of discussion at the meeting. A survey last year by the Campaign Against Cruelty to Animals targeted the internet trade in Ecuador, finding offers to sell live capuchin monkeys, lion cubs and ocelots. “As the internet knows no borders, it causes new problems regarding the enforcement of the protection of endangered species,” the group said. Willem Wijnstekers, secretary general of Cites said that the organisation was determined “that a new era of law enforcement is introduced. An era where those who rob countries and communities of their natural resources will face a determined and formidable opposition.” But the main focus and controversy of the meeting was the bluefin tuna and 12 other marine species. Many thought the scientific case for a temporary ban on the fishing of bluefin tuna was compelling, with evidence that their population had now reduced to less than 15 per cent of historic levels. Two bodies, the scientific committee of the Atlantic tuna commission (ICCAT) and a special panel of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, agreed that the bluefin stock qualified for a ban. The problem for the EU and the US was that they thought a strong scientific case would be sufficient to lead to a ban. They did not realise the strength of the alliance against them in Doha. Observers now note that, in Cites, building alliances amongst the 175 member countries and buying votes has come to the fore and Japan’s determination to maintain the fishery won out. “Schools powerless over killer drug”, said The Sun’s page 1 headline on 18 March. “Horrified teachers are having to hand back deadly meow meow to pupils after confiscating it — because the drug is still legal,” said the accompanying report. “Worried school heads last night joined the families of teenage victims Nick Smith and Louis Wainwright in backing The Sun’s call to ban the drug, real name mephedrone. The demands came as the known UK death toll rose to five. Meanwhile, the Government was blasted as it emerged that a ban had been delayed for SIX MONTHS.” Harriet Harman, the leader of the House of Commons, “yesterday snubbed calls for an immediate ban on killer legal drug meow meow,” the same newspaper reported the following day. “The Commons leader agreed it was ‘extremely dangerous’ — but sparked fury by insisting on waiting for an expert’s report before outlawing it.” Mediawatch: Bernard Dixon looks at the reaction to the death of two British teenagers last month linked to the consumption of a legal drug labelled as plant food. Worries over legal drugs Rarely can there have been a more dramatic example of the media portraying a complex health issue in black-and-white terms and demanding action accordingly. The trigger was the deaths of two Scunthorpe teenagers after they had consumed mephedrone. The police stated that, pending postmortem and toxicology tests, it was not possible to establish the extent to which the ‘legal high’ drug was a factor responsible for the deaths. Nevertheless, experts and regulatory committees have become increasingly concerned about possible hazards of these substances, which are derived from cathinone. They induce effects similar to those of amphetamine but have been less thoroughly studied.