Voices
in
Japan

quote of the day

I hope the new term will catch on and raise awareness of the extreme danger of the drugs.

14 Comments

National Public Safety Commission Chairman Keiji Furuya, announcing that authorities will use the term "kiken" or "unsafe" drugs instead of loophole drugs to raise the awareness of their risks. (NHK)

© Japan Today

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

This will have a grand effect of nothing at all. People smoke these drugs because they are legal, not because they are called loophole drugs.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Strangerland: Absolutely.

Additionally, what about "Loophole" drugs that are completely safe to use (well as "Safe" as any drug can be, I guess).

I'm not advocating drug use, but if a company were to develop something like hookah tobacco but healthier than regular cigarettes, are they going to call it "unsafe"?

Or what about certain kinds of Chinese medicine that were permissible because of loopholes? Are they now also labeled "Unsafe"?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No kidding. There's a dangerous loophole drug if there ever was one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh - gee !!!!! Using the word "kiken" is going to stop people from taking those drugs for sure !!! ..........GET REAL.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just ban them.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Going to win this WAR ON DRUGS by changing words?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just ban them.

They do ban them, quite regularly. They've banned over 1000 varieties now, but the producers just keep changing the chemical makeup. Actually, the translation 'loophole drug' is somewhat inaccurate from the original Japanese - 脱法ハーブ (dappou haabu). The two kanji that make up 脱法 can be translated as something along the lines of 'outside' and 'law'. Unregulated would be a better term. So in Japanese, they are called 'unregulated herbs', but in English they've been calling them 'loophole drugs'. The Japanese is more accurate, because they don't exist as a result of a loophole, but rather due to the fact that they have just not been made illegal yet, and therefore are unregulated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm aware of the meaning. The legislators need to think more broadly so there will be no "outside the law". Forget chemical composition, focus on use.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The legislators need to think more broadly so there will be no "outside the law".

Easier said than done. If they make things illegal because they intoxicate, then alcohol has to be made illegal. If they make things illegal because they are smoked, then tobacco has to be made illegal. If they make things illegal because they stimulate, coffee needs to be made illegal. Way too many vested interests there for any of these other products to be made illegal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The products you mention are finite. Keep that list finite, ban everything else. (and keep the current restrictions on the products you mention, unless there is a sensible reason to change them)

The law's original existence is for protection of people. Screw everything else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Intoxicants are now illegal, with the exception of alcohol. Stimulants are now illegal, with the exception of coffee. Smokables are now illegal, with the exception of tobacco"

Not much of a law.

The law's original existence is for protection of people.

People should not be protected from their own stupidity. If someone wants to smoke a product, not knowing what the long term effects (or even necessarily short term effects) will be, then that's their own decision.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If someone wants to smoke a product, not knowing what the long term effects (or even necessarily short term effects) will be, then that's their own decision.

Agreed, with exceptions of minors, genuinely "challenged" people, etc.

But I'm also concerned, perhaps more so, with victims of idiot behaviour imbibing substances, legal or not.

I'll assume we both think this way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But I'm also concerned, perhaps more so, with victims of idiot behaviour imbibing substances, legal or not.

I'll assume we both think this way.

I do agree. But that's why there are laws to handle being inebriated in public, or while driving etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the re-naming is stupid, because every single drug that affects the brain is "dangerous" when combined with a vehicle. E.g. I take antihistamin pills when I have hayfeber. It is a normal over-the-counter drug, but it makes me drowsy so of course I don´t drive in that situation. Does that mean that antihistamins are now "dangerous drugs"? Silly!

Just make sure that everybody understand that driving under the influence of anything is not accepted, period.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites