Editorial: It may be legal but is it right?

It's scary to think products are being sold to people who don't know what effects those products will have on them.

There have been plenty of stories recently about legal highs causing grief. Last month we reported on a Rotorua woman who suffered a series of fits and was rushed to hospital after smoking an over-the-counter legal drug. The ingredients were not listed on the packet. At the time Rotorua Hospital reported a large number of people being admitted to the emergency department after taking legal highs.

Now the Government is set to ban two more chemicals found in legal high K2.

Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne says more than 50 products containing 35 banned substances are now off the market.

It's frightening to see substances being banned retroactively, when you have to ask why they're allowed for public consumption in the first place.

Mr Dunne this week acknowledged it was a "cat-and-mouse game" with the industry - but strong Government would have killed the mouse at the outset.

Some may ask "why the focus on legal highs" when selling cigarettes is perfectly legal. Fair question perhaps, but we all know the risks of smoking. That an unbelievable number of people seem to think they can defy those risks is another matter entirely. (Try putting that genie back in the bottle.)

Mr Dunne says the Psychoactive Substance Bill, due in August, will be the killer punch. Public submissions on this closed yesterday. Under the proposed new laws manufacturers would have to pay testing costs of up to $2 million before any new product was deemed fit for sale - and this could take up to two years.

This will be a major blow for the industry, but it's overdue. How can manufacturers be allowed to play Russian roulette with the health of its customers?

As we said on this page six weeks ago, just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.