Do all newly synthesized recreational drugs need to have proven harmful side effects to be declared illegal? Or is simply being a recreational drug reason enough in the eyes of the law? Does the answer vary much by country?
I don’t know about the US, but in Norway the authorities usually start by identifying a group of new abused chemicals under a common name. Say, “synthetic marijuana incense.” Usually they do this by getting tips from people in the junk environment who are worried, poison call centers, hospitals who have treated patients with irregular symptoms, volunteer organization who try to take care of drug abusers or the Norwegian equivalent of the Center for Disease Control.
If the new drug fad is sold commercially, they then usually try to identify a common ingredient like cannabicyclohexanol which was the main ingredient in a wave of synthetic marijuana back in 2009. They have the authority to then impose a Moratorium On Import And Export for a limited time, let’s say a year, during which they will test and determine the harmfulness of the chemical and its’ suitability for commercial sale. Sometimes the moratorium is released, sometimes it’s released under a Controlled Substances schedule (like butandiol) and sometimes it’s made permanently illegal for private possession.
It is of course still legal to use these chemicals for certain industrial and research purposes, but the documentation requirements are both harsh and strictly enforced. Mostly research hospitals and class 2 industrial research labs are the ones with the credibility and certifications to acquire them.
So while it’s not necessarily enough for the police to chalk up three victims to a new drug abuse fad and then put the smack-down on whoever is distributing it, there is a very well-oiled machine in place for when they do turn up. By the time the public at large starts hearing about it, the process is usually done.