Party Pills
December 31st, 2005 at 7:37 am by David FarrarI am not an expert on party pills. I’ve never taken one. I’ve never taken a non-medicinal drug full-stop. Yes pretty boring, but I have enough fun without them.
However I’m bemused by the furore about the “party pills” and people wanting to ban them, simply it seems because lots of people enjoy taking them.
It is nice to see some common sense from Ross Bell of the Drug Foundation, who points out they are not addictive, don’t kill you and an expert committee recommended they not be banned.
God next some people will want to ban sex because it’s fun. Oh wait, sorry they already do!
No tag for this post.
December 31st, 2005 at 8:34 am
Mmmmmm . . . Danya Levy . . .
Moving along (reluctantly) I’ve also never taken party pills – but their legality and increase in popularity fascinates me.
December 31st, 2005 at 9:05 am
Dim – here’s what the expert advisory cmte said on bzp dependence:
No evidence of physical dependence has been described with the substances being used orally. There is no reference to the injecting route being favoured. Development of tolerance may occur, but higher doses are associated with increased unwanted side effects. There is some possibility for a mild psychological dependence to develop due to repeated self administration and the subsequent reliance upon the subjective effects to overcome inhibitions or to give the energy/wakefulness required to participate in the social environment, particularly within the urban dance environment.
You can check ot the full report here: http://www.ndp.govt.nz/committees/eacd/papers.html
I’m not convinced there’s a “steady stream” of kids going into A&E. There is one rceent study from Chch – but I remain unconvinced that that is reflected around the country (there does appear to be some weird issue in chch – we know some in the industry down there are doing naughty things). The Auckland A&E doctors don’t see the same problems as reported in chch; maybe aucklanders don’t need crap bzp highs, coz they have better access to illicit highs. There probably is a small group of people for whoom bzp will cause a reaction – just like there are people with peanut allergies.
There’s no good evidence on whether people are substituting illicits for bzp. The industry certainly market that as a positive consequence, but there’s no data to back those claims up. It appears instead that there is a whole new group of people (not just kids!) who wouldn’t normally use pills to get high, but who are buying these products in their millions.
Now, if only we could get over this bzp debate and concentrate on more important issues. Like, why don’t we have comprehensive drug/alcohol treatment for people in prison/home detention/etc? And when are we going to sort this alcohol thing out?
Happy new year (and good travels David).
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 9:16 am
I’ve taken “Kandi” a couple of times which IIRC contains 90mg of BZP. Sure, it made energy levels increase slightly, and maybe slight euphoria, but nothing great. Also, the comedowns are about 100x worse than they are on Ecstacy, and you feel f**king horrible for days after.
IMHO, they should be restricted more. Selling them in the local dairy beside the lollies is not a good idea, for reasons that should be obvious to most.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 9:19 am
They are pretty mild but can cause insomnia. And don’t even think about having sex whilst on them – your old fella is not remotely interested!
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 9:56 am
personally Ive always ben pretty disappointed with this sort of thing too – but BZP type substances are a total non event might as well eat the placebo.
the pseudoephedrine (in the old days) was interesting but the effect seemed mostly psychological except the queezyness, that was real.
I guess some people are just largely immune to these things either that or popping pills has a sort of mythical appeal (the ultimate life experience or somthing).
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 10:06 am
damn straight, bloody politicians trying to tell us we aren’t allowed to fuck little kids have no sense of fun whatsoever
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 10:33 am
Can anyone beat Stan for most moronic comment of the day?
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 11:20 am
Couldn’t help but notice it’s a representative of the party claiming to believe in individual choice, freedom and personal responsibility jumping up and down making all the fuss.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Good God one night on Kandi was enough to put me off for LIFE. Will is right – the comedowns are worse than anything else and I was vomiting for days after (and have heard the same from many people).
I guess we need to remember that before they were made illegal, drugs like E and Speed and Coke, etc were all a-ok too… Just because it’s legal now, doesn’t mean it should stay that way.
But IMHO the comedown from Party Pills should be enough to scare anyone off taking them.
Sidenote: What if we were to legalise Cannabis, (hence stricter regulations in place and legit sales instead of backstreet tinny houses) which in its pure form is not addictive, and ban Party Pills? Pot doesn’t have a come down, is less likely to induce dangerous behaviour, and has been proven to have medicinal benefits… I know I sound like a raving Greenie, but I do think it’s an avenue worth exploring.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 6:06 pm
conservative hardass. i bet if you were born a generation ago you’d call gay rights activisits morons too
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 6:31 pm
Stan, you are a prize imbecile. DPF is a classical liberal, not too dissimilar from the classical liberalism that ACT advocates.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 6:53 pm
Hi Ross,
Thanks for the links – I was interested to see that an ‘overdose’ of BZP causes nausea (probably by interfering with NT receptors in the gut), and this is probably what prevents it from becoming a drug of abuse with the same addictive properties as amphetamines.
Vote:December 31st, 2005 at 9:02 pm
I’ve known of at least two people with whom I have tenuous connections who have died from ‘party pills’. I’ve never taken party pills. Likewise, I’ve known of several people who have come to harm because of hallucinogenic drugs, such as LSD.
Drugs of *any* sort are dangerous, because they change people’s behaviour, usually for the worse.
Vote:January 1st, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Boy, Stan’s on a roll! Most moronic comment, two days in a row!
Vote:January 1st, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Well, everyone seems to make out that these things are as much as the lollies they are next to. They aren’t. I don’t think a kid would spend $40 for a little pack of about 6 pills.
I haven’t taken them, but I do know friends that have. I think the main reason why these are affecting the takers (i.e. deaths) so much is that they drink alcohol with them, and use the party pills as a bit of a pick up before heading out into town. Of course, using alcohol with them is a no-no but it’s not like some people stop taking alcohol with normal drugs either.
Vote:January 1st, 2006 at 11:24 pm
tell you what Kelly, fucking little kids will be legal someday, the legal age to have sex lowered to 13 at the least within this generation. think about it, is there really any harm like the main argument that’s used is that they don’t have the capacity, well sex education is pretty prominent in intermediate these days and that’s like saying 18 year olds shouldn’t be allowed to drink. also why do we allow them to consent to martial arts and other contact sports? it’s still consenting to using your body, in fact arguably in a worse way because it’s violent rather than loving. they’d probably enjoy it too anyway. when i lost my virginity when i was 13 (which was illegal anyway ‘cos we were meant to wait ’til we’re 16) it would not have made a single difference to me if i was fucking an older woman instead, i don’t know about girls but i think i speak on behalf of most non-God-fearing boys (i’d have different views if i was 13 today now that i’ve been a Christian – but using the law, ie. force, to make someone believe in something as being wrong isn’t gonna work – it’s like saying let’s making not believing in God illegal, which would never work. if something is so morally correct then people should be able to see that for themselves, or that moral “good” whatever it is ought to be able to prove itself worthy of believing in for someone to accept it, not by setting down rule enforcers, and before people say well the Bible’s full of rules, well the Bible’s not enforeable by law we’re given a choice whether or not to follow its rules)
Vote:January 2nd, 2006 at 1:38 am
Stan, Stan, slow it down! The comments box lets you include paragraphs mate, please give it a go!
You can make not believing in God illegal you know. I’m pretty sure it’s illegal for Moslems in Saudi Arabia not to believe in God. In more enlightened Moslem countries, it’s not illegal, but you’d never admit to not believing in God – turning “there is no god but God” into “there is no God” could just get you killed. `
Kelly: spot on – what if we were to allow fellow humans to do what they like if they’re not bothering anybody? It’s a pretty radical concept, but one day we might get round to giving it a go, with a bit of luck.
Vote:January 2nd, 2006 at 2:42 am
Through my experiences with so called Party drugs it all really depends on the supplier and as Marc Ellis would put it, making sure you get a smooth come down.
These “legal” highs I thought were made to keep people off the hard drugs…and that is a good thing. Usually one will realise after 3/4 day come downs that they are not the best things to take. It costs no more than 2 Quid here for E, so the BZP varieties are not taken as a cheap alternative to E, rather so that you don’t get caught at the door checks at the clubs.
In my opinion if we ban these substances too there will be other new highs that will crop up, potentially more dangerous than the drugs we are trying to keep people off.
However, if we are willingly taking these drugs or party pills it is completely our responsibility and our own fault if we have bad come downs or suffer greatly for doing them……:)
Vote:January 2nd, 2006 at 3:01 pm
P.Milt – thanks
I know… Radical ideas huh!? Heh.. I do think it’s not the actions we do that cause harm, but the culture that teaches us that they are acceptable.. y’know? I’m truly scenting the beginning of a societal revolution.
Stan – while I understand and acknowledge that sex is fun and can be used recreationally, it’s simple fact that at 13 years old, a child is not ready to be a parent, and that is the primary purpose of sex, at it’s most basic, biological level.
Also at 13 the child is not emotionally developed enough to accept all the risks and consequences of sex. While it would be ideal to make this law on a case by case basis (I know there are exceptions to the rule), that would simply be impractical.
At 16 the childs body is generally matured enough to support another life in it. They have a little life experience as young adults, and are starting to form their own independant world views. They are at the start of adulthood.
A 13 year old might be able to enjoy the BENEFITS of sex, but is in no way shape or form equipped to deal with all the plethora of potential negative/life changing consequences.
Vote:January 2nd, 2006 at 3:48 pm
To me BZP pills seem pretty lame. You get increased alertness for a while, and increased heart rate. You also feel a bit sick. Increased alertness could be useful sometimes but should probably be used very sparingly as there is usually a reason you get tired, and sleep is better for pumping up alertness than pills. Missing sleep will catch up with you very quickly.
DPF, when you say you don’t take non-medicinal drugs, does that mean you consider booze to be medicinal. The high you get from being pissed is in my experience considerably stronger than any party pill.
Vote:January 2nd, 2006 at 10:21 pm
I’ve taken party pills quite a bit, as they are cheaper than E and have a similar albeit inferior high. The only time I had horrible after effects was due to also consuming copious amounts of Jager. However, that hangover was nothing compared to other hangovers I’ve had the misfortune to experience.
There is absolutely nothing to be gained by making them illegal. It would push the price up and as they are cheap to make dealers would make a good profit. Supply and demand right? Same goes for most illegal drugs.
Nitrous was quite successfully banned though. I guess it’s too hard to make the little metal tubey things, and as it wasn’t addictive (physically) no-one missed it too much.
Anyway, I hate the fact that I have to worry when I’m in possession of illegal drugs, yet people can get absolutely sloshed on high grade booze.
Oh yeah, and to people concerned about the health effects of party pills… millions of doses have been sold, and yet fuck all (if any) people have died. Like ecstasy.
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 4:49 am
I don’t consider alcohol a drug. I consider it alcohol.
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 9:52 am
I don’t consider alcohol a drug. I consider it alcohol.
RENTON(v.o)
The only drawback, or at least the principal drawback, is that you have to endure all manner of cunts telling you that -
INT. PUB I. NIGHT
Begbie speaks to camera.
BEGBIE
No way would I poison my body with that shite, all they fucking chemicals, no fucking way.
Begbie takes a drag on his cigerette then finishes his pint.
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 11:52 am
In what way is alcohol not a drug? How is an alcoholic not just a junkie? From the junkies I’ve seen, the resemblance is pretty close. And from NYE I can’t see much difference in the behaviour of drunks and what the Herald always touts as typical behaviour of a P addict (when they run out of real news).
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 12:25 pm
I can think of dozens of organisations that refer to drugs and alcohol, hence they are seperate.
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Drug : A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.
Alcohol is a drug by most dictionary definitions. But just like terrorist, the definition does not tell you precisely what the word means to most people. In fact, just like terrorist, only considering the dictionary definition will lead to flawed assumptions and incorrect conclusions.
Once again, you KNOW what the word drug means to most people.
Also, how exactly do you take P in moderation?
Personally I always add a dash of powdered E to my stews. Adds a bit of zing, you know.
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 1:22 pm
You can take P in moderation. Most users do. That’s why despite there being thousands upon thousands of users in NZ there are relatively few people that go off the rails altogether.
Kimble has shown that under the definition of drug, alcohol is one. And he rightly notes that it’s similar to the definition of terrorist, which is that being clear about definitions leads to unintuitive consequences. So much the worse for intuition.
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Now I know why the Lefties who infest this site are loopy.
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Since amphetamines were often given to soldiers to help them stay awake, it’s pretty clear they can be used without the scaremongering freakout effects that are routinely reported in our scaremongering freakout papers. Pseudoephedrine was until recently a perfectly legal drug to take in moderation, as a cure for the symptoms of colds.
Moderation is: Use it only a little bit until you know the effects. Don’t use it all the time. Don’t use too much. Don’t mix it with other things. This is pretty much the case with all drugs, alcohol included. Otherwise you suffer side effects like impaired judgement, psychotic episodes, sickness, hangovers, reduced energy, death. Alcohol is clearly a drug, and a strong one at that.
But sure, the common use of the word drug doesn’t include alcohol. Does that have some relevance? Common usage of the word somehow actually changes the nature of this addictive, mind warping, poisonous substance? It kills people every year in all sorts of ways ranging from death directly from overdose, to slow death from damage to organs, to instant death in a motor vehicle or a brawl. There are also millions of people who use it to only moderate ill effect, or even positive effect, much like every other drug.
Just like DPF, I don’t advocate banning alcohol – I’m merely pointing to the parallels between it and the treatment of party pills, which are also legal. If we’re banning party pills it makes very little sense to let alcohol be legal since it is much worse in every way that party pills are condemned as being bad. At least they don’t add to the road toll! Just as happened when alcohol was banned, black market substitutes are still freely available – banning party pills is basically going to make P all the more popular.
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 4:08 pm
> If we’re banning party pills it makes very little sense to let alcohol be legal
Laws are not some vague philosophical concepts they are things designed to work in practice. This means that one does not make a certain activity ilegal just because it is similar to somthing else you make it ilegal because the law has the right effects.
If you ban party pills all that will happen probably is that they will disappear and the companies involves will go out of business. If you ban alcohol there will be much larger implications. the two things are not really comparable on a practical level.
It is unconvincing to say that party pills are a substitute for P when the demand for both went up rapidly at the same time (party pills first I think). therefore, I think it is an uphill battle to argue they are direct substitutes it sounds more like a self serving argument a party pill company might put forth. Having said that of course if there were any statistics or studies, that proved that, I would take them seriously / within the wider body of evidence.
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 4:29 pm
If you ban party pills all that will happen probably is that they will disappear and the companies involves will go out of business.
Are you basing that on the enormous success of previous efforts to legislate against drug use?
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 4:44 pm
He is right dim. Why bother manufacturing party pills when for the same risk you could get a much bigger pay off producing harder (more addictive) drugs.
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Because the drugs industry is market driven, and many consumers don’t want ‘harder more addictive drugs’.
Demand for these pills is massive – if you make them illegal then the only effects will be to:
Has there been any policy in the last fifty years that’s failed more spectacularly than drug legislation? I can’t believe people still think its a good idea.
January 3rd, 2006 at 5:33 pm
David, fyi, most in New Zealand’s drug field refer to our area of work as “alcohol and other drugs” (alcohol is the number 1 drug that people are treated for; then, it’s a race between cannabis and benzos for number 2. Methamphetamine is beginning to make its way up that list – number 3 in some places – however, it’s actually ‘easy’ to treat).
I remain wholly unconvinced that party pills are being used as substitutes for illicits, by those people who would normally use illicits. My gut fellings is that there’s a whole new cohort of people who are using party pills (who wouldn’t usually try illicits). There’s no data to prove either way. Of course, there are those who use both.
The government’s Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs recommended not to control party pills thru the usual class A, B or C; and also warned that banning the pills *may* lead to being getting them anyway, or simply use the usual illicits (e, p etc). In response the govt/parliament (back when Labour could pass legislation) introduced a new category for substances that are deemed (by the expert committee) to be low risk, but require some controls (age, advertising etc). Many consider this a way forward for drug legislation (some think/hope it could be a back door way to get cannabis reclassified).
The frustrating bit about the new category is that the expert committee are given different criteria to assess for class D cf. classes A, B and C.
p.s. off-the-record chats with members of the expert committee tells us that alcohol would have a very hard time escaping classification if measured against those criteria.
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 5:45 pm
If you are going to get the same sentence for being busted making PP’s why wouldnt you take the same risk and produce P instead, regardless of what some consumers want?
The lack of supply of PP’s may increase the price, in which case why would someone risk being busted with PP for a small buzz when for the same risk they can get a bigger buzz (or two small buzzettes)?
Vote:January 3rd, 2006 at 6:18 pm
GeniusNZ, you are probably right that the law doesn’t run on rational guiding principles, that it is a product of our collective madness. But it *should* run on guiding principles. It should be simple and consistent.
I agree that party pills are not used on anywhere near the same level as booze, and their removal will not cause a problem on the same scale. But the problems it will cause will be the same type, on a smaller scale. This has been universally true for all drugs that have been prohibited. The war on drugs has created far more problems than it has ever solved. Addicts will still be addicts. But dealers can be chemists or criminals, it’s our choice. We can deal with addicts using our criminal justice system or our health system. That is also a choice.
I’m sensing a lot of sympathy on this forum, indicating the left and right are perhaps more closely aligned on this view than it may seem. That could be because the right here are more of the ACT-let-consumers-decide type than the Nat-return-to-traditional-values type.
Ross, I think that you’re right in saying that BZP users aren’t necessarily all originally P&E-heads. But if it’s become trendy now and it’s made illegal, a lot of them might very well become illicit substance abusers. I think the best way for party pills to be got rid of is to let them fizzle out as the weak expensive non-high that they are. I think their most substantial effect is probably placebo social effect, which is not a bad one. More research will bring to light their toxic effects for consumers to ponder.
I notice you left nicotine out of your drug list – I take it that is because it isn’t mind-altering? My experiences with it put it on par with party pills rush-wise. It is certainly addictive and causes health problems galore.
Vote:January 4th, 2006 at 12:46 am
Ive never taken these legal party pills not have i been offered them but banning them will just mean people will resort to going down to the corner P-Shop and buying a point or 2 of this gnarly as shit, thus banning party pills will create more problems than it solves. Jaqui Dean used to be cool back in the good ol Playschool days but now as an MP shes a total imbiscile
Vote:January 4th, 2006 at 1:09 am
Its an interesting old debate isn’t it?
Permit xxx and people behave badly and get hurt.
OR
Prohibit xxx and people behave badly and get hurt.
Spot the common denominator? At this point I want to say something like “moral values” and “ethics”, but then I will be told how old fashioned these things are. Worse still it triggers off endless bitter debate about WHAT values and WHICH ethics. Or even more importantly, even if you do decide on a coherent system, how do you get people to believe in them, to WANT to behave well?
Laws mean very little if the majority of the people you try and apply them to, do not have the personal ethics or integrity to adhere to them. That is the core of the problem here; the law is merely a subsequent to it.
Vote:January 4th, 2006 at 5:18 am
Having just returned from France, I have to say “Bon Annee” DPF and well done on taking such a considered classical liberal view on this matter. Wish a few Nat MPs would take this view (there are enough who think quite the opposite) – but then it doesn’t gather votes from the “fear filled parent” bloc, which is very large and mostly quite willing for the state to do their job for them.
It is VERY easy for politicians to pander to the fear people have of life – by calling for bans and witchhunts – but little of it has anything to do with cold rational analysis. Nobody is ever safe and they are less safe when the government tries to make them so!
Vote:January 15th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Absolute “vodka.” Having taken 2000mg of humma in one instance, I can safely (pun intended) say that it’s a government conspiracy. My heart literally tried to escape from my rib-”cage”.
Add to that the fact that they’re making a billion a year off this industry. I tried calling angel care (24/7 service) but they were closed. This “hard drug” alternative is a hard drug itself. All they’re doing is keeping people ignorant about the dosage and they come back for more, hoping for that all-elusive “P” buzz.
How freaking cowardly are you people? 20-100mg and you will never understand a real trip.
Vote:February 3rd, 2006 at 9:40 am
Hi there i have taken 2 and a half party pills, the biggest mistake of my life ever, i stayed up all night vomited 7 times my pupils were almost fully dilated for 2 days and my whole body would be in a cold sweat. also i would eventualy drop off to sleep only to be woken up 2 minutes later by a huge bang in my head. its a good simulation of a very very very bad fever plus i had no apetite and couldnt drink the next day! if i could offer advice to any body wanting to take some of them, dont. i think cannabis should be legalized i mean at least you can sleep it off because once u have had the party pills and u dont like the high, you are oh so screwed. dont take them! leave that to the people that can be bothered paying $40 for 6 pills, seriously not worth it. they are un safe and should be banned it wont make people go take E or anything else people will just revert to alcohol
Vote: