Party Pills to be banned
June 29th, 2007 at 9:08 am by David FarrarHmmn, prohibition, yeah that works so well, let’s do it some more. Didn’t prohibition of alcohol work so well in the USA? And hasn’t prohibition of cannabis stopped people smoking pot? So I am sure the BZP party pill ban will be just as successful.
I’ve never taken a party pill in my life, probably never will. But I am not convinced that the level of harm they cause has been proven to be high enough to warrant prohibition.
According to Frog, United Future and not convinced a ban will work, likewise of course for the Greens. Sadly National looks set to support Jim Anderton on this issue, even though I know views in Caucus are widespread. A pity it can’t be a conscience vote.
No Right Turn makes the excellent point:
Number of New Zealanders killed by alcohol: over one thousand a year.
Number of New Zealanders killed by tobacco: 5000 a year.
Number of New Zealanders killed by BZP: none.
And that is on a user base of 250,000 NZers who use party pills.
No tag for this post.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Labour caucas nothing but Helen’s Lick-spittle – all incapable of making any decision for themselves.
Personally I am pleased that party pills will be banned – but then again i will not be impacted by these drugs.
I agree, however this should be a conscience issue, (or is helen scared of another defeat in the house).
One point – is it definite that no one has died as a result of party pills? – I thought there had been a few deaths related to Party Pills.
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
And nationals action on health and alcohol abuse while they were in power , ZERO
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 7:03 am
If people want to kill themselves with these or other drugs, let them remove themselves from the gene pool, people don’t need socialists telling them how to live and die, they can make their own decisions.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Another social experiment gone horribly wrong in the land of dumb arse guinea pigs, as a ringmaster government delights itself with another serious blunder. They couldn’t give a stuff about the trail of destruction caused through their empirical and malfeasance approach . To the parents of the children who have died from taking these legal pills , please sue the government as they’re the ones accountable for your childrens’ deaths !
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 9:25 am
“And that is on a user base of 250,000 NZers who use party pills.”
What a totally fucked up culture the progressives have brought upon us.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Dick4Justice.
So your now suggesting that the government is responsible for idiots like you opening their mouths, placing in a party pill or something stronger.
Vote:Your’e starting to give new meaning to the phrase “Dumbarse”
June 30th, 2007 at 9:59 am
People don’t need totalitarians like like you RedBaiter telling them how to run their lives.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Muldoon, Anderton, Redbaiter …
Paternalistic peas in a pod. Liberty for this set is “me choosing what I do and me choosing what you do”.
Or, we could let people make their own choices.
Why is the idea of liberty as the default position so bizzare to so many?
Feel free to add people to my list.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Given the law of Supply and Demand, I think the government has just handed a legitimate $25m a year business to the gangs who will make way way more than that.
I think that this has more to do with Jim Anderton and his own disfuntional family than anything else.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Dalley you are a coward !
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Free feel james cairney to shock treatment – sue the government , feel free to add to my list , UN direction to Minister of Courts for human rights abuses , feel free you communist arsehole ! You don’t the meaning of the word liberty !
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Don’t be too hard on Mr. Cairney D4J, his witless utterances here show he has very little ability to comprehend, and probably does not possess the intelligence that would have allowed him to learn that skill. Only a moron would confuse disapproval of an action with a call for government regulation.
Leftists also have trouble with this concept, as they by nature see the two as inseparable. Anything they disapprove of needs a law against it.
So you can see, poor old James, being both a moron and a leftist ( a common combination) is dealing with two pretty serious handicaps here. Cut him some slack.
That aside, I agree his feigned concern with the rights of individuals are pretty hard to stomach. Over the last fourty years the barbarian left have relentlessly attacked the sovereignty of the individual and promoted the cause of monolithic big government. Now they suddenly preach the opposite? Pull the other one Jimmy, its got bells on it.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Mr Dalley, the government is responsible, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain why to an idiot like you. I will suggest tho that you ask yourself why drug use is so prevalent amongst socialist societies, and to ponder the thesis that perhaps it has something to do with hopelessness, lack of self respect, and family breakdown.
I’ve lived in communities where there are no drugs. Not even alcohol. People go about their business, and have weddings, parties, celebrations etc and generally have a good time too, without a drop of alcohol or a party pill or any kind of drug to be seen. Ain’t that strange Mr. Dalley?
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Redbaiter these socialists have destroyed the moral backbone of a once proud and honourable country and over my dead body will these leftist fools continue the destruction of society . Kiwi’s must fight for control from a lost the plot government !
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Red – I am no commie, but prohibition wont do anything except make the gangs richer and more powerful. I don’t take party pills and never will. The only mind altering substance I partake of is a glass of wine with dinner or a beer with a curry. I think people should be left to make their own minds up about what they ingest.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am
The pills themselves are relatively harmless. But the trend to mix them with other substances is not. The trend of young people using them and ending up in emergency wards is not contributing to a healthy future for NZ. It tells us that society is losing it’s capability to show youngsters an option away from drugs that they want to take. That is far more concerning. Removing the pills from the equation is a sensible conclusion, if not somewhat of a cop out for us – the real solutions being out of our grasp, taking too long, or considered “too hard”.
Now, this thing about prohibition not solving anything…
If that were true, would it not be sensible to repeal almost all of our laws?
The fact is that having laws and restrictions does do some good, does momentarily save some otherwise reasonable people from themselves, does protect some younger people, does help our health system to be even remotely financially viable.
Leave the extremes behind, it furthers no sane argument.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 11:31 am
At least Mr B had the balls to stand up to them !
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 11:43 am
“Now, this thing about prohibition not solving anything…
If that were true, would it not be sensible to repeal almost all of our laws?”
The ones prohibiting non rights violating, victimless actions… yes
“The fact is that having laws and restrictions does do some good, does momentarily save some otherwise reasonable people from themselves, does protect some younger people, does help our health system to be even remotely financially viable.”
But with all things in life there are trade offs.While some restrictions are sound and do lead to desired outcomes many lead to less desired outcomes….drug prohibition being a glaring example.With drugs legalised many problems would lessen or disappear altogether.
“Leave the extremes behind, it furthers no sane argument.”
The so called extremes are where the real answers are to be found after the middle of the road compromises have enevertibly failed.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 11:46 am
If these are so dangerous Anderton, why dont you ban all food additives linked to causing cancer, or use of paint thinner inplace of vallina flavour, or kiddies COCAINE (Ritalin) or anti phytropic drugs that INCREASE Teen suicide, or the other fucked up death industry, medical and pharmeceutical drugs that kill 4 times as many that die on the roads.
Vote:How many die on party drugs compared to legal drugs??
I’m sure drug co influence has nothing to do with your decisions between right or wrong Mr Anderton.
June 30th, 2007 at 11:51 am
“Mr Dalley, the government is responsible, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain why to an idiot like you”
How fucking lame. What he means is that he lacks the ability. Gold!
By calling you a name he hopes to discredit you and/or stop you from challenging him on his claim. He knows that if you do challenge him you will thrash him as he is acutely aware of his obvious intellectual limitations. And I can tell all this without knowing the first thing about you Mr Dalley! It’s RB’s MO.
He is also embarrassed by his limitations evidenced by his strong yet *anonymous* posts, either that or he’s a coward.
So RB, how say you on Anderton’s prohibition, a good or bad move?? Give it a try son.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 11:57 am
” Red – I am no commie, but prohibition wont do anything ”
Jezuz H Christ on a bike. Brian, please cut and paste here the words I have written in support of regulation.
You can’t of course, because I have not written any.
I have tho expressed disapproval of the idea of taking party pills. I’m staggered that the thrust of my argument, the one I repeat here day after day after day, seems to escape so many people.
Its up to you and I and very mother’s son out there Brian to manage your own life, within a moral framework of your own making. That so many of the Nats seek regulation as a solution to this problem is just one more indication of how ideologically lost the party is.
What is perhaps confusing to you is my criticism of social liberalism, but I BEG YOU TO UNDERSTAND that this is not a call for regulation. That is what its all about. That is the principle we have lost. Wherein people are good citizens not because government forces them to be, but because they choose to be.
The community must have moral standards, but once that community turns to government to enforce those moral standards, it opens a can of worms that will eventually lead to the destruction of that society.
I do not call for government regulation, I call for a voluntary return to moral standards within the community. I call for a rejection of the moral (non-moral) standards imposed upon us by progressives, pseudo liberals, socialists/ communists/leftists and all of the other hand wringing state worshipers that have gained control of our social mores in recent times, and a return to NZ’s traditional culture.
Judgment is not a dirty word.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Well said RB, personal responsibility is the core value. Regulation for every minutae is not the answer.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
“I do not call for government regulation” as well as “That so many of the Nats seek regulation as a solution to this problem”
National were calling for/supporting prohibition, not regulation. BZP has not been regulated it has been criminalised. You miss this crucial distinction. Idiot.
It is important in this context to keep those two concepts distinct (the argument lies between the two, yet you muddle them up). You cannot use ‘regulated’ to cover both criminal/prohibited *and* regulated _in this context_. Your basic options are legal, regulated, or prohibited.
So, for all your emotive polemic you never actually made a point because you don’t understand the argument! (Unless your only point was “I hate the govt” and “I hate party pills”, then you would be free to use ‘regulate’ to cover everything). If that was your use of ‘regulate’ (in this context) then our school system is in more trouble than I thought. All you would then have been doing was foot-stamping and not supporting either side of the argument.
So which was it.
1. You don’t understand the argument, or
2. You just want to stamp your feet and haven’t decided (or can’t decide) whether the law was good or bad?
You have no other options.
And this was also funny: “… and a return to NZ’s traditional culture” Haha, what culture is that champ?
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Redbaiter – what is your definition of NZs traditional culture??
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Party pills, smacking and fat police precedence – or happy children – as this government has decided not to treat boys and girls the same. I wish Mr Cairney that we would treat CHILDREN and the family in a culture of respect that they deserve ( freedom of equality ) . No doubt you will beg to differ on this matter as a supporter of a big nanny state control government ?
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Redbaiter – what is your definition of NZs traditional culture??
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Redbaiter – what is your definition of NZs traditional culture??
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Ha ha, poor Jimmy Cairney, never had an argument, never had any sense, and now that deficiency has been so easily exposed, he weakly seeks refuge in semanticism and banal questions based on false and self serving premises.. Nothing I enjoy more than making mincemeat of pompous sermonising self righteous posing commie arseholes like you Jimmy.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Jimmy where is your argument Mr Twisted ? Mincemeat the socialist fools .
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
“Nothing I enjoy more than making mincemeat of pompous sermonising self righteous posing commie arseholes like you Jimmy”
Please do loser. Make a point, any point. Because you got fucking pasted over not knowing the difference between prohibition and regulation. Idiot.
At least you should now understand the argument after the free schooling I gave you as to what is meant by regulation and prohibition. It is not semantics in this context moron.
Come on coward, give us an argument, anything. Was the law a good or bad move? Make a decision. Don’t be scared. Were the Govt wrong or right to ban BZP?
I think prohibiting BZP was stupidity. Yet you have failed to voice an opinion on it. Loser!
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
It’s fucking funny RB, it really is.
Is there anyone else who thinks that prohibition is the same as regulation in the BZP context? Does anyone actually believe that the difference is just ‘semantics’ as Redbaiter puts it? He states “seeks refuge in semanticism”. Gold!
The whole fucking BZP argument has been whether to regulate or prohibit. Yet Redbaiter uses the terms interchangably *in the BZp context*!!
You persistently miss the point by a fucking mile, you contradict yourself, you abuse under cowardly anonymity when you have no point. Your life is a total abject failure. Were you hugged too much as a child, or not enough?
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
“Prohibition” is the whole basis of our criminal justice system. Just think carefully about that before you attack it.
Clearly it was shown in the changing of the youth drinking age that “prohibition” had a beneficial effect, despite your contrary claims. “Prohibition” in criminal justice law is clearly beneficial.
It is more the fact that we live in a permissive era in which selfishness and self-interest are the most commonly advocated “values” without giving any thought to the greater interests of society as a whole.
It is true there has not been one death but it is only a matter of time, and the use of these drugs is most likely a vector to the use of harder drugs over time as people find they need something stronger to get the same “high”.
It is also true that whilst you cite the alcohol statistics as evidence of harm, Parliament has been extremely reckless in legislating over the past 20 years to make alcohol more widely available and could not be relied upon to act in the wider interests of society.
I do not drink and have never taken recreational drugs. I think it is far better to educate and discourage people against recreational drug and alcohol consumption, rather than the permissive approach that is so common these days. The fact that there is so much irresponsible behaviour involving drugs and alcohol is an indication that society would benefit widely from a more responsible approach to controlling the availability of these substances.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Patrick:
“It is true there has not been one death but it is only a matter of time”
There have been several *million* party pills taken in the last five years. Exactly how remote do you want the danger to be? And even if they were considerably more dangerous than the relatively benign things they have been _proven_ to be, how does that justify criminalisation? Unless you want to criminalise anything that has some risk of harm, do you Patrick?
“the use of these drugs is most likely a vector to the use of harder drugs over time”
Evidence please? This claim has been repeated yet never proved reagrding cannabis. Yet the point that you miss is that cannabis is *illegal*, BZP is legal. I have never heard the argument that the use of legal substances, say caffeine, nicotine, leads to harder stuff. The argument goes that criminalising drugs forces people to purchase them from (thus associate with) people in the criminal sub-culture thus exposing them to harder alternatives.
And again, why do you assume that people will stop using? It hasn’t curbed cannabis usage now has it? And even so, how would it follow that the criminal law should be invoked?
“The fact that there is so much irresponsible behaviour involving drugs and alcohol is an indication that society would benefit widely from a more responsible approach to controlling the availability of these substances.”
I totally agree. And criminalisation naturally means sacrificing the *total control* of the availability of substance in question. As well as the sacrifice of all the information about it, control of the content, accurate studies of use patterns, the loss of genuine education policy and open discussion about it, taxation, etc etc etc. For BZP, it was the choice of prohibition rather that regulation which was the irresponsible measure, for the reason you stated (which is one of many reasons) .
And I haven’t even touched on individual rights or justifications for criminalisation.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
james cairney with red thinking policy writers like you – it is little wonder kiwi children struggle with the culture, boundaries and identity !
Who were the nutbars who introduced party pills in the first place?
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
James,
I will vote for legalisation of all drugs, if you will vote for the legalisation of homicide so that I can kill your drugged up friends as they perform “non-rights violating, victimless actions” on me, my property, family and community while under the influence.
You will of course be happy to allow me to exercise my total rights, as I allow you and your stoned friends to exercise their impecably rational self control while under the influence.
Great news. Finally NZ has reverted back to fuedalism.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Remember James, the solutions lie in the extremes! So glad we finally agree.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Party pills have not been around for long enough to determine any long term effects, and im certain there will be some as with any drug, as far as there being no deaths as a result of these BZPs , who is to say that there may be many, as young drivers lose it under the influence of the pill + a little alcohol, and kill themselves along with some other poor sod.
Theyve done the right thing by banning them, these have been banned long ago in Aus.
Weed is about the least harmless of all the non script drugs and even has benefits for people in pain.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Black Power has a big thank you card ready for Mr Anderton. Shutting down the competition, got to be worth a few hugs & kisses.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
I’d probably support banning if there was any evidence that banning a substance actually stops it being used. BZP is being banned to the exact same measure which we have used to ban weed and 20% of NZers have used weed. The ban will not be enforced and everybody knows this. Dealers will be selling out of the local tinnie house and they will not be touched.
Right now BZP is regualated, taxed and we get to take the tax to pay for treatment. Soon it will be unregulated, untaxed and there will be no difference in consumption. We lose all control and all money for no benefit.
What kind of fantasy world are people in favor of this ban living in?
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I thought it was a good idea but then i heard that it seems to significantly reduce alcohol consumption and now I might have changed my mind. maybe we should subsidize them!!
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 10:21 am
“I will vote for legalisation of all drugs, if you will vote for the legalisation of homicide”
Horace: BZP is a relatively victimless ‘crime’ with an *extremely* slim chance of harm *to the person choosing to take*. Homicide is a crime that harms the person *who does not choose to commit it* and has an easily identifiable victim.
How you fail to comprehend that distinction I do not know.
We are talking about substances, and ‘harm to self’ versus ‘harm to others’, please re-attach your brain to reality.
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 11:06 am
It’s OK, Jolly Jim will loose his seat one day and then the country will stop paying for his own personal issues. Suicide statistics will again be published and we will stop pretending that banning drugs removes them from society.
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 11:15 am
“We are talking about substances, and ‘harm to self’ versus ‘harm to others’, please re-attach your brain to reality.”
How about you take your own advice on your own brain Mr. Cairney, rather than parrot the words of so called Libertarians in what I can only perceive as some bizarre and anomalous (for a leftist) attempt to be fashionable, and realise that when children especially or any other person makes bad choices, its not just they who suffer.
They cause pain and suffering to their parents and their brothers and sisters and any others who may love them.
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 11:40 am
Smells like the alcohol big business is right behind that one.
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 1:34 pm
” … when children especially or any other person makes bad choices, its [sic] not just they who suffer. They cause pain and suffering to their parents and their brothers and sisters and any others who may love them.”
1. Children should not be able to make such choices.
2. If an adult chooses to do something with an amount of risk, then that is up to them. Too bad for the family’s emotions.
Would you ban motor racing because of possible “tears” the “loved ones” might end up shedding? Grow up you soft git.
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 6:16 pm
“Would you ban”
I wish you thick as pig shit leftists would learn how to read before you came on here cluttering the place with your dipshit examples of non-comprehending blather. I’ve said before I ‘m not in favour of any ban. How clueless can you get you attention seeking time wasting old git.
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 7:32 pm
“I ‘m not in favour of any ban”
Then we seem in agreement, didn’t take long to bring you around.
“They cause pain and suffering to their parents and their brothers and sisters and any others who may love them.”
So you are left disagreeing with regulation, disagreeing with prohibition, and crying while lamenting the current legislative situation! A situation you wouldn’t change! Gold you loser, you contradict yourself so fucking often there’s sport simply pointing it out.
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 7:52 pm
The allegation that I contradict myself is just another of your litany of false and baseless claims. I did no such thing. I merely pointed out your own error in proclaiming that the only victim of drug abuse is the user. You tho, each time you make a bloody fool of yourself and its pointed out to you, immediately come back on a completely different tack in a pathetically transparent attempt to save face. Soon, you’ll have done so many shifts, you’ll zig zag up your own arsehole you pathetic time wasting old lamer.
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 8:42 pm
I deal on a daily basis with people who have drug and alcohol “addictions”. It is my experience that abuse of any substance leads to paracitism. Why should the “sober” taxpayer pay for the treatment of these fuckwits?
Vote:July 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
“drug abuse”
Who is talking about drug abuse kiddo? Show me where I stated drug abuse you sad example of our failing school system you.
So, Redbaiter,
1. you disagree with regulation, correct.
2. you disagree with prohibition, correct.
3. you cry over the “pain and suffering to their parents and their brothers and sisters …” which is what you believe to be the status quo, correct.
Those are the *only” three points you have made, but nothing contradictory there eh coward? riiiiiight. You Rb, are a idiot, but funny as fuck, so keep it up. Every time you comment you either 1. do not make any point (through either ranting abuse or not understanding the discussion, as above) or 2. contradict something you have already stated. It’s great.
And Murray “Why should the “sober” taxpayer pay for the treatment of these fuckwits?”. Good point, and another reason why prohibition is such a bad idea.
Murray managed to make a point RB, try and do what he did, have a original thought, even copy another person’s thoughts that you agree with if you must. What are they teaching you at school boy?
Vote: