The old unintended consequences rule
This was predictable.
As the Government moves to ban certain types of party pills, that then leaves an unsatisfied demand which will look for alternatives. And as the Herald reports, the next generation of pills may be as or more dangerous than the current ones.
Prohibition – in its 2,000th year of working unsuccessfully!
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: New Zealand
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 am
Yes, prohibition is the worst alternative. Apart from all the others.
[DPF: I'm not convinced that regulation and education of party pills would not be better than prohibition]
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:53 am
Patrick Gower did a very shitty job of reporting on and researching this article. He started by posting a thread on well known dance music site looking for “Guinea pigs” (gives you an idea of the angle the paper was taking right from the start) and only had 3 days to research the articles.
I copied the ad onto another site, and had some peopel who actually took part in the trials get in touch with him. Please note that these people had no negative side affects what soever – but were not even refered to in any of the articles as they obviously didn’t fit into the angle that the herald was going for.
And, the author didn’t actually do anything to find a causative link between whatever the active ingredient was and the side effects, for all we know the person could have had too much alcahol, perscription medicine or anything else. And if there were any illicit substances you can garuntee that they wouldn’t admit to using these.
It wouldn’t be hard to be more dangerous that current batches of BZP, as on a harm scale its less harmful than achohol, without a single recorded fatality that can be proven to be caused by BZP. Alcahol poisening, drunk driving, abuse etc all has a much higher rate of harm. So you are right that the current batches may or may not be more harmful than BZP.
Its likely that the EASE trial was considerably safer than BZP, MDMA or other substances out there, but this was shut down by the government due to the advice of EACD. Please note that the ingredient in EASE was never proven to be illegal under the MODA act, only that it was “likely” to be in the governments/EACD’s eyes. This is the same goverment who thinks its safer to put people in jail than let them have a party pill (of which hundreds of thousands have been sold safely).
But you are right, prohibition will have loads of unintended consequences, and this is only the beginning.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:00 am
“[DPF: I’m not convinced that regulation and education of party pills would not be better than prohibition]”
Thats a double negative.. Are you saying you are not sure if sending kids to jail is worse than them having BZP?
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 am
make a rule – get double the complexities.
make another rule to compensate – get 4x the complexities.
make yet another rule again – get 9x the complexities.
…
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 am
We should encourage our children to stay off drugs until their late teens . The weed is a big problem in our schools and kids can’t learn when they are stoned . Where is the responsibility in this situation ? To young , to quick, to fast , kids don’t need drugs in the ideal world . Talking about drugs it is sad that one million kiwis take prescribed happy pills ? What the hell .
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:17 am
From the Herald:
“Mr Alexander said the party pill industry was exploiting a loophole in the Misuse of Drugs Act which meant manufacturers did not have to prove pills were safe before putting them on sale, as happened with food and medicine. Instead, the onus was on police to prove the pills were dangerous.”
Ah yes, the failure of the Government to pass a law doing something is a “loophole”.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:21 am
” the onus was on police to prove the pills were dangerous.”
Graeme – how High Court / District Court judges’ sentencing quotes do you want ? All condemning the party pills and involvement of crime ? Case after bloody case !
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:23 am
How many judges was what I meant to say Graeme. I think that party pills should not have been allowed in the first place. Violent crime link ?
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:24 am
“Instead, the onus was on police to prove the pills were dangerous”
And so it should be with anything that carries potential criminal charges under the MODA. Anything else would consider people guilty untill proven innocent.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
“How many judges was what I meant to say Graeme. I think that party pills should not have been allowed in the first place. Violent crime link ?”
If you can prove a violent crime link over and above that of alcahol and other legal substances I’ll be very impressed. The only link to violent crime will be AFTER they are illegal, and the only way to purchase them wil be off gangs.
With no contract law, the only way to solve disputes will be using violence.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:31 am
d4j – I may or may not disagree. The fact that party pills are allowed is not however a “loophole”.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:33 am
Yes MikeE, my greatest fear is that gangs will benefit by this , increasing their power base in the illicit drug trade . Maybe the damage is already done ?
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:37 am
Well the biggest way to destroy gangs power would be destroying the illicit drug trade, and you sure as hell don’t do that by adding another illicit substance to the list.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
Graeme , with due respect there is more loopholes in NZ law than there are holes in my rig net . That is why Justice John Hansen said it needs a radical rethink before it can work for our new age society . I think the comment , I may or may not disagree was a classic . Not a lawyer are you? I am very well versed with battling crown law . Good day sir .
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 am
“with due respect there is more loopholes in NZ law than there are holes in my rig net”
Yes there are. This isn’t one of them.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:33 am
Isn’t the first step for the government to adopt a harm minimisation/health approach to drug use? Currently morality and ideology govern drug policy. It’s the wrong way. I suspect there’s no simple solution – no silver bullet.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:40 am
I’m looking forward to seeing the results of the select committee on BZP/MODA stuff and seeing how they will completely ignore all evidence and the stated policy of harm reduction and instead got for a nice populist ban.
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
It is an outrage that Aspirin is not banned. It has a lot of quite bad known side effects for a lot of people. It is often taken to induce an alternate state of consciousness, namely ‘not having a headache’. To many this effect is a potent uplift in alertness, particularly in people who are prone to headaches for whatever reason. Such people exhibit clear signs of dependency in many cases on Aspirin and it’s analogues.
Children, in particular, should be protected from this insidious drug, which they shouldn’t need. Every child should by nature not have a headache, and if they do have one, there is almost always a cause. Just curing the headache doesn’t address the cause.
But even consenting adults shouldn’t be allowed. Taking Aspirin in front of children, and then showing the ‘up’ behaviour, taking part in activities they normally wouldn’t, etc, only serves to encourage children.
As for adults, it does not matter that some people can control their aspirin usage and have no side effects anyway. The mere existence of some people who can’t is a clear and obvious reason why this dangerous chemical should not be allowed to ruin our society, poison our children, and make dodgy chemists rich. How many people need to bleed to death from a large cut, when clotting may have saved their life, before the authorities act?
Obviously the way to put an end to Aspirin usage is to put users in prison. Dealers in Aspirin should face lengthy terms.
Another clear reason that Aspirin is bad is that it is not a naturally occurring chemical. It has been specifically designed to work directly on human consciousness, rather than evolving naturally/being created by God, and therefore is evil.
Many studies have also shown that a lot of people involved in fatal car crashes had taken Aspirin. Often whole boxes of Aspirin have been found in wrecked vehicles. Roadside testing for Aspirin usage is imperative. The tests could include asking questions which require concentration. Anyone who becomes irritable quickly can be eliminated, massively reducing the cost of this testing. Clear-headed respondents can then be required to give a blood or urine sample, and if they refuse will be treated as if they had taken Aspirin anyway.
Aspirin usage has particularly bad interactions with excessive alcohol usage. Many unsuspecting drinkers, who have done nothing less innocuous than drink themselves to unconsciousness the night before may be tempted to try Aspirin. Studies have shown a clear connection between such people and poor liver function, memory loss, antisocial behaviour, child-abuse, being mean to children, having a lot of children but no job, childish behaviour, taking Aspirin around children, living near children, having an interest in children, not looking after children, not working with children, or worst of all, not even liking children.
And the final reason to block Aspirin, probably the most important of all, is because I don’t use it. Because I don’t use it, no one should. I used to use it a lot, but now I don’t and that’s how I know how bad it is.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Ben Wilson, you just made me laugh on a day when I’ve mostly been muttering to myself over the idiocy of our politicians as they spout “Harm Minimisation Policy!” while creating black markets and increasing likelihood of harm from drugs, and the bias of our media as they write articles they know will incense the public (front page ffs!) with zero regard to balance or fact.
Thank you for lightening it up.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Prohibition – in its 2,000th year of working unsuccessfully!
What happened in the year 7 that makes you say that’s when it started “working unsuccessfully” (presumably = stopped working)
Prohibition started a lot longer ago than that, and some examples we know about seem quite successful and are still in place today, the Levantine/North African prohibition on pork-eating, for example.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Ben,
Yeah if they take our BZP they will also take our asprin. I think not.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:15 am
GNZ, they should. Do you know how many people have had internal bleeding from Aspirin? I bet you are a long haired headache hanging out for your next Aspirin, and it’s about time our lawmakers sent you a clear message that your self indulgent behaviour has to stop.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:56 am
tatjina, thanks for you unequivocal support. Would like to hear your ‘I recovered from Aspirin story’, post it here or feel free to come down to my church where we can sing in solidarity the latest Elvis songs. No pressure to renounce your evil ways or confess your sins, but we do ask that you wear appropriate clothes, as it is a family church.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:00 am
I am a director of a party pill company. Perhaps those who are in favour of a ban would be interested to see just how many emails etc we get from P users who, by use of bzp-based products, have been able to kick their P-habit. For some it has been a life saver. And once the ban goes into effect, what are they going to do? No deaths have resulted from bzp use, but I can absolutely guarantee you that many lives have in fact been been saved. We have also been banging our head against a brick wall for a long time trying to convince government to fill out the Restricted Substances Act and put some stronger restrictions and regulations in place. Contrary to what some may think, we very much want that. The framework was there in law, but the government consistently refused to fill it out. A great deal of responsibility for the current situation rests with them. And I can also tell you that all companies have substitutes ready to go. We consider our own to be better and safer than bzp, but not every new product will be able to claim that.