Party Pill ban passed
It will be illegal to sell party pills from April, and illegal to possess any from October, under the law passed last night.
I predict some great parties on the 30th of September!
Well done to the Greens, ACT and the Maori Party for rejecting this silly ban. It will be just as successful as prohibition was in the US in the 1930s and will criminalise thousands of young party goers. If the party pill supply dries up, then they’ll just use other, much worse, drugs.
Top quotes:
Maori MP Hone Harawira said Mr Anderton was a killjoy and he thought it ridiculous to ban the pills when tobacco and alcohol remained legal.
Ms Turei described Mr Anderton as a “Muldoon Mini Me” for deciding to change the law but not allowing time to adjust. She said it was “utterly irrational” to think outlawing the pills would eliminate their use.
Next I await Parliament banning easter eggs due to their moderate risk of harm.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:33 am
It is a crazy step for the government to take. I and a majority of my close friends are under 25 and take the currently legal party pills – weekly, fortnightly or monthly (we are not all regular users). With the ban there are already questions being asked about where to get the next step…i.e ectasy – it costs about 3 x as much and the rest….but the buzz is much more intense so somehow it is justified. I know there are some people that would disagree and say why not stick to ‘legal’ drugs, but in this day when young people party weekly (or more), the ‘legal’ stuff just doesnt fly. All opinion though. Alex Mitchell for Prime Minister – he is sensible.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Top quotes?
Top for hypocrisy? Harawira wants to outlaw cigarettes and the Greens want to ban any number of activities.
At least you have the good grace to take a different line from your party DPF. The party of “individual freedom and choice”. What a joke.
[DPF: The sad thing is I know several National MPs do not support the ban, but the issue is a party vote instead of a conscience vote which I would have preferred]
March 14th, 2008 at 7:35 am
I am strongly anti-drug, but I reluctantly agree that this is a silly ban, as there have been no deaths reported. The government just should have just slapped on a tax. Then the silly users would help sponsor the upcoming promised general tax cuts.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:42 am
It’s pre-election posturing by Anderton. Gets him on the TV, Papers and radio, in the hope that it reduces his risk of getting filed under ‘past sell-by date’.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Is this one of those black and white issues? Criminalising any drug has simply resulted in lucrative markets for arsehole scumbags. I find it hard to believe that the combined might of the global intelligence, police, military and border-security communities are evidentally unable to prevent these apparently fiendishly clever people from running rampant. Or perhaps the so-called “war on drugs” is just a bunch of PR bullshit designed to fool those who are seriously understaffed in the IQ department?
Anyhoo, criminalising appears to lead to an inevitable outcome. So why not bite the bullet and remove the arsehole scumbags’ markets? And put all the money currently spent in interdiction and prosecution into education (I mean quality education, not ‘reefer madness’ type-propaganda).
March 14th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Will they ever learn? They have just given the gangs another marketing opportunity. I’ve had a drug problem in the family and know that pot can ruin brains. I have seen the criminal activity that goes with it and believe that decriminalisation is the lesser evil.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:10 am
‘Prohibition’ seems to work pretty well when it comes to cocaine and heroin.
[DPF: Tell me you are kidding. Ever known a celebrity who does not do Coke? And Heroin isn't that big now because of cost and oh yeah it kills you. But illegal drug use in NZ is rampant]
March 14th, 2008 at 8:22 am
“‘Prohibition’ seems to work pretty well when it comes to cocaine and heroin.”
Yeah, and Murder, Drink Driving, Assault, Burglary etc…in fact everything prohibited in the Crimes Act seems to work pretty well, considering there were 250,000.00 convictions last year.
[DPF: As you know there is a big difference between crimes with victims and victimless crimes]
March 14th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Anderton has a tragic family history , which I sympathise with, regarding drug use and is unable to stand aside from this and look at the topic objectively. He now sees everything as being as bad as heroin, no matter what the facts might be. Definitely the wrong man to be looking at this issue.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:24 am
‘Prohibition’ seems to work pretty well when it comes to cocaine and heroin.
Ever been to the US or Europe.? Or even Melbourne? Having a small population and being way out in the middle of the South Pacific works pretty well when it comes to cocaine and heroin.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:45 am
This is shameful that a useless utopian green MP froths that this ban “is utterly irrational”. The greens are a disgrace and I hope they are obliterated from the political landscape come election time, because they have caused enough damage for society. This ridiculous green dropkick also called Anderton a “ Muldoon Mini Me”. Obviously this demented bitch wouldn’t know the meaning of a decent man and it is highly offensive to compare a spineless jellyfish like Anderton to a principled man of honour like the late Sir Robert. The damage has been done by the dumb political funks that allowed these stupid things to be part of our country. Well done you moronic fools! Now they have handed the gangs another drug so they can increase their criminal power base. I can just see the gangs celebrating as the idiotic government have eliminated their opposition, which is the added bonus for the underworld!
A Christchurch Medical study is worth a read as it states;
“The results of this study indicate that BZP can cause unpredictable and serious toxicity in some individuals.”
http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/118-1227/1784/
March 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am
“…I predict some great parties on the 30th of September!”
Where? At your local sheep shearing shed? People who need to use sheep dip for a good time …well, it kinda speaks for itself.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Legally speaking I am now in possession of a Class C drug with intent to supply.
What a ridiculous law.
Thanks to the major parties for putting more money in the hands of gangs and creating 400,000 victimless criminals our of NZ youth.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:53 am
“# goodgod Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
March 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am
“…I predict some great parties on the 30th of September!”
Where? At your local sheep shearing shed? People who need to use sheep dip for a good time …well, it kinda speaks for itself.
”
You are an idiot, BZP, has NEVER, in its history been used as a drench. Anderton and Dean flat out lied to the public regarding this.
“A Christchurch Medical study is worth a read as it states;
“The results of this study indicate that BZP can cause unpredictable and serious toxicity in some individuals.”
http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/118-1227/1784/”
Compared to alcohol, which causes unpredictable and serious toxicity to all individuals.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:56 am
““The results of this study indicate that BZP can cause unpredictable and serious toxicity in some individuals.” said d4j.
I disagree. Let me explain why.
The same argument can be applied to alcohol, which is consumed by a much larger sector of the population. It should come down to individual responsibility: you consume it and live by its consequences.
Otherwise, we’ll continue having Nanny State telling us what to do every step of the way in our lives. I reject that notion.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:00 am
What products have the Greens said they’ll ban??
March 14th, 2008 at 9:04 am
““The results of this study indicate that BZP can cause unpredictable and serious toxicity in some individuals.”
I didn’t say that Manolo but the learned people who conducted the study did.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Hmmm.
Another reason why the Nats will struggle to get either of my votes this year (they got both last time)
Well done to the three minor parties MPs for so staunchly opposing this, Heather Roy in particular.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Half of those studies didn’t even make it past peer review
March 14th, 2008 at 9:14 am
“[DPF: As you know there is a big difference between crimes with victims and victimless crimes]“.
Yeah, I was being facetious. But my point is that prohibiting something doesn’t mean people won’t do it.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:25 am
As BZP has hurt alcohol sales, and changed habits.
What I want to know is did the major parties recieve any major donations from Liquor companies which might have influenced this vote.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:28 am
[DPF: Tell me you are kidding. Ever known a celebrity who does not do Coke? And Heroin isn’t that big now because of cost and oh yeah it kills you. But illegal drug use in NZ is rampant]
DPF, I didn’t say they worked perfectly, I said they worked pretty well. The reason drug use is rampant in New Zealand is because of a weak and ineffective police force more concerned with speeding tickets and the EFA than reducing crime. Although yes, for the record, I do know of several celebrities who don’t use crack – yourself included!
I agree that drug bans will never be able to totally erase drug use, but bans can be an important part of a strategy that will hopefully eventually reduce drug use – the other part would be a return to more peaceful values as a society.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:32 am
this is prohibitionist/populist/irrational/hypocritical bullshit..
personally..i think party pills are crap..a real ‘low-rent-drug’..
but i also think alcohol is crap..another ‘low-rent drug’..
(and alcohol should be restricted/prescribed..not (enthusiastically) ‘pushed’..
(social costs/violence etc etc blah blah..!..you know how it goes..)
there is a ‘middle-ground’ for the ‘treatment’ of all drugs..(and health outcomes must be a ‘driver’ of any new paradigm..once again c.f. alcohol..(?)..)
driving party pill distribution/consumption into the hands of crims/gangs..
is a long way away from that (desired..surely?) ‘middle-ground’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 14th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Yeah you’re probably right philu, who cares anyway as our hospitals already resemble refugee camps.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:36 am
If you’re talking about party pills, then you’re not (legally speaking).
March 14th, 2008 at 9:37 am
dpf said..
“..DPF, I didn’t say they worked perfectly, I said they worked pretty well. The reason drug use is rampant in New Zealand is because of a weak and ineffective police force more concerned with speeding tickets and the EFA than reducing crime..”
um..!..isn’t that ‘prohibitionist/’crime’ stance a tad ‘rich’..?.bordering on uber-hypocritical..?..dpf..?
(not to mention..’simplistic’..eh..?..)
esp. from one who celebrates their consumption of their drug of choice as loudly as yourself..?
and..um..!..’drug use’ has always been ‘rampant’ in new zealand..dpf..
even the (supposed) drug-free fifties floated on a sea of alcohol/nicotene..
leavened with widespread prescribing of speed/tranks..
(and..um..!..i thought rightwingers were meant to be all about ‘personal freedoms’..?
w.t.f..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: What the fuck are you on about Phil? Seriously I have no idea from your rant. I think you are jumping to an assumption over my views on other drug prohibition laws, but am not sure. Try for once in your life to do a succinct comment]
dpf said “..The reason drug use is rampant in New Zealand is because of a weak and ineffective police force..”
wrong..!
(‘succint’ enough..?)
March 14th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Have another bong phoooooooool
March 14th, 2008 at 9:39 am
stephen – you’d be better to ask what the Greens don’t want to ban. Cannabis, prostitution… hmmm that’s about it really. The Greens are the new puritans.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:41 am
MikeE, calling someone an idiot does you no good when the information is correct. Piperazines are used for parasitic control.
Write me another post with caps or bold highlighting. It’ll make what you say the truth!
March 14th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Philu, DPF didn’t say that, that was my response to him
March 14th, 2008 at 9:46 am
BlairM, I am aware that the Greens would like to ban fast food adds targeted at children between certain times or something and Easter trading. But as for products?? And it’s ‘decriminalise’ cannabis, not ban.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:58 am
my ‘bad’/mis-reading..
but seriously dpf…lay off the piss..!
yr liver etc won;t take the punishment for much longer..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: My liver is fine thank you very much. And my diet coke consumption is probably far more dangerous to me than my red wine consumption]
March 14th, 2008 at 10:01 am
You stupid twisted dope freak – get a life you useless creep !!
[DPF: And that is uncalled for. Next one gets demerits]
March 14th, 2008 at 10:04 am
philu how many bongs would you have in a day?
March 14th, 2008 at 10:41 am
“# goodgod Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
March 14th, 2008 at 9:41 am
MikeE, calling someone an idiot does you no good when the information is correct. Piperazines are used for parasitic control.
Write me another post with caps or bold highlighting. It’ll make what you say the truth!”
Well, I’d like to see any piece of reliable literature (not a newspaper or wikipedia article) that actually shows proof that BZP (not other piprazines) has EVER been used for worming or parasite control. There is reference in british medical journals circa 1950s regarding other piprazines, but not BZP, TFMPP, MeOpp or other recreational piprazines.
“Whereas the parent compound piperazine has been widely used for many years as an anti-worming drug in animals, BZP has never been used for such a purpose.”
Source: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index875EN.html
Please do your research, you’re sounding like jacqui dean on DHMO.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:08 am
What a ridiculous piece of legislation. Over the last 4 years there have been 16 calls to the national poisons centre but no recording of injury or fatality just some giddyness. Seems people die alot easier and more often on ladders but these are legal.
If you support the ban on party pills then you cannot argue against the prohibition of alcohol or nicotine or prozac. They are all mind altering substances. Watch the movie Layer Cake, the opening credits have a very telling message; Once governments realise how much tax they can make from legalising drugs, the floodgates will open.
On another note, you may have all heard of the Big Mac economic indicator. Well if you do some research on the price of cocaine and ecstasy on Wikipedia, you’ll find out how hard it is to get these drugs into NZ.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Once governments realise how massively unpopular legalising (hard?) drugs they will give up the idea as quick as anything…
March 14th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Dad4profanity
apart from the violent nature of your outburst, by saying “Now they have handed the gangs another drug so they can increase their criminal power base”, I assume you are for the decriminalisation of Marijuana?
Despite the cries of the right, has National said they will decriminalise party pills again, pretty hard one to sell to the electorate, and despite what you folk think here, Mr & Mrs Common Sense (Brash’s fav couple) will buy this and say “there’s a guy doing something”.
So we can stomach several thousand plus deaths a year from tobacco and still go on about 300+ road toll, corporate piss take if there ever was one (shh did someone just have a go at the corporates – no can’t be – blaspheme)
March 14th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Paul.
A review of the Misuse of Drugs Act is planned for this year.
Don’t expect it to be heavy on evidence based policy or harm minimisation however. A lot of it will be coming into line with UN requirements and US policy rather than reducing drug harm. If anything much of this is counter productive and increases drug harm.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:54 am
MikeE, I heard the interview with the Professor out here at the conference on the whole Misuse of Drugs Act thing(?), He was very interesting.
While I was in Vancouver the story of the “Prince of Pot”, a canadian who sells dope seeds, not the weed or anything harder, came to a head, with an amazing CBC documentary on the subject.
Take a look, this is fascinating as to how far the US will go to getting a dope head.
http://www.cbc.ca/thelens/program_231007.html The Prince of Pot: The U.S. vs. Marc Emery, it was amazing viewing, of course it’s on youTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG9Tm0BgJKM
there was a plea bargin in the end and this martyr (bit of an ego nutter) didn’t get what he wanted in the end.
“Marijuana crusader Marc Emery is blaming a clash of judicial cultures for delays in a plea bargain that would send him to prison briefly in the United States before serving several years in Canada.” [http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMG9CwQFIS7RlREt7On8IXrfAB0w[
The US didn’t even thank Canada for their effort in getting planes out of the skies and into any small town in Canada with an airport able to take planes (they fed and housed people for days), yet they sent their top drugs tsar to Canada and the DEA even has an office in Canada. I don’t know how the Canadian’s stomach the US’s policy on drugs, even less can I understand why the DEA has an office in Ottawa.
At one stage the US govt was asking for his extradition and was going to give him 5 life sentences if found guilty.
Unfortunately, I feel this is less to do with a decent drugs policy in NZ and more to do with Anderton’s past, as tragic as that is.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
A while ago on the bus I heard a couple of party girls discussing whether it was better to use Coke or party pills.
Their conclusion was that it was better to use coke, because if you OD on an old established drug then when (if?) you get to hospital the A&E staff at least know what to do with you.
Apparently the symptoms of Party Pill overdose are a lot harder for the medics to make head or tail of, and different ones demand different treatments, and they daren’t risk applying the wrong treatment if they aren’t certain which legal high you are on.
Criminalizing their use may not prevent it, but hell isn’t that a pretty strict criteria for judging any law?? The laws against murder and theft don’t prevent those things from happening. Isn’t it more about the wider society deciding in a rational way whether a certain behaviour is acceptable or not?
March 14th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
So glad they have banned Party Pills. The next step is to start executing anyone who sells Class A drugs within 72hrs after being busted. After several people start dangling from piano wire only I fool would risk selling drugs.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
@RPM: Good point. However, is the behaviour of people on party pills more harmful than those on alcohol?
I’m yet to see a newspaper article claiming that a person, only taking party pills, was responsible for a violent crime. They were always drunk or on P and may or may not have been on party pills.
Drugs should be banned on their danger to society by the users of that drug, not on the dislike of them by politicians. Using this logic, marijuana, party pills, cocaine and ecstasy would all be legal. P, alcohol and crack would not be. Of course the danger I’m referring to physical violence towards others, not as a drain on society.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Most users of alcohol suffer no more than minor ill effects, and there are well researched studies showing benefits from moderate use. Whereas for tobacco, all use is harmful. Caffeine is similar to alcohol – only over-use or poor use being harmful. Tea is beneficial, with no ill effects (it could even be promoted as part of a public health campaign, as should moderate safe drinking in a more balanced and restrained way).
Those who attack legal alcohol availability need to cite alcoholics, social and health problems from binge drinkers and those who drink drive (or bring in sexual behaviour associated with drinking, music and dancing – join a crusade of the puritans), but this is counter-productive. If citing the problems of some users is their excuse to attack legal alcohol availabliity, then they legitimise ANY case of harm from party pill use to make it illegal to supply them, no matter how minor. I am sure this is not the intent.
I find it sad that there are those whose use of one drug makes them “paranoid” about the legal availability of another, to the point of standing arm in arm with puritans. I feel the same way when feminists ally to the puritans. Women were not equal within the moral orbit of the religion of the “middle ages”.
As has been noted, now that the safer party pills are made illegal, ecstacy will make a come back. Ecstacy is more problematic (somehwat riskier without being outright dangerous) than the party pills concerned – but illegality will increase the price of the party pills and reduce the cost differential and thus … . Now we will need a major campaign highlighting the dangers of the increasingly used ecstacy (but this will have to be overhyped to have impact and people will lose trust in the message when so many use it without any apparent ill effects).
But lets not presume the worst of our bosses, maybe its part of a deliberate strategy (counter-intuitive inspired stupidity) to give the crims a chance to make their money supplying party pills and ecstacy rather than P. Maybe there is a point to making illegal drugs not that harmful. Is there evidence that cocaine and heroin use went down during Prohibition as crims turned to supply of alcohol (an economist would say the laws of supply and demand still applied and thus as demand for cociane and heroin would not be affected …, but the effect of the differing penalties for the various classes of drugs could/should influence those willing to supply for the money)?
March 14th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
RRM
It’s an interesting argument that the impact of a product on some users behaviour should result in product regulation. Given the claims about the impact of various food on the behaviour of SOME children, as well as allergies …
In the case of car use, is it the alcohol or the vehicle use (accidents happen otherwise). In the case of inter-person violence, is it the alcohol (it happens otherwise), or the social inter-action (should we ban public social inter-action between groups of people more likely to get involved in inter-person violence, the way we have protection orders within the specific domestic environment of the actual offenders and victims in each case?).
March 14th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Trouble is, nanny state has dulled the young folk down so much that no-one can be trusted to actually take care of themselves any more…….
March 14th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
SPC, again time to do a bit of fact checking. Ecstacy (MDMA) is less harmful that Alcohol when its in its pure form. The danger comes from the fact that it is illegal and might be cut with other substances.
MDMA has a ridiculously high lethal dosage, is not physically addictive (though can be mentally addictive, like anything), and the only real risks are dehydration and seratonin issues (which can be fixed with 5htp) and the fact that 90% of people can’t get it up when on it.
If we see lots of people moving to MDMA it would be a safer outcome, but only if MDMA is legal. As it is currently a class B Drug anything goes.
Booze on the other hand has a very low lethal dosage, is highly addictive physically and mentally, leads to violence etc.
P on the other hand is a very nasty drug. And we are likely to see an increase in its consumption. I remember clubbing when BZP was first available (under the brand name Nemi) and can clearly remember people openly smoking P in club toilets (Cube in high street for instance, now closed) or at parties. Since the introduction of legal substitutes this has all but dissapeared. I predict we will see a resurgance of this, or increased alcohol consumption in NZ now that BZP is not legally available.
for those willing to break the law, who don’t go to the P direction, they will choose E over BZP. As teh effects are much more pleasurable to the consumer, and the side effects (assuming its unadulterated) are smaller.
Reality though, is most E on the market now (and post ban) will jsut be cut with BZP, and you will end up paying a lot of money for a party pill you could have bought for as low as $1 pre ban) and have a shit hangover in the morning.
Such are the joys of prohibition. And we are likely to see much more increased drug harm as a result of it.
This is a massive failure in New Zealand’s drug policy of so called “harm reduction”. I fail to see how sending a kid to jail for consuming a substance that has been consumed legally without major harm 26 million times over the last 8 years can lead to reduced drug harm in NZ.
March 14th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
How many times has this set of arguments played out on Kiwiblog? Wake me up when someone makes a new point.
March 14th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
PhilBest says:
Very good point. They’ve got a great cycle going (great if you’re into state countrol, that is)… stupidity leads to overindulgence… leads to greater stupidity… so in steps the state and controls yet another aspect of our lives.
And whose fault is the stupidity? The state’s, in so many ways: teaching young people all about their rights and nothing about their responsibilities; creating a climate where there’s no such thing as failure at school anymore, and thus raising the expectation that the same is true of life; yet generally going OTT when faced with any exuberance – from skate boarders to boy racers – rather than accepting it and creating facilities in which it can be practiced safely.
As Paul has pointed out, we’re lectured by any number of bristling moustaches about what supposed dickheads we are on the roads every time there’s a long weekend, yet (aside from lining their pockets with tax) what has any government seriously done about deaths from cigarettes?
Till there’s some moral consistency across policy, it’s little wonder that the laws surrounding prohibited substances will fail to be respected by a sizeable portion of the population.
March 14th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
So the greens support drug taking but are antismacking. Dont they realise that the most abusive parents are usually high on drugs.
March 14th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
This is the second time I’ve found myself agreeing with Hone Harawira (the EFA) – worrying enough to turn to drugs.
March 14th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Dale, yeah the legal ones Alcohol.
the majority of drug takers are not in fact parents, and while we can’t assume all of those who drink alcohol are parents, there is a greater percentage there.
Still it’s hard to argue with the facts that smoking kills 5000 kiwis a year and party pills (none, one?). But then how could we possibly ban smoking, I mean it’s your democratic right to be taken for a ride by the corporate giants and expect the health system to take care of the mess. Really if anyone takes up smoking these days they need their head read. Come on if the road toll was 5000 or if drownings were 5000 fatalities, or if dog attacks were 5000 fatalities there sure as hell would have been something done about it by now. Don’t tell me that smoking is out of bounds and an attack on individual freedoms, or all best are off with drugs and the greens.
March 14th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
“The results of this study indicate that BZP can cause unpredictable and serious toxicity in some individuals.”
So do peanuts
March 14th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I wouldn’t touch drugs and hope my children won’t.
This is a stupid law. By driving demand to the gangs we will all be likely to be subject
to gang-related violent crime.
Thanks Jim.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Paul, yes alcohol is the major contributer to violence in the home. But why would anyone want to combine that with other drugs. Most people enjoy a beer and a wine and its not a problem.But when you introduce drugs that keep people awake for days on end then youve got extra complications. Ask any shrink what the effects of pot are on people with mental health problems,Im sure you will hear some real horror stories. Maybe Im a bit over concerned being the father of 2 teenagers,the less chemical options the better.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
thehawkreturns
“I wouldn’t touch drugs and hope my children won’t.” there is nothing more powerful for a rebellious teenager than being told vehemently by one’s parents that something is out of bounds.
My mother threatened to take me to the police if I ever too dope. that sort of reasoning only got me into it and eventually growing our own in the student flat as we couldn’t stomach the idea that the local biker gang in CHCH making money off us drugged up students. We wouldn’t live with ourselves if our money contributed to some very serious crime by the mob or whoever.
Drug, alcohol and tobacco education needs to be put into over drive.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Dale ask any shrink the affect of alcohol on alcoholics, potentially lethal.
From personal experience, the affects of drugs on the benign is pathetically stereotypical Pink Floyd listening, muchie eating useless units. At least I have the experience my parents didn’t have, and since Go Ask Alice was their only view of the Take-Drugs-Jump-Out-Of-Window world was so wrong. I would at least know some of the signs of what is going on and what could be going wrong. I mean I had a friend who wouldn’t get out of bed without a we bullet, but is now at the London Stock Exchange, and yet another who is now a cop (the hypocracy). At least I will have one advantage over my parents prohibitionist approach.
good luck with the kids mine are 2 and 5
March 14th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Paul, Ive smoked my fair share (Big Ben Pies and Moro bars from the service station at 2am) but there did come a time of paranoia. What we used to call speed was our “P” its the same for party pills I can only conclude that it will lead to harder stuff. You know when the party pills dont quite do it anymore. Two is for trouble five is for its so great their not two anymore.But their still solar powerd at that age, sun comes up……..Good luck with yours it a wonderful journey.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Mike
Claiming that booze has a “very low lethal dosage and is addictive physically and mentally” to justify the legal availability of other drugs is a nonsense approach. It’s not for most people, used moderately, it has been shown to be health beneficial.
If you need to frame an comparative (specious) arguement in support of a ban of an existing legal drug, you only encourage the prohibitionists – often moralists seeking regulation of the social behaviour choices of others.
Yes there is a risk of (more drinking and) higher use of P, but as I and others noted more likely a greater use of ecstacy than the currently widely used party pills. And yes this ecstacy, without regulation of its production standards.
“This is a massive failure in New Zealand’s drug policy of so called “harm reduction”. I fail to see how sending a kid to jail for consuming a substance that has been consumed legally without major harm 26 million times over the last 8 years can lead to reduced drug harm in NZ.”
I once wrote to the Health Select Committee on the issue of marijuana policy some years ago – arguing that licensing supply of this drug to licensed outlets and then supplying the product via ration card (after undertaking a drug education course) would result in harm minimisation too … good luck …
(PS while I vote Green, I have only used marijuana once – while passing it on to someone else).
March 14th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
SPC, so it was your allocation I inhaled then, it’s always bugged me as to why so much.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Reducing the levels of society drug use is not rocket science – its just that few societies ever really try and tackle the problem in a united, coherent, multiagency manner in such a way that a good portion of the society backs the approach. One such society is Sweden. Sweden was a festering nest of liberal ideas towards drugs that developed gradually through the 50′s and 60′s and culminated in the late 60′s with experimenting with heroin prescribing and with magistrates telling the police that cannabis possession for personal use was OK. The net effect was widespread abuse of drugs.
Swedes decided to adopt a different course and through the 70′s, 80′s and early 90′s, progressivly tightened the law and introduced a raft of parallel measures all grouped behind a goal to have a drug free society (not merely minimisig harm as is the ideology in NZ). Swedish society at all levels has overwhelmingly backed this approach and thus the government asks for and gets sizable sums devoted to effective drug treatment programmes and education programmes that are intelligent and targetted. The police use new laws in a targetted way to reduce drug use as much as possible. Having visited Sweden and seen with my own eyes how this integrated approach works, it came as no surprise to learn that Sweden now has the lowest levels of drug use (including and especially cannabis) in the western world by sizable statistically significant margins – a fact dramatically highlighted in a glowing report from the UN Office of Drugs Control “Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy – Reviewing the Evidence” http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/Swedish_drug_control.pdf
There are a raft of excuses given for why NZ cannot and should not follow Sweden – all of which I believe are eminently debatable. A blunt old fashioned prohibition model as is used in NZ is not that effective as various posters comment. The Swedish have emphatically proven that there is a suite of policies that can and do work. They moved from being a permissive society with high levels of recreational drug use (like NZ) to a country where drug use is now at very low levels.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:58 am
“Reducing the levels of society drug use is not rocket science ”
That’s right, it isn’t, and Singaporeans know that better than most.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
KIA
The only similarity between Sweden and Enzed then, was high levels of drug use, their policy was liberal then and less so now. Ours was prohibitionist then and now. So we know neither a liberal or prohibitionist approach works (noting also the effort the USA puts into prohibiting drugs and their lack of success …) … if one is trying to reduce drug use that is.
That said, Sweden has copied the USA and brought in their anti-prostitution laws … without ending it of course. We know that reform of our laws has not changed the industry here, being much the same in worker numbers etc (but the point was actually better public health management, preventing worker exploitation, limiting gang and drug influence, not ending or criminalising human nature …).
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Since when did we become so righteous? Party pills don’t even register on the amounts of death per year but yet they have gotten more media attention the binge drinking culture that is destroying our youth. If the government wanted to actually do something they would take on the cigarette problem that is destroying so many family’s. I see 15 year olds smoking every day but party pills seem to be all that gets addressed. You have to wonder some times if the New Zealand Government is just to busy fighting amongst them selfs to think about what really needs to be addressed.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I disagree with the banning of party pills. I think it is a stupid law and only going to encourage people to buy in bulk before the date that they become illegal and turn to supplying them. It may also push these drugs in to the hands of gangs to supply and create more crime from gangs in future could. There has been no deaths from party pills and as far as I am concerned I think that keeping them legal is the safer way of keeping them under control instead of pushing them into the underground drug supply system. I myself am not a user so I don’t know of the effects of these drugs but I think that keeping them legal is the safest way of keeping them under control and not make more opportunities for illegal drugs to be supplied.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 am
I am against drugs but I totally disagree with the banning of party pills. Yeah, its better for the community BUT it still has a strong effect.! It’s a silly idea to ban them as its another excuse for teenagers. etc to purchase a large amount to be stored. This also leads to illegal dealing which could lead to abusive crimes. As stated, there have been no deaths due to party pills because its legal and teenagers are under the watch of the community if there are any side effects. Therefore, party pills should stay legal.!