The plan against P

October 8th, 2009 at 1:08 pm by David Farrar

has announced a wide range of measures, as part of a plan to reduce the supply of, demand for, and harm caused by . The main measures are:

  • Making pseudoephedrine a Class B2 controlled drug, making it prescription-only. (I have attached the report from Sir recommending this)
  • Use proceeds of crime legislation to fund additional Police and Customs activities to fight gangs and organised crime plus an expansion of drug treatment services.
  • Investing in additional $22 million in clinical services to fund treatment for P addiction to more than 3,000 additional patients over the next three years.
  • Assigning 40 additional Customs officers to special dedicated drug-taskforce duties to help break the supply chain. Key also announced in just two weeks Customs has managed to make 26 seizures of ingredients with a street value of $13 million if they had been used to produce P.
  • A new Police Methamphetamine Control Strategy which aims to use intelligence in new ways to target gangs, investigate drug syndicates which import P precursors illegally, target P ‘cooks’ and seize funds and assets gained through P-related activity.
  • Reviewing the outdated Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966, to provide a more effective legal means to get P-addicts into compulsory assessment and treatment.
  • Making chief executives of Government agencies accountable for delivering on our plans, as measured against a range of targets that will be clearly set out in the actual Action Plan to be released next week.

The status quo has obviously failed. It is good to see that the plan does not just try to target one aspect, but is a balance of measures that aim to reduce supply, reduce the demand for P, and reduce the harm caused by those addicted to it – which is far far wider than self harm.

The Gluckman report is here – Pseudoephedrine report.

A recent story on how destructive the addiction to P is, was a great story in the HoS by Carolyne Meng-Yee on Lynne Carter:

One of Auckland’s poshest hotels has turfed out a high-profile socialite, saying her erratic behaviour has scared guests and staff and claiming she has left her $600-a-night suite uninhabitable. …

The eviction of Carter, who is facing methamphetamine and fraud charges in the Auckland District Court, is the latest twist in a sad fall from grace for the businesswoman who once boasted a $6 million waterfront mansion, a Ferrari and a booming property development business.

She was set for life.

“She smokes and we don’t allow smoking, and her dog pisses everywhere,” Bourke said. “We have chucked her out many times but she keeps coming back in the middle of the night.” …

“She was smoking all the time and the dog was in the room. It was peeing everywhere.

“She would get up in the middle of the night … She was out like till 3am, running up and down the hallways calling out ‘Louis, Louis’ and we had complaints from guests saying ‘who is the woman running up and down the hallway screaming?’

“Or we would have functions on… It was horrible, it really was.”

On another occasion, Bourke said Carter sat in the Herne Bay hotel’s library, staring vacantly at the ceiling.

And if not bad enough:

Bourke said that, in her opinion, Carter had “gone from someone who was well-dressed and well-spoken… and she has turned into a country bumpkin who walks around with no shoes and dirty hair”.

Bourke said Mollies could not hire out her suite because of the stench of dog urine and stale cigarette smoke. “We have to air it a little bit longer to get rid of the smell.”

And that is just a case of self-harm, and is nothing compared to the cases of William Bell, Antonie Dixon, and others where innocent Kiwis get butchered in P fuelled rages.

Tags: , , ,

122 Responses to “The plan against P”

  1. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Legalise crystal meth.

    Have an SOE be the only licensed provider.

    Use the proceeds of this booming business to fund addiction research and treatment.

    Undercut the rates charged by the gangs, taking the profit out of the equation for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Brian Smaller (4,012 comments) says:

    So now instead of it costing me $20 to get something for a cold from the Chemist near where I work I have:

    1. To take time off work to go to Doctor assuming I can get an appointment when I need it.
    2. the cost of a return train ticket for trip between Wellington and the Hutt where my Doc is located so I cna go and return to work.
    2. Spend $45 on doctor’s appointment.
    3. Then finally spend $20 in the remedy.

    Thanks John Key – You are becoming more and more a fuckwit every day.That 55% support will start to erode if you keep pissing off those people who voted for you last time.

    I already have my ID checked and name taken when I buy psuedoephidrine from the Chemist now. This wont make one bit of difference to NZ’s P problems.

    [DPF: Have you read the report? It has reduced supply in other places that have done this]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. ernesto (257 comments) says:

    More fucking nanny state from John Key. Now I have to go to the doctor to buy a packet of cold and flu pills.

    They could have had more effect by having a centralised database that pharmacies enter sales into so the police could track sales in real time.

    No that would be to easy, just fucking BAN BAN BAN. Don’t hold any snap elections in mid winter.

    [DPF: Not all cold and flu pills, just those used to make P. But you knew that]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (9,826 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull: “Legalise crystal meth.”

    No thank you. I don’t believe controlling the point of sale will control the actions of the users while they are on it. There would simply be a new underworld niche for middlemen to obtain it from the SOE on behalf of those who might be deemed unfit to purchase.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RRM (9,826 comments) says:

    Brian – yes it is annoying. having your hand cut off by a space cadet would be far more annoying, however much less likely that eventuality may be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    No thank you. I don’t believe controlling the point of sale will control the actions of the users while they are on it.

    So how precisely are we controlling the actions of the users at the moment?

    There would simply be a new underworld niche for middlemen to obtain it from the SOE on behalf of those who might be deemed unfit to purchase.

    Who would be deemed unfit to purchase?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Luke H (73 comments) says:

    “The war on drugs isn’t working, let’s pass more regulation and use more money doing the same things which haven’t worked in the past!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. pete (416 comments) says:

    DPF: Have you read the report? It has reduced supply in other places that have done this

    Have you?

    This has not affected methamphetamine-related harm, as reflected in the number of deaths from use of the drug, which have increased steadily from 1998 to 2008, However, the number of clandestine laboratories discovered in the state has reduced markedly, from a peak of 473 in 2003 to 21 in 2008 (statistics from Oregon State Police and Oregon State Medical Examiner).

    Looks like all that happens is P labs are harder to find.

    DPF: Not all cold and flu pills, just those used to make P. But you knew that

    Not all cold and flu pills, just those that work. But you knew that

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    Of course none of these steps will do a single thing to stop P in New Zealand, but they will increase the risk of purchase, and risk of harm (as it becomes adulterated with other substances) and of course increase the bank accounts of those who deal in it (as it becomes harder to get, price and profit margins go up).

    Large scale P cooks don’t use bloody codrol to make P, they get it imported in from asia by the barrel load in precursor chemicals. All this will do is make it harder to get cold relief, and do nothing to reduce P Harm.

    Then again, banning the safer, previously legal alternative of BZP didn’t help either…

    P should be treated the same as heroin was, de facto legalise it with a clean source available on prescription (ala methadone) to treat addicts.

    Drug use should be a health issue, NOT a law and order issue.

    [DPF: I think cannabis should be treated as a health issue. But people don't go out on violent rampages on cannabis, like they do on P. This is not just about self harm]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Jeez, there should be some form of “I am not a fuckwit” ID cards, available only if you work for a living and have no criminal record and have an IQ over 100, that allows decent sensible people to bypass these laws that are only necessary because of the scum of society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ernesto (257 comments) says:

    [DPF: Not all cold and flu pills, just those used to make P. But you knew that]

    All effective pills will be banned. Wake up…

    Having now read the report, I see you and Gluckman fell for the bullshit ‘phenylephrine is effective’ line. He obviously hasn’t read the raft of studies proving phenylephrine is no more effective than a placebo. In case he missed it, here is a link to the 2009 study in the Journal of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology.

    “CONCLUSIONS: During a 6-hour observation period, a single dose of pseudoephedrine but not phenylephrine resulted in significant improvement in measures of nasal congestion.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19230461

    Gluckman notes ‘inconsistent’ studies, but goes on to conclude that because phenylephrine now has a 60% market share it must therefore be effective.

    WRONG. Phenylephrine has market share, despite it having placebo only effect, because pharmacists push it so heavily instead of the pseudoephedrine based products. Any pharmacist who tells you phenylephrine is effective should be prosecuted for making misleading statements.

    More nanny state based on crap science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. goonix (140 comments) says:

    “Not all cold and flu pills, just those that work. But you knew that”

    Exactly. The nanny state never left, it just changed colour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull: “Legalise crystal meth.”

    That’s one way, unfortunately I fear the cost to society from huge increases in P addicts makes the idea nonsensical.

    If you are going to go to war, go hard. I’m pleased to see the proceeds of crime will be used in the battle. There should be no mercy for anyone engaged in this trade, take everything and do it quickly. You have a one-pot operation in your kitchen, you lose your house. If you rent the house, then you forfiet anything you do own…..you won’t need it in prison anyway.

    The big issue that does not seem to be covered is the legal exporting of precursor products from China in particular. As long as crims can export the stuff by the container load, customs will never get it all. In shear numbers, this makes the over the counter cold medicines a non entity.

    I would liked to have seen something about a diplomatic approach or plan being discussed or enacted with countries who do allow export of the precursor products. Until this tap is turned off or at least reduced the battle will continue to be lost.

    I am looking forward to hearing of the siezure of property on a regular basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Brian Smaller (4,012 comments) says:

    [DPF: Not all cold and flu pills, just those used to make P. But you knew that]

    Yes, and the others tend to work no better than placebos. DPF – is your Doctor on call ready and waiting for you to ring up for an apoointment if you have a cold and need some cold relief right now? I know mine isn’t. I usually have to wait a day or two to even get an appointment. John Key obviously has forgotten what it is like to have to work and make appointments, rather than have appointments made for him.

    [DPF: I prefer to take the advice of scientific experts on this, rather than your assertion the rest are like placebos]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RRM (9,826 comments) says:

    RS: So how precisely are we controlling the actions of the users at the moment?

    Not at all. But I don’t think your scheme would be a significant improvement. I think P use needs to be stamped out, not normalized, unlike dope its users appear to be highly dangerous to the general public. IMHO smoking P is akin to driving drunk, not akin to smoking a cigarette, and it needs to be treated accordingly.

    RS: Who would be deemed unfit to purchase?

    IMHO, everyone. But under the scheme you were proposing I’d like to think people with recent violence convictions would not be allowed to buy methamphetamine as a condition of their parole/sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. iceman (1 comment) says:

    when was the last time prohibition of drugs worked? oh right, it never has!

    what gives other people the right (most likely people who have never even tried drugs) to determine what drugs people should consume? cars, alcohol, knives kill lots of people every year too – should we ban them too?

    sounds like a sensible plan from Ryan Sproull. Why not go one step further and let anyone sell drugs provided they disclose full information about the drug and it’s effects. Tax the shit out of it to the point where all negative externalities can be paid for by the revenue generated from the tax, but not so much that it creates a black market.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ernesto (257 comments) says:

    Cheerleading at its best from DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    That’s one way, unfortunately I fear the cost to society from huge increases in P addicts makes the idea nonsensical.

    Why would there be huge increases in P addicts? There’d be a sudden influx of money going into prevention and treatment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. goonix (140 comments) says:

    “Cheerleading at its best from DPF.”

    Yeah I can just imagine the difference in approach if it were Labour championing this move. Instead, all we get is apologist rubbish interspersed with sensationalist reports of P damage. Shame on the author.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ernesto (257 comments) says:

    Yes goonix. If this were a Labour initiative DPF would be ramming it down Labour’s throat as nanny state at its best, like WhaleOil is. At least the right wing blogs aren’t just linking to each other on this one. Still its a bit sad it always falls to DPF to play the “cheerleading eunuch” role.

    [DPF: 20 demerits for personal abuse. I am fairly liberal on issues around cannabis being decriminalised, but that stops with P. This is not about self harm. The first priority of a Govt is to protect its citizens from harm, and I don't mean self harm here]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Brian Smaller (4,012 comments) says:

    I know someone who destroyed their business and life by getting addicted to P as well. I still want an effective remedy from a cold that means I don’t have to use all my sick leave waiting for a doctor’s appointment and spending 300% more on the product than I did before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Sector 7g (240 comments) says:

    Lets all punish everyone apart from those committing the crime. Well done morons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Not at all. But I don’t think your scheme would be a significant improvement. I think P use needs to be stamped out, not normalized, unlike dope its users appear to be highly dangerous to the general public.

    Firstly, this kind of legalisation is the only suggestion I know of that stands any chance of actually ending P use in New Zealand. It’s not a matter of normalising, it’s a matter of the most effective response. Keeping it illegal keeps it profitable, and keeping it profitable keeps incentives to encourage new users.

    Its users aren’t necessarily highly dangerous to the general public. Most P users aren’t committing any crimes, mainly because they can afford it. Most violent crimes committed by people on P in New Zealand have been in the course of getting money to buy more P – the inflated prices of the black market.

    IMHO smoking P is akin to driving drunk, not akin to smoking a cigarette, and it needs to be treated accordingly.

    Smoking P and hitting someone is akin to drinking alcohol and hitting someone. Smoking it and not hurting anyone is not analogous to drink driving.

    IMHO, everyone. But under the scheme you were proposing I’d like to think people with recent violence convictions would not be allowed to buy methamphetamine as a condition of their parole/sentence.

    Potentially, though if they’re addicted, they’ll find a way to get some, which may involve having to do something violent to get the money to afford it. They could be precisely the people who do need a controlled, inexpensive supply in safe circumstances.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Murray M (455 comments) says:

    MikeE at 1.38 pm – you can not in any way compare the abusers of P to the abusers of opiates. Substitution therapy will not work for amphetamine abusers just as it does not work for cocaine abusers. You will note I do not use the word addict. There is no such thing as an addict, people either choose to do something or choose not to do something. It is a matter of personal choice. The medical model of “addiction” is so patently flawed it is laughable. My experience in dealing with users of various drugs, such people are not medically sick, they are spiritually impoverished.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. ernesto (257 comments) says:

    Sorry big guy. The “cheerleading eunuch” comments were directed at your role, rather than at you personally. I am sure you are completely intact.

    Back on point, I don’t see how banning pharmacy sales of the only effective type of cold and flu pill is going to be good for society. You seem keen to avoid my earlier point about Gluckman being mistaken about pseudoephedrine. A mistake that you seem to be labouring under yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Brian Smaller (4,012 comments) says:

    [DPF: 20 demerits for personal abuse. I am fairly liberal on issues around cannabis being decriminalised, but that stops with P. This is not about self harm. The first priority of a Govt is to protect its citizens from harm, and I don't mean self harm here]

    So what are we supposed to do when we have a cold and are in a different town like I was a few months back. Sign up to a new doctor? Go to local A&E?

    [DPF: I prefer to take the advice of scientific experts on this, rather than your assertion the rest are like placebos]

    I prefer to rely on my own experience with medication. The other products don’t work for me, no matter what Mr Gluckman might say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. somewhatthoughtful (464 comments) says:

    This is just going to thrill GP’s that they now have to have a whole slew of people with contagious and untreatable viruses passing through their offices, infecting their staff and other patients, merely to rubber-stamp the purchase of the most effective cold medicine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ernesto (257 comments) says:

    Do you get demerits for “cheerleader”?

    [DPF: No but you show yourself to be full of shit. I attached a decision from the Immigration Minister yesterday, and slammed the Government on Friday over tariffs. It does fuck me off when peopel suggest I automatically support stuff done by the Government because I in fact have probably criticised them more than any other blogger (except Whale) criticises their own party. If people do not accept I offer my honest opinion on issues, then frankly they can fuck off]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. CharlieBrown (1,002 comments) says:

    CraigM: “unfortunately I fear the cost to society from huge increases in P addicts makes the idea nonsensical.”

    Name an example where this is so? Name a country that legalised a drug that is illegal in NZ that has a higher rate of drug use and drug use and crimes with victims? The war on drugs is a waste of time, money and freedom. Why not put the effort into confronting real criminals who actually commit crimes that have a victim?

    If someone takes p then who is the victim? NO ONE. If someone assaults someone else then there is a victim.

    I’m being punished because a few mongrels break into chemists to steel precursor products so another bunch of mongrels is going to ban the use of it without prescriptions in a misguided attempt to reduce p use. I must now pay tripple for the same treatment or accept an inferior treatment.

    Thanks John Key, once again you astound me with your nanny state, intrusive policies. Wake up NZ, and the national party, time to rid ourselves of Helen the 2nd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    Um, it’s not the same people who say we need to get tough on crime and cut P use that now complain about attempts to do just that? A bit more sniffling won’t hurt, neither will a bit less snivelling. I’m happy to toughen up a bit and suffer through an occasional cold if it means making a decent effort at trying to sort out the P mess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ernesto (257 comments) says:

    [DPF: I prefer to take the advice of scientific experts on this, rather than your assertion the rest are like placebos]

    Again…. here is a link to the 2009 study in the Journal of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology.

    “CONCLUSIONS: During a 6-hour observation period, a single dose of pseudoephedrine but not phenylephrine resulted in significant improvement in measures of nasal congestion.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19230461

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Brian Smaller (4,012 comments) says:

    I’m happy to toughen up a bit and suffer through an occasional cold if it means making a decent effort at trying to sort out the P mess.

    Sure, but how does banning already strictly controlled sales of OTC cold remedies help when the chemicals for P are shipped in from China in containers? How much of the 1000kg of P made each year comes from OTC cold remedies? I am not sure Gluckman stated that. If he did I missed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (23,474 comments) says:

    How much of a crime problem is there with OTC cold remedies?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    How much of a crime problem is there with OTC cold remedies?

    I think it’s somewhere around Gotta Look Like We’re Doing Something per cent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. pete (416 comments) says:

    DPF: I prefer to take the advice of scientific experts on this, rather than your assertion the rest are like placebos

    Dr Gluckman is not a “scientific expert” on cold and flu medicine. The doctors who are scientific experts have done actual scientific studies and the science says phenylephrine is a placebo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. CharlieBrown (1,002 comments) says:

    Lets face it people, banning drugs doesn’t work, has never worked, and short of forcing people to take daily 100% accurate drug tests that cannot be cheated, will never work. Look how much resources are spent on stopping people using dope, yet we have such a huge percentage of nz using it regularly. P is no different.

    People may think that p causes people to commit other crimes, if that is the case, why not crack down on those other crimes severly.

    The cost of banning drugs surely must outweigh the costs of not banning them. I would venture to say that outlawing drugs creates more crime than legalising them. Especially when legalising it will add a new tax source.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    The cost of banning drugs surely must outweigh the costs of not banning them. I would venture to say that outlawing drugs creates more crime than legalising them. Especially when legalising it will add a new tax source.

    And stops subsidising organised crime.

    Organised crime would be the first to object to any legalisation of crystal meth. They stand to lose the most.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Grendel (996 comments) says:

    what a lot of bollocks. ACT had better vote against this or i am pretty much going to not bother voting at the next election.

    recnetly i had my first cold in a couple of years, so decided to get some codral. i wandered into the chemist, and was given something i thought was what i wanted. i was a bit surprised when they did not do the usual ID crap, but i thought that maybe nanny state had been scaled back.

    funnily enough the stuff i was given did not work as well, and did not work at all on my wife. why? becuase the bastard chemist gave me the crap with phenylephrine in it, rather than the pseudo.

    my cold cleared up and we went to get some actual pseudo based stuff for the wife, which worked straight away.

    why the hell should i have to pay to go to teh doctor to get this stuff? its bad enough being treated like a criminal buying the stuff now from the chemist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Will de Cleene (485 comments) says:

    The Bill of Rights has something to say about one’s rights on refusing treatment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    Charliebrown, as much as I agree with your sentiments re nanny state I can only assume you have never met anyone who is addicted to P. This is not an occassional recreational drug. Once tasted it destroys you.

    I don’t wish to live in a society that says “here, take this if you want to, it will destroy you, your family and friends every time, all the time, but hey, it’s your choice and it’s legal.”

    This is not booze, or Coke, or dope, that SOME people get “addicted ” to. This fucks up every person that takes it. I don’t need to be shot to know it would hurt. I don’t need P to be legal to know that it would have a seriously detrimental effect on our society.

    Something else will come along that helps fight a cold. We can’t give P an inch because it takes a mile EVERY time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. WraithX (283 comments) says:

    [DPF: I prefer to take the advice of scientific experts on this, rather than your assertion the rest are like placebos]

    So DPF, what about Ernesto’s comment at 1:41 that shows that the others ARE ineffective? You are simply overlooking the fact that this is as bad as what Labour used to do because of your support for national. Your integrity is dropping.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    “My experience in dealing with users of various drugs, such people are not medically sick, they are spiritually impoverished.”

    News flash, your god doesn’t exist. Noone is “spiritually impoverished”.

    My experience in dealing with users of various drugs, is that while they may not be medically sick, some are mentally. Its also worth nothing the difference between use and abuse.

    I know people (one of whom is a fairly well known professional involved at very high levels) who have used meth recreationally without becoming addicted. And have stopped for their own reasons.

    Personally I think its a horrible drug but I don’t believe that anyone deserves to be treated like a criminal for its use when they are harming no others. DPFs examples of “William Bell, Antonie Dixon, and others where innocent Kiwis get butchered in P fuelled rages.” are straw men arguments. These people don’t deserve to be in jail for their drug use, they deserve to be in there for what they did while on drugs. Unfortunately most conservatives can’t tell the difference between their “vice” crime of drug use, and the very real crime against people and property that they committed.

    (then again I’m all for removing “I was high” as a mitigating factor/defense in law as well)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. WraithX (283 comments) says:

    [DPF: 20 demerits for personal abuse. I am fairly liberal on issues around cannabis being decriminalised, but that stops with P. This is not about self harm. The first priority of a Govt is to protect its citizens from harm, and I don't mean self harm here]

    This is not about ‘P’ as you are falsely stating – you are using rhetoric and not facts. This is about the banning of the only decent cold medication over the counter. As Ernesto showed in his link to the US government study, the banning does not reduce the abuse of P it reduces the number of places making it. This will do nothing to help and everything to annoy lawful citizens. I voted National for my electorate vote at the last election – next one it will be two ticks to ACT, not just one.

    [DPF: Vote for whomever you want. Of course every issue will have people who like ti and do not like it. What people are ignoring is that the restriction on supply is just one of many measures. By itself no it won't solve the problem. But you are all seriously out of touch if you think the status quo is working or acceptable. And as we do not live in Fantasy Land, the Government is not going to start selling P through an SOE to undercut the gangs]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Why don’t they spend more on securing the borders instead of laying off staff. Most of the base chemical is imported from Asia so what’s the point of pissing around the edges in NZ?. But I’m like a lot of others and think by banning something it only plays into the hands of those make living by supplying the shit. I know of no country on earth that has successfully ban a drug, unless you shoot the pushers, it doesn’t work. I have no wish to see anyone hooked on P but would it not be cheaper for the country to legalise the crap. Surly it’s worth a try, nothing else has really worked.

    Oh and while I’m here, “and she has turned into a country bumpkin who walks around with no shoes and dirty hair”, sounds to me more like someone who lives in town under a bridge.

    [DPF: Did you not see the stuff about extra Customs officers and 26 interceptions over last two weeks]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    And in Portugal, drug legalisation has reduced addiction rates:

    http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/the-lure-of-legal-drugs/

    [DPF: And for most drugs I agree with that approach. I think few people understand how powerfully addictive P is. This is not like cannabis, or cocaine]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. djp (59 comments) says:

    [DPF: The first priority of a Govt is to protect its citizens from harm, and I don't mean self harm here]

    So protect them from *actual* 3rd party harm (not victimless crimes).

    If someone causes harm whilst inebriated should we ban alcohol (I dont even drink but I defend your right to)? Your argument is full of holes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Manolo (13,571 comments) says:

    More madness, regulations and controls from the new socialists, the spineless National Party government!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. James (1,338 comments) says:

    [DPF: 20 demerits for personal abuse. I am fairly liberal on issues around cannabis being decriminalised, but that stops with P. This is not about self harm. The first priority of a Govt is to protect its citizens from harm, and I don't mean self harm here]”

    Actually….its to protect peoples individual rights….not from “harm”. “Harm” is too subjective…..many actions may be harmful but not violate individual rights…eg Smoking,overeating,risky sex,setting up a K-mart in a small town etc etc.And “harm” can be twisted to justify banning and controling virtually any action by Government.

    No…..”harm” is not what the State is created to prevent…….its rights violations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. CharlieBrown (1,002 comments) says:

    I’ve met people who have been addicted to both P and alcohol, the damage caused by both addictions is horrible. But I’ve known more people that have tried p and were not addicted.

    A point I was trying to get at is banning drugs does not stop people using them, it is futile and from what I’ve seen and read, I don’t see any evidence that making drugs illegal benefits society in any way, it only creates more criminals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    “But I’ve known more people that have tried p and were not addicted.”

    I’ll bow to your superior numbers. I haven’t been so fortunate.

    To go back to my original comment, banning OTC medicine will have very little effect on the p trade, it’s the containers of legally exported material being sent here that we need to stop.

    I would rather the government tried something rather than just letting things escalate as they have in recent years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. ernesto (257 comments) says:

    Come on DPF, tell us you think phenylephrine is effective…. no….. didn’t think so. Pathetic cheerleading. Kiwiblog is becoming The Standard of the right.

    [DPF: As I said, the scientific report said that the alternatives available have proven satisfactory in other countries who have done this]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. annie (539 comments) says:

    What planet is Dr Gluckman on? (We know the MOH has been on another planet for some years, so I’ll leave them out of it).

    There’s enough evidence in the medical literature demonstrating that pseudephedrine is the only real effective remedy for cold symptoms, although there is also some evidence to the contrary. Anectodal evidence would support this – certainly I’ve tried everything on the market for colds, and pseudephedrine is the only remedy that works for me. I would have thought the benefit of the doubt for pseudephedrine would have been useful here, both for patient comfort and politically.

    And as for the nonsense about chemist-led purchasing surveillance not working in the USA and therefore it would be ineffective here – in a closed environment with a population the size of a medium city in the US – is a bit worrying in terms of quality of thinking. Chemist-led surveillance with presentation of photo ID such as a passport or driver’s licence at the point of sale, recording of the details, and central database monitoring, would be more than sufficient to control repeat buyers.

    Shame on Dr Gluckman, and on the government for being so uncritical of the advice they received.

    And good luck trying to get a same-day appointment with your GP in the middle of winter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    Ryan : And in Portugal, drug legalisation has reduced addiction rates:

    No mention of P in that article though Ryan, or in the other articles it links to.

    Accept it or not but P is different from most other hard drugs. It does get you and despite Charliebrown stating that he knows lots (seemingly) of people who have tried it and not become addicted, all the literature says otherwise.

    P is destroying this country, far more than any other illegal drug has done in our history. I want it stopped and I just don’t see legalising it as a means of achieving that.

    As a society we need some laws that protect ordinary citizens, or else there would be chaos. I’m happy that control of P falls under those laws because it is as dangerous as any weapon.

    It sux that an effective cold medicine has to fall prey to the fight, but we’ll survive it. I certainly won’t be spending my time or money going to a doctor should I ever get a cold, that is a ridiculous outcome of a necessary step, IMHO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. CharlieBrown (1,002 comments) says:

    It seems like that telling the ignorant governments that the war on drugs is useless is like telling the catholic church (all those centuries ago) that the earth is round and not the center of the universe.

    CraigM, I totally agree with the point you bring up. Using the flawed logic that banning drugs work, the banning of OTC medicine still will not change anything regarding p use as its use to make p is so small compared to imports of p.

    [DPF: Wrong, around a third of busts have found over the counter ingredients. It is quite a major source]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    I’m just worried that people are going to get involved with Kitten Huffing after this…

    http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kitten_Huffing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    No mention of P in that article though Ryan, or in the other articles it links to.

    Look for the word “methamphetamine” instead.

    Accept it or not but P is different from most other hard drugs. It does get you and despite Charliebrown stating that he knows lots (seemingly) of people who have tried it and not become addicted, all the literature says otherwise.

    P is destroying this country, far more than any other illegal drug has done in our history.

    Insignificant compared to the damage alcohol causes this country.

    I want it stopped and I just don’t see legalising it as a means of achieving that.

    Explain why you think inflating its price, and therefore the incentive to sell it, while pouring money into organised crime which privately profits from encouraging meth addiction, is a means of achieving that, while disagreeing that removing the profit incentive from the dynamic and having vastly increased resources to prevent and treat addiciton would not.

    As a society we need some laws that protect ordinary citizens, or else there would be chaos. I’m happy that control of P falls under those laws because it is as dangerous as any weapon.

    Again, do you defend alcohol being legal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. nickb (3,686 comments) says:

    Why don’t we ban alcohol?
    What percentage of violent crime is caused by pissed people than addicts?
    A lot more at the moment I’d say.

    Taking such a draconian approach on P prohibition is strange when you support current drinking laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    War on Drugs? Waste of time and more importantly, a waste of my money. If P is as addictive as they say, then even if all these measures cause the price to double, people will still sell their children, steal etc to buy it. They’ll just go from being employed P addicts to unemployed thieving P addicts in a shorter time.

    If they can’t keep drugs out of prison, how can they possibly remove these drugs from society? There has not been a single victory in the various wars on drugs. The US have spent billions trying to disrupt the cocaine business and the price has done nothing but fall for the entire 20+ years. It will be the same with P.

    Do nothing. In 10 years time, I’m sure people will say “remember the P epidemic, whatever happened with that?”. The people who use this stuff and can’t stop will probably be dead and everyone else will have learnt that it’s a nasty drug and have stopped or moved onto something else.

    Do nothing. Let it rip through society. Let it kill the people who it would kill anyway. Let it ruin the people it would ruin anyway. You can’t save people from themselves.

    And when a shop-keeper pulls a shotgun from under the counter and shoots some p-addled thug, give them a little medal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. pete (416 comments) says:

    DPF: As I said, the scientific report said that the alternatives available have proven satisfactory in other countries who have done this

    Poor evidence is not enough for something to be “proven satisfactory”:

    The quality of objective evidence comparing the relative effectiveness of pseudoephedrine-containing to pseudoephedrine-free nasal decongestants is poor. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the pseudoephedrine-containing products provide greater consumer convenience and possibly effectiveness. However, several jurisdictions, including the Netherlands, Mexico and the state of Oregon, have eliminated pseudoephedrine-containing decongestants from either their OTC products or their total pharmacopoeia, apparently without unacceptable patient inconvenience. Certainly for common viral-induced nasal decongestion, safe alternatives are available that do not contain precursors for methamphetamine.

    Note that the alternatives are “safe”, rather than “safe and effective”.

    DPF: Wrong, around a third of busts have found over the counter ingredients. It is quite a major source

    Wrong. The least competent manufacturers use OTC, and the least competent manufacturers get caught. That’s why restricting OTC reduces the number of busts but doesn’t reduce usage or harm.

    It does fuck me off when peopel suggest I automatically support stuff done by the Government because I in fact have probably criticised them more than any other blogger (except Whale) criticises their own party.

    If being called a cheerleader fucks you off then stop being a cheerleader. Sure, amongst your billions of posts you might have one or two criticising National over some minor matter. Percentage-wise, you’re more partisan than The Standard.

    [DPF: Wrong. I will blog on this in a few days, but you may be surprised at what the percentage is]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. muppet (39 comments) says:

    “The first priority of a Govt is to protect its citizens from harm, and I don’t mean self harm here.”

    Ha ha ha…bit like mobile phones and driving?

    [DPF: Well there I have consistently attacked the Government's plans.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    ” DPF: Wrong, around a third of busts have found over the counter ingredients. It is quite a major source”

    No, just a major source of the small time idiots and amatuers getting caught.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Thank goodness Labour has gone or we’d be getting stupid Nanny state shit like this!

    Hang on ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    Ryan: if we were to give everyone a gun, would violent crime on the whole, increase or decrease?

    Re Alcohol: Do you favour having no liquor laws at all?
    It is banned to a large percentage of the population. It is banned in large areas of our major cities. Those who are allowed it are trusted to treat it with respect.

    95% (give or take) of people do.

    With P ,100% of people don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    Percentage-wise, you’re more partisan than The Standard.

    As much as DPF doesn’t need back-up, that comment has to be one of the most ignorant posted here in a while. Either you have never read the standard, or you have one-eye glued shut.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. roball (7 comments) says:

    I’m pissed off that I voted Blue thinking I was voting against Nanny State Bullshit. Labour-Lite indeed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Ryan: if we were to give everyone a gun, would violent crime on the whole, increase or decrease?

    P is not analogous to a gun, nor am I suggesting you give everyone P. I am pointing out how prohibition inflates the prices, giving rise to violent crime and incentives for organised crime to encourage addiction, and suggesting an alternative that does the opposite of all of those things.

    Re Alcohol: Do you favour having no liquor laws at all?
    It is banned to a large percentage of the population. It is banned in large areas of our major cities.

    I would suggest an age restriction on the SOE’s sales of meth, yes.

    Those who are allowed it are trusted to treat it with respect.

    95% (give or take) of people do.

    With P ,100% of people don’t.

    How do you figure that?

    Not that it particularly matters. You want prohibition, which encourages meth use in New Zealand, and I want my suggestion, which has the potential to end meth use in New Zealand. It’s a question of means.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. pete (416 comments) says:

    DPF: Wrong. I will blog on this in a few days, but you may be surprised at what the percentage is

    I’ve seen you try to do statistics before. I’ll be surprised if the post isn’t deliberately misleading.

    [DPF: And that reveals more about you than anything else. Of course I don't have a PhD is statistics, but counting up posts and doing a simple fraction doesn't require ten years or so fo study]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. CraigM (694 comments) says:

    Ryan, I do see what you are saying. I just can’t get there.

    Has allowing people to have alcohol ended alchol abuse or crime caused by alcohol fuelled individuals?
    It relies on people using it responsibly. I just don’t see P in the same category.

    Thanks for the discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Plus, Craig, people don’t commit crimes because they’ve got a gun. They commit crimes with a gun if they’ve got reason to do so. Addiction to something with vastly inflated prices and an unaccountable, unregulated supplier gives people reasons to commit crimes, whether or not they’ve got access to guns. The stuff’s not that expensive to make (and making it would provide jobs) – what keeps it expensive enough to cause violent crime is prohibition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    Ryan, I do see what you are saying. I just can’t get there.

    Has allowing people to have alcohol ended alchol abuse or crime caused by alcohol fuelled individuals?
    It relies on people using it responsibly. I just don’t see P in the same category.

    Well, they’re not entirely comparable. I was only comparing them in the raw sense of causing harm to our society. The way they cause harm is different. Most harm caused by P addicts in our country is by P addicts committing crimes – violent or otherwise – to get money to pay the prices inflated by prohibition. It’s certainly not good for you, but it doesn’t turn most people into psychos – being addicted to something expensive turns them desperate.

    Alcohol causes harm in other ways. It’s not as addictive as P, so prohibition of alcohol would be unlikely to cause crime in the same way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Ryan Sproull (7,101 comments) says:

    And I know what you mean by not being able to get there. I just almost always hear “that would never work” rather than reasons for it not working. Most people in our society dismiss the idea out of hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    this is just a big bag of crap…

    1)..it will not effect the market a jot…

    except maybe a price increase…(and more profits for the pushers..)

    (and of course..the law of involuntary consequences kicks in here..

    all those pensioner-shoppers..have had their ‘earn’ ripped away from them…)

    of course the doctors/pharmacists are rubbing their money-hands together..

    (they woulld have lobbied heavily fr this..squeeze the maximum earn out of every packet of codral..(it’s really profitable’..this drug-industry..eh..?..)

    hang on..!..haven’t we already got an overloaded health system..?..einstein..?

    just overload it a bit more..eh..?..

    that shows some ‘solid’ thinking..eh..?

    “..Reviewing the outdated Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966, to provide a more effective legal means to get P-addicts into compulsory assessment and treatment..”

    and..hey..!..hey..!..just lock-em-up..!..eh..?

    that’ll work..!..(it’s worked so well up untill now..eh..?)

    (y’know..speaking as someone who has given up most things..

    ..i would support the evidence that an addict chooses when to stop..

    all other prohibitions matter not a jot to them…

    ..why would this one..?

    not to mention yet more tearing away of personal freedoms..and increasing the power of the state over individuals lives..

    way to go..!..national..!

    but i’ll leave that for you natty-ideologues to angst over/bury..eh..?

    and try to stick to the topic..

    and about the only dpf says that makes any sense at all..is..

    “..The status quo has obviously failed..”

    so..why the fuck are you advocating just more of the same failed policies..?

    why don’t you put some time/effort into researching the wave of countries that are now treating addictions as a health issue..not a crime/justice issue..?

    and evaluate their successes for yourself..?

    instead of just regurgitating this reactionary crap..?

    and then you finish it off with that story(?) from one of the sunday rags…

    that i looked at and went..ew..!

    why the fuck would they print this..?

    have they no shame..?

    the detailing ..with an undue amount of vicarious glee..

    ..of the ‘fall’ of someone..into drug-illness..

    where the fuck is the ‘story’ there..?

    how is that not just a gross exampple of voyuerism/non-journalism..?

    which brings me to the question..

    care to detail why/how you thought it was ‘fit to print’..?

    as i said..

    ‘a big bag of crap..’

    on every level..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. nickb (3,686 comments) says:

    And a thumbs up for you philu, never thought that would happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. CharlieBrown (1,002 comments) says:

    CraigM – “With P ,100% of people don’t. ”

    Where is the proof? P is a class A drug that can carry lengthy prison sentences if caught in possesion. This makes it impossible to determine with accuracy any statistics about the drugs use, its effects on the wider user group. And, I doubt that much research being done out there goes in with neutral hypothesis.

    I can tell you that there are “occasional” users out there that use the drug and don’t get addicted, do treat it with respect, and do not commit real crimes. I would guess that the majority of users are not addicts, and don’t commit crimes to get it.

    I firmly believe that if P was legal and monitored the number of p related crimes would reduce. Making drugs illegal only makes more people criminals.

    Unfortunately, the idea of making drugs legal seems as popular as paedophiles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. pete (416 comments) says:

    DPF: And that reveals more about you than anything else. Of course I don’t have a PhD is statistics, but counting up posts and doing a simple fraction doesn’t require ten years or so fo study

    All it reveals is that I’m observant. Counting’s the easy part, categorising them is the hard part. And you’re too desperate to prove that you’re not a party-line hack to do that objectively.

    Now what does it say about you that you’re more interested in preserving some illusion of objectivity than defending the blatantly wrong conclusions you’ve drawn from the study?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    I suppose I should be happy – seems the country’s being run by idiots!

    Cough medicine now ffs!

    Tops of a beaut week though, from us idiots’ point of view!
    Key, busted in a speeding motorcade.
    Then there’s the happy 100th Wedding Anniversary card that he didn’t/did sign (never crossed his desk, we’re told!), that went to a dear old woman who was celebrating her 100th birthday Ffs !! Fake Prime Minister’s signatures – whoo hoo!

    Idiots galore!

    We’ve got Rodney Hide, telling us we have to be licensed to own a dog (That’s new! Never had to do that before!)
    And Stephen Joyce, banning the use of cell phones in cars ( that’s new too! Someone likes telling us what we can and can’t do!!)
    We all knew that the fashion ban in Whanganui was idiotic, but who knew the idiocy would spread so quickly through the Government and into our lives?

    And who do we thank for this? Why, the gentle folk of Noo Zeeland, who voted for Nanny McKey, that’s who.
    Thank you Blue!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. XChequer (298 comments) says:

    @ VI “Nanny McKee – too funny! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. XChequer (298 comments) says:

    And bugger me! Now I have found a post of Phil’s that is interesting, cogent and reasonable!

    Is the world ending?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. pete (416 comments) says:

    CraigM: As much as DPF doesn’t need back-up, that comment has to be one of the most ignorant posted here in a while.

    Given that the likes of Redbaiter and philu have probably commented here recently, I suggest that is something of an exaggeration.

    Either you have never read the standard, or you have one-eye glued shut.

    The Standard offer constructive criticism of Labour today, and criticism of Phil Twyford on Monday. That’s about the same amount as DPF’s offered, from considerably fewer posts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Eisenhower (137 comments) says:

    I agree that ephedrine-based formulas are the most effective at clearing the sinus and stopping the runny beak, but continuing to allow over-the-counter sales (just show us ID, if that) only allows meth-induced psychotic behaviour to flourish.

    Sourcing imported Contac NT requires an international conspiracy, the likes of which the average P-cook is way too mentally challenged to contemplate.

    And when this catches on we could have a literal explosion in do-it-yourself –

    This is the new formula for methamphetamine- a two-litre soft-drink bottle, a few handfuls of cold pills and some noxious chemicals.

    Shake the bottle and the volatile reaction produces one of the world’s most addictive drugs.

    Only a few years ago, making meth required an elaborate lab – with filthy containers simmering over open flames, cans of flammable liquids and hundreds of pills.

    The process gave off foul odours, sometimes sparked explosions and was so hard to conceal that dealers often “cooked” their drugs in rural areas.

    But now drug users are making their own meth in small batches using a faster, cheaper and much simpler method with ingredients that can be carried in a knapsack and mixed on the run…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. burt (8,232 comments) says:

    pete

    Either you have never read the standard, or you have one-eye glued shut.

    Having one eye glued shut is a minimum requirement to take the standard seriously. Having both eyes glued shut while chanting Labour Good, National Bad – Labour Good, National Bad – Labour Good, National Bad is the norm at the standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. WraithX (283 comments) says:

    [DPF: Vote for whomever you want. Of course every issue will have people who like ti and do not like it. What people are ignoring is that the restriction on supply is just one of many measures. By itself no it won't solve the problem. But you are all seriously out of touch if you think the status quo is working or acceptable. And as we do not live in Fantasy Land, the Government is not going to start selling P through an SOE to undercut the gangs]

    Let me break this down for you:

    I will ignore your first two sentences which are meaningless.

    “What people are ignoring is that the restriction on supply is just one of many measures.”

    The restriction on supply is flawed. The fact that other measures co-exist with it does not render it good. Other measures makes no difference to this particular matter which I specifically am talking about.

    “By itself no it won’t solve the problem. But you are all seriously out of touch if you think the status quo is working or acceptable.”

    The failing of the status quo does not make the change I am discussing acceptable. You are being intellectually dishonest here in both of the previous sentences. There is no evidence at all that when NOT by itself (ie, when combined with other measures) it will make one iota of difference. You are trying to cloud the issue.

    “And as we do not live in Fantasy Land, the Government is not going to start selling P through an SOE to undercut the gangs]”

    I didn’t make that initial comment – I agree with you.

    In summary: the studies show that this aspect of the changes proposed will make zero difference to the number of abusers of meth in this country. It restricts people’s rights with no gain, it is, therefore, a bad law. Just as all of Labour’s silly knee-jerk laws were.

    You know as well as everyone else here so I am surprised at how vehemently you are defending the indefensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. WraithX (283 comments) says:

    [DPF: Wrong, around a third of busts have found over the counter ingredients. It is quite a major source]

    Your second statement does not follow from your first. The first sentence includes all P houses that had a single packet of pseudoephedrine in the house. That does not make it a major source. Can you quote some statistics that show that a “major source” (which would surely need to be at least 20%) of ALL meth consumed in this country is produced from cold tablets?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    John Key kicks off his ‘war on gangs’ by smacking ordinary New Zealanders, no, not just ordinary, but those who are ill!

    ‘War on Gangs’, Key? You’ve already lost!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Brian Smaller (4,012 comments) says:

    I don’t often agree with greenfly but he is right this time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Steve (4,546 comments) says:

    Geeze there are a lot of ‘Experts” commenting here. 84 comments since 1.16pm
    Where did they learn about all of these drugs? I mean even Phool is not here, so yo’all must know more than him …
    Lay off the piss and smokes, eat some good food and do some exercise, then you won’t need your “cold medicine”
    “X” is the unknown quantity. “spurt” is a drip under pressure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. LC (162 comments) says:

    Made impressive TV news, now I await the ban on nicotine and alcohol just so that Key can’t be accused of hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    Pathetic John Key, cough, COUGH!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..I mean even Phool is not here..”

    steve..once again displays/demonstrates his basic cognisance ‘issues’..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    can i just ask a basic human-rights question here..?

    why can’t pensioners feeling tired/weary from the passage of years..

    why can’t they pop into their local pharmacy…and just get themselves some..cocaine..?

    to take away their weariness..and even..(heaven forbid..!)..put a skip in their step..

    eh..?

    and equally..why can’t pensioners…feeling the twinges/aches/pains of old age..

    why can’t they pop into their pharmacy..and get some heroin/morphine/opium/w.h.y..?

    to ease those pains..make their lives easier..

    we used to be able to ..y’know..

    that was before the wowsers took over..

    i see this whole issue as one of human rights..

    how the fuck does the government/state have the ‘right’..

    to deny such relief..

    to people who have already given most of their lives..

    ..to that state..?

    where are their fucken human rights..?

    and ..who is the victim there..?

    the victim is those elderly who are denied these proven cures for what may ail them..

    ..and denied access to tools to vastly improve their quality of life..

    should they choose..

    (also..what jms said at 6.20 is ‘on the money’..

    namely..the only reason we have such a ‘p’/speed-problem..

    is ‘cos there is no cocaine here..

    and we do have a pattern of getting around these stupid laws/prohibitions..

    by developing new/worse drugs..

    than those being banned..

    does anyone remember ‘homebake’..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    Homebake cookies not smack. Silly phool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    and don’t get me started on that vile soul/mind-destroying fucken muck..methadone..

    really..!

    isn’t it astounding how we have got absolutely everything ‘wrong’..

    on these issues..?

    if you wrote a textbook..of failure..

    you couldn’t get it more right..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    Speaking of chemist shops phool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Paul Holmes is backing John Key and the cough medicine ban.

    Now you know it’s a fuck-up!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. nickb (3,686 comments) says:

    Clearly I woke up today in a parallel universe.
    The Nats and right wing blogs coming out with yet another “lets look like strong leaders” nanny state ban.

    Meanwhile Labour, philu, village idiot and the Standard rail against the nanny state intrusion in our lives.

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/nanny-state/

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2944560/Public-face-big-costs-for-cold-medicine-says-Labour

    Sigh…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. CharlieBrown (1,002 comments) says:

    village idiot

    Yeah but you could hardly argue paul holmes comes from a neutral position with anything regarding p considering his daughter screwed herself up with her CHOICE to use p.

    John key never ceases to astound me. I really am starting to think he is going to be a smiling muldoon. I am starting to prefer a labour led government, at least you know with them what point of view they are coming from, whereas John key, he just waits for an issue to get loud enough and then goes with whichever way people yell the loudest.

    Like someone said above, if ACT vote for this law they will lose my vote (and the bill and ben party get one more supporter).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    Paul Holmes said only 20% of kiwis get a cold. Cough spit cough what planet is the crackpot on? Fucking spring yeah right ! I think he should buy a P pipe and give John Boy a go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    CharlieBrown – you are right in all that you say here. Bill and Ben look wise and thoughtful beside the butterfly-brained Key.
    His dictatorial world-views are being seen more and more often now, despite the careful managing by his groomers.

    If Act do vote against it, it’ll only be because the Maori Party have been ‘arranged’ to ensure it passed regardless.
    Were you happy with the ‘freedom of choice’ party voting for the ban on costumes in Whanganui? Pshhh!

    Feel as though you’re being ‘played’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. nickb (3,686 comments) says:

    Agreed with you CB completely.

    Re your last paragraph, with David “Lynch ‘Em” Garrett in their midst I would not be too optimistic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. noodle (151 comments) says:

    Bottom line. This plan has been so compromised by competing factions, that it will never work. It is another complete waste of taxpayers’ money. In a year’s time, when the stupidy of this “plan” has become evident, we will be bitching again about the P problem in NZ. I have a deal of respect for Prof. Gluckman. I hope he has not become a Government lackey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Murray M (455 comments) says:

    I am absolutely over the moon that pseudo is going to become prescription only. I will no longer have to deal with the aggressive, smelly, drug crazed pricks that won’t take no for an answer. The GP’s can now put up with this crap, afterall they get paid a shit load more than pharmacists. Never had a decongestant in my life, i use a box of tissues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    hah..!..murray m….

    your unremitting streams of ignorance on the thread now come more into focus..

    you are in the legal-arm of the drug-pushing industry..

    plus you get the extra-earn from filling the prescription..eh..?’

    that really hefty label-typing fee you charge..eh..?

    (don’t you think you should have qualified your earlier comments ..with this self-interest disclaimer..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Murray M (455 comments) says:

    plus you get the extra-earn from filling the prescription..eh..?’

    that really hefty label-typing fee you charge..eh..?

    TOO BLOODY RIGHT I WILL phil

    One thing we do agree on, your attitude to methadone. I have never seen a more blatant waste of taxpayers money than the so called methadone maintenance program.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Murray M (455 comments) says:

    Phil i have only made one other comment on this thread and it had nothing to do with my occupation or money, it is a personal opinion evolved over 22 years of dealing with so called “drug addicts”.
    You better cut down or switch to Riwaka green, i think the buddha is a bit strong for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    my bad on the id..

    craig m is the unremitting streamer of ignorance..

    (are you related..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Vanzyl (7 comments) says:

    The first point ( and maybe some-one has said this already – not read the majority of posts) is that the whole pseudoephedrine clampdown is a joke. Precursors are brought in by the container for the real cooks. Pseudoephedrine that is bought in cold medication is no longer viable economically to cooks.

    my wife and myself befriended a cook who has now left the business (and no christians not because of religion) according to him the biggest problem in NZ is the fact that so many cops are involved with the trade. Now Alan(ex cook) is sitting here as I am typing this. Maybe he is lying. But This is as close to the source as I can get without being a cook or dealer myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Murray M (455 comments) says:

    i doubt we are related, are you going to take my advice. and by the way has your daughter who owns her own business given you a job yet, if not, why not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    hard to see that you aren’t related..

    pig-ignorance is writ large in both of you..

    and..you really are a nasty little piece of shit aren’t you..?

    and fucken arrogant..

    for a fucken suburban/small-town pill-pusher/re-packager..

    you’re a stall-owner…

    nothing more..nothing less..

    the low end of retail..

    what the fuck have you got to be arrogant about..?

    that white coat hasn’t gone to your head..has it..?

    is it from standing on that higher platform..?

    looking down at everyone all day..

    and what is it with thhat platform..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Anthony (794 comments) says:

    While I agree prohibition doesn’t work, I’m sure there are less harmful drugs than P that can be legalised to help stem demand, e.g. BZP and I hear ritalin is quite similar to P.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Razork (375 comments) says:

    MikeE (423) Vote: 16 4 Says:

    October 8th, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    “Large scale P cooks don’t use bloody codrol to make P, they get it imported in from asia by the barrel load in precursor chemicals. All this will do is make it harder to get cold relief, and do nothing to reduce P Harm.”

    Totally correct; less PC nonsense and do some profiling and catch the people importing this stuff.
    We know where 90% of it comes from so upset a few people for the greater good rather than inconconvience the greater majority to upset a few.
    It ain’t that hard if you’re brave enough!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Razork (375 comments) says:

    [DPF: I prefer to take the advice of scientific experts on this, rather than your assertion the rest are like placebos]

    So david; you believe in humans being responsible for global warming then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. noskire (839 comments) says:

    Next on the agenda: a hazardous goods licence will be required to purchase lighters and packets of matches (just to keep the anti-smoking lobby happy).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    So how hard is it going to be to increase the amount of imported pseudoephedrine by 20% (or whatever) to make up the shortfall?

    Answer: They’re already working on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. libertyscott (359 comments) says:

    Well, I wont say “told you so” about Labour-lite, but hey I just did. This is NOT surprising at all

    It is interesting that most comments on here are damning of the proposal, for the right reasons.
    – Peaceful citizens are being denied easy access to medication that meets their needs and does them no harm. It would be simple for pharmacies to choose to hold such medication behind the counter and deny it from the occasional manic freak wanting to buy it – if it weren’t for the Human Rights Act meaning almost anyone can claim discrimination if a retailer refuses to serve them;
    – All these moves make P more profitable, increase the criminalisation of it and increase the desperation of users to seek it out.
    – Arguments that the state is to protect citizens from harm are dead wrong, it is to protect citizens’ individual rights from the initiation of force and fraud. In other words, protect me from assault, theft, fraud etc – not protect me from buying a product I want to consume. Increased Police attention towards real crime would be respected and acknowledged.
    – David, your arguments on other drugs are positive, but you know as well as I do that the Nats are hardly likely to move an inch on the legal status of other drugs. To be fair, ACT shows little sign either, but I am sure there is at least a vigorous debate.

    Finally, dare i say Phil U has the more fundamental point here. Of human rights. If a person peacefully ingests something that gives them pleasure in their own home, then it is none of anyone else’s business. If same person does violence to others or vandalism or theft to get money to acquire the product (less likely if legal and cheaper), or neglects his or her children, then the state appropriately steps in to protect those whose rights are infringed upon.

    Sadly, no one at ALL has raised the issue as to why people take P. What motivates people to escape so profoundly from reality? It is the same as alcoholism, and other addictions. THAT is not an issue for the state per se, but about culture and values. The simple truth is that with the demise of Christianity as the dominant source for values, there is a spectrum of secular sources – including a nihilistic view of life and living.

    It is that nihilism that deserves to be attacked more than anything, and the state can’t do it. However, blaming people who supply you with a substance to deny reality rather than taking responsibility for your own life, and the difficult decisions and challenges one can face during it, is not the solution.

    Criminalising P production, sale and usage blames the substance and the suppliers for a problem that is fundamentally in the heads of those using it and then committing offences. Has ANYONE surveyed users as to why they started taking P and committed crimes while they did?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Jack5 (5,051 comments) says:

    Those who feel the restriction on P ingredients attacks their civil liberties might be better to direct their anger against the loathsome gangs that traffic in P rather than against John Key.

    The fury of the libertarians against Key and the Government on this issue displayed by some posters in this thread resembles blaming Governments for airport security since the 9/11 airliner terrorism.

    We can’t just round up NZ’s criminal gangs and their triad contacts and execute them – we must curb their P trade in an acceptable way. Attacking the raw ingredients IMHO resembles keeping a watch on monitoring bulk purchases of fertiliser since the Oklahoma bombing. That’s better than outlawing utes, or putting armed guards at chemist shops.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. BLiP (24 comments) says:

    Thanks National Ltd – your solution to the P problem has just created tens of thousands of new victims – everyone who uses the pseudoephedrine responsibly now has to pay extra. Still, you got those lovely, yummy headlines, eh?

    Nanny McKey, I’m lovin’ it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Jack5 (5,051 comments) says:

    Hell I’ve just re-read this thread. Just about everyone of the country’s 27 extreme libertarians has lodged a post against Key’s anti-P move.

    Thanks John Key for rattling their cages. It was worth it just to watch their reaction.

    Annie posted at 3.43:”…There’s enough evidence in the medical literature demonstrating that pseudephedrine is the only real effective remedy for cold symptoms, although there is also some evidence to the contrary….”

    That’s what they used to say about heroin 50 years ago or more ago, Annie, after it was banned from cough mixtures… “the only really effective anti-cough mixture is one containing heroin…” etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. libertyscott (359 comments) says:

    Such a cheap thrill Jack, good job you have that instead of P as your fix.

    I’m sure you’ll give great confidence that:
    – The measures the government takes will dramatically reduce P usage and cut criminality related to P usage, like the war on drugs has been a roaring success elsewhere;
    – It is moral to prohibit peaceful adults from deciding what to put in their own bodies. Glad to see you like being told what to do (how would you cope otherwise?);
    – The reasons people nihilistically want to escape reality through P are being attacked head on by this government.

    Of course the gangs are loathsome, nothing like making it more profitable for the ones that don’t get caught and more lucrative to enter the market. Just need to attract some no-hopers, pay them enough to protect, make sure they are the ones at risk of being caught, use intimidation tactics, and start selling to the willing buyers.

    Meanwhile, peaceful people face more inconvenience and still can’t get quick responses from the Police if burgled or their car is stolen.

    People still commit more crimes while drunk, but that’s ok, we all like a tipple, it’s so white middle class and acceptable, can’t ban that, people need to be responsible for their actions…. hold on…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. libertyscott (359 comments) says:

    Oh and it’s not a radical position when it is the position of The Economist

    http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13237193

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    oh..!..guess what..?..jack 5..?

    “..Annie posted at 3.43:”…There’s enough evidence in the medical literature demonstrating that pseudephedrine is the only real effective remedy for cold symptoms, although there is also some evidence to the contrary….”

    That’s what they used to say about heroin 50 years ago or more ago, Annie, after it was banned from cough mixtures… “the only really effective anti-cough mixture is one containing heroin…” etc..”

    heroin is one of the most effective pain killers..ever..

    and is far more effective than it’s’ low-rent cousin morphine..

    (which is why it should be prescribed as pain relief for terminal patients..(at the very least..)..)

    so..yes..(just working on scientific facts)..cough medicine with heroin..would be the most effective..

    so..in fifty years..we’ve gone from ‘the most effective’.

    to what smaller noted..(with some wit)..

    products so piss-weak/useless..

    that the twenty dollars used to purrchase them..

    would be better utilised ‘being crumpled’..and stuffed up the nostril….

    y’know..!..we need a nanny-sate to stop the scumbags like dairy farmers fucking/poisoning/polluting our country/citizens..

    but in our private-lives/choice of victimless-crime..and more..!

    they should just fuck right off..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    There are very few things as futile and destructive as the “war” on drugs. The people promoting it partake of the drug of power, but have little thought to the benefit to the country, or lack thereof, of their strategies to obtain more.

    The first post in the queue here CORRECTLY said, “legalize”. That’s the right answer. Legalize so that there is NO MONEY TO BE MADE through it. Legalize so that you can watch the users carefully, and make them appear to be the no-hope-losers that they actually are. Legalize and educate and treat. YES there will still be people who manage to take the drug and go off the deep end with no water in the pool. WE ALREADY HAVE THAT. What you get from legalization is the ability to make it useless for the useless to sell the drug to someone else. Useless for the gangs to set up labs in rental units. Useless for the people who take it.

    Provided the policy were generally applied MOST people would choose something other than crystal meth for their recreational drug-of-choice. If actually telling the truth about the effects of each drug were policy, and we know THAT went out the window along with the introduction of the “war” meme, the educational process and the word on the street would quickly make the use of the damned stuff a microscopic fraction of what it currently is.

    One could work out the financial advantages that will accrue to the gangs as a result of this, but it would be quite depressing to learn that the drug trade is one of our largest industries. If it is a war, we’re losing.

    Russel Norman called ‘em “Coke” and “Pepsi”. He had a point.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.