Not gagged

May 10th, 2013 at 7:37 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Animal welfare advocates outraged at the possibility of party pills and synthetic cannabis being tested on rats and dogs have been “gagged” by politicians, a Labour MP says.

Hundreds of submissions objecting to animals being given lethal doses of legal highs before they are tested on humans have been pushed to one side by the health select committee.

Submitters were also prevented from appearing before the committee in Wellington this week, while others – including health professionals, legal high retailers and users – were allowed to speak.

Chairman Paul Hutchison said the issue was “outside the scope” of the Psychoactive Substances Bill, which would put the onus on manufacturers to prove their mind-altering products were safe before they hit the shops.

Labour Party associate health spokesman Iain Lees-Galloway said that technically this was correct but, “at the very least, the select committee should be able to hear submitters and offer a considered opinion on the issue”.

What an absolute beat-up.

You can’t hear submissions on an issue that is out of scope on a bill. That is not gagging.

This would be like me complaining that I can’t turn up to a hearing on an electoral reform bill and talk about national standards.

If they wish to be heard on the issue of drug testing on animals, then they should do a petition to Parliament, and seek to speak to it, when it is considered by a select committee.

Tags:

13 Responses to “Not gagged”

  1. Mobile Michael (451 comments) says:

    The Greens encouraged activists to submit against the animal testing on their website, facebook, and twitter. Shame they don’t know about Parliamentary process.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    Reminds me of the Gay Arrangement Bill. :cool:

    Where the topic: Gays changing so they could then get Married – was also ‘outside the scope’.

    That definately was a case of people being gagged!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. greenjacket (465 comments) says:

    The advice that the submissions were outside the scope of the Bill would have come from the Office of the Clerk – not from the National Party. Lees-Galloway has made himself look like a fool in the eyes of anyone with a knowledge of parliamentary procedure.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. kowtow (8,475 comments) says:

    Hope the SPCA won’t be lobbying any politicians,they could lose their charity status……..nah, they’re not a target so should be safe.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Ross_Bell (12 comments) says:

    I think this is a close call. While the testing regime (which may or may not include animal testing) isn’t specifically outlined in the bill, the regulation making powers determining what tests might be used are. For example the bill creates an expert advisory committee that will assess party pill applications, and this committee might well decide it needs products to be tested on animals before moving to human trials.

    I think it’s perfectly reasonable therefore to allow submitters to raise concerns about this – and it would be no skin off the Committee’s nose to hear those submitters.

    Flip side of this: agree with Minister Dunne that this bill needs to get passed by August; but hopefully those with concerns about animal testing will be allowed the opportunity to have input when regulations are developed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. CHFR (229 comments) says:

    Greenjacket they know most people don’t know Parliamentary process so they are just playing the sound bite and hoping the electorate are as stupid as they thunk they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. backster (2,172 comments) says:

    I’m with the activists I think it outrageous that animals should be experimented on in this manner. Let the druggies do the experimenting and make the traders responsible for any unsafe goods the sell without torturing animals.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. David Garrett (7,278 comments) says:

    …I am with backster..I’m sure there would be any number of Green Party members lining up to test these products’ safety…they might not be so keen when the LD50 test is explained to them, but then they would die happy in the knowledge that they had contributed to science, and their bodies would become part of Gaia once again…

    Just been out to check on the how the hormone spray has done on the blackberry…Brushoff…incredible stuff…$55 at all good agri stores…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @backster. So. Give the druggies whatever they want until it kills them, evolution in action. Can we do that in a decent society? And the cost?

    We can’t have the state approving a substance for human use without animal testing. It’s immoral and expensive.

    Why do people need mind-altering substances and how can that need be best met in the safest way possible for them and society? Those are the questions. Prohibition doesn’t work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RJL (146 comments) says:

    It is a ridiculous decision. The Bill concerned mandates that proof of safety of these substances is presented. Submissions concerning specific methodologies for proving safety (i.e. animal model tests) are entirely within scope.

    Dunne is right that the technical details of allowable tests should be in the regulations rather than legislation. But the regulations are developed under their enabling legislation. It is entirely appropriate for submissions on legislation to discuss the potential regulatory impact of the legislation.

    Also, the validity of the animal model is more a moral rather than technical question. Therefore it is something that is appropriately addressed by legilslation rather than technical regulations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. David Garrett (7,278 comments) says:

    Actually, I am almost serious…How is it morally offensive if you recruit a bunch of druggies who are over 18, and are fully warned of the possible consequences, to test on them? The LD50 test wouldnt get any volunteers I guess, but I’m sure there is no shortage of clowns willing to experiment with 5 or 10 times what is the recommended dose…how do the makers of this crap come up with a “recommended dose” for a human anyway? Presumably what will send a rat into rodent rapture wont have the same effect on humans…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    In a sane,logical, just world, synthetic recreational drugs would be tested on drug dealers serving time in prison.

    We need the Singapore approach to the recreational drugs being sold by dairies and turning so many of our young folk into layabouts.

    Whose to blame for the long delay in getting testing requirements made mandatory? Peter Dunne-Buggerall or Parliament as a whole?

    The cost of testing will be high, and I doubt that tests on rats or sheep or even monkeys would be economic for these chemical drug lords.

    Also that would set the animal rights mob on to them. They are a fairly nutty mob, that I wouldn’t like to cross.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RJL (146 comments) says:

    How is it morally offensive if you recruit a bunch of druggies who are over 18, and are fully warned of the possible consequences, to test on them?

    Even if you know the consequences and are able to adequately explain those to the patients, just because somebody consents to something that doesn’t necessarily make doing that consented thing to them moral. Especially if the consent was obtained under duress, ignorance, or inducement.

    Presumably what will send a rat into rodent rapture wont have the same effect on humans…

    Really! So, you in fact agree with those nutty PETA activists!

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