Hard News: More party pill palaver
44 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
growing pot indoors aeh....
a guy i know tried that back in his university days. apparently the ceiling access thingo was in his room, so he clambered up and built a little reflectory in there from tinfoil and incandesent bulbs.
he'd done some reading about lighting hours, and how long plants needed to be exposed to light to ensure they flowered, etc.
so, he's walking home from uni one day just on dusk and realises, to his horror, that the lighting arrangement is lighting up his entire roof. a ring of golden light shining out from under the eves, like a huge 'x-marks-the-spot'.
pesky southern winters.
-
... and the only other death worldwide associated with BZP ingestion also involved MDMA.
The maths is pretty simple.
One(ish) death. 5 million+ pills sold in NZ.
4+ deaths. From how many hits of butane/lpg?So which is the bigger problem?
And which is easier to ban? -
Meanwhile, the ODT gets onto a hot story, Cannabis growers head indoors, only about 20 years late.
The fact that our paper is a couple of decades behind the times, shouldn't be taken as a reflection of the rest of the region. We even have the inter-web-thingy down here. And the ODT has just run out of cats up trees stories, the vague mention of drugs here is guaranteed to be front page.
Anyway what's worse, our crappy paper running it, or the "Best paper in NZ" *splutter* syndicating it out north of the Bombay?
-
The maths is pretty simple.
One(ish) death. 5 million+ pills sold in NZ.
4+ deaths. From how many hits of butane/lpg?So which is the bigger problem?
And which is easier to ban?While not disagreeing with your main point, I'm not sure that LPG is actually easier to ban.
I see a future with underground BBQs, people sneaking gas bottles around down their pants, just to cook a few sausages. Camp cookers will be disconnected between meals and the bottle hidden in the creek down the back. Taxi drivers will never stand for it. ;-)
-
Reminds me of the Mike in the Young Ones advice to not sniff superglue. You'll never get your finger out of your nose...
-
Or neil's attempts to crucify himself "I've tried lots of times but I can never get the last nail in..."
-
The main emphasis should be sharing the responsibility between law enforcement and the health sector. People for whatever reason are going to take things that they think make them feel good, I'll just take their word for that, to criminalise people for their own personal mores isn't really effective. The network of crime behind production and distribution however does need to be addressed by law enforcment agencies, such as they are. Perhaps instead of fining people who are caught being stupid with substances, the court could direct them to attend compulsory drug education courses that cost (and paid for by the offender) an equivalent amount? Directed to their particular thing. For the sake of demarcation selling is and should still be a criminal offense.
If bzp based substances were sold in a controlled environment such as a chemist then I'd be a whole lot less inclined to oppose them. But as it stands with them on sale over the counter in the Dairy across the road from the school I teach at (primary), on display right next to the lollies, I have to say I take issue with that. -
There are a lot of stores that sell party pills, or herbal highs, and they are often places like corner stores and sometimes even garages. Either way, they often advertise, or place the product at the counter for either the impulse purchaser or security reasons. So a lot of New Zealanders see such pills on a regular basis, and may well form an opinion, perhaps like “party pills are everywhere, kids could get them”.
If they are banned then the pills will be removed and that will be a very visible action, which will allow the responsible party (or the government) to claim instant credit. Further to this, the actual consumers of party pills appear (anecdotally at least) to be mainly young people, who have little political influence. That makes the ‘Ban Party Pills’ Movement a valuable political position to adopt. With that type of probable outcome who needs sound medical research, or in fact any other detailed investigation?
-
If bzp based substances were sold in a controlled environment such as a chemist then I'd be a whole lot less inclined to oppose them.
-
Actually it's more along the lines of, I've seen so many dairies sell alcohol and cigarettes to underage kids on crappy consumer shows like target and stake out that there's a good possibility that would extend to these too.
Or it could be,
Jim Anderton is on a crusade inspired by personal tragedy. -
Perhaps instead of fining people who are caught being stupid with substances, the court could direct them to attend compulsory drug education courses that cost (and paid for by the offender) an equivalent amount? Directed to their particular thing.
They do that in some US states, and it gets farcical, especially when it's framed as "treatment". What malady are you actually "treating" in a 22 year-old who got caught with a couple of joints?
If bzp based substances were sold in a controlled environment such as a chemist then I'd be a whole lot less inclined to oppose them. But as it stands with them on sale over the counter in the Dairy across the road from the school I teach at (primary), on display right next to the lollies, I have to say I take issue with that.
Me too, along with anyone with a lick of sense. It's crazy that these things are sitting on the counter at dairies, because they are real drugs. That proliferated during the period when the media inisted on referring the party pills as "herbal" highs, something they never were.
Fact is, recreational drugs greatly enhance certain experiences. At the BDO next week, probably half the crowd will ingest something illegal, and a quite few more will be on the BZP. For a lot of people, I suspect it's one of one or two times a year they pop an E. And, in comparison to the alcohol-oriented atmosphere of the early events, that represents a considerable benefit. It certainly makes life easier for the police.
The place no one goes yet in the legalisation debate, but one day will, is the idea of actually developing a safer alternative to the present crop of illegal drugs (as opposed to adopting something originally sold as a worming tablet). That's quite a philosophical shift - we're only supposed to take a pill when there's something wrong with us - but yer basic alcopops are hardly any less manufactured than any pill.
-
The place no one goes yet in the legalisation debate, but one day will, is the idea of actually developing a safer alternative to the present crop of illegal drugs
True Russell, and that's a big step. It was also a point touched on by Jim's expert committee in their recommendation to reschedule bzp (and pretty much any other piperazines and their analogues):
A key policy issue that needs an explicit decision is whether New Zealand wishes to have a legal market for psychoactive drugs.
The Drug Foundation, while we accept party pills do have the harms and potential harms identified by the EACD, doesn't reckon the ban is the answer. Better regulations (and ones that are actually enforced) provides a possible way forward for NZ drug policy (and world leading too).
The EACD also noted to Jim that work on further developing the regulations is a good idea (even though they don't reckon bzp should be scheduled under them):
The Committee wishes to emphasise the importance of [further developing the regulatory framework and enforcement], as new synthetic psychoactive substances are emerging at an increasing rate and the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005 allow tight restrictions to be placed on these drugs. While it is the EACD’s view that the research has now demonstrated that BZP does pose a moderate risk of harm, newer substances may be shown to pose a low risk of harm but still be worthy of restrictions. The Committee’s view is that the implementation of restrictions should place the burden of proof on the person supplying the substance to demonstrate the safety of a new psychoactive substance.
Renee, while Jim's family history is widely known, I don't consider Jim's on a crusade. In fact, I happen to think Jim's been the most effective and interested drug minister we've seen (ever?), and has provided a tonne of support to "harm minimisation" initiatives (e.g. free needle exchange). So while the perception (often supported by Jim’s public statements) is that Jim is Super War on Drugs Man, the reality is vastly different. That said, I don’t think we’ll ever see Jim de-penalise minor cannabis possession, or strip the Police search and seize without warrant.
Back on the pills – the industry should shoulder all blame for the ban – it’s only through their dumbarse actions that the spotlight’s on them. (Is anyone running the odds on a ban? For what it’s worth, I reckon a ban 95% likely)
Cheers, Ross Bell, NZ Drug Foundation
-
Re growing dope indoors.
About six years ago I was looking for a flat with some friends, and we were being shown around a house in Sandringham by its landlord.
He pointed out some mildew and mould in one of the bedrooms caused by one of the departing tenants having grown dope there.
But then, just to prove that he was an OK landlord, he noted that he wasn't evicting them because they'd been growing dope. The tenants had actually ended the lease because as the guy had been arrested for the dope-growing, his partner had decided to take their child and leave him.
This mouldy shack did not become my home.
-
Perhaps instead of fining people who are caught being stupid with substances, the court could direct them to attend compulsory drug education courses that cost (and paid for by the offender) an equivalent amount? Directed to their particular thing.
They do that in some US states, and it gets farcical, especially when it's framed as "treatment". What malady are you actually "treating" in a 22 year-old who got caught with a couple of joints?
Along with the legal challenges from atheists being compelled to complete 12 step programs where one of the steps is to accept the existence of a higher power.
-
If bzp based substances were sold in a controlled environment such as a chemist then I'd be a whole lot less inclined to oppose them.
Heh, we could make them prescription only, in the vein of birth control, and the like. I can imagine the doctor's visits:
Dr: So what seems to be the problem?
Patient: I have trouble connecting with people in social environment, and lack empathy to my fellow party goer.
Dr: O yes, alienation is a fundamental feature of post-Industrial western society. I'll prescribe you with a course of BZP. How many nights out do you anticipate over the next three months...But in all seriousness, banning BZP is stupid... so its a real shame Jim Anderton is playing such a big role in the politics of it. Socially conservative Socialists are sooo draconian.
Or it could be,
Jim Anderton is on a crusade inspired by personal tragedy.Notwithstanding Ross Bells more comments from a more knowledgable position: I'm surprised nobody has suggested perhaps there's a conflict of interest that prevents him from acting reasonably and in the best interest of most of society?
Also, RB I'm not sure if its an issue with the PA website, but the link to the Heineken Tennis comp is defunct: every time I click on it it links through to a 'The Page Cannot Be Displayed" page. It might be our evil and abitrary University firewall - any suggestions?
-
Also, RB I'm not sure if its an issue with the PA website, but the link to the Heineken Tennis comp is defunct: every time I click on it it links through to a 'The Page Cannot Be Displayed" page. It might be our evil and abitrary University firewall - any suggestions?
A couple of other people have struck that - possibly something to do with a locked-down IT environment. It's a mailto: link that should launch an email in your email app.
If you're really keen, just email me via the reply button on the original blog.
-
But in all seriousness, banning BZP is stupid... so its a real shame Jim Anderton is playing such a big role in the politics of it. Socially conservative Socialists are sooo draconian.
Two words: needle exchange.
Anderton isn't really as bad as he makes himself sound sometimes. Unlike some of his predecessors, especially on the other side of the House (remember the daft ban on pot paraphernalia under Shipley?), he does listen to evidence.
But I suspect Ross is right on cannabis law, and that's pretty odd given the findings of two select committee inquiries.
I asked Helen Clark about the cannabis issue in an interview years ago, before she was PM. She pointed out that a great many public health officials didn't feel prohibition was helpful, and she favoured the South Australian instant-fine model (I don't). Why don't you hear that now? Politics.
There was quite a lot of discussion on the marijuana issue in the 1990s, and I think both the Evening Post and the Herald dished up irrational, panic-stricken editorials at the mere hint of decriminalisation. The Herald was very fond of the dumbest of all objections: that decriminalisation would "send the wrong message". Sigh ...
-
Perhaps instead of fining people who are caught being stupid with substances, the court could direct them to attend compulsory drug education courses that cost (and paid for by the offender) an equivalent amount? Directed to their particular thing.
on second thought perhaps not...
-
btw the heineken ad worked perfectly from here in mouldy sandringham, I tried it twice no problem.
-
Perhaps instead of fining people who are caught being stupid with substances, the court could direct them to attend compulsory drug education courses that cost (and paid for by the offender) an equivalent amount? Directed to their particular thing.
That reminds me of some anecdote I read once, about a project manager that punished her children by sitting them in front of a lengthy powerpoint presentation about their bad behaviour & its results. Apparently it was very effective.
Also, @Kyle:
" So which is the bigger problem?
" And which is easier to ban?
While not disagreeing with your main point, I'm not sure that LPG is actually easier to ban.I suspect that was the point that James was making - that convenience is a far greater factor in banning substances than genuine risk.
-
I suspect that was the point that James was making - that convenience is a far greater factor in banning substances than genuine risk.
Thanks H!
Precisely.
-
And while we're talking about appropriate regulation for BZP, standardizing the bioequivalence of the pills themselves would be easier, and probably reduce the harmful effects more than trying to restrict the sale.
In a nutshell, if I pour four glasses of different brands of 40% vodka, it doesn't matter which one you drink, it will have the same effect, and the effect will kick in at the same time.
However, with BZP, you can take the same dose, and the rate and amount absorbed will vary. Bioequivalence studies are not exactly rocket science, and if the effects of different brands of pills were more consistent, I suspect there would be a lot less adverse effects.
Sale restrictions may well be a useful addition, but if your $2 supermarket brand paracetamol is the same as any other, then so should BZP be.
-
Sale restrictions may well be a useful addition, but if your $2 supermarket brand paracetamol is the same as any other, then so should BZP be.
I agree totally, but it's not what the pro-ban lobby are interested in. People enjoy BZP (apparently): they don't enjoy paracetamol (AFAIK). If you use a drug to fix something that's wrong with you, that's fine. If you take it for fun, that's abuse. Unless it's alcohol, tobacco or caffeine, of course.
I wonder whether there's some deep metaphysical fear behind such thinking. The very idea that such exalted things as human perception, mood and consciousness can be affected by something as basely material as a pill is disturbing and disgusting to such people. To even contemplate the idea that joy, sadness or mystical sentiments might be, at some level, just a neurochemical reaction...
-
That reminds me of some anecdote I read once, about a project manager that punished her children by sitting them in front of a lengthy powerpoint presentation about their bad behaviour & its results. Apparently it was very effective
One could watch Dr Phil for 10 000 hours and not come up with a better parenting tip.
I wonder whether there's some deep metaphysical fear behind such thinking.
What an interesting notion, completely unprovable, but... reminds me of trying to explain to my Mum that the objective difference between ecstasy and a Macdonalds Big Mac combo was very little. Both are the results of science experiments, lift your consciousness breifly, dump you lower than when you started, and burn tiny holes in your brain.
In all this war on drugs hoo ha, the one thing that the MSM fail to acknowledge is that %99.9 of all 'drug related deaths' are actually 'stupidity related deaths'. The first ectasy death: ignorant girl drunk too much water and drowned her brain in H2O, the pakatoa island death: dumb guy falls on head while high, etc etc etc. Unless you are extremely unlucky drugs are highly unlikely to kill you as long as you approach them from an educated position.
-
My friend and I took BZP last weekend at Parihaka as a bit of an experiment ... and I have to say those wee suckers are pretty strong. They are not unlike taking a mild hit of acid - far too full-on to be sold at the corner store. I agree they should be over the counter, but I don't think they should be banned. Like all recreational drugs moderation is the key but unfortunately the kids aren't all that good at being moderate - so some kind of control is necessary.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.