Hard News: More party pill palaver
44 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
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'.
Stupidity's a harsh word: ignorance is closer. E's interesting: when you strip out dry-drowning, heatstroke and overdose, a few people still die. Only a few - one per several million doses, which makes it safer than some pharmacy medicines, but some nonethless.
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.
Dumb guy slipped on a wet concrete floor and hit his head while very high, having taken as many as five pills. The coroner in that case seemed absolutely determined to rule out the head trauma, but I know people who were on the scene, and it was treated as such at the time.
Unless you are extremely unlucky drugs are highly unlikely to kill you as long as you approach them from an educated position.
The one I've seen apparently sensible really lose the plot on is P. The dynamic of inhaled methamphetamine - instant rush plus six-hour high - is quite a dangerous one.
Some people seem to keep chasing the rush and consequently stay up for a week. Most people don't chop someone's hands off, but everyone who gets a P habit turns into an idiot, and usually without knowing it.
I'm inclined to think that in general we'd be better off with other forms of amphetamine than methamphetamine, but unfortunately meth's rather easy to make and the yield from basic ingredients is quite extraordinary.
-
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).
From 'E is for Ecstasy':
Taking the worst figure of seven deaths in 1991 and assuming there were only 1 million users, the risk of dying from using Ecstasy would have been 7 in a million or 1 in 143,000 per year. If users take an average of 25 Es a year, then the risk of death on each occasion is 7 in 25 million or 1 in 3.6 million.
To put this into perspective, if you take five rides at a fun fair you run a risk of 1 in 3.2 million of being killed through an accident.(83) Some sports are obviously dangerous, such as parachuting which kills 3 in 1000 participants per year. Even skiing in Switzerland is risky - 1 in 500,000 are killed.(84) If you play soccer, every year you run a risk of 1 in 25,000 of being killed. But if you stay at home instead of going out you still aren't safe, since the risk of being killed through an accident at home is 1 in 26,000 a year!(16)
Many prescription drugs carry a high risk, including some you can buy over the counter without prescription. For example, over 200 people die from taking Paracetamol in Britain each year, more than ten times as many as die from MDMA.(30, 162)
It also suggests that the death per dose rate sans heatstroke etc is ever lower than I said. It's clearly not a good idea to take too much of anything too often for too long, but a normal dose of E in and of itself is stupendously unlikely to kill you.
-
Dumb guy slipped on a wet concrete floor and hit his head while very high, having taken as many as five pills.
Yes there would be less tragedy if people were better educated, but i don't think stupidity is too harsh a description for many deaths. If you can explain how taking 5 pill is ignorant as opposed to stupid...? My point is to ingest a substance without educating yourself first is stupid.
My apologies to the friends and whanau of aformentioned stupid people. In my defense I fully acknowledge I have often been stupid and once came within minutes of being unlucky - meaning I disvovered on my 21st birthday I am allergic to E. Does something to me and probably a small %age of the rest of humanity akin to what peanuts do to my mate Fiona. Anaphylactic shock.
If I spelt that write I'm gonna be soo happy.
-
The "shock horror growing marijuana indoors what will the deviants think of next" story is now in the NZH ... under the Strange but True category. Go figure. PC Plod in Queenstown found an almost unbelievable 25 plants being grown indoors. Clearly a criminal operation of the highest order.
-
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.And isn't that the problem.I'm going to preface my next comment by saying that I'm a boring nondrinker and nondrug taker - it doesn't do it for me, I just get loud and vomit, so best not to go there. My point is this: why do we not give people the social tools they need to function confidently outside their own homes? It's all about connection, as you said, Manakura. I know that kids experiment and overindulging is just part of what most of us need to do until we grow out of it (not a pun, btw). What I don't understand is why so many people carry that adolescent stuff through to when they're big people. Don't mind me, I'm just "Terse of Mt Eden" but still.........
-
I am not into drugs legal or ilegal, in fact I cannot really understand why people take them. I was going to say I despise drug takers but that is too harsh, I just don't understand
That said I feel the country would be far better off if drugs were decrimilised. I really cannot see any serious down side and plenty of up side
And as for really young people taking hard drugs, so what, they are apparently already available if you want them (and have the cash)
The Courts would be freed up and the Police could spend time tracking down real criminals who no doubt are those who are already clients but maybe we could really deal to them -
I am not into drugs legal or ilegal, in fact I cannot really understand why people take them.
And you never will until you open your mind and give them a whirl.
The reasons people indulge are not particularly esoteric, and can usually be boiled down to one of opportunity, curiosity, boredom and the fact that a nice drug is a nice drug.
-
I am not into drugs anymore, as I suppose the dull buzz of getting out of it just wore off with old age. I think the decriminalisation of cannabis would not benefit society in any beneficial way, other than freeing up police resources. Arguably, making party pills legal was a sick joke, that has gone terribly wrong, and if they are made illegal then the gangs look to add them to the stock sold from tinny houses that litter our communities.
All I can see in the future is more power to the already out of control gangs , as they look set to get even more financial.Shamefully the IRD encourage drug dealers who pay tax ,while they are protected by pathetic privacy laws. I wonder how long before we have our first millionaire drug dealer boasting about their achievement flashed across our TV screens ?
It would be nice to think people did not need stupid drugs to fill the void in their lives .
-
Arguably, making party pills legal was a sick joke, that has gone terribly wrong...
Really? Let's hear that argument...
-
Just go and sit in any Courthouse for a day for the evidence . Ask cops , lawyers ,judges and mental health workers what damage they are doing to our youth.
-
Hi everybody,
Rome wasn't built in a day, we started a new initiative in an unregulated environment and for the most part it worked very well, but while we hoped to see regulation come quickly, alas, that's not what happened. I'm happy with the progress so far though -= We wanted safer drug alternatives to P and G in our clubs and we got them.
We couldn't limit them to our clubs - bummer.
We tried to hold the beast of mammon in chains with self regulation but in a society where company directors are bound by law to maximise return for shareholders wth no regard to social impact and humans being somewhat subject to personal greed, we end up with a myriad of various personal philosophies on what constitutes social responsibility.
The result is that industry self regulation cannot work without some degree of back up from government. We got as far as a statute with empowering clauses which is much further than most other countries, but we didn't get flul regulations in place. Yet.
The next steps are that the regulators need to finish the job and put regulations in place. If this had happened earlier we would have had the opportunity to see whether a robust risk management system around BZP would work or not.
We're getting there.
-
If it wasn't BZP, it'd be something else. And likely something stronger that has to be sourced from the nasties...
BZP is relatively mild (dammit it all) in a recommended dose...if someone chooses to exceed the recommended dose then well...
That's just natural selection init?
-
To paraphrase:
Driving after drinking is relatively safeif you stay under the recommended dose...if someone chooses to exceed the recommended dose and drive then well...That's just natural selection init?
-
Sure Jeremy...__if__ we were talking about alcohol. And driving.
-
So, topping oneself from ignoring safe BZP use guidelines is different from topping oneself by ignoring safe drinking (or any other) guidelines?
Just thought I'd point out that the natural selection argument isn't very useful - why not legalise everything, and let the stupid ones cleanse themselves from the genepool. -
why not legalise everything, and let the stupid ones cleanse themselves from the genepool.
Indeed...why not? There is enough information/education around highlighting the dangers, it seems pointless to punish the majority for the dangerous/stupid behaviour of the minority.
No doubt I'll get harpooned by some for espousing this, but those are my feelings on prohibition in general.
Of course the main problem is the consequences for the innocent when the senseless go on the rampage i.e. drunk-drivers. I've got no clever answers to that one.
-
Here's an unexpected result from the party pill researchers on Stuff today:
Party pills can improve people's driving, according to government-commissioned research on the effects of their main active ingredients.
Should we be criminalising something that not only is unlikely to cause serious harm, but actually improves road safety?
-
EACD advice on classification of benzylpiperazine (BZP) and related substances - call for submissions
As you will know, I have recently received advice from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs (EACD) recommending that BZP be classified as a Class C1 controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The EACD also recommended that the classification as a Class C1 drug cover all known analogues and derivatives of BZP and phenylpiperazine.
This advice is on the basis of New Zealand-based research that has shown that BZP presents a moderate risk of harm. I have enclosed a copy of the EACD advice.
Should this reclassification occur, all quantities of BZP, phenylpiperazine and related piperazines will be illegal and subject to penalties under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
I am writing to manufacturers, retailers, researchers and key stakeholders to elicit your views on this advice, as I recognise that any decision to reclassify BZP may have significant implications for you. I will take into account the submissions I receive before I make my final decision and recommendation regarding the classification of these substances.
Your submission should be sent to:
The National Drug Policy Team
Ministry of Health
PO Box 5013
Wellington.The closing date for submissions is Friday 23 February 2007.
Submissions can also be sent electronically to ndp@moh.govt.nz.
Yours sincerely
Hon Jim Anderton
Associate Minister of Health -
re: the feature about P in this weeks Listener,
I couldnt help laugh at the (intentional?) irony
of calling a drug that suppresses hunger the
'Dinner Party Drug'nice one
The article could have been so much more
effective as a deterrent with the addition of
one pair of photos from this site:
http://www.facesofmeth.us/main.htm
If you smoke P go have a look
its the least you can do...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.