Thursday, March 13, 2008

Yet another victimless crime.

Stuff reports that Labour, National, NZ First, United Future and Jim Anderton have all voted to ensure you can no longer legally choose to ingest BZP. Well done Jim Anderton for pursuing a crusade driven in part by his own personal tragedy - and being blinded to alternatives, and National's most vapid MP - Jacqui Dean, for engaging in a piece of personal fascism.
Good for ACT - at last - standing up for personal freedom and voting against it.
Good also on the Greens and the Maori Party, the latter being a surprise given the views of some of its MPs on banning tobacco.
Nanny State has extended her tentacles to another substance that adults can ingest - and the National Party was a leading cheerleader. This alone should demonstrate to lovers of individual freedom that National IS no friend of freedom. It does so in the face of pitiful evidence of any benefits from the ban, as fisked so well on Not PC recently by MikeE.
However perhaps the inane statement of the day comes from Damien O'Connor - the truly switched on Labour MP for West Coast-Tasman - "I believe that party pills will virtually disappear from New Zealand following the enactment of this bill," he said.
Much like cannabis, ecstasy, P and all other drugs have.
Meanwhile the jobs from the BZP industry will either disappear or be transferred to the criminal fraternity - and those who consume it now face the risk of it being poorer quality, higher priced and being distributed along with a whole host of other drugs.
Now it's naughty and illegal too. However I wonder if ANY of those MPs who voted to ban it have tried it? If they haven't, why not?


MikeE said...

Last week Auckland Act On Campus was giving away memberships with our $1 party pills.

Big hit on campus, and we got to explain the story behind the law to people who were unaware.

MikeE said...

Oh and it was fisked by me.... on not PC.

libertyscott said...

cheers, fixed that.

ropata said...

I expect there will be a rise in crime and death as people turn to unregulated drugs like P and Ecstasy. Good to see the Nanny State has her priorities right! Free speech was also quite a dangerous substance.

This just does not add up. Will prostitution, alcohol, and cars be banned next? Why not?

MikeE said...

MDMA is safer than BZP, the danger of E is seeing as tis illegal, it might be cut with unknown substances.

Both are less harmful that Alcohol. (See uk govt harm charts)

ruth said...

There will not be a rise in crime. My child was 11 when she was offered BZP at school. When you libertines can confine drug use to ADULTS then you will get support. There is no way you can do that.

At dinner yesterday most people were very supportive of the ban. There is not ONE family in this high income suburb of Auckland who has not been affected by drugs. Yet you say it is a victimless crime. Keeping them illegal and expensive - kids don't want a record - conrols it. As much as you libertines and stoners dislike that.

libertyscott said...

I understand the concern, but surely alcohol and tobacco are next, you know damned well that many more kids are offered both of those - let's ban everything that risks kids being hurt by it. The list would be exhaustive, but hey what's the harm in criminalising adults if it means parents and schools can pretend they don't need to do anything because it's illegal.

I'm sure she'll never see BZP again - like she'll never be offered cannabis either will she?

Is there a chance that it being a forbidden fruit is a bigger risk than if it is legal but she is taught it is dangerous to take?

What did you do about her being offered BZP? I presume you contacted the school, lobbied for it to ban it's possession at the school and for any kids offering it to be expelled. I'd expect any good school would prohibit any drugs that were not prescription/ medicinal and take a tough line on them.

Surely the key point is this Ruth - why should a peaceful person be put in prison for ingesting a substance others disapprove of?

We all need to be taught that it is our responsibility to choose what we ingest - sadly the culture we now have blames everything from drunkenness, drug taking, obesity and the like on the state not fixing it for us. I assume your daughter carries none of that nonsense and can look after herself.

By the way at dinner I am sure your guests would be horrified if I proposed the same ban on alcohol on exactly the same basis, but then that's the drug most of you probably consume and that's "ok". The consequences of alcohol consumption are far more acceptable than "party pills" aren't they? Oh that's right, people who take party pills are stoners and libertines, but drinkers are sociable fun people.

MikeE said...

Ruth,it was already illegal for someone to offer your 11 year old BZP, as its was a Class D restricted substance (R18). That didn't stop someone from offering it

Now its illegal, do you really think Drug dealers and pushers are going to care if your kid is 11 when they sell to them?

More importantly. If your child did decide to consume BZP, would you want them to be charges as a criminal in possession of a class C Drug? Thats 3 months Jail and a $500 fine when they are over 16/18. Is that what you want for your kids?

Anonymous said...

"The consequences of alcohol consumption are far more acceptable than "party pills" aren't they?"

Yes they are. Generally the consequences of alcohol consumption are alot less severe. Acute psychotic episodes, depression, memory loss and seizures are not common after small doses of alcohol, whereas they are very possible with a single use of benzylpiperazine.

Do some research on the action mechanism of BZP on the brain and compare it to alcohol. There is no comparison at all. They act in completely different ways with BZP being far more direct on the core functioning systems of your brain and body. As such, the dangers of it compared to alcohol are far greater, even in small doses.

Anonymous said...

MDMA is safer than BZP, the danger of E is seeing as tis illegal, it might be cut with unknown substances."

BZP's illegality has little to do with its inherent safety or not.

Both are less harmful that Alcohol.

Only if alchohol is consumed on a chronic, high dose level does it match the risk profile of BZP. Furthermore, if BZP or MDMA were used as much in social settings, at home, after work, etc. as much as alcohol use is, a lot more problems would crop up.

Joseph said...

Problems such as...?

Anyone who used MDMA like that would probably have something wrong with them anyway, responsible drug use.

I've never tried it, but from what I've heard, MDMA isn't something you want to use on too regular a basis, more of a party thing rather than an afterword thing.