Party pill regulation continues

Having succeeded swimmingly in not reducing harm by banning BZP, the Dominion Post reports that the Health Ministry is now proposing a different approach to other party pills. Age restrictions, labelling requirements and licences to sell them (all stuff to make a bureaucrat wet himself). Now while I'd agree with an age restriction, labelling requirements seems over the top and having licences to sell something isn't proven to do much other than put up the price and start creating a black market - BUT my big question is this. Why hasn't BZP simply been treated the same way? Why not legalise BZP, put an age restriction on it and regulate it?

.

If ACC was abolished, then those who sell such products would face the risk of damaging lawsuits for causing personal injury by accident - in other words, just like most countries in the Western world. Whilst the ACC folly continues, the arguments for some regulation of substances remain.

.

However, my question remains - if party pills are to be controlled like alcohol, why not make extend this to BZP, and remove the ban?

Labour, National and Jim Anderton - well done

Three words - TOLD YOU SO.

.

The Dominion Post reports:

.

"A dramatic increase in people being admitted to hospital with severe reactions to party pills has experts calling for urgent action... Dozens of new pills flooded the market last month, replacing BZP varieties whose sale was banned from April 1. "BZP really didn't make much of an impact in Wellington, but certainly over the past few weekends we've noticed a change," Dr Quigley said."

.

(Dr Quigley is a Wellington Hospital emergency doctor)

.

Banning BZP worked didn't it? You're all so clever aren't you? However with all three Labour parties (Anderton and Key lead the others) cheerleading prohibition, don't expect a backdown. No. Anderton is already calling for the burden of proof of safety to shift to manufacturers. Of course if it weren't for ACC, they could be sued for negligence, but none of the major parties are going to confront that little reason why New Zealand is a haven for trying out products are they?

You see unlike virtually every other country in the world, with the abolition of the right to sue for personal injury by accident, it makes New Zealand a soft touch for manufacturers. ACC socialises the negligence of others, and undermines an insurance market whereby manufacturers (and the public) would pay according to risk.

.

So banning something creates market demand for something else, which happens to be less safe, no doubt all those pills will be banned now, though it will take another couple of years. Meanwhile shifting the burden of proof to manufacturers will have implications for the vitamin and alternative remedies sector as well.

.

Clint Heine reminds us that Damien O'Connor predicted party pills would disappear, and most of you still trust 30-40% of your income with these people to buy you healthcare, pensions and your kids education?

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?

Not the UN's approach to drugs

Camilla Cavendish in The Times today writes that instead of tightening up on drugs, they should be legalised and available through pharmacies like Boots and Superdrug.

Why?

She points out that part of the glamour of drugs is not with users, suggesting that those who go overboard like Amy Winehouse may put as many off it than otherwise, but with dealers. Those who can afford flash clothes, jewellery, cars and a relatively easy get rich quick lifestyle. That is the new ambition for all too many young people living in poorer British neighbourhoods.

Teenagers are being attacked and killed as the drug culture flows through much of British youth culture. She suggests that legalisation will achieve three goals at once, with only the one side effect to deal with.

Firstly, it gets rid of the drug dealer. No longer is a fortune to be made selling drugs at street corners or outside schools, but by being behind the counter in pharmacies. The link between crime and drugs ends - not only significantly reducing the violence involved, reducing pressure on prisons, but also recognising that drugs are no longer "special".

Secondly, those who are addicted could more easily and readily seek treatment without fear of persecution by the law. Many drug users are occasional recreational users, for relatively short periods of their lives - the true problem addicts are a minority, but they are the ones who need to feel free to access help.

Thirdly, as pharmacies would be responsible for what they sell, incidences of drugs diluted by other substances, anything from talcum powder to cleaner to ground glass, would end. People would get pure drugs, which would be less toxic than the black market offerings.

Yes there would be the issue of it being cheaper, increasing the opportunity to use it. However now, the price isn't a tremendous barrier. For starters, dealers are known to employ cunning techniques offering freebies and discounts, and they market heavily and directly. This would all end under legalisation. Those who want to take drugs find ways to do so, but once it is no longer forbidden or glamorous, without the criminal profits being made from it, the remaining problem could be far more manageable.

Alcohol for all of the problems arising from overuse, and use by those too young, is far more manageable than drugs. Laws can focus on supply to children, which should remain illegal.

However there is one huge barrier to any of this - it is the UN.

The UN, led by the US on this one, is adamantly opposed to legalisation. It is fighting a losing battle, but the war on drugs is lost. It is about time to switch the tables on dealers, and make life easier for those who want to use safely.

Sadly New Zealand is going in the other direction, despite the evidence, thanks to the efforts of the one man party, Jim Anderton.

Besides as I have said before, it is my body thank you.

You don't own your body - the government does

Jim Anderton's proud announcement, like big daddy telling off all the children - that it's good for them and they wont be allowed party pills anymore, is utterly sickening. Not PC has so much of this right. It is immoral and it wont work.

^

You see the point to me is simple.

^

I own my body because I am an adult. As a result of that, I have the right to ingest whatever the hell I like. Think about it for a moment. If I forced you to ingest something, you'd be infuriated. What if I told you that you were not allowed to have that cake, or that drink, or whatever in your own home? Why does anyone else have the right to stop you putting anything into your body?

^

Ahhh.... you say, but what if taking that substance makes me reckless and likely to harm others. Well then, you should be responsible for your behaviour under the influence of that substance. Your employer probably has a condition of your employment contract that you don't turn up for work that way for safety reasons. However, it is your risk to take. Remember we allow people to drink alcohol, and taking a lot of sugar can also affect behaviour. You're an ADULT - you know, like Jim Ol Son - Great Commander of your bodily ingestion. Why does HE know better?

Ah.... you say, but this might be bad for me. Indeed, it might. In fact, most things you ingest can be bad for you. Swallow half a kilo of butter everyday and you might find your arteries harden up. Drink 20 litres of water a day and you might end up in hospital. Don't drink anything in a day, and you'll be listless and maybe constipated. Paint a room without opening windows, and you might find yourself feeling faint. The list is endless. Thousands of people have taken party pills and their health remains fine. Do you think you need Jim Anderton to tell you so?

So what IS this about. Quite simply, Anderton is on a personal crusade about drugs besides alcohol because of his family circumstances. He would rather criminalise those who take the substance and distribute it, than deal with the cultural reasons why some people act stupidly with certain drugs.

The National Party, ever the sellout to its principles of less government, more personal responsibility and more freedom, is jumping on this bandwagon because it hasn't the guts to stand up and say - hold on, prohibition doesn't work and it is immoral. Jacqui Dean said "The longer he has delayed, the more young people believe you need to take a pill to have a good time". How fucking patronising and ignorant? So she thinks that banning it will fix it? Nothing like the naive, and the head prefect attitude of wanting to make rules for the bad kids to have to follow or they'll be punished. THIS attitude shows so much that is still wrong with the National Party - no principle, kneejerk populist policy and virtually no objective assessment as to effectiveness, just bandwagon jumping.

^

The Greens have opposed this, maybe not entirely on principle, but they do get credit for getting this somewhat right.

^

So what will happen?

^

The price of BZP will go up substantially after it is banned, it will become a lot cooler and more exciting, and its quality will slip. Less parents will know their kids have taken it, and less people will admit to A & E that they took it, or tell doctors that they have. Some people will have their lives ruined by the Police, courts and prison system penalising them for having a good time or selling the means for others to do so. Oh, and you'll find gangs will get involved in selling it, and it will be sold with cannabis, crystal meth and the like - so BZP will truly become an entrance drug into a wider market of substances.

^

Brilliance, such short sighted brilliance.

^

I hope the families and friends of those who get ruined because the quality of BZP plummets and becomes more poisonous, or those who fear admitting to doctors they take it for fear of being prosecuted, or those prosecuted for the crime of putting something into their own bodies, go and thank Anderton, Jacqui Dean and the other fascists against personal freedom for repeating a failed policy. Can't the likes of them (and the MPs who will support it like the robots they are) leave peaceful people alone?

Nanny State comment of the day

“We know that more and more people are beginning to realise the dangers of smoking.”
^
Beginning? Hell, the evidence has been around since the 1950s, I was aware of it as a child and virtually everyone I ever met who smoked was well aware of it. How damned stupid or insular do you have to be to not know? If you are that stupid then frankly fine – you are like the people who ignore level crossing barriers or handle appliances with wet hands – it isn’t just a mistake it’s systematic stupidity. I don't give a damn about people who are stupid, they are the bane of my life (and it's amazing how there is a link between stupidity and violence).

^
We are so glad that Damien O’Connor, Associate Minister of Health and Minister of Blokey Real Men Affairs, has figured out that in 2007 people are “beginning to realise” how dangerous smoking can be. Maybe it has taken that long for enough of his constituents (particularly those who vote for him) to realise that?

^

One piece of advice Damien, people do things that are dangerous at times even though they know this, because they value SOMETHING ELSE. Adults can make their own decisions and if they decide to smoke, they take the risk with their own bodies. You see people don't always live in a world of being safe and good.

Ban alcohol advertising will fix binge drinking?

According to the Daily Telegraph, Professor Ian Gilmore, head of the Royal College of Physicians, has called for a total ban on alcohol advertising because it will combat Britain's binge drinking culture.

^

No it wont.

^

The only thing that will make it change is when more people want to be conscious more often than not, rather than escape their own lack of self esteem and their own lives.

^

They wont drink less because there is no advertising - the Soviet Union is the classic case. Advertising affects choice of drink not the choice TO drink, and children learn early on that alcohol is a grown up taboo thing, and people have fun taking it and laugh at the stupid things people do when drunk.

^

The answer is culture, not regulation.