So, much like NOS, are party pills headed for extinction too? Has NZ society been worked up enough yet? Is there any evidence base to warrant a reclassification, or do we legislate based on relative moral outcry?
So, much like NOS, are party pills headed for extinction too? Has NZ society been worked up enough yet? Is there any evidence base to warrant a reclassification, or do we legislate based on relative moral outcry?
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
> or do we legislate based on relative ...
> or do we legislate based on relative moral outcry?
there ya go. It would seem that despite the fact that a massive proportion of the young adult population has popped these pills at some point, without one single death being attributed to the pills, the fact a few people manage to get themselves fucked up to the point of being admitted to hospital still has various parties freaking.
as per usual you can look at the legal drugs: alcohol and tobacco, and wonder why there isn't the same outcry. Number of deaths attributable to both? Countless thousands. Likelikhood of outright bans of either. Nil and unlikely.
There are better ways of approaching ...
There are better ways of approaching the hightened use/abuse of party pills than saying 'er sorry, they're illegal now.' That'll definitely open avenues into potentially more harmful alternatives, a contingency no-one seems to have prepared for.
FFS, there's an ideal opportunity here for the government to get involved in a REAL, effective way- obviously by standardising what exactly a 'safe dosage' for BZP/TFMPP is, but more importantly by using it as a means to engage with the users themselves and encouraging/promoting safer behaviour. Solve the 'problem' (I hate the word- perception is everything) with education and support. New laws which make new criminals out of new people is only an exercise in renaming the same problem.
[ external link ]
/...an exercise in renaming the same ...
/...an exercise in renaming the same problem.
...and marginalising users who may genuinely need advice & support.
while we're comparing it to drinking ...
while we're comparing it to drinking and smoking, why not compare it to gun ownership while we're at it? although there are responsible people, there will also be a lot of irresponsible people - which is the justification of usually the Left-wing and conservative Right. i used to be all for legalising everything except for crimes that causes direct harm, because that is the most educative way to progress (eg. if people can see the harm of guns and drugs they'll be more responsible with it) - but then i realised that in a country like NZ where there's heaps of poor and uneducated people (a third of children are raised in welfare families) it won't work because despite seeing the consequences there will still be ignorant people, and that's why i disagree with party pills being legal, because despite being relatively light drugs by getting high on them it will inevitably lead to harder drugs. i think the personal benefit of use by people like us (if we are arguably responsible with them) is a cost that is justifiable, it's not exactly banning a necessity, just banning entertainment (eg. OSH bans dangerous playgrounds at our enjoyable expense although if used responsibly they're not dangerous, but there are just too many children whose parents aren't responsible enough to look out for them and teach them)
as foetusboy's link ...
as foetusboy's link mentioned(below);those children whose parents aren't responsible enough to look out for them and teach them aren't gonna get any better treatment once they are marginalized by society as criminals.
Honestly RebelHeart, where do you come ...
Honestly RebelHeart, where do you come up with this stuff? Party pills are the same argument as guns? Try holding up a Starmart by pointing a bottle of them at the clerk... or getting your evening underway with a brisk drive-by or two before hitting the clubs? Are you thinking this through, man?
...so if there were a few dozen extra ...
...so if there were a few dozen extra gun related maimings or killings, more people would see the harm guns could cause, and then there'd be a few dozen less? There's an idea. Oh man, why am I even bothering...
working with people who's lives have ...
working with people who's lives have been screwed up by alcohol and drugs actually, and also working with people in poverty who have no sense of responsibility when dealing with alcohol and drugs. you should get in touch with Drug Arm or the Salvation Army or City Mission and ask them if you can volunteer out sometime, then you can see the effects of what happens when it's even illegal, and see if you still think to yourself making it legal is going to solve the problem
as for linking in the gun thing, my own personal view differs with the party i'm a member of, but you can see their rationale behind guns and drugs
http://www.actforfirearms.co.nz/
http://www.act.org.nz/item.aspx?id=22253
RH, I think there's a misplaced ...
RH, I think there's a misplaced causality inference in your argument. Which, interestingly, also applies to guns. That is, a good number of messed up people that like to get high and/or like guns(/weaponry). For example, there are a number of mental illnesses that are associated with misuse of alcohol/drugs. So I don't think P makes people violent per se. Just people that like P are more likely to be violent.
There are definitely people whose lives who have been screwed up by alcohol and drugs, but there are also plenty of people whose lives are screwed up that turn to alcohol and drugs. It's not a neat one-way causality thing.
//that's why i disagree with party pills being legal, because despite being relatively light drugs by getting high on them it will inevitably lead to harder drugs
I think this is a nice moral panic argument. I think it's equally as convincing that party pills being legal prevents many people from going on to harder drugs. Because they are legal, people don't need to go to a dealer to buy them, they don't need to be afraid to seek medical treatment if stuff goes wrong etc.
You can make an argument that there is a psychological barrier, and once you've started breaking the rules, then further rule breaking no longer seems as much of a thing. But if you don't break the rules, then breaking the rules is still like a big step.
And if you're going to a dealer to get your BZP or cannabis or whatever, then y'know, he might offer you some P one day. Whereas if you get your BZP from the nice shop up town... that aint gonna happen...
Of course, these are 2 arguments are both somewhat plausible, but also falsifiable... It's not the core goal of the research that I'm doing, but I'm certainly interested in trying to find out.
FYI RH, part of the reason I'm ...
FYI RH, part of the reason I'm interested in this discussion in the first place is because I have spent the last two years working with a drug outreach project in East London. I am a little saddened that your opinion after working with The Sallies is that 'people in poverty have no sense of responsibility when dealing with alcohol and drugs.' You see, where I worked we had people from every socioeconomic group coming in for support, as well as the homeless/roofless/unemployed, and it was all about witholding judgement on their personal circumstances, treating them with respect and empowering/supporting them. Not everyone wants to change, but enough people do to make it worthwhile.
I've never taken party pills, because ...
I've never taken party pills, because they didn't come into vogue until I'd already quit all drugs but coffee and booze, so I hope it doesn't make me sound too hypocritical or moral-panicky when I say that I'd be very much in favour of making them R18, just like booze and cigarettes. Kids might not be dying taking the pills, but I've heard enough annecdotes about people getting fucked up on them to think that maybe some controls would be good.
They already are R18, which I think was ...
They already are R18, which I think was a sensible move.
And the moral panic is bizarre. I'm actually working on some stuff at the moment assessing 'perceptions' of safety around Party Pills among other things. Actually, I wonder whether the letter "P" has anything to do with their disfavour, thinking of over-hyped things (NB: I'm not saying that P is actually somewhat bad, just that it's still over-hyped).
people will get fucked up on anything ...
people will get fucked up on anything if they're so inclined. it's a social phenomena. banning stuff is just putting sharp objects out of reach of children. seems there's a tendency among nzers to be treated like children and to behave thus. but banning stuff doesn't really address the cause of the desire to get fucked up. offering no long term solution. there must come a point though when nz as a nation comes to the realisation that nz is not really a free country, that the majority of nzers have over a period of time given up almost all personal responsibility in favour of government intervention. and that this has in turn led to further lack of personal responsibility. a nation of subs.
(generally speaking of course.)...
(generally speaking of course.)
Hmmm. The term "cannabis pandemic" is ...
Hmmm. The term "cannabis pandemic" is being used abroad...
[ external link ]
I remember reading something about a ...
I remember reading something about a link between cannabis and the increased risk of mental health problems- I found this from guardian.co.uk which sums up my POV nicely:
//But an expert on the treatment of patients with mental health and drug problems at the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health contested claims that downgrading cannabis would lead to far more cases of psychotic illness.
Tabitha Lewis, the charity's practice development and training officer in dual diagnosis, said that despite a few studies that indicated cannabis posed some risk to mental health, the evidence was by no means conclusive.
She said: "I don't understand how reducing the penalty for using cannabis has any impact on how psychotic it could make you. Nor am I convinced that downgrading the drug will lead to far more people using it.
"What is the alternative to reclassification? Are we really seeking to criminalise our patients? I doubt that staff report all their cannabis smoking patients to the police and I doubt the police would respond if they did.
"We need more robust research if we are to adequately inform young people of the risks."
[ external link ]
Drugs are a symptom of a wayward and ...
Drugs are a symptom of a wayward and degenerate youth.
as a darwiniust i am pretty certain ...
as a darwiniust i am pretty certain that peyote cactus and wayward youth developed independently.
Moral panic it is then. Abandon all ...
Moral panic it is then. Abandon all hope.
Soooo, we now all know the "Dangers" of ...
Soooo, we now all know the "Dangers" of smoking and drinking, we know smoking plays a huge part in the development of lung / throat cancer, and that research as far back as the 50's and sixties linked heath issues with smoking, but at the time it wasn't made public ... people are now made aware of those dangers, but some still take up the habit, they have the right and are able to do so legally ... same as drinking, we all know the dangers of drinking, with it's effects on people and the dangers of addiction, and health issues .. but again we're made aware of these .. and again it's legal .. A huge amount of money gose towards dealing with the fall out of these two legal drugs, mostly medical care, or fixing the results of .. in the case of drink, car accidents, fights etc. Then there's the broken lives of families who suffer from alcohol abuse, who's mother / father dies of cancer or related ilness's. I would just say on the legalisation of any drug, hold on alittle and take a step back and maybe think of the long term problems associated with it, we have two legal drugs already and look at them. Gotta sign off for now, it's lunch .. :-) Nice to see you back foetus :-)
But that's the thing bruv, research, ...
But that's the thing bruv, research, knowledge, evidence- these things take a while to accumulate, to become reliable enough to infer a causative link. Untill that point, all you have are isolated incidents as they happen. Maybe this is similar to RebelHeart's POV, that once a few people are killed or injured and there's some moral outcry, it's easier get something banned. But it's usually a case of looking for a scapegoat, blindly attacking the symptom rather than the problem.
Think about it- if you wanted someone not to be hospitalised from using party pills, then the pill's legal status, whatever that may have been, becomes perfunctory. The key is identifying and highlighting specific behaviours which lead to hospitalisation. e.g., if you do this, these are the consequences. That type of thing. Me so tired.
I'm sure there's mountains of ...
I'm sure there's mountains of research that's already been carried out on the effects these various drugs have on people, and what the long term and short term effects are. It's splashed all over the media everytime someone either dies or slips into a coma etc. Am I wright to think the point your making when you say "to become reliable enough to infer a causative link" is that the drug ( what ever one it maybe ) and it's effect can only be monitored correctly if it's legal ? you can get a clearer picture of what's going on ? I can see the logic, but what happens if it turns out to be somewhat worse than alcohol or smoking ? We all see for ourselves what some of these drugs do to some people, we already have the warnings and can see the effects, and people still want things legalised. Once the genie's out the bottle ... Maybe if , or as some of these things are legalised, the company supplying them should be held responsible for the cost of cleaning up any side effects, they can be priced at such a level that the company supplying them can provide the back up services, building rehab clinics / hospitals etc, thus avoiding any need for our tax's going into these things. Wonder how many suppliers would go for the Full responsiblity package ? do you think they'll still be falling over each other for the $$$ or do you think they'll think twice ? and if so why ? You could argue the drinking and smoking point, but these all came into being at a less informative time in our history. I've run out of steam :-) and not sure this all makes sense even :-)
Well that's definitely part of it- ...
Well that's definitely part of it- when the product is legally manufactured and sold, then there's a whole bunch of rights that are suddenly bestowed on the consumer, and a set of standards that the manufacturer must meet as well. Conducting research/engaging with users is so much easier when there's no 'criminal' stigma to overcome.
Okay, put aside the " if it's ...
Okay, put aside the " if it's legalised " and put in " When it's legalised " who's responciblity is it to clean up the mess caused by the " few " who take things too far, they become addicted to what ever substance it is they get hooked on. lets not be too nieve about things, these products do cause addiction, and mess with lives, even without the legal or non legal aspect of this topic, you can't deny there's a cause and effect thing going on here. As I mentioned above we don't live in an uninformed society .. ignorance of the addiction / health issues is not acceptable. If and when various things become legal, I feel the onus of dealing with the fall out .. addiction / health issues etc ... should be down to the suppliers of such substances .. as they would then be the "legal dealers" if you want dealing with no responciblity you may as well leave it to the illegal dealers.
Yeah, I think we've had a similar ...
Yeah, I think we've had a similar conversation before sometime- for what it's worth, some of the people I used to work with back at the drug project had histories of misuse/dealing/crime, and now that they've turned their lives around they're helping others do the same. I dunno man, people with histories of substance misuse don't always turn out to be drugs workers, but for those that do, there's an empathy that they have which you can't be shown unless you've lived it. I think they're doing a pretty good job at helping combat a problem which once had them under it's thumb.
Party pills are frowned on by most of ...
Party pills are frowned on by most of the people i know, they are dismissed as dirty and lower class , on a par with solvent abuse would be fair to say.
BZP should be banned outright on the fact that it is an uncomfortable edgy shit buzz with an even shitter comedown that will leave you looking for the rope for days afterwards. I'd easily say that the comedown from BZP pills is far more terrible than any other drug ive experienced.
I've noticed that tends to be the case ...
I've noticed that tends to be the case when I misuse a far more common drug- e.g. when I'm hungover the next day, I've noticed it tends to linger into the following day aswell. I'm absolutely no use to anyone. But it'll be different for you and different for the next person, based on a million different variables... fortunately most people know plenty of ways to ease a hangover, and I'm sure this is because alcohol is such a common, widely accepted, legal drug. At the same time, it's certainly one of the more dangerous drugs you can misuse.
I'm not trying to make light of what you've posted RE BZP, but just trying to make a point that recreational drugs don't seem to be banned or embraced on the strength of how tolerable the comedowns are, and neither are they banned or embraced on how they fare relative to drugs that are already legal. The more I think about it, the more I realise that rope's right...
Does anyone think if they banned BZP ...
Does anyone think if they banned BZP party pills would be missed? would there would be an uproar? a black market for them? - not likely. People only use BZP products because they don't have the means or funds to hook up real drugs. This can be the only logical explanation.
BZP really took off in Aucland in about 2002 when the supply of good imported ecstasy all but diminished.
//Does anyone think if they banned BZP ...
//Does anyone think if they banned BZP party pills would be missed? would there would be an uproar? a black market for them? - not likely. People only use BZP products because they don't have the means or funds to hook up real drugs. This can be the only logical explanation.
I wonder if there's another element to it -- that there are some people who are more concerned about legality. That is, they use BZP because its legal. So they're not going to be interested in it if it's illegal. So maybe it's crappy, but if its not going to kill them, it's better than datura or glue.
Do you mean Christians? heh...
Do you mean Christians? heh
Somewhat. Although given that they're ...
Somewhat. Although given that they're not always into everything that's legal. No. Just people with a rule-constrained sense of morality. while they're are some who might say that where the law is wrong/stupid/doesn't hurt anybody, then it's no big deal, some people just play by the book.
Future accountants?
"recreational drugs don't seem to be ...
"recreational drugs don't seem to be banned or embraced on the strength of how tolerable the comedowns are"
Actually in alot of instances they are. One of the major reasons the Expert Advisory Committe flaged BZP as low risk is that the severity of the comedown greatly lessons the potential for abuse. Its important to realise here that the comedown itself is not directly toxic, and if it prevents the indicidents of 'binge' use it actually lessons the harm potential of the drug.
There are many other stimulants that we could have embraced, those of you who remember the EASE trial will know about Methylone which was considered to of much greater risk despite realitively similar pharmacodynamics to BZP.
The future of party pills is uncertain in my view but im sure the months ahead will show some significant developments. The ministry of health comissioned multiple studies last year, all of which i belive are due to come in before the next meeting of the Expert Advisory Commission on Drugs later in July. No doubt that with these studies availiable a look at the classification of BZP will be on the agenda.
The first study however is out now, i think it is availiable at
http://www.shore.ac.nz/publications/publications.html
for any who are interested.
I think BZPs days are numbered, despite no conclusive evidence as of yet that its presence is a bad thing, moral panic will win in the end. All its going to take is one death before Mr Anderton steps into the limelight and announces that the similarities of BZP to known amphetamines make the substance a class B drug under analouge drug laws.
Just to add my two cents: 1) The ...
Just to add my two cents:
1) The research that was done by the government (I think) found that people were LESS likely to go on from BZP to harder drugs, and a lot of people had started using them instead of things like E. So the gateway drug notion is nonsense. And it tends to be based on moral panic anyway; I don't think that theory has been proven for any drug.
2) Of the people that have been hospitalized, practically all of them drastically exceeded the reccommended dosage, or were combining them with booze or other drugs, or both.
3) Of the people hospitalized, most complaints were of being unable to sleep. Which is more or less what they're designed for anyway. There haven't been many serious health issues from them (or any, as far as I've heard). People just get worried that they still can't sleep however many hours later, and go to a hospital to check it out.
I don't have any statistics for that, it's just what I remember in Critic from hospitalizations in Dunedin.
I think if BZP were to be reclassified, ...
I think if BZP were to be reclassified, meaning users could only obtain the pills illegally, then it's definitely exposing users to markets where harder drugs are also on offer, and when the supply and sale of a substance is driven underground then it becomes next to impossible to regulate, other than backwards via the police/hospitals once the damage has already happened. I don't think it necessarily means all BZP users would move onto harder drugs, just that the goal is supposed to be about reducing the likelihood of harm, and to me that means putting support at the beginning of the cycle, before any of the bad stuff happens.