The NZ Herald has a passable editorial on the matter. Only passable because they state clearly the dangers associated with prohibition but conclude that only when BZP itself is proven to have undesirable long-term consequences would a ban be justified. Go figure.
But this statement really has to take the cake. The arrogance/stupidity of this committee and Anderton in overlooking all the historic evidence about how people behave under prohibition is gob-smacking.
It [the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs] conceded there was no guarantee a ban would lead to decreased use of party pills but suggested their side-effects, such as nausea, dehydration and lack of appetite, would dissuade use if they became harder to find, more expensive and carried the risk of a fine or imprisonment.
When did the risk of a hangover stop people buying and using alcohol? So those who want to continue to use party pills will be exposed to more danger and criminality while the committee runs its doomed experiment. Just who is getting off on this? Cynical or naive politicians pandering to public ignorance.
I'm reminded of those people who still believe in communism, holding it wasn't the idea that was flawed - just the way it was implemented. They frighten and appal me.
July 26 in history
1 hour ago