blogging it real

In a feeble and repugnant effort to defend the predictable impact of National's "tough on crime" (TM) legislative posturing - i.e., no impact whatsoever - the loathsome Judith "Crusher" Collins manages to both lie and try to pass the buck to the previous government. Who said she couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time?

"Why would anybody be surprised when we've inherited nine years of a Labour government, unfortunately no recognition from the previous government that methamphetamine was a problem," she said.

"We have a violent society and it has got more violent over the years and particularly amongst some young people who are unbelievably violent, and we can see it on the attacks on police and the fact that we have had to bring in Tasers," she said.

"We've only just rolled those out."

That would be the same labour government that made methamphetamine a Class A drug, and waged a prolonged "war" on its manufacture and distribution, then? National's subsequent contribution simply forcing people with colds to spread their viruses in doctor's waiting rooms in order to pay $35 for a prescription for effective relief.

And then there's young people of course. Bastards, the lot of them. Nothing a good "taze" won't fix though, eh?

Judith Collins - a bitch in the finest tradition of Jenny Shipley.

Labels: bloody youth, crime, drugs, judith collins, national

Darth's latest offering returns to one of his favourite topics: DOOM! Or is that: GLOOM! Or is that: THE END IS NIGH!

If it's not the bloody Labour Party and political correctness bringing this country to its knees, it's ... [insert dramatic drum roll here to indicate suspense] ... DRUGS!

Well, the illegal ones, anyway.

Opines Darth:

Sure, the police and Customs do their damnedest to stem the flow of illegal substances into this country, but they're obviously fighting a losing battle, and the pot and the P and the coke and the horse still flow like a river.

Darth, "the coke" and "the horse" do not flow freely in New Zealand, by any stretch of the imagination. In that they are both relatively scarce and bloody expensive. Also, no one has called heroin "horse" since you were a pup reporter on the crime beat.

Darth excludes his favoured substance (tobacco) from the list of "murderous" substances because, umm, well, it's umm legal and umm therefore not immoral or umm something.

Nevermind that rational analysis of drug harm by people who actually know their shit (Nutt et al. in the Lancet (2007)) leads alcohol and tobacco to be ranked (considerably) more highly than many illegal recreational drugs, including cannabis (well d'uh), LSD, GHB and Ecstasy. And FYI, George, amphetamine ranks below alcohol but above tobacco in terms of harm.

Nevermind, George is earning his keep this week via a blunderbuss approach to, err, listing social problems.

If the problem is drugs one paragraph, it's violence against children the next, investor rip-offs after that, and race relations (courtesy of a well-known half-brown motherfucker) bringing up the rear.

At which point Garth actually makes an interesting and likely valid point: " his [Harawira's] latest outburst reveals is that there is among many Maori an abiding and malevolent antipathy towards Pakeha, which is far more widespread than we're prepared to acknowledge" - the counterpoint of which is "a corresponding bitter antagonism to Maori on the part of many Pakeha."

But just when you think Ole Smokey might be on to something, he finds he has nothing more to say, and pads out his remaining space with 127 - yes, count 'em, 127 - consecutive words taken verbatim from the King James Bible he always has to hand.

I hope Isaiah is being handsomely reimbursed for such extensive - and entirely irrelevant - borrowing. There's nothing like a trite Bible phrase or two to complete one's weekly literary offering to the nation, followed by a pithy summary from the moustachioed one himself: "Fat chance, but the offer is still open."

True to form!

On a brighter note, doesn't Santa look awesome!?! Nothing like the 75-year-old alcoholic he previously resembled - he's now bright of eye, clear of skin, and confident of beard.

Labels: alcohol, darth george, drugs, Santa, smoking

P substitute 'not as good' blurts the Dominion Post.

Yes, what will the poor P-heads do when they have to turn to inferior alternatives like alcohol?

What the story is actually referring to is the inefficacy of phenylephrine in cold- and flu-type drugs, relative to the soon-to-be restricted pseudoephedrine (which is not "P", but rather one of its many ingredients, a point seemingly lost on the sub-editors at the Dom Post). Hint: the "P" stands for "pure methamphetamine" not "pseudoephedrine". Morons.

Well-known pharmacist John Key is quoted as saying that phenylephrine is a "safe and effective alternative" to pseudoephedrine (which is also safe and effective, by most accounts), although there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for that position among, y'know, actual pharmacists.

In a dismal effort to promote balance, the Dom Post story concludes by listing "CRIMES COMMITTED WHILE ON P" - but lists only six. Perhaps they mean "Examples of crimes committed while on P?"

I look forward to the forthcoming expose on "CRIMES COMMITTED WHILE ON ALCOHOL". That well-known inferior alternative.

Legalize!

Labels: drugs, dumbasses, john key, media

National Party Space-Waster and former Play School presenter Jacqui Dean is at it again. After a less-than successful foray into the banning of water (a foul trick played by left-wing bloggers in Jacqui's fevered imagination), her ramblings before the Health Select Committee yesterday merit a shock-horror headline in the Herald and even an airbrushed(?) photo of the obnoxious busy-body herself.

The story is based around data suggesting that "from July 2002 to last October, the [national poisons] centre was contacted regarding 16 children and teenagers under 16 consuming piperazine-based party pills. This included two aged 18 months, two of 23 months and one of 24 months."

Right, so that would be fewer than 4 children a year then. Not quite a national crisis is it?

Young children, in particular, will pick up anything and put it in their mouths. Which is why you have to watch the little buggers constantly, and try and keep as many potentially "dangerous" items out of reach as possible. Just ask Yamis.

Lots of things that are OK for adults, in certain doses, are bad for babies. Like gin for example. And a couple of panadols. Of course, we don't suggest that adults shouldn't be able to use these things (and threaten to imprison those who do).

More generally, there are many things that are appropriate for adults (e.g., driving, getting married, moving out of home), which we do not consider appropriate for infants. Get a clue, woman.

We have to read most of the way down the story to see that: "The most common calls [to the Poisons Centre] relating to children overdosing on drugs was for paracetamol-based medicine."

Surprise surprise.

And it is not until the penultimate sentence that we see: "National Poisons Centre poisons information specialist Mairead Harnett said there was no evidence that party pills had led to any deaths."

A bigger surprise, perhaps, is something very sensible coming from none other than Green MP Sue Kedgley, renowned for making comments ranging from the strange to the bizarre. The following exchange is great:

The select committee's chairwoman, Green MP Sue Kedgley, questioned Mrs Dean on whether it would make more sense to increase the restrictions on the marketing and sale of tobacco and alcohol before banning party pills, because alcohol and tobacco were associated with thousands of deaths a year in New Zealand and party pills with none.

"Why would you not take a consistent approach?" she asked.

Mrs Dean said it was "not helpful" to start a bidding war on which drugs were the more harmful.

Oh piss off, Jacqui. That is not an argument. It is an assertion based on, well, nothing. It is fucking helpful to consider which drugs are more harmful, because it would likely reveal that there is no rational basis for current drug policy.

Research recently published in the Lancet, for example, finds that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful to human health than cannabis, LSD and ecstasy. (NB: this is independent of their current availability/legal status).

Note to infants everywhere: this does not mean I recommend you take cannabis, LSD or ecstasy. Moreover, parents, you are responsible for keeping these things away from your infants.

Note to Jacqui Dean: while attention to harm will at least reveal the bankruptcy of your ideas, and that of your prohibitionist ilk, in the final analysis it is absolutely none of your business what I put in my body. The criminal law's legitimate interest in any subsequent behaviour on my part should be limited to protecting the rights of others.

Moreover, if you think drugs are bad for my health (and some of them, legal and illegal, in certain quantities, are), then why are you threatening me with imprisonment (which will most certainly be bad for my health?)

Piss off and take your "drugs are bad for babies" bullshit with you.

Labels: drugs, greens, national

I've had it with the ostensibly health-related meddling that is drug policy. Not merely because there should be strong limits to how far you can interfere in the lives of other adults "for their own good", but also because of the sheer duplicitous-ness that overlooks, in particular, the effects of alcohol (and to a certain extent tobacco).

To wit: the death of one person alleged to be due to party pills (NZ) or magic mushrooms (NL) is front page news, generating much heat for the prohibitionist lobby. Alcohol-related deaths, despite being considerably more frequent (reflecting, in part, much greater use of alcohol), rarely make headlines. Tobacco-related deaths almost never.

To consider the Dutch case more fully, prohibition of fresh mushrooms is being urged primarily because of "the death of a 17-year-old French girl, who jumped from a building after eating psychedelic mushrooms while on a school visit. ... [Her] parents blamed their daughter's death in March on hallucinations brought on by the mushrooms, although the teenager had suffered from psychiatric problems in the past." A sad case, no doubt, but how many people jump/slip/fall in ways that injure or kill themselves every fucking week as a result of alcohol?

Turning to New Zealand: a Liquor Shop was granted a licence on condition it not sell the (still legal) party pills because some local wowsers asserted:

"There is mounting evidence which suggests that the consumption of party pills is detrimental to people's health and well-being," the pair said.

"There is a very real risk that party pills consumed with alcohol can make people very ill.

"The causal link between the consumption of party pills and death has not been discounted."

Well no fucking shit, but consider the primary purpose of a liquor store is to sell alcohol, where the "causal link" to ill-health is well fucking established.

The NZ Ministry of Health estimates "that alcohol-related conditions account for 3.1% of all male deaths and 1.41% of all female deaths in New Zealand" and adds that "[a]s well as directly causing deaths, alcohol-related health problems cause distress and disability, and result in a significant and costly use of health services."

Some statistics, even when taken with a grain of salt, make for interesting reading:

Drug-related deaths in NZ (all drugs, not just the "evil" ones):

Tobacco: In 1996, approximately 4700 deaths were attributed to tobacco smoking, accounting for 17 percent of all deaths.

Alcohol: There were 142 deaths in 1997 where the underlying cause of death was an alcohol-related condition. The age-standardised mortality rate due to alcohol-related conditions was 3.3 per 100,000 population.

Opiates: There were 156 deaths in the period 1990–96 [Ed: note longer time period] where opiate-related conditions or poisonings were the underlying cause of death.

Cannabis: There were seven deaths over the period 1990-96 where a cannabis-related condition such as drug abuse or dependence was the underlying cause of death

Hallucinogens: There were two deaths between 1990 and 1996 where a hallucinogen (in combination with other drugs) was the underlying cause of death.

You get the general idea.

Labels: anderton, drugs, netherlands

Honestly, has Jim Anderton encountered anything he doesn't want to ban? While I have no opinion on the meirts of party pills, one way or the other, I do respect the right of others to choose what to put into their bodies.

They are responsible for any subsequent actions which adversely effect the rights of others (beyond "being a mild nuisance"), but this is true whether they take party pills, aspirin, sudafen, heineken, oxygen, or whateverin. But it is no business of the state to decide what people ingest or smoke, etc., in the first instance.

I am willing to concede there might be a drug that has the almost universal effect of engendering extremely antisocial behaviour, and might reasonably be prohibited on those grounds. But my hunch is that the "cure" of prohibition would still be worse than the initial problem. And in any case party pills sure don't fit the bill of universal menace.

Honestly, this shit just gives the state one more reason to take away your liberties and incarcerate you for doing what you want to your own body.

So, yet again, we tell Mr Anderton (and his prohibitionist ilk - I'm looking at you Peter Dunne) to fuck off and leave us alone.

Labels: anderton, drugs