Pot, petards and Curwen Ares Rolinson [updated]

A politician should (as I have read)
Be furnish’d in the first place with a head…
- short poem, after a painting by Hogarth

 

Portrait of a young man who was in a hurry

When a young man wants to go into politics he may take two paths. One will choose the path of principle, choosing a party that matches his values and fighting across the length of his career to put them into practice.  Another will identify the rotting carcass of a party with a regular turnover of tailor’s dummies sitting MPs for whom lack of ability is no barrier to parliamentary honours, and seek to ingratiate himself therein.

Curwen Ares Rolinson was the second kind of young man.

Described variously as “a “one-man nationalist revolution”,” “the biggest statist douche I have met,” and a “statist neo-Nazi asshole” – and this is by young people who know him -- Rolinson was a huge believer in big government, in the wit and wisdom of Winston Peters, and for many years was a board member of NZ First and the leading member of their “youth wing.” Truth be told, he was its only member.

Rolinson would regularly assail passersby and other aspiring young politicians about the virtues of big government, about the need for greater law and regulation, about the dangers of human freedom that could only be curtailed if hedged around by rules. Politicians in his view ruled people’s lives, and he wanted to be a politician. Passionately.

He was also, it seems, a cannabis dealer, for which he has just been charged.

This is really neither ironic nor surprising.

Bruce Yandle has written copiously on the kindred relationship of Bootleggers and Baptists, two big and distinctly different groups who yet both support big regulation – especially on things that give people pleasure.

The metaphorical “Baptists” point to the moral high ground and give vital and vocal endorsement of laudable public benefits promised by a desired regulation. Baptists flourish when their moral message forms a visible foundation for political action. “Bootleggers” are much less visible but no less vital. Bootleggers, who expect to profit from the very regulatory restrictions desired by Baptists, grease the political machinery with some of their expected proceeds. They are simply in it for the money.

It turns out Rolinson was both a Baptist and Bootlegger – maybe using the money from the latter to help climb up the greasy pole to do more of the former.

Like I say, for that second kind of chancer, neither ironic nor surprising.

But in the end, Rolinson has been hoisted on a petard not yet of his own making, but the size and violence of which he has spent his short youth applauding.

As a passionate supporter myself of human freedom, it’s clear that if Rolinson is guilty of anything on the crime front however it is assuredly a victimless crime – a crime with “neither criminal nor victim,” whose own young political adversaries are already coming out in his support.

As must I. However odious the recipient of my support. Because to paraphrase Ayn Rand, while

it is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of would-be statists. … the disgusting nature of the offender makes it a good test of one's loyalty to a principle.

PS: Leader of the NZ First carcass Winston Peters has leapt into print to declare Winston First does not have a youth wing, has never had a youth wing … and is now and has always been at war with Eurasia.

So here’s Winston below, with some random folk he just met on the way to a conference:

RELATED POSTS:

• If you must, you can read Curwen’s collected wit and wisdom at the Daily Blog: Posts by Curwen Ares Rolinson.
• Uncivil Curwen thrown in jail for being civil – ANARKIWI
• Bootleggers and Baptists – LEARN LIBERTY

UPDATE: In the interests of fairness, the young man discussed in the article above would

respectfully contend that to ALL THOSE who truly know me, the very opening paragraph of this article [here at NOT PC] stands out as testament to the malign and malicious cavalcade of carnivorous falsehoods which feather out the full length of this perfidious and perfunctory piece.

So there.

Brash gets support from The Bush

Don Brash may not have found anyone in his own party willing to back his call for hard sense on cannabis without the moral panic—and instead of backing the call the hipsters from Grey Lynn who should have supported it have instead lambasted him—but there is one political party leader at least prepared to do the right thing, and that’s Libertarianz leader and Wairarapa candidate Dr Richard McGrath. He told the Wairarapa Times-Age “it’s a freedom thing.”

"There is no longer a place for the enforcement of puritanical laws that make people's bodies the property of the state," he said.
    Mr McGrath said he has worked as a doctor in the field of alcohol and drug dependence and believed that "drug use is a health issue, not a legal one."
    Legalisation of drug possession in Portugal over the last 10 years had resulted in less drug use overall, including in the under 18 age group, lower rates of HIV infection, and more people coming forward for assistance with problems associated with drug use, he said.
There was no reason to be frightened of giving people back sovereignty over their bodies, he said.
"Fundamentally, the issue of drug use is a moral one, with the fundamental question being: Who owns your body - you, or the politicians?"

Another Victim of P & Prohibition [update 2]

By Susan Ryder

Damn the Kiwis.  Any other weekend I’d have been ecstatic at the upset win over the Kangaroos in Brisbane on Saturday night, to capture the Rugby League World Cup for the first time in its 54 year history. To say that the win was unexpected would have been refuted by only the most diehard of diehard supporters, and therefore all the sweeter.

But I couldn’t savour the win on Saturday due to receiving some shocking news that morning. It was the sort of news that you just can’t stop thinking about, try as you might.

I’d heard the radio news report of a brutal sexual attack (is there any other?) upon a 99 year old woman in her home during the early hours of a morning last week. You read it correctly: the lady was 99.  I remember being momentarily horrified. The story was repeated over the next couple of newscasts and then that was that.  Just another forgotten victim of another horrific attack right here in Godzone.

Until, that is, I spoke to Mum on Saturday morning.  It turns out that the victim – let’s call her Mrs X - has three children, one of whom we’ll call Jean.  Mum and Jean share a hobby and when Mum rang her on Friday, Jean was just leaving for the hospital where she and her two siblings are providing a 24-hour watch over their mother who, unsurprisingly, is in a terrible physical and mental state.  This sprightly, independent, female nonagenarian tried to defend herself against a 20 year old male under the influence of P.  Jean does not believe her mother will come out of hospital.

If it’s possible to feel sick and numb and horrified and repulsed simultaneously, I did.  I still do.  I have a 95 year old grandmother who’s of the same ilk as Mrs X.  Nana, too, insists on living alone and doing for herself.  These women have lived good lives and raised families.  They have witnessed the events of most of the 20^th century in all its glory and despair.  They do not deserve even a fraction of the fate that befell Mrs X.

Which brings me to her attacker and his choices, namely to take an illegal, highly dangerous drug.  The media is full of stories as to the potency, danger and addictive properties of methamphetamine, known in New Zealand as “P”.  It is the latest drug horror story to reach our shores.  And with each horror story, the calls for even more regulation and policing are heard all over again.  I know, because I used to be one of those voices.

I used to scoff at those who called for the legalisation of marijuana.  Well, it was pretty easy to scoff.  They were largely hippies and no-hopers or, most painful of all, affluent varsity students sporting Greenpeace t-shirts and adopting the latest social cause … while quietly cashing regular cheques from boring old Mum and Dad.  Notwithstanding my ongoing scorn for the hippies, the truth is that they were right and I was wrong.

It’s oh so difficult to be rational about the subject of illegal drug use -- it’s an emotive topic and you’ll appreciate that I’m very emotive at present -- but if you wish to reduce the problem, it is essential to be so. Consider this:

• When you ban something – anything – you create a black market: an illegal market that operates underground, ie outside the law.
• Black markets are run by outlaws. In NZ’s case, they're run by gangs -- those despicable criminal gangs.
• In contrast to the peaceful resolution carried out in ordinary legitimate businesses, criminals solve problems associated with the distribution and supply of their products violently.
• Not being subject to the natural product regulation that occurs in an open, legal market, the banned product is always of sub-standard quality.
• Consumers have limited knowledge as to product ingredients, which may be dangerous and harmful.
• Black markets create artificially inflated product prices, perfect for criminals who are only interested in high profits with no regard for their own risk.
• Addicts resort to crime to pay the high prices, creating community distress and further stretching police resources.
• Criminals do not care to whom they supply, hence your children and grandchildren become prime targets.

Contrast all that with, say, the sale of paracetamol, a widely-used, easily available pain relief medication.  No matter from which outlet you purchase paracetamol -- a pharmacy, supermarket, dairy or even petrol station -- you can be assured that it has been legitimately manufactured by a reputable company, and duly tried and tested before being released for sale at a price acceptable to the market.

But if we banned it, and overnight tried to limit its supply, you would then have to resort to buying your pain relief (whatever it consists of) from some crook behind a filthy public toilet in your local crappy council park.  Gee, I can’t wait.  And who knows what is in that bottle you'd be so keen to purchase.

Did you ever stop to think that neither kids nor criminals are interested in stealing Viagra or Cialis from their local pharmacy?  These are wildly popular but the kids aren't interested precisely because they are legal, which means there's no money in it for them.

Did you ever stop to think that the government is not there to tell adults what they may voluntarily put into their bodies?

That the great majority of people who use illegal drugs do not abuse them, are not addicted, are harming nobody (are just getting on with their own lives), but are nevertheless considered criminals in the eyes of the law?

That we already, rightly and properly, have laws that prosecute those who harm others or neglect children, whether “under the influence” or not?  And that every single time you call for more regulation, you have just put even more money into the gangs’ pockets?

Yes, I’m talking to you, the well-meaning person who’s actually making matters worse. You cannot save people from themselves (and God knows the state can’t) but you sure as hell can make things worse -- and you have.

Your local pharmacist is a drug-dealer. But he or she is a much nicer person with whom to do business, and you can do it in much nicer surroundings. They are fully qualified, supplying reputable products priced to meet the market. They are hardly likely to hang around school gates in order to supply children. They stand and fall upon their service as per any legitimate business.

Criminals, on the other hand, can never compete with private enterprise for the reasons provided, which means that a drug like P would simply not exist in an open market.  No pharmaceutical company would manufacture it, marketing a safer substitute instead.  But in the market made by prohibition, it's the ideal drug for dealers to push.

Look, I don’t like drugs any more than you do.  I don’t even like taking prescription drugs if I can avoid it. But the truth is that the likes of Al Capone and Pretty Boy Floyd only went out of business in Chicago after Prohibition was thankfully repealed. Their black market profits disappeared at the stroke of a government pen (virtually the only good thing Roosevelt ever did with his pen) and at that stroke the gang violence and the police corruption of alcohol prohibition ended as well.  The only difference between the Chicagoan gangsters and New Zealand’s Black Power?  Capone and his colleagues had better dress sense.  Prohibition of alcohol didn’t work then, and prohibition of drugs doesn’t work now.

One last word, please.  Do not make excuses for the vile individual who attacked Mrs X.  I’m in no mood to listen.  You see, he could have chosen an alternative drug that day, one that wasn’t so destructive.  He could have chosen not to consume anything, not to fry his brain at all. He could have done a lot of things.  But the choices he did make saw him end up brutally violating, perhaps destroying, a sweet lady old enough to be his great-great-grandmother.  For that, I damn the bastard to hell.

* * * More brave and brilliant writing from Libertarian Sus here at Sus's Soundbites * * *

UPDATE 1: Disgraced former media tycoon Conrad Black, convicted last year for his theft of company funds, and now sharing a prison with assorted Florida felons  ("It is a little like going back to boarding school," he says of his stay) has finally woken up to the effects of The War on Drugs - a war he himself once championed.  But in a letter to London's Sunday Times he says the the War has failed:

    "U.S. justice has become a command economy based on the avarice of private prison companies, a gigantic prison service industry and politically influential correctional officers' unions that agitate for an unlimited increase in the number of prosecutions and the length of sentences."
    Fruitless attempts to wipe out the illegal drug trade are to blame for the situation, says Black, taking up a battle cry long espoused by people he's never traditionally associated with - those on the left of the political spectrum, including groups like the American Civil Liberties Union.
    "The entire 'war on drugs,' by contrast, is a classic illustration of supply-side economics: a trillion taxpayers' dollars squandered and (one million) small fry imprisoned at a cost of $50 billion a year; as supply of and demand for illegal drugs have increased, prices have fallen and product quality has improved."

Says PM Jaworski at The Shotgun Blog,

it looks to me like Black thinks money spent on the war on drugs is money "squandered." That in spite of blowing through ridiculous sums of money, there is just about nothing to show for it.
  Conrad Black understands what Milton Friedman said so long ago: "The war on drugs is a failure because it is a socialist enterprise." It always amazes me that there are still so-called conservatives who manage to somehow reconcile opposition to social engineering and big government, with the ultimate social engineering and big government program: the war on drugs ...

UPDATE 2: And let's not fail to mention Milton Friedman's Iron Law of Prohibition,,which explains why outlawing drugs only increases the virulence of recreational drugs: The more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes.  Which means  'P' is precisely the sort of drug you should expect when you start a War on Drugs.

                                 

Going for a 'P'

Q: What’s the best thing about using 'P'?

A: Only 3 sleeps ‘til Xmas!

But enough of this flippancy!  'P' is a serious issue; it is causing serious damage to many people!

Well, yes it is serious, which is why unlike every other political party since the War on Drugs(TM) began, Libertarianz has a serious plan to deal with it.

Yes, that's right, just like Libz plan to actually defend New Zealand (unlike all those other tossers who thing hand-wringing and hakas are enough to do the job), Libz also plan to actually deal with the scourge of P -- the ideal prohibition drug -- instead of, like every other party, continuing to make the problem worse.

If I say so myself, it's an excellent plan.  Read it here.

More, please.

Speaking of things that should be banned on publicly "owned" footpaths, as some people have been, there are politicians about who'd like to ban this:

                                                   
The fools.

What say we make a concerted effort instead to make bans unfashionable?  Who's with me here?  Let's Ban Bans!

If you don't like something someone's doing, what's wrong with persuasion for goodness' sake.

Falsely inflated drug harms

If you want to make both head and tail of the scary drug numbers that were poured across the front page of your Herald this morning, a so called "Drug Harm Index" that  is "more or or less explicitly a public relations tool for police," then head to Russell Brown's post this morning (and the mostly sane comments that follow the post).  "Spectacular but useless" is one of his nicer descriptions for an index of the costs of drug harms that ascribes all the  the costs incurred due to prohibition (i.e. cost of jail, courts, policing) to the costs of the drugs themselves. The words "falsely inflated" are two more that spring to mind as descriptions of this bogus "index."

UPDATE 1:  More sober and dispassionate commentary on the Index here from Liberty Scott.  And a clutch of sober links here pointing readers to what a real economist says about drugs.

UPDATE 2: Eric Crampton, another real economist, notes that Des O'Dea, one of the authors of this new study, was also the author of a cost-benefit analysis of smoking which Crampton tore apart here. "I wonder," he wonders, "if the same errors repeat themselves...."

Drugs corrupt

The point of political discussion is not to talk about politics -- what could be more dull -- it's to get politics out of our lives. What activism has the most impact?  Amit Ghate argues that there are two particular areas of political activism in particular that would be the most productive -- "if one prefers to engage in activism on specific topics, privatizing education and legalizing drugs are among those which could have the most beneficial impact on society."

One reason for the latter is the endemic corruption the War on Drugs inflicts on police.  Paul Hsieh documents the latest case of police corruption made public in Police Corruption in Chicago.

Temptation too much for top cop(s)

When Eddie Ellison visited  New Zealand a few years ago, he related that when he was head of Scotland Yard's Drug Squad, he used to tell new recruits at every induction to look at their colleagues either side of him.  "If both of them aren't corrupt in two years, then you will be," he'd say.  That was the expected extent of corruption in police Drug Squads, Ellison explained -- the result of a collision between low-paid law enforcement and huge amounts of illicit money.  The money is the result of the War on Drugs.

So it's no surprise to hear that the assistant director of the powerful New South Wales Crime Commission, Mark Standen, has been corrupted by contact with a A$120 million international drug ring.  Whatever an erstwhile crime fighter is being paid, it's always far, far less than the amount of money washing around as the result of the War on Drugs.

That's just one reason that law enforcement officers like Ellison are now part of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

Here's Heaven 17, with Temptation.

Another front opening on the War on Drug Users?

A chap called Mike Sabin is making the rounds of the country's impressionable parents, politicians and pedagogues, telling them that to fix the country's drug scourge we need to get even more authoritarian on the War on Drug Users than we already are.  The War on Drug Users that Annette King was open enough to admit a few weeks ago that we're losing.

A few days ago Mr Sabin was briefing parliament on the "Drug epidemic" -- a briefing the pollies were lapping up like dying men in a desert --  offering what Russell Brown calls a "miracle cure for all drug problems."  The cure includes:

• Recognising that cannabis is a "gateway drug" that must be expunged from use;
• Proposing a Drug Tzar who reports only to the Prime Minister (ie., with no outside  oversight or governance);
• Compulsory drug testing in schools and workplaces;
• A system where friends and family dob in users to the police for compulsory rehabilitation
  ... and much, much more..

Apparently the bare bones of the cure (which sounds far worse than the disease) is based on what Sabin says is the successful Montana Meth Project in the States.

If you think this all sounds either too good to be true (or too authoritarian to be taken seriously) then you'd be right, as  Russell Brown's successful fisking of the Montana Meth Project and the rest of Mr Sabin's proposals demonstrates.  This isn't a new front on the War on Drug Users -- it's the same failing War on Drugs in which the real damage is done by the War on Drugs itself.

If Russell doesn't convince you, just give some thought to what a Prime Minister like Helen Clark could do with an open-ended brief to conduct a covert War on selected New Zealanders -- a War conducted without any oversight or governance except by Heather Simpson...  and there you have the bare bones of every War on Drugs ever conducted.

"What can we do to win the war against the drug P?"

With commendable honesty Minister Annette King confesses that the War on the Drug P is already lost.  The Herald follows up and asks, "What can we do to win the war against the drug P?"

Have they ever considered that this is a war than can't be won?  That the real damage is done by the War on Drugs itself? As Milton Friedman once told Bush Snr’s drugs tsar Bill Bennett, “You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favour are a major source of the evils you deplore.”

I won't bore you with another reiteration of the arguments why the War on Drugs can't win (you can read most of my previous posts here), but just consider these few pointers:

• Since the government can't even keep drugs out of prisons, how can they keep them off the street?
• Removing the legal market for recreational drugs (even relatively benign party pills) has created an illicit one, run by criminals.
• Banning and arrests only reduces supply.  Since it does nothing to reduce demand, what do you think that does to price, and the profits of drug suppliers?
• Since banning and arresting drug suppliers puts police in conflict with huge amounts of money, what do you think this does to police morals (hint: Clint Rickards was once an undercover cop).
• Outlawing drugs leaves drugs in the hands of outlaws -- with huge profits driven by the reduced supply. (All praise the War on Drugs.)
• Criminals have no interest in things like quality control, honesty about the composition of a substance, or refraining from selling to children. (All praise the War on Drugs.)
• Outlawing drugs only increases the virulence of recreational drugs.  As Milton Friedman explained with his Iron Law of Prohibition, 'P' is precisely the sort of drug you get when you start a War on Drugs, since the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes.
• If it is impossible to win the war on drugs, and no government anywhere ever has, then the question surely becomes: should we have a legal, transparent, accountable market for drugs, or an illegal, secretive, unaccountable one?

So what do you think? Could it be that what's too often overlooked in the link everyone sees between illegal drugs and crime is the 'illegal' rather than the drugs?  That's certainly the position of the cops and former cops  from an organisation called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) who argue that, "We believe that to save lives and lower the rates of disease, crime and addiction, as well as to conserve tax dollars, we must end drug prohibition."

In the end, none of these practical arguments will convince a soul, not as long as good people are convinced the health of their soul depends on having drugs banned. In other words, not as long as the morality behind the war on drugs remains unchallenged.  In the end, here's the telling point: That consenting adults have the right to make our own choices for ourselves, and we do. As with alcohol use, so too with drug use: youngsters need to be able to see both responsible drug use, and people saying no because they want to say no, not because their free will has been lobotomised.

Perhaps if you won't listen to the cops or to people like Friedman, you'll listen instead to the criminals:'
                                         

Talibanderton

While Jim Talibanderton peddles BZP-based myths for the media to recycle -- including the one that he's not a killjoy -- others like Michael Earley are busying busting them.

After fisking Neanderton's speech to the house on his ban on BZP-based party pills (featured here last week), Earley sent the following letter to the Manawatu Standard correcting a blatantly misleading article on the ban:

Sir, It is clear that your correspondent Lee Matthews obviously has not done his research on BZP. Almost every statement in his article is either factually incorrect, made up or based on anecdotal evidence. He might wish to consider a career other than journalism.

BZ'P is a stimulant -- you cannot "pass out" on party pills, its pharmacologically impossible. If teens were consuming a large amount of BZP they would likely throw up the before the pills were pills digested and the active ingredient able to affect them.

"Party pills, mixed with alcohol or cannabis, could be lethal." - There is not a single recorded instance in the history of BZP (worldwide) where it has found by a coroner to be the cause of death. The same goes with Cannabis. Though you are quite correct that Alcohol can be lethal...

"Sometimes P addicts tried to used party pills to get themselves off the harder drug. It didn't work. They suffered shattering headaches and health side effects." - Actually it did work, I personally know people who have used BZP to get off P; research by Massey University and SHORE also backs this up.

"Party pills, BZP [benzylpiperazine], they're basically cattle drench, to stop worms. The kids who take them might as well squirt drench down their throats." - Since it was created in the 1940s, BZP has never been used as a cattle drench of for worming. This is an urban myth. It is correct that piperazines have been tested as wormers in the 1950s, but they were not sold commercially as drench, and none of these were BZP, MeOpp, TfMPP or other Piperazines

Matthews's article is simply no different from  the 'Reefer-Madness'-type articles that appeared last century. Surely an article with this many factual errors deserves a correction or retraction?

Michael Earley

Stronger, more harmful drugs unleashed by MPs

400,000 consumers of party pills have now been told by 109 MPs that they may no longer legally purchase or consume party pills, and Matt Bowden of the Social Tonics Association is clear what the result of prohibition will be.  "400,000 people have been sent into the arms of the gangs," he told Mike Hosking this morning.

In their eight years on the market there have been neither deaths nor serious injuries due to party pills, but the ban now means those looking for a safer alternative to alcohol or tobacco will have to look elsewhere, and criminals looking for new markets to tap have just been handed a new one on a plate.  As Green MP Metiria Turei said, ""He (Mr) Anderton put our young people at risk to meet his own political objectives."

Because when criminals sell drugs, the safety of their buyers is far from a priority -- politicians who have just voted to make gangsters rich would do well to brush up on Milton Friedman's 'Iron Law of Prohibition' so they may fully understand the disaster they've just unleashed on New Zealanders.  Says Friedman:

"Prohibition encourages dealers to produce and provide the stronger, more harmful product. If you are a drug dealer in Hackney, you can use the kilo of cocaine you own to sell to casual coke users who will snort it and come back a month later – or you can microwave it into crack, which is far more addictive, and you will have your customer coming back for more in a few hours. Prohibition encourages you to produce and provide the more harmful drug."

Look for up to 400,000 people (many of whom had been weaned of harder drugs by the legal high of party pills)  to now be wooed by suppliers of stronger, more harmful products in streets near you soon.

Fisking the forthcoming Party Pill ban

The government is now one step closer to putting party pills in the hands of criminals while turning  consumers of party pills onto possibly harder alternatives -- all because legislation outlawing the active ingredient in party pills passed its second reading in Parliament last night.   Comrade Jim Neanderton spoke on behalf of the War on Drugs.  Guest poster Mike Earley fisks Neanderton's rhetoric for sense, and finds him waging an equal War on Common Sense [MikeE's comments on Neanderton's speech are in italics]:

This Bill removes the legal market for what are called 'party pills'.

[And creates an illicit one, run by criminals.]

I'm pleased that after looking at the Bill the Health Committee has recommended it should proceed without amendment. The Health Committee has worked hard in its consideration of this legislation and I would like to thank all members of the Committee for their valuable work.

[And the health committee ignored 80% of the submissions to the select committee, including the one that noted the clear breech of the NZ Bill of Rights Act, the health select committee also ignored the overwhelming evidence against the level of harm they claim for BZP.]

It is helpful to go back to the origins of the Bill to explain what these amendments do.

In June 2005 this House passed a Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act that made it an offense to supply BZP to anyone under the age of 18, to give away products containing BZP and to advertise BZP.

[This was suggested by the industry, as a measure of self regulation and harm reduction, this had a support of the majority of the industry, and the community at large, along with most interesting groups.]

Those controls were introduced so that there were some controls on BZP while research was carried out into the drug.

[Some of the research was cancelled due to flaws and bias; the rest could not conclude any major level of harm higher than other legal substances.]

The fear was that it could be harmful and parliament took a precautionary approach while we sorted out the facts. Parliament should always make decisions on the basis of the best evidence available.

[This fear proved to be unfounded, and the precautionary approach proved to be unnecessary, with over 26 million pills sold, no deaths, and very little adverse events, all caused by irresponsible use, and mixing BZP with legal and illegal drugs. By comparison, alcohol is responsible for approximately 3% of all adult male deaths in NZ.]

Last year, the Ministry of Health received more evidence, and it brought us to this Bill today. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advised that the independent research which this government commissioned showed BZP and related substances pose a moderate risk of harm.

[A moderate risk of harm, is harm lower than that of Alcohol and cigarettes, and considerably lower than the level of harm of a prison sentence which would be given to those who do consume BZP. A moderate risk of harm constitutes a hangover, and an incredibly small risk of adverse events]

This is not the assessment of politicians: It is the assessment of experts on the panel we appoint to give us the benefit of their expertise. Once this House is advised that there is a risk of harm, what is it going to do with that information?

[The panel is politically motivated, as mentioned the risk of harm is incredibly low, especially when compared to the punishment, and the harm caused by other socially acceptable and legal substances enjoyed by New Zealand politicians, many of whom would receive donations from liquor companies and the like.]

Just over a year ago, on 20 December 2006, I publicly released the committee's advice and began a consultation process on classification. The consultation closed in March and the submissions were analyzed

[almost 80% of these submissions were disregarded and ignored]

The expert committee met again in May with more up to date evidence and again advised a majority view of EACD members that BZP posed a moderate risk of harm.

[Again, a moderated risk of harm is less than that of beer, something which is enjoyed legally by many New Zea landers without threat of a prison sentence.]

This Bill puts the committee's recommendations to me into effect.

It will classify BZP and related substances as Class C1 controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

It will set a threshold for presuming possession for supply at 5 grams, or 100 tablets or pills, each containing some quantity of BZP and related substances.

[This threshold, for a product less harmful than Beer, is the same as of drugs such as Heroin and Pure amphetamine Does the minister consider BZP to be of the same harm to society as these dangerous substances.]

It will remove BZP from Schedule 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005 so it can no longer be sold as a restricted substance

[Instead BZP will be sold illegally, and a monopoly for supply will be given to criminal gangs, this is in essence a subsidy, by the government to criminals. Either this, or consumers will turn to other illicit drugs as a substitute.]

It also provides for an amnesty period of six months for possession and/or use of less than the presumption for supply amount of 5 grams or 100 tablets.

[This presumption for supply is ridiculously low, and is the same as heroin or amphetamines]

I want to briefly deal with some of the issues raised at the Select Committee.

[These issues were raised and largely ignored.]

Some submitters claimed that the expert committee relied on incomplete or non peer reviewed information when it made its recommendation that BZP poses a moderate risk of harm.

Their claims do not stand up to scrutiny. After the expert committee provided its advice to me the Ministry of Health arranged for key studies to be peer reviewed. These peer reviews - and researchers' responses to these peer reviews - were considered by the EACD in May before it re-affirmed its recommendation to me to classify BZP as a class C1 drug.

[The MP is either lying, or unaware of the facts; it is clearly documented that the MRINZ study referred to by the EACD did not stand up either to scrutiny or to peer review. The documents relating to this were released under the Official Information Act.]

I have thought carefully about other concerns, and especially the concern that a classification of BZP might lead some people to other, potentially more harmful drugs.

[Which anecdotal evidence suggests it will do, and studies by Massey University and SHORE support.]

Those sorts of choices are always, to some extent, influenced by both personal and environmental factors.

I am convinced that a large number of people use BZP because it is legal and readily available.

[This is true, but banning it will reduce supply, not demand, the MP is clearly aware of even the basic principles of economics.]

There is an analogy with alcohol. Alcohol is easily New Zealand's most damaging drug. But that is not because it is our most intrinsically harmful drug; It's because alcohol is both legal and easily available.

[Alcohol is however more harmful than BZP].

If we remove the legal market for BZP-based party pills, large numbers of users will stop using the substances they are made from. These are substances that experts consider pose a moderate risk of harm.

[Instead it creates an illegal market for BZP, while some will stop using BZP others will continue to do so illegally, or move to other illicit or legal substitutes which are potentially more harmful instead.]

I know this issue is a concern to the Green party. I find it extraordinary that a party that campaigns against breakfast cereal and coca-cola, wants to liberalise the availability of something experts say poses a moderate risk of harm.

When it comes to GMOs, the Greens advocate a precautionary principle. When it comes to fisheries protection, the Greens advocate a precautionary approach. When it comes to a drug - assessed by experts as harmful - suddenly the Green party appears to throw caution to the winds.

How can you be against Coca Cola, and in favour of party pills – even the regulated kind?

[Fair point, but this pulls apart the Greens' argument against Coca Cola -- it doesn't support his argument against BZP.]

How can you be against fishing companies, chicken farmers and pig farms and in favour of psychoactive drug manufacturers and suppliers?

[As above]

Where there is money to be made, unfortunately, some people will take their opportunities and party pills are no exception. The existence of party pills didn't stop manufacturers trying to find other products to bring to market - just as apples don't keep oranges off the market.

[And there is nothing wrong with manufacturers making money off BZP, that is unless you are anti business. The incentive now is for manufacturers to find a new product, which may or may not be as safe as BZP, only time will tell.]

So the only responsible and precautionary approach is for the Ministry of Health to monitor substances and weigh up the facts as they become available.

[The precautionary approach suggests regulation, not a ban.]

Already the Ministry has advised that any product which contains substances it believes are controlled drug analogues are illegal.

[Which is likely to be against the bill of rights as well as it presumes guilt until proven innocent, rather than innocence until proven guilty, it also does nothing to reduce harm.]

Police have already taken action against one such product, and it has since been withdrawn from sale.

[This was EASE, which Jim Anderton allowed into the country and allowed to be sold until EACD changed their mind about it]

In other words, the law is working as it was meant to do.

[If this is the case, then why does the law need to be amended?]

Not only that, but the Ministry of Health is working with the Law Commission to develop a 'reverse onus of proof' to ensure controls around substances entering the market are tightened up. It is my view that psychoactive drugs should have to be proved safe by their manufacturers before they are put on sale – not by government agencies afterwards.

{A reverse onus of proof may also be against the bill of rights act]

I also acknowledge concern about the potential to criminalise 'party pill' users. It's to avoid punishing people unfairly that the Bill has a six month amnesty period for possession of less than 5 grams or 100 tablets. The amnesty ensures there's enough time between this Bill taking effect and users of party pills facing prosecution.

[This makes no sense, if BZP is so bad, why allow an amnesty, how is consuming BZP now ok, but in 6 months its not. The amnesty is senseless if the Government truly believes that BZP is so harmful that people should be criminalised for its use.]

Manufacturers and retailers of the drug will, under a Supplementary Order Paper drafted to amend the original enactment date of 18 December 2007 which was not able to be met, have 7 days after this Bill receives Royal Assent to stop making and selling BZP and related substances. As most of them anticipated this bill coming into force in December, I don't foresee any problems

[He obviously doesn't have an understanding of commerce -- as the bill didn't come into force in December, then no one knew when it would come into force.].

I know the Green Party and the Maori party believe regulation of BZP is preferable to classification.

I have considered that point carefully. But the advice of the expert committee is clear - these substances are harmful enough to warrant classification.

[No they are not, they are less harmful that substances that are available legally and enjoyed by large amounts of the community]

Ignoring clear, evidence-based, expert advice is tantamount to voting for more harm to be caused to more people.

[The Health select committee has ignored almost all evidence that there is against a ban, they went into the select committee process with the intentition of a ban, and were not interested in any evidence to the contrary, this was a political decision, when it should be, as our drug policy states, be about harm reduction]

I suggest to those parties that their support for an approach which experts say will harm people is morally indefensible. When we are presented in this house with evidence, and when we can help prevent harm, that is what we should do.

[The MP is correct, however he doesn't realise why. BZP is less harmful than a prison sentence, people who support an approach that harms people against their will is morally indefensible, criminalising BZP users does just that.]

Let's be clear about the people those parties are saying they want to harm:

One in five New Zealanders aged thirteen to 45.

[This bill will potentially turn one in 5 New Zealanders aged 13 to 45 into a criminal simply for what they choose to put in their body.]

New Zealanders as young as thirteen - even when the drug is regulated for over-18s. As long as the drug is lawfully distributed, thirteen year olds, and fourteen year olds, and fifteen years olds are fare too easily going to get it.

[This is already illegal, so irrelevant to the argument, also these kids can get illicit drugs easier than they can get alcohol After all illegal drug dealers don't ask ID]

They will have no trouble when their friends and brothers and sisters can go into gas stations and dairies and buy the pills, as they were doing.

[Then the existing law should be policed.]

When they take the drug, it has an effect on them similar to an amphetamine.

[Without the level of harm that amphetamines have.]

That is why experts consider it a moderate risk of harm.

[Which is lower than that of drinking Alcohol.]

I believe party pills will virtually disappear from New Zealand as a result of this classification.

[Just like Alcohol disappeared during the prohibition period, cannabis has disappeared with prohibition, P has disappeared, MDMA has disappeared, Cocaine has disappeared ...  and the list goes on.]

New Zealand now has an extensive body of evidence on BZP and related substances. The evidence shows it will be a good thing for the drug to disappear from New Zealand.

[none of the evidence supports this]

This legislation will remove legal access to BZP and related substances.

[And instead create an illegal market, increasing the risk of BZP harm when it is mixed with unknown substances.]

It will allow the Police and Customs to prevent these substances being imported and marketed and therefore causing the moderate risk of harm experts have identified.

[It will instead waste police and customs time, which could be spent on preventing crime, and protecting our borders.]

TFR78: The Democracy Rationing edition (updated)

"Don’t Vote For Any MP, Any Party Or Any Candidate Who Supports The Electoral Finance Bill!"

Democracy is now rationed. Political speech is being muzzled. Has New Zealand really come to this? The latest Free Radical magazine hits the streets, just in time for Christmas, and just in time to dissect the greatest assault on New Zealand's democracy and free speech since .. well, for ever.

How did it come to this, that saying what's quoted above could have just become illegal? Bernard Darnton and Peter Cresswell explain why, how, and why it’s so wrong – why and how what our soldiers fought to defend is being taken away -- why thousands have taken to the streets to protest it, and where that leaves us now. And that's just the cover story of this bumper summer issue of 'The Free Radical.'

• NANNY's BIG BABIES: The Rise and Rise of an Infantilised Culture
  We now have virtually cradle to cradle nannying -- we’re never allowed out of our cribs, and there's nothing any of New Zealand's childlike, apathetic would-be whiners care to do about it. Marcus Bachler and Peter Osborne take the culture of infantilisation to task. How did we become such crybabies, they ask?
• FEEL-GOOD ENVIRONMENTALISM: Spinning the Climate
  How is it that the forces of global nonsense can fly to Bali in their thousands to force us to make any sacrifice hey consider necessary towards their goal of “saving the planet”? Talking about ways to force us to reduce carbon emissions, emitting 100,000 tonnes of the stuff themselves to fly there to talk about it – that’s how ‘seriously’ they take their own warnings. Vincent Gray, Callum McPetrie, Joel Schwartz, Steve Hayward and Ken Green explain how spinning the climate requires politics to pose as science, and emotions to replace thought.
• BANNING BZP: Prohibition Still Doesn't Work
  How is it that despite abundant evidence that prohibition doesn’t, can’t and hasn’t ever worked, the forces of darkness are doing it again: banning a peaceful party pill, and inviting the social destruction of prohibition all over again. Rodney Hide, Nandor Tanczos and Richard Goode point out the how, as Richard Goode says, the party pills ban but the 'P' into BZP.

All this plus the usual treats, including reviews, interviews, all your regular columnists, and a celebration of the 40th anniversary of your editor’s favourite TV show, all in this 78th Free Radical. 78 blows for freedom, and still going strong!

Head to the Free Radical store to subscribe or to buy your digital Free Radical. Or head to one of these top shops around the country to pick up your hard copy (they should be arriving in shops this afternoon).

Cheers,
Peter Cresswell
EDITOR, THE FREE RADICAL
**POLITICS, ECONOMICS & LIFE AS IF FREEDOM MATTERED**

NB: We're having a few teething problems getting the new digital issue for TFR78 succesfully uploaded at the Free Radical store. Keep checking back: I've been assured it will happen soon.

In the meantime, here's a link for an A3 poster of the cover you can download. Enjoy.

UPDATE: As astute readers might by now have realised, our webmaster appears to have taken an early holiday -- for which I can only offer prospective purchasers of the digital edition my profound apologies, and a recommendation that they purchase a hard copy edition from one of these top shops. And to say that volunteers for the job of Free Rad webmaster will be gratefully received in the New Year.

UPDATE 2: Mystery solved. Just heard that webmaster presently responsible for uploading digital Free Radicals was hospitalised after a car accident. News such as it is so far here. Naturally, our thoughts are with the young man as we wish him a speedy recovery ...

Taser trials

One year of taser trialling is nearly over, and there is now a decision to be made: Do we want the police we pay for to carry tasers. Here below is what I said one year ago. I don't think we've learned anything since to change it?

* * * * *

Steven Wallace. Constable Murray Stretch. Detective Constable Duncan Taylor. Three people who may still be alive if the police had been allowed to carry tasers before now.

So tasers are a good thing. Let the trial begin!

However:

• Their use has been abused by police departments overseas.
  
• NZ's thuggish police culture has become evident in traffic policing and recent court hearings.
  
• We still have many, many laws on the books that are an affront to personal liberty, and that suggest that no matter what internal police guidelines are established for their use, tasers used by the NZ police are going to be used against some people that have committed no real crime, and some of them will be used when and how they shouldn't.

So if our police force was run by angels and we only had good law on the books, tasers would be an unreservedly good thing. Does that perhaps show the urgency of getting our laws right, and proper checks and balances over our police force?

I think so. Fine words and promises aren't enough. You can imagine for yourself how much restraint such fine words would exercise on Clint Rickards and his colleagues. If Tasers are to be introduced, proper legal checks and balance must be introduced to effect firm, entrenched, systematic and transparent restraint. Victimless crime laws must be repealed so innocent people are not 'Tased.' And as I argued here a short while ago, police systems need to urgently change to fix what most of us already know: that all is not well with the force. Trevor's ten points for fixing police systems would be something else to get on with quick-smart.

If the introduction of Tasers is urgent, as I believe it is, then all this needs to happen with speed.

And here's one further point:

• If the police are allowed to defend themselves with pepper spray and tasers, then why can't we? Why shouldn't NZers be allowed to own Tasers to defend themselves from attack? If the police need to defend themselves as a matter of urgency, which they do, then how much more urgent is it that we who are their employers are able to defend ourselves.

LINKS: Taser trial starts Friday - TVNZ
Taser protection - Not PC (an earlier post on which this one is based)

RELATED: Politics-NZ, Law, Victimless_Crimes, Self-Defence