Party pills containing BZP have recently been illegalised after a

long debate. Many people are still questioning whether this has been a good move, or if it is just going to

encourage manufacturers to bring out new forms of party pills (that they will be able to sell in shops) with

potentially even more dangerous, unknown ingredients in them.
What do you guys think? Had any evil

experiences with party pills, or do you think they are harmless?

I've never taken party pills before, but i still think that its a bad move on the goverments part because they will just go underground sort of like P, methanfetanie and Marajuana (sorry im not sure on the spelling) which will make people get more of it and take more of it when they get there hands on it,

the 2nd case is like you say.. having new forms bought out to legally sell in shops around the country R18 im sure.. but still.

I agree. Not only will the party pills market be driven underground, but there'll be less caution over what goes into them, and someone's probably gonna make a heap more money out of it! And it won't be the govt. So they lose both ways.

There are several issues to consider when discussing the use of BZP, one is the whether or not BZP has any harmful effects, and another is the agenda of the Associate Minister of Health – MP Jim Anderton.

Loosely speaking, Jim Anderton’s conservative agenda has been to remove ALL ‘legal highs’ available to the general public, under the pretence of them being harmful. BZP has been his latest target.

A 2007 study of BZP Party pills by Rachael A Butler and Janie L Sheridan from the University of Auckland - School of Pharmacy concluded that “Findings suggest that young people in this study were not suffering excessive or dangerous adverse effects. However, potentially risky use of these products raises the issue of the need for developing harm reduction interventions.”

(Highs and lows: patterns of use, positive and negative effects of benzylpiperazine-containing party pills (BZP-party pills) amongst young people in New Zealand. 14 June, 2007)

In the couple of years preceding the reclassification a number of negative stories involving the use of party pills were being reported in the news. Notably missing from these reports (although not surprising considering the sensationalism our media was creating) was that the user failed to follow the instructions of use, they had consumed not only more than the prescribe dose but had in all reported cases mixed with alcohol, other drugs or both. In some cases it was not disclosed until after the initial report that the user was also on antidepressants or pre-existing mental health issues.

This is worth thinking about when receiving stories of ‘bad experiences’ from users.

Anecdotal evidence, and evidence from the aforementioned study indicates that party pills containing BZP fall somewhere in the range of low-risk to negligible risk when used responsibly, and following the directions explicitly.

I believe that the reclassification of BZP used in party pills is a mistake and that the decision to reclassify BZP should be repealed.

By providing the public with legal alternatives, the argument has already been presented, perhaps the use of illegal equivalents will decrease.

Consider this, in the 10+ years that party pills have been around, not one person has died solely from the use of party pills. Thousands have died from tobacco related illnesses and cancers.

Fully agree. Making party pills illegal will only lead to a greater increase in illicit drug use.

If there was a problem with a certain ingredient within party pills, in my opinion they should have either regulated it stronger (ie. smaller doses) or found better alternatives rather than to ban it altogether.

At least when party pills were legal the govt had control over restrictions for what they could/could not contain and attempt a risk management strategy.

In a country where over 30% (www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/2907?Open) of 18-24 year olds have used marijuana in the last year, banning party pills is the govt sticking its head in a sandbox and refusing to acknowledge the problem.

Shiv you raise another important point which is the use of marijuana, and more broadly speaking the drug culture in NZ. To deviate slightly from the Party Pills issue.

All Nations who 'wage war on drugs' inevitably pour millions of dollars into fighting a losing battle, there is much more that could be said on that subject but my point is that maybe drugs are here to stay. Having used marijuana for a short period in my life I know just how available it is - along with many other substances. The fact that the police do their best to control these illegal substances is great, big busts always make the news, but in reality have little or no impact on demand or supply.

This nature of things suggests that maybe a totally different approach to drugs is needed, I am not promoting legalisation or anything like that. But the fact remains that some people are going to experiment with certain drugs regardless of the illegality or our societies' judgement of people who use of those drugs.

Obviously education is a great weapon against the use of illegal drugs but so is having legal low-harm alternatives, because it is already perfectly clear that some people (regardless of the consequences, exercise their democratic right to choice and) choose to use psycho-active substances.
Which then begs the question: if some people are going to use psycho-active substances anyway, why not have legal equivalents that are 1) non-addictive, 2)regulated/monitored, 3)taxable, 4)remove criminality, and 5)offer the user an experience similar to the illegal equivalent?

Could we then argue that our Government has an obligation to provide legal alternatives as a harm reduction response to the reality that illegal drugs are widely available and some people choose to use them?

The debate that isn't being voiced is the the comparable harm of BZP vs 'P' or even estasy. Even if BZP was shown clearly to have some negative effects - would they be as bad or as threatening as the negative effects of 'P'?

I'm also in agreement with you Shiv that the Government has its' head in the sand over this one.
Though we have to look at the individuals involved in making the policies and not the entire Government. Yes I will 'bash' Jim Anderton, he is undoubtedly the wrong man for the job, I will not mention exactly why he has become so overly and emotionally involved, but the lack of objective and considered thought coming from his corner of the Ministry of Health is disturbing.