Legal Party pill alternatives

Forums › Off topic › Legal Party pill alternatives

1 | 2 | 3

1819 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#118275 23-Mar-2008 21:41

mobygeek:
One thing I can't understand on the drugs issue is why the government does it's best to prevent usage, and then goes on to encourage sex. Same difference, isn't it? We have babies being murdered by people who should never have been their parents.

I think Hitler had a program like that for dealing with all them gipsies...

cokemaster

Exited
4929 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#118277 23-Mar-2008 22:04

Nice post mobygeek.

Depending on peoples maturity, the sex topic is quite an interesting one.

I don't claim to be an expert in the field at all, I'm not too sure what encouragement that government has done to encourage sex. I guess being a more 'liberal' society, we don't universally condemn sex before marriage. We sell condoms on the supermarket shelves, petrol stations and chemists. Some parts of society here in New Zealand, particularly on the moral or religious front are not keen of the idea... but in reality - people will have sex. Like it or not, my experience at Massey University at Palmerston North, it can often be at times when people are completely smashed from drinking too much.

However the dangers of having sex when you execise the nessecary precautions like 'protection' (condoms) and contraceptives (condoms, pill etc), there is little risk.

Education plays an extremely vital role in what you describe and you can see quite clearly the case when you look at places which tend to be very religious (not all are)and opt for the strict 'no sex before marriage' approach, rather than giving them the tools to make that informed choice.

The reality is that many youth can and will have sex before marriage. Without the right tools (knowledge) and access to contraceptives, they will still do so. What makes it worse is that many who have unprotected sex, hide it, until it is too late. Or they might try playing doctor themselves and put themselves plus child at risk. We aren't even considering STD's at this point (which often can be stopped with condoms!) which some are particularly deadly.

Parents often overreact when their child comes to them with an unexpected pregnancy - yes, its not desired at all. But probably the best test of parenthood is not to throw your own child who made the mistake out to fend for her own, but to work with her to help rebuild her life. There are options such as adopting the baby. However it seems to be quite a common thing and in some societies the mother more often is seen to be sinful, condemned to be an outcast of society.

Often the resulting carnage of the unwanted children are swept under the carpet of rhetoric.

In my opinion, educating what sex is, contraceptives, and equipping our youths with the information is the only way to go. People can make their own choices about whether of not they will have sex, but at least give them the information so that they don't create another poor unwanted soul into a hated world.

My opinion is that, I find that sex, party pills, smoking, and liquor all require education but thats where it stops. Party pills, smoking and liquor are all external, physical objects while sex is often generated by hormones within our bodies. 'Banning it' and removing that education will do more harm than good.

Finally - there are protections if you do decide to have sex - contraceptions such as condoms are very successful. Too date, there is not a similar protection against previously none/loosely regulated party pills.

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

mobygeek

307 posts

Ultimate Geek

#118280 23-Mar-2008 22:30

Don't be too upset if this is my last post before bed, I will get back to check up tomorrow, but having said sex is inside ourselves hormone wise, you have actually said it really well, considering that pregnancy is also inside our (female) selves. I guess I am just lucky I never conceived before 24.

Can I just say that the fear of pregnancy at age 9 is definitely not a good thing. And leave that remark at that.

I have spoken with young mothers who were Not told that they could get pregnant on the pill, as I nearly did, too. And have two cousins conceived whilst my aunty was on the pill. So, c'mon docs, give the girls the Full Facts.

Good thing we aren't getting into STD's, or what ever the government wants to call them nowadays. Not tonight, anyway. Maybe another thread...

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79297 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#118281 23-Mar-2008 22:33

hellonearthisman:
mobygeek:
One thing I can't understand on the drugs issue is why the government does it's best to prevent usage, and then goes on to encourage sex. Same difference, isn't it? We have babies being murdered by people who should never have been their parents.

I think Hitler had a program like that for dealing with all them gipsies...

Someone had to invoke Godwin's Law. We haven't had this for ages. And seriously it's not even on topic... Mobigeek's comments has nothing to do with eugenics.

geoffwnz

1594 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#118311 24-Mar-2008 08:05

The bit I find most interesting about "herbal highs" is the total lack of anything herbal in them.
BZP as mentioned previously is basically cattle drench, so the users won't have any worms.
Surely they could be done under false advetising for starters?

The other thing with the party pills is that you never know what you are getting as they vary in strength and content from packet to packet.
Some even contain other drugs like E or P.

So, really, not much of an informed choice when you don't actually know what you are getting.

MotorDrive Rallying

mobygeek

307 posts

Ultimate Geek

#118314 24-Mar-2008 08:47

According to the Wikipedia article, BZP was looked at in the fifties, and abandoned as a anthelmintic (worm killer). The article also states that it can be manufactured relatively cheaply from the raw materials, so why not just make it darn-near impossible to obtain one or two of the ingredients?

Why did this drug hide in obscurity for so long?

I guess we can at least take comfort that no giant drug company is making a fast buck on this one?

Speaking of which, will our inimitable gangs get going with the illicit side? (Wonder if they were involved with production anyway?)

I also read that there can be up to 300% mark up on the pills. Why support such a rip off?

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#118329 24-Mar-2008 09:48

geoffwnz: The bit I find most interesting about "herbal highs" is the total lack of anything herbal in them.
BZP as mentioned previously is basically cattle drench, so the users won't have any worms.
Surely they could be done under false advetising for starters?

The other thing with the party pills is that you never know what you are getting as they vary in strength and content from packet to packet.
Some even contain other drugs like E or P.

So, really, not much of an informed choice when you don't actually know what you are getting.

Absolute rubbish. Let me start by stating I have never taken party pills or drugs for that matter. All party pill manufactures must place the ingredients and amounts on their packaging. None of these manufactures place P or E inside the pills. Can you imagine what this would cost? What benefit is this to them? I believe you are stating “facts” you heard which in reality are urban legends.

BZP is not used in cattle drench, it was previously (in the 1970’s) and was found to be ineffective and dangerous and has been abandoned as an anti-parasitic agent. Medical literature points to its trial as an anti depressant but due to its ease of abuse this was removed also. To make an informed decision you must be fully informed. I have the feeling you are not!

When is BZP dangerous? When it is taken in toxic dosages ie 4-10 party pills in 1 night. Where was the last time you saw an advert telling you to take only one or you could have a seizure? No pictures of that on the packages; because its easier just to ban it.

I think the thing that geekzone members have to remember is that while most if not all of our members are well educated individuals many of the people taking these pills are not. There are thousands more of these chemicals out there and if it takes the government 3 years to ban them you are fighting a losing battle.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#118332 24-Mar-2008 10:01

mobygeek:
I also read that there can be up to 300% mark up on the pills. Why support such a rip off?

An interesting point; I bought a jersey from Farmers the other day. It cost me $40; not bad I thought. My mate who works their saw me wearing it a couple weeks later and she told me how much the wholesale price they got it for was - $12.00 NZ. Markups are reality.

More to the point of informed choice and markups, do you buy Panadol or Nurofen? Both of these products are “trade names” for a drug which has a generic name.

Panadol is paracetamol; legally Panadol contains paracetamol. Read the package it will state for the ingredients “contains 300mg of paracetamol”. So why buy Panadol at 4 – 8 bucks more expensive? There is no reason why, chemically they are identical!

Nurofen is Ibuprofen; the two are identical and again Nurofen marks up their cost on advertising their brand. So never buy Nurofen or Panadol over Paracetamol or Ibuprofen there is no financial reason to do it!!
Finally let me state this; NZ an the USA are the only two developed countries in the world that allow advertising of drugs including Panadol and Nurofen on TV, in magazines and on billboards.

hellonearthisman

1819 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#118387 24-Mar-2008 16:16

Banning the base products if these BZP pills is not likely as it's been pointed that these are used on the farm and NZ has a real big farm base and would end up hurting the farmer who would not be able to but the stuff the need to keep the stock healthy. Some people think if it doesn't hurt livestock then it should be ok for humans too.

I don't think the gangs had anything to do with the production of party pills as it was a licensed industry, some manufactures where dodge by putting some E in there brews, that was bad (I never got any - i here E is a very produces very nice feelings of extacy)

Still I don't see what the hassle is, more people die and have there lives upset by from phone related issues, shout the phone be banned.

Also the debating point, where US is used as the intelligent moral majority is a little off, I'm sure there a geekzoners out there that don't have such a bill issue with others are there use of their recreational time, might not win a vote, but it's a MMP system, so all the view's get represented.

Educationis better than prohibition.

cokemaster

Exited
4929 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#118409 24-Mar-2008 17:44

mobygeek:

Can I just say that the fear of pregnancy at age 9 is definitely not a good thing. And leave that remark at that.

I agree completely.

webhosting

Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

mobygeek

307 posts

Ultimate Geek

#118439 24-Mar-2008 21:13

So, itxtme, who do you want to make a profit? Or, more precise, how do you want the profit made? Buying a jumper and keeping warm is probably better than getting off your face and the jumper possibly hurts fewer people. Did your family go hungry when you bought the jumper? Do you have children who saw you off your face because you wore your jumper? I have been in a car as a kid with a drunk relative. I have seen my brother crying in the back seat of the car at four because he was about to go somewhere with a drunk (at that time) driver. By the way, forgive me if I am wrong, but a three hundred percent mark-up on twelve dollars makes it fortyeight dollars, so you got a bargain? Plus maybe the shop assistant made an 'honest living'? Like I have said before, I have seen the effects of drug and alcohol adiction first hand and I am not impressed with people who make a living selling the stuff...

BrentR

1315 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#118447 24-Mar-2008 22:40

The amount of cluelessness in this thread is downright amazing!!!!

Some of you seem to get your daily fix of information out of the NZ Herald.

AmooMan

307 posts

Ultimate Geek

#118449 24-Mar-2008 23:30

alternatives to party pills...

Well try having 3-5 Red Ball & vodka before you go out..

Umm also there is higher concentration of red ball you can buy.. think its called Somthing Blue Bear or something..
Can get it from 24's on the shelfs way at the back.. Its like 4 X stronger

Hard core stuf.. i use it when I need to stay awake for LANs 24hours +

No idea what its doing to my body..

Only had to do it twice in last few years tho.. so all good

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#118452 24-Mar-2008 23:53

mobygeek: So, itxtme, who do you want to make a profit? Or, more precise, how do you want the profit made? Buying a jumper and keeping warm is probably better than getting off your face and the jumper possibly hurts fewer people. Did your family go hungry when you bought the jumper? Do you have children who saw you off your face because you wore your jumper? I have been in a car as a kid with a drunk relative. I have seen my brother crying in the back seat of the car at four because he was about to go somewhere with a drunk (at that time) driver. By the way, forgive me if I am wrong, but a three hundred percent mark-up on twelve dollars makes it fortyeight dollars, so you got a bargain? Plus maybe the shop assistant made an 'honest living'? Like I have said before, I have seen the effects of drug and alcohol adiction first hand and I am not impressed with people who make a living selling the stuff...

Oh please, as dramatic as you wish to make your argument. this does not damage the fundamental points I am stating. Your past history with drunk drivers is your business and has absolutely no validity in response to anything I have said. Attempts to tug at heart strings through personal experiences involving illegal activities and what I have said simply do not correlate. The topic is about party pill and more to the point BZP.

I have said – I do not condone party pills or BZP
You yourself have seen the bad effects of “drugs and alcohol addiction” so should we ban all of that too? The point I am making which you clearly choose to ignore is that BZP is the banned substance and there are many more to come. Party pills have been around for 4-5 years now – it has taken that long to ban BZP. How long is it going to take to ban the next substance? – do not kid yourself their will be another substance

So what is a sustainable answer? Findings (medical, not the local newspaper) have found that party pills are dangerous at toxic dosages (more than 3-4 pills in one go), my argument is to educate users rather than attempt to ban the flavour of the month every 4-5 years!!

And apologies my maths didn’t work out to be exactly 300% markup I had not intended it to. Yes the worker enjoyed her 11.50 an hour while the stock holders rubbed their hands together!

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#118453 24-Mar-2008 23:56

This feels extremely appropriate right now!!

1 | 2 | 3