Test on idiots

Quote of the day:

“If it’s necessary to have these mind-changing chemicals, then test them on the idiots that want to take them, because there’s hundreds that want to do it.” John Banks.

He was commenting on testing party pills on animals.

Banks was the only MP to vote against legislation which would allow animal testing. However, Associate Health Minister Todd McLay shares his concerns.

“Many New Zealanders have raised concerns around the possibility of animal testing for psychoactive products, and I am one of them.

“I have today clarified with the Ministry of Health that no licences to test psychoactive substances are to be issued before the Expert Advisory Committee has completed its consideration of what constitutes a low risk of harm and the appropriateness of all aspects of a testing regime,” says Mr McClay.

“New Zealand has a policy of replacing, refining and reducing any testing involving animals and I have made it clear that it is my expectation we will set an example in this area. Within days of receiving my ministerial warrant I inserted Clause 12 of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 ruling out any animal testing where an alternative exists.

“Last week I had a positive meeting with animal welfare representatives to discuss how we can together work towards a regime that will exclude animal tests. I welcome their input as I am sure this will add to the effective and practical implementation of the Act in the months ahead,” says Mr McClay.

The Psychoactive Substances Act removed legal highs from hundreds of retailers around New Zealand and will ensure that only low risk products are available in the future. The Government’s overriding objective with the legislation is the health and welfare of young people, and the Act is already having a positive effect for those most vulnerable.

Countries around the world continue to struggle with how to deal with these products and New Zealand is leading the world in addressing these completely new substances.

“There is a lot of water to pass under the bridge before any testing regime is finalised and I look forward to working with interested parties, including those involved in today’s marches, on this issue in the weeks ahead,” says Mr McClay.

I am not against animal testing on drugs which could do a lot of good but party pills definitely don’t fall into that category.

 

13 Responses to Test on idiots

  1. robertguyton says:

    Banks suggests we test these substances on people, many of whom have serious problems with addiction.
    Let’s all play, ‘Spot the idiot’.

  2. TraceyS says:

    I bet you enjoyed seeing all those protesters cheering Mr Banks.

  3. Andrei says:

    You do understand that Mr Banks was making a point by cracking a joke don’t you Robert?

    It’s called humour

  4. TraceyS says:

    According to NewScientist, NZ is being very innovative:

    “The neat thing about this is that it says to the industry, ‘we’ll let you create a market for your products, but you have to play by the rules and not do stupid things like label substances as bath salts’,” says Bell. He says that while everyone else is still trying to ban every new drug that comes along, New Zealand is the first country to try to regulate them. “This is one of the more pragmatic responses to new psychoactive substances, and it could provide a model for others to follow.”

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829223.200-new-zealand-law-permits-low-risk-designer-drugs.html#.UfhR_NJHJsk

    Of course there will be some issues with any new approach. Why do we have to be so critical of ourselves?

    I think the approach taken by NZ should achieve the desired goal of lower-risk substances in the marketplace. Because these should be easier to get approved than the high risk ones. This should in turn result in lower-risk substances being tested on animals. I agree we should have standards for animal testing, but banning it for certain applications just because some people don’t like the product end-use? No. There are people don’t like herbicides but should their constituent chemicals not be tested on animals just because of a dislike, by some, for the end-use?

  5. robertguyton says:

    Humour according to John Banks:
    What?
    Who?
    Where?
    I don’t know what you mean!
    I’m a married man!

    Give me a break – John Banks and humour have never met.

  6. Marc says:

    Legal high users should make it clear – it’s unethical to test my recreational drugs on animals, so I will boycott any drugs approved which have involved animal testing. I will also protest and boycott any retailer selling such drugs.

    End of problem, and no animals were harmed in making this decision.

    Liberal hedonist loser druggies, hmm… maybe there’s a flaw in this argument.

  7. Armchair Critic says:

    The contrast between the post immediately proceeding this one (in which you quote extensively from an advocate of pure free trade, without noting any exceptions or providing any criticism) and this post (in which you advocate for a strictly regulated market, except where out right bans are your preference) could not be more stark, Ele.

  8. scrubone says:

    Exporting and smoking dope are somewhat different issues.

  9. Armchair Critic says:

    Both posts are about markets. In one the author advocates for free markets. In the next she advocates for extensive interference in the market by the government.
    That makes for a rapid about face.

  10. TraceyS says:

    The market for these products will still be determined by supply and demand. That won’t be restricted except by the extent that consumers are willing to pay the costs producers will pass on for safety testing. That’s reasonable isn’t it? Consumers will pay (or chose not to pay) for the assurance that the product they are using is safe. More than reasonable, most people would probably regard it as essential. These products are responsible for immediate harm.

  11. Marc says:

    And if they don’t like it that they have been tested on animals, then they won’t buy them, right? Or is it just the Government’s fault again, nothing to do with personal choice and responsibility.

  12. TraceyS says:

    Yep, just like so many other products.

  13. Armchair Critic says:

    The costs of testing are passed on because the government has intervened in the market. When a government interferes in a free market (as you acknowledged they will when you typed “…except…”) it is no longer a free market.
    As I said when scrubone missed the point at 11:52, the posts are about markets, and they are contradictory.
    If you wish to discuss drug policy I am happy to join in. As it seems unlikely that the opportunity will arise until Saturday, I’ll see you at the Saturday Soapbox. Well, in the evening; I have to collect a truck-load of hay and I have a hundred metres of post and rail fence to build while the sun shines. Or while the rain falls.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: