• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

STANZ offers full safety code for party pills

starboy

Bluelighter
Joined
May 13, 2004
Messages
118
logo.jpg


STANZ offers full safety code for party pills

Sunday 11th February 2007

A comprehensive regulatory regime and safety code governing the manufacture, sale and use of party pills were today released by the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand.

The documents were sent to Associate Health Minister Jim Anderton earlier in the week.

STANZ Chairperson, Matt Bowden, said that if the protection of the public was the issue, regulation was the way to go and that it was incumbent on the Government to at least trial this approach before moving to ban BZP and related substances.

“Prohibition has never worked, not in any country and not at any time, and will not work in New Zealand either. It will simply deliver the market to the gangs, and to hard drugs like P.

“BZP was designed as a stimulant which – unlike P – is not addictive and does not provoke violent or criminal behaviour,” he said. “A lot of the commentary from opponents has failed to grasp this essential fact: BZP is the safe alternative to P.”

He also said that there were democratic rights involved and that these should not be casually cast aside.

“More than 24 million party pills have been sold in New Zealand since 2000, the very large proportion of them repeat purchases. This demonstrates that there is high demand for legal access to these products and that, for the great majority of users, they provide a positive experience.”

Mr Bowden noted that the advice from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs was tentative in its conclusions, acknowledging that there were no guarantees that banning BZP would reduce use and that there was a risk that it might exacerbate the problems.

The committee had also stated that there were potential advantages in retaining BZP as a Restricted Substance subject to tougher regulations, but did not recommend this because it would require the establishment of a significant administrative and enforcement capacity.

“It is simply not good enough to put young lives at risk just to save money, especially when the Government already has the power under the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005 to regulate.

“In fact, the Act anticipates regulation, and that was clearly the Parliament’s intention. But the Government, despite sustained pressure from STANZ, has allowed these provisions to remain dormant.

“That is why STANZ has now taken the extra step of commissioning draft regulations which address the Government’s main concerns while avoiding the known risks associated with prohibition.

“The restrictions in the Act now are absolutely minimal being confined to an age restriction of 18, a ban on advertising in the mainstream media and a ban on retailers, manufacturers or distributors from offering restricted substances free of charge or as a gift, prize or promotion.

We are proposing to supplement this with a further 26 regulations. They include:

  • A tablet must contain no more than 200 milligrams of BZP and a package no more than 600 milligrams;
  • BZP raw material must be 99 per cent pure;
  • BZP must only be sold from premises where entry is restricted to persons aged over 18 years or from licensed premises (not including convenience stores or supermarkets);
  • BZP products cannot be sold within 250 metres of a school, recreational centre or playground;
  • Any advertising must be limited to places where restricted substances are sold and where entry is available only to persons over 18 and must not be visible from the street; and
  • Health warnings, including the importance of drinking plenty of water, not mixing with alcohol and not exceeding the maximum recommended dose, must be featured on the packaging.

“Further to this, STANZ has prepared a Code of Good Manufacturing Practice. This is a detailed document modelled on the New Zealand Code of Practice for Medicinal Products and incorporates such matters as quality control, testing and analysis of all batches, training, complaints, tracing procedures, record keeping and hygiene.

“Party pills are already safer than most of the alternatives, including alcohol. Tighter regulation of the sort that STANZ is proposing will make them safer still. This has got to be the better and more responsible option and we urge the Government to give it serious consideration,” Mr Bowden said.

The draft regulations and the code are available on STANZ website.

www.stanz.org.nz
(Note to Bluelight, this is not a supplier site)
 
250 metres? That rule might as well not be in there as 250 metres is not very far at all. But decent set of rules. Can alcohol be bought in supermarkets in NZ?
 
A lot of kiwis obviously. MDMA is way more expensive and harder to find over there. Ice/Meth is expensive too. You can pick these up at any bottle shop there and there are many different pills to chose from with different doses and combinations of piperazines.
 
400,000 people have used them in the last 7 years, 26 million pills consumed, no deaths or lasting injuries.

What we are trying to do is to set precedent for drug policy worldwide to reach escape velocity from prohibition and show that rigid regulation can work instead.

There is a feeling within society that we need to stick to the plan of banning everything, so we need to gently remind our government that no, this is the way forward.

We would be extremely greatful if any others in the drug policy field or with a story to tell as regards the horrors of prohibtion or the benefits of regulation - to make submissions, even by email to our government.

We believe that this will set world precedent in drug poicy, but are concerned that United Nations are starting to take an interest, we understand that our govt received a letter from UN asking us to make known our intentions with this new drug category.

NZ has stood up to pressure from the US previously, particularlly with our no nukes stance, and our lack of support for the War of Terror, so hopefully can do so with the War on Drugs also.


SImply download this letter: http://www.ndp.govt.nz/legalpartypills/documents/bzp-consultation-letter.pdf

Then email and identify yourself as an interested party and ask for all the relevant information and how you can make a submission.

You have until March 23rd 2007 (we got a 1 month extension)
 
Can alcohol be bought in supermarkets in NZ?
Yep 7 days a week, before couldnt buy it on sundays and only from alcohol stores. Edit v1.0: Also which is why alcohol is so cheap here including imports, its the competition between supermarkets and alcohol outlets, most people get their wine+beer from supermarkets as the cost is quite cheap.

Who the hell is buying this shit
ALOT of people I help out at a party pill store and 50 - 60% of people who come in are usually english, swedish, german and dutch tourists.

MDMA is way more expensive and harder to find over there. Ice/Meth is expensive too.
MDMA is very easily accessible but only in the cities. Ice is expensive, but it really depends on availability. Coke and heroin fiends would have a feild day to how cheap it is here (not much in demand).
 
Last edited:
Without naming prices though, all the tourists from NZ i meet in Surfers say they pay more than double what it is here, sometimes triple. (mdma)
Were u saying coke and H were cheap in NZ? I hear alot of "H" is morphine over there or codeine homebake ?
 
I thought H and coke were really expensive and hard to get here? Certainly, from memory, our usage rates are relatively low, according to the research I've seen. (Whereas for MDMA or meth we have quite high usage rates). I'm willing to admit it if I'm wrong though :)

MDMA is definitely more expensive here than any other country I've tried it in (UK, US, India) or in Australia.
 
On-topic: a good submission Matt, and thanks for posting it here. I really must remember to write my submission to the Minister (got it drafted in my head ;)).

One thing I was hoping someone would challenge Anderton on: he says that the research shows that there's a significant risk of death from using BZP. Yet no-one's EVER died from it (other than that woman who combined it with MDMA, and probably died from water intoxication).
 
Splatt said:
Without naming prices though, all the tourists from NZ i meet in Surfers say they pay more than double what it is here, sometimes triple. (mdma)
Were u saying coke and H were cheap in NZ? I hear alot of "H" is morphine over there or codeine homebake ?

If they get it from gangs who circulate the city, then yep may cost a bit, but from private people/clubbers - no! rather cheap, when mdma was first available it was definately alot, so you get people who try and sell it for the same price as in 1996 today aka gangs!! im talking about wellington and auckland though. Somewhere on the grapevine it got twisted! -> morphine+prescription drugs/opiates is the number 1 choice here. H isnt

Sim0n said:
I thought H and coke were really expensive and hard to get here? Certainly, from memory, our usage rates are relatively low, according to the research I've seen. (Whereas for MDMA or meth we have quite high usage rates). I'm willing to admit it if I'm wrong though :)

MDMA is definitely more expensive here than any other country I've tried it in (UK, US, India) or in Australia.

I guess im in the right circle of friends then, though it took me several years to build that trust, most coke+h passes through NZ enroute to other countries, so again am not surprised if people trade it for ice, since they can make $$$$ more profit. Heh definately more expensive than UK and US!! but not much different than OZ, depending on whether you buy from gang affiliated people or private syndicates. RCs is right up there as well, availability of various chems have risen since the popularity of BZP, TFMPP etc.. Also we have high usage of mdma+meth+gbl in wellington, also known as liquid city after the justin rhys media coverage..

On Topic. Great work matt! there was the article that I posted in the MCPP thread about a northland guy dying from a combo of mdma+bzp, but have heard nothing since?.. Also will do a submission as well, I know alot of people who regularly use BZP so their input would be good too.

edit: Theres usually only a couple or if that of various pills circulating each month, a big difference to OZ where theres like a trillion releases within a week or so ha! and forgot to add coke+h isnt continuous, its like acid, pops up in batches every so often.
edit 1.0: h+morphine is worth more+in demand in the south island than the north island (just finished talking to a mate from a certain bikie gang in chch), the trends here are really wierd..
edit 1.0a: LOL after some more 'extensive' research, a low quality pill here is equivalent to a normal pill in OZ, but a very good/high quality pill e.g the versaces, white nikes and pink smiley face of the xmas period/wellington would be the same as 1 and a half/2pills from OZ. There are also 3 gangs distributing mdma in wellington city, thats why alot of people go to the suburbs away from the city, such as the hutt, its the place to be.

Ha!! I can see why they banned it at supermarkets in west auckland!! I went to a death metal party there and it was nuts, people look at you wierd if you dont wear 8ft sativa t-shirts and dont have long hair.
Ill add my 10c worth about your questions to matt. Personally I take BZP inbetween having a rest from other drugs, I have cut down on ice+mdma/not that much, but TBH it has increased my usage of 2ci, 2cb, methylone (when its avail) and love for any other RC.
v
 
Last edited:
a few questions for Mr Bowden....
1)you say that party pills are safer than most of the alternatives...do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim???
2)is there any scientific evidence that BZP is non addictive and safer than methamphetamine?(ice or "P")
3)is there any evidence that the introduction of party pills(herbals) in N.Z has had any effect on the amount of ecstacy or methamphetamine being manufactured or sold in N.Z?

Also Mr Bowden it is my understanding that you have or at least had a vested interest in the nz "herbal" market so would it be unfair to presume that you stand to profit from the work you are doing for STANZ???

thankyou,im not trying to be negative towards what STANZ is doing in New Zealand but i am very curious as to what grounds you are basing these claims on?
person: yes alcohol can be found in supermarkets everywhere in new zealand except for west auckland where it is illegal for supermarkets to sell!:\
 
400,000 people have used them in the last 7 years, 26 million pills consumed, no deaths or lasting injuries.

A tablet must contain no more than 200 milligrams of BZP and a package no more than 600 milligrams;

BZP raw material must be 99 per cent pure;

Health warnings, including the importance of drinking plenty of water, not mixing with alcohol and not exceeding the maximum recommended dose, must be featured on the packaging.
I cannot help but wonder what the situation would be if exactly the same position as is outlined above for BZP applied to MDMA.

99% pure, exact known dosage per tablet, health warnings, plus packaging it with other vitamins to reduce harm, etc, etc.

I do not see much of a difference to be honest.
 
biscuit said:
I cannot help but wonder what the situation would be if exactly the same position as is outlined above for BZP applied to MDMA.
Exactly, you have to start somewhere though and set precedent.

rulerofthecosmos said:
a few questions for Mr Bowden....


Hi,

Off the top of my head. It is Sunday so am going to rush thru this, apologies if I don't look up all the figures.


1)you say that party pills are safer than most of the alternatives...do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim???

1) Hi, good question. Bear in mind that these statements are written by lawyers and PR people to make a case for levels of regulation. I am building a case comparing BZP to "most of the alternatives including alcohol" so that we can determine how heavily BZP should be regulated, compared to "most of the alternatives including alcohol"

Alcohol costs us about NZD$3 billion per year, at least NZD$70 million in hospital overdoses alone, contributes to a staggering percentage of violent crimes and kills about 1000 per year. Compare to BZP and then decide how heavily BZP should be regulated.

In general policy terms it is safer to have products produced in a controlled environment available under regulation than to have illegal drugs with unknown contents produced under prohibition.

Ok, looking sociologically quoting from the NZ govt's own studies, evidence in the Auckland University study (Sheridan and Butler) shows the majority of party pill users having few serious problems with BZP. Massey University Legal Party Pill Use in NZ (Wilkins et al) shows again very few with problems, 98.8% saying it ain't hard to give up BZP. Echoed in the 2004 Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs report on BZP where their research showed BZP does not reward binge behaviour, is self limiting (compare with methamphetamine, which is safer.)

Can't find the reference from Victoria Uni but one professor explained that as BZP does not target the dopamine transporter in the brain, being the mechanism for COKE and METH addiction, mechanically BZP is non-addictive in nature. Addictive drugs are more dangerous than non addictive, they take away the users control.

We just got back crime figures from govt library showing that while alcohol (and I think methamphetamine) contribute to crime, and to violence, sexual assault I think was in there too -= BZP does not, despite 20% of population using it over a period. It is safer for the community.

Comparing BZP in driving to alcohol, MRINZ study (I. Thompson, Richard Beasley) (which is a study we have issues with, but readers will understand the rationale behind this finding all the same) showed that on driving tests, people who had BZP+alcohol not only performed better than those who had alcohol alone, but also better than the control group who had placebo, but perhaps weren't as focused or got tired.

This data is reflected in the ESR (crown research institute) report analysing blood samples taken from roadside fatalities showing disproportionately low levels of BZP users dieing on the roads or causing accidents.

I do not compare BZP with MDMA in case that is what you were asking for, except to say that using incidence of death as a measure, BZP is safer. (we have had 3 ecstasy deaths in NZ, one was a family member, MDMA death seems to be around 1 per million)

2)is there any scientific evidence that BZP is non addictive and safer than methamphetamine?(ice or "P")
see above - it is one tenth the potency of dexamphetamine (see those european journal clinical pharmacology papers circa 1973 Campbell and Bye)

Have a read of the DEA report on BZP, there was no evidence of harm despite what must now be hundreds of millions of pills consumed - the USA DEA ended up just fudgin the figures to overestimate potency by 100 to 400 times.

BZP was available elsewhere and had reasonable safety data available, some analogues used in medicine etc.


3)is there any evidence that the introduction of party pills(herbals) in N.Z has had any effect on the amount of ecstacy or methamphetamine being manufactured or sold in N.Z?


We predicted that availability of BZP would reduce demand for methamphetamine.

We based this prediction on the following:

Changing supply trends in meth and route of administration behaviours from insufflated powder to smokable crystal was problematic for users, the pathway to addiction was too short and too many otherwise normal people were approaching speed psychosis more regulatrly - the price was an issue also, it was clear that something with far lower addictive potential and less likely to get you to the point of psychosis (i.e. self limiting) would be taken up in place of meth.

Safer, non addictive alternative, non -illegal and at a better price, (Shit I sound like Amway.)

It was in essence a harm reduction strategy.

The measuring points in NZ for demand reduction are the IDMS (illicit drug monitoring survey) a govt commissioned household survey. At the point we knew from surveying users, running a 24 hour help line, co-ordinating a help desk at events and monitoring communications such as internet boards that the stimulant of choice had changed, we lookoed to the IDMS. It showed a drop in prices for meth, an oversupply (despite focussed police attention on supply reduction) and that meth dealers were resorting to extra ordinary measures to market the drug, these are indicators for demand reduction.

We pointed this out to government who (under public pressure) commissioned further research to look for gateway effects. The result was the SHORE study which I have to admit showed that 1 in 7 people used BZP before using other drugs, (which we put down to availability) but showed that of those who had used BZP and other drugs:

44.1% quit using other illegal drugs. Another 45% said they use party pills so they don't have to use illegal drugs.


That's the stuff they want to bury, because as far as a drug policy goes, this has been damn effective. We owned them at that point.

So what drug are they switching across from?

There has been police comment that perhaps they replace ecstasy?

From rural areas mind you., where ecstasy is even more expensive. (it comes into cities and gets gobbled up before it gets out)

We understand from research (fantegrossi et al?) that a combination of BZP/TFMPP substitutes for MDMA in animals, but from my own n=1 study combined with market surveillance, (we could host a survey on bluelight) I am convinced that BZP/TFMPP doesn't substitute for MDMA in human beings, so looking at the early 1970s papers which showed that BZP substituted for amphetamines in addicts (European journal of clinical pharmacology around 1973, Bye et al and Campbell et al) I am guessing that that 50 - 60,000 odd kiwis who quit using illegal drugs are talking about meth.

Also Mr Bowden it is my understanding that you have or at least had a vested interest in the nz "herbal" market so would it be unfair to presume that you stand to profit from the work you are doing for STANZ???

Yeah, we're in a materialistic age, people like to analyse motive from a one dimensional measure of financial motive despite humans themselves being far more complicated in their drives.

How many opportunities do you get to set world precedent in moving forwards and out of prohibition- I have one now and am having a damn good crack at it, i had people die around me man, others here probably have had too, these drug laws are criminal, every day they are processing victimless crimes and incarcerating and disenfranchising people who have done nothing wrong.

Our first two drug laws in NZ were that chinese people aren't allowed opium and that maoris aren't allowed alcohol and it's gone downhill from there in my opinion.

To answer your question, I charge my expenses and my time to STANZ and I work really hard, I'd make lots more money with my time if I wasn't doing this. I am not realy in this for monetary reasons, although one day it'd be nice if it paid off.

OK - enough?
 
Starboy: Cheers for the reply,it was informative to say the least.
Although there are a few points that i would argue as untrue and although in my experience piperazine products are shite i did really did enjoy methalone (ease) pills and really hope that you can start producing something similar in the near future....best of luck
 
rulerofthecosmos said:
Starboy: Cheers for the reply,it was informative to say the least.
Although there are a few points that i would argue as untrue and although in my experience piperazine products are shite i did really did enjoy methalone (ease) pills and really hope that you can start producing something similar in the near future....best of luck

you cannot say "a few points are untrue" without providing the reasons why they are untrue. (unless you work for the government, they do it all the time ;) )
 
marklar_the_23rd said:
you cannot say "a few points are untrue" without providing the reasons why they are untrue. (unless you work for the government, they do it all the time ;) )

I already did!!!!!!:p

O.K. heres the 1st point i find misleading/untrue....'We predicted that availability of BZP would reduce demand for methamphetamine'.

to my knowledge there is very little or no evidence to support this claim, and there are many people who actually believe the opposite to be true...!young people etc are starting to experiment with readily available stimulants such as BZP and are then trying harder drugs such as meth etc....

a recent report released shows that N.Z has the 3rd highest ecorded rate of meth users in the world and there has been NO evidence to say that BZP has in any way slowed down or reduced this epidemic!!!!!!:p
 
bzp isnt safe, its addictive and it wont have an influence on the market for illegal drugs.

my opinion/experience.
 
Thanks for taking the time to post, I was asked exactly the same question by our Health Select Committee.

The statement you refer to is talking about a change in DEMAND for methamphetamine. Not usage, and not that we would decrease our usage of meth per capita compared to other countries, I can't help what Australians do or Americans do etc. Not yet anyway!

My statement implies that DEMAND for methamphetamine was at one level, and then at a later time the DEMAND for methamphetamine was at a lower level.

The recent report you refer to looks like a SNAPSHOT of meth users presumably per capita. A SNAPSHOT does not measure CHANGE over time. It merely paints a picture of where things are at in a given instant.

To measure CHANGE over time, we'd either need to see some LONGITUDINAL studies, or a number of SNAPSHOTS in sequence, or you'd need to catch the change happening by asking people how they changed their behaviour BEFORE and AFTER the introduction of BZP.

Let look at SNAPSHOTS. If you wanted to find out what happened in a busy street over time you'd look at the security cameras for hat street. In NZ our government has a project called the IDMS (illicit drug monitoring system) - used to be the NATIONAL DRUG SURVEY. It polls thousands of homes and questions people about drug usage and I think adds in expert testimony, talks to treatment facilities etc.

The IDMS prior to party pill usage can't remember exact year not going to look it up for purposes of this thread showed NZ coming thru turn of the century and the upswing in meth usage, the change in route of administration from insufflation to smoking, etc. Demand was high.

After the introduction of BZP products we predicted a drop in demand by the next IDMS due to availability of cheaper, less addictive stimulant. When teh next IDMS came out there was a documented shift from meth to party pills. The PRICE OF METH had slumped and there was a GLUT OF SUPPLY indicating reduced demand, or potentially an oversupply.

We contacted the head researchers who agreed with our interpretation that the availability of BZP products had reduced demand for methamphetamine.

At that time, after clarifying this with the researchers (govt researchers who did not receive a cent of funding from industry) we went to the media with it.

To marketers it is no great revelation that you can shift consumer buying behaviour by introducing another commodity into the market with lower risks that meets the same consumer needs at a better price but it still had to bear out in the research.

At that time there was resistance to the message from Govt committees particularly those with law enforcement input. The argument was made that it was the threat of tougher penalties and punitive measures and good policing that was reducing demand and this opinion was voiced, along with the idea that BZP was a "GATEWAY DRUG" to meth in the same way that cannabis is a gateway drug to heroin.

To answer the question, further research was commissioned by government to look at the GATEWAY EFFECT, Wilkins et al from SHORE team at Massey University published a paper called something like "Legal party pill use in New Zealand" available from www.shore.ac.nz

The paper showed that about 20% of the adult population had tried party pills, being approx 400,000 adults in NZ.

Of those who used party pills and had also used illegal drugs:
* 44.1% (represents 50-60,000 people) said they had recently stopped using illegla drugs/

* 45.6% said they used party pills so they did not have to use illegal drugs.

* 13-14% (cant rememb figure, about a seventh) said they tried party pills before trying other illegal drugs.


At a worse case scenario 3 times as many people used party pills as a gateway off illegal drugs than the number who potentially used them as a gateway on.

It has been noted though that the number who used party pills before using illegal drugs is far smaller than the numbers of people who were trying illegal drugs anyway.

A later snapshot from Victoria University looking at the impact of prohibition of BZP showed that most people if BZP is banned will continue to use it anyway or buy black market pills, but interestingly, very few said they would use methamphetamine because 8 years down the line we have changed the culture so much that people don't even bother with meth. When I described this to the Select Committee, who had also been presented with a snapshot on NZ's drug use, I took a camera and took 2 SNAPSHOTS.

This shows how you can track changes over time by comparing the snapshots, BEFORE and AFTER.

OK after reading the thread I just realised I already posted most of this.

Never mind - yeah i know BZP is a crap drug but we are making progress with drug policy and 26 million pills consumed on 9.5 million occasions by 400,000 consumers over 7 years with no recorded deaths or lasting injuries caused by party pills and around 98% of people surveyed in peer reviewed Govt funded studies saying they don't find it addictive and leading respected A&D treatment facilities and groups such as the National Addiction Centre saying BZP is not causing addiction you have to come up with solid data to refute the claims that it's pretty safe, particularly if used as directed.

The one study that showed BZP was so dangerous was SLAMMED by all independent peer reviewers and it is for THIS reason that BZP is NOT being banned here this year. The ban does not have the support of many politicians in the major parties, and many on this select committee were visibly uncomfortable when they heard about the impact it would have and the dodginess of the evidence of harm.

Look at these politicians BEFORE and AFTER hearing industry's presentation
 

Attachments

  • HSC before.jpg
    HSC before.jpg
    57.9 KB · Views: 113
  • HSC after.jpg
    HSC after.jpg
    64.6 KB · Views: 121
Last edited:
Top