Animal testing protests: 'Test [legal highs] on the idiots who take them'

O

oldirtybizza

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
472
Hundreds of protesters rallied around New Zealand today opposing a law that allows testing of party pills on animals.

Crowds gathered in Auckland, Palmerston North, Tauranga, Wellington and other centres to voice their opposition to the recently passed Psychoactive Substances Act, which allows new substances to be tested on animals if necessary.

Marchers in Auckland made their way up Queen Street, and those in Tauranga were joined by New Zealand singer Tiki Taane.

In Palmerston North anti-vivisection member and protest organiser Jenn Brunton said the support had been overwhelming.

The issue was not just a moral one, she said, but one that was also supported by scientific facts proving animal testing was redundant.

In Wellington, more than 200 people, some with pets and children, marched through the city's central business district to Parliament carrying signs which featured pictures of dogs in laboratories and slogans like: "I don't want to die for someone to get high.''

The colourful crowd, many of whom had dressed in animal costumes for the occasion, were greeted by Act Party leader John Banks and Green MP Mojo Mathers outside the Beehive.

The law passed with 119 MPs in favour, after moves by Mr Banks and the Greens to introduce greater controls on animal testing were voted down.

Helping You Help Animals (HUHA) board of trustees member Vari Nicholson said the march turnout had been "outstanding''.

The main aim of the march was to highlight opposition against animal testing for psychoactive substances.
Click to expand...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10905359

Just wanted to bring this to peoples attention.

Today there were NZ wide protests against testing of potential future legal highs on animals, which sounds semi reasonable until you see how it's presented in the various media articles about the protest where amongst other suggestive comments where potential users of these drugs are labelled 'morons', 'idiots' and 'junkies' who apparently because they choose to use a psychoactive substance even legally, are deemed to be quite literally worth less than dogs.

I'm highly dubious of the whole issue and with a lack of other large national protests regarding animal testing I believe this is just an attempt by certain parties to derail the legislature as a whole and stop what could be an important step towards drug law reform in Oceania.

It's a fine piece of propaganda to be sure and the media has somehow managed to further debase drug users and link the legislature and the use of legal highs to the killing of dogs (In reality mice and rats being the most commonly used in drug testing, dogs being only a small fraction).
Considering that the petition has 64000 signatures already and how quickly this was brought to the public's attention as an "issue" and the exposure it's been given this should be a reminder of the machinations of the media/govt and how cunning and manipulative their anti-drug efforts can be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dont have a problem with them testing stuff on mice and rats, but hopefully they aren't doing it on dogs. Hopefully that's just media spin. In any case I do believe that these kinds of legal highs have already been tested by alot of people who actually have paid for the substances without knowing their effects or ingredients, so I think there could be some sort of system where they get willing participants to sign a waver and take part in controlled testing of various substances. There'd probably be heaps of people who would be down to get free samples and be part of a study, especially if they ingested the substances in an environment that was monitored and had professional and health care on hand. And then they write some report about it after a certain amount of time and they are off again and can report back later for more and relay any side effects or dramas they had with substance a,b,c etc. I recall there was some university in the UK that was asking students to participate in a cocaine study and were going to be given cocaine. Why can't places do this with legal highs? (im sure we have the article here somewhere from the UK university cocaine article).
 
I completely agree with the animal rights protesters. There's no point in testing any of these research chemicals on any animals since enough people are completely willing to be guinea pigs and lab rats but they are idiots with a death wish, and it's their choice.
 
The problem is that there are some things which you really can't feasibly test on humans, like for example testing out the LD-50 of a drug on humans would be pretty impractical unless the participants are willing to take a 50% shot of death and a guaranteed bad experience whether they live or not, that is a hard sell...

I think animal testing is a neccessary evil and much care should be taken to ensure it is done as ethically as possible. I really hate people who treat animals like they are just here for the use of people, like cunts who breed race horses and shoot all the ones who aren't fast enough for example, I know that shit is off topic but I just want to highlight that I am not someone who believes animals are here to serve people. I still think though that some research needs to be done on certain drugs and diseases for example, and the outcome for the test subject in a lot of this research is going to be pretty grim, frankly I would much rather that animals suffer in this regard (to the absolute least degree possible ofcourse) than have people subjected to this sort of testing.

For the record I am not saying that no kind of tests can or should be conducted on people, just saying that animal testing definately has its place and while thinking about what happens to those animals is not nice, thinking about the same things happening to people instead is less nice and so is thinking about what would happen to a lot of people if it were not for the information gained from animal testing.

It makes no sense to me that drug use is percieved as such a selfish endeavour, but it is fine to test cosmetic products on animals just so vain assholes can feel safe when they paint their faces like fucking clowns, lets get real here and put this shit in perspective. Why should those who use cosmetic products for selfish reasons be subjected to any less risk than drug users?
 
drug_mentor said:
It makes no sense to me that drug use is percieved as such a selfish endeavour, but it is fine to test cosmetic products on animals just so vain assholes can feel safe when they paint their faces like fucking clowns, lets get real here and put this shit in perspective. Why should those who use cosmetic products for selfish reasons be subjected to any less risk than drug users?
Click to expand...

Which is why I made this post, this protest hasn't been about animal testing in general but just animal testing of recreational drugs, which makes me believe it's an issue created by opponents to drug reform to derail the legislature as a whole.

These products are not cosmetics and cannot simply go from in vitro testing directly to human tests, without unnecessarily endangering human lives, even if they could I doubt most companies would want to take on this risk and the legal and PR fallout if something went wrong. If this testing is banned it would be a roundabout way of ensuring the majority of potential substances never make it to market.

How disgusting it would be if this became the only area where animal testing is banned but the health of people who use drugs is placed below that of mice and dogs ( yeah I said it, dogs too)
I would only have to point the involvement of John Banks and any Kiwis here would know this whole thing stinks.
 
oldirtybizza said:
Which is why I made this post, this protest hasn't been about animal testing in general but just animal testing of recreational drugs, which makes me believe it's an issue created by opponents to drug reform to derail the legislature as a whole.

These products are not cosmetics and cannot simply go from in vitro testing directly to human tests, without unnecessarily endangering human lives, even if they could I doubt most companies would want to take on this risk and the legal and PR fallout if something went wrong. If this testing is banned it would be a roundabout way of ensuring the majority of potential substances never make it to market.

How disgusting it would be if this became the only area where animal testing is banned but the health of people who use drugs is placed below that of mice and dogs ( yeah I said it, dogs too)
I would only have to point the involvement of John Banks and any Kiwis here would know this whole thing stinks.
Click to expand...

People are already human lab rats and guinea pigs for these drugs and test out the LD50, long term side effects, etc. but it's their choice to do this and be a total idiot with a death wish. The humans can consent to this but the animals cannot and do not.

drug_mentor said:
The problem is that there are some things which you really can't feasibly test on humans, like for example testing out the LD-50 of a drug on humans would be pretty impractical unless the participants are willing to take a 50% shot of death and a guaranteed bad experience whether they live or not, that is a hard sell...
Click to expand...
People do this ALL the time. Look at the people who have died from an OD from a research chemical and the people who take a high dose but don't die but have long term organ damage or negative side effects from it. Either way it was their choice to be a lab rat or guinea pig and put that garbage into their body and OD on it or damage their body this way.
 
^ Mate just because someone took a dose and died doesn't tell anyone anything other than that dose was too much for that person. Do you actually understand what an LD-50 is?! It is the dose of a drug that when administered to all test participants will kill 50%, it is very fucking specific, you can NOT determine LD-50 of a drug just by looking at cases of people that overdosed on it, this is something that is determined in a laboratory setting in controlled doses, I don't see any humans signing up for this, do you?

It is ridiculous to me that you pass judgement on users of these substances as "total idiots with a death wish" yet you don't believe that there should be any formal studies into these drugs, rather lets just look at what happens to these death wishing idiots. That presents a number of problems, first is that without gaining a meaningful understanding of the specific dangers of these drugs, at which doses and which frequency they present these dangers, etc. they will always be unknown drugs, and taking them will always be a huge gamble, if research is done into these drugs then people can go on to making informed decisions about whether the risks are worthwhile. I assume you are on this site because you are a drug user, what makes you better than these "total idiots with a death wish" other than the age you live in? There was a time when the negative and long term effects of all drugs were not understood, people still took them obviously and today after varying periods of research we have a large variety of drugs that are now used widely today in a generally safe manner. Basically what you are saying is, yep the recreational drugs we have are enough and nobody should bother researching any more of them, if you have any interest in any of these new drugs you are an idiot and should take them and cop whatever consequence.

You argue that people are damaging themselves anyway, and this is somehow a reason to take no steps to mitigate this damage, I would argue the complete opposite. The fact that people are still continuing to take these substances despite the damages and the risks is precisely the reason that we should be taking steps to understand the dangers.

Even if you don't give a fuck about the individuals it also comes down to a burden on the healthcare system, it is a lot cheaper in the long run to do a few studies on a drug and get some facts about it than it is to leave it in a grey area for years and years while people continue to take it.

You really have a bit of a smug, superior intellect attitude on here. I don't know what makes you think you are so fucking smart to be honest, assuming you take illegal drugs you don't know everything that is in those either. It seems to me you really like passing judgement on those you percieve as less intelligent than yourself and generally believe they deserve whatever horrible fate they get, I have picked this up from more than just this thread btw. All I can really say is the world would be a really fucking shitty place if more people held your points of view on these types of issues.
 
You really have a bit of a smug, superior intellect attitude on here. I don't know what makes you think you are so fucking smart to be honest, assuming you take illegal drugs you don't know everything that is in those either. It seems to me you really like passing judgement on those you percieve as less intelligent than yourself and generally believe they deserve whatever horrible fate they get, I have picked this up from more than just this thread btw. All I can really say is the world would be a really fucking shitty place if more people held your points of view on these types of issues.
Click to expand...

I really tend to agree, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but some people I just don't get their logic at all sometimes.
 
drug_mentor said:
blah blah blah see me trollin and talkin out of my ass...
Click to expand...

If people want to become human guinea pigs and lab rats they can go ahead and take all the research chemicals they want by their own choice. Actually no I do not take illegal drugs, and I have never taken any sort of research chemicals.

If people want to take a research chemical and be a lab rat or guinea pig that is their choice but I liken them to people who make the personal choice to jump off a tall bridge or off a tall building.
 
drug_mentor said:
^ Mate just because someone took a dose and died doesn't tell anyone anything other than that dose was too much for that person. Do you actually understand what an LD-50 is?! It is the dose of a drug that when administered to all test participants will kill 50%, it is very fucking specific, you can NOT determine LD-50 of a drug just by looking at cases of people that overdosed on it, this is something that is determined in a laboratory setting in controlled doses, I don't see any humans signing up for this, do you?

It is ridiculous to me that you pass judgement on users of these substances as "total idiots with a death wish" yet you don't believe that there should be any formal studies into these drugs, rather lets just look at what happens to these death wishing idiots. That presents a number of problems, first is that without gaining a meaningful understanding of the specific dangers of these drugs, at which doses and which frequency they present these dangers, etc. they will always be unknown drugs, and taking them will always be a huge gamble, if research is done into these drugs then people can go on to making informed decisions about whether the risks are worthwhile. I assume you are on this site because you are a drug user, what makes you better than these "total idiots with a death wish" other than the age you live in? There was a time when the negative and long term effects of all drugs were not understood, people still took them obviously and today after varying periods of research we have a large variety of drugs that are now used widely today in a generally safe manner. Basically what you are saying is, yep the recreational drugs we have are enough and nobody should bother researching any more of them, if you have any interest in any of these new drugs you are an idiot and should take them and cop whatever consequence.

You argue that people are damaging themselves anyway, and this is somehow a reason to take no steps to mitigate this damage, I would argue the complete opposite. The fact that people are still continuing to take these substances despite the damages and the risks is precisely the reason that we should be taking steps to understand the dangers.

Even if you don't give a fuck about the individuals it also comes down to a burden on the healthcare system, it is a lot cheaper in the long run to do a few studies on a drug and get some facts about it than it is to leave it in a grey area for years and years while people continue to take it.

You really have a bit of a smug, superior intellect attitude on here. I don't know what makes you think you are so fucking smart to be honest, assuming you take illegal drugs you don't know everything that is in those either. It seems to me you really like passing judgement on those you percieve as less intelligent than yourself and generally believe they deserve whatever horrible fate they get, I have picked this up from more than just this thread btw. All I can really say is the world would be a really fucking shitty place if more people held your points of view on these types of issues.
Click to expand...

OMG...thank you, thank you. I am so glad that someone has finally called it like it is. Not to be inflammatory, but this shit was really, really getting old.

*edit* drunkards dream...you say you do not do drugs but in past posts you have occasionally made comments about when "we addicts" or when you used to smoke cannabis etc. And if you do not use any illicit drugs, you certainly have no business telling everyone else how it is and how they should or shouldn't be doing things when it comes to illicit drugs!

The biggest problem with this is the majority of them time you jump on a thread and post negative and upsetting comments which end up totally derailing the thread. This then takes away from the people who do have legit advice, experience and concerns about the other people here. If you, as you so often state, think everyone on here is a bunch of idiots then why be here?
 
Last edited:
LOL at you categorising my posts as trolling, when you just repeat the same ignorant nonsense and other people raise points you ignore. You are clearly on here just for the sake of being inflammatory and it is really pretty sad. I hope you got your jollies for the day pissing off a bunch of people on the internet spouting your ignorance mate.

You think you are so smart and you obviously don't even know what an LD-50 is, your a fucking joke. Your inability to compose any sort of rational rather than emotionally immature argument is a testament to this.
 
drug_mentor said:
just so vain assholes can feel safe when they paint their faces like fucking clowns
Click to expand...

I agree, such vanity is ridiculous (I prefer the natural look), but I should point out that not all makeup is used in vain. There are people with disfiguring scars and other blemishes who use makeup just to get along normally in society; they use cosmetics for survival.

Sorry about going OT. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
 
The issue was not just a moral one, she said, but one that was also supported by scientific facts proving animal testing was redundant.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Clearly this woman has never worked in science.

I work at a cancer research centre in a large research university and let me tell you, the animal testing is not "redundant." In fact, almost all the research is based entirely on animal testing. The numbers of mice that are killed is enormous. I'm not going to argue whether this is okay or not, but to seriously try to claim that animal testing is scientifically unnecessary shows that one has a very uninformed view on current biology. It's the same in the pharmaceutical industry: if a drug isn't tested extensively on animals, it's not legal for a company to sell it, no-ifs-ands-or-buts. This isn't just an optional step that some companies/universities/researchers take because they are cruel and unusual.
 
Last edited:
S.J.B. said:
It's the same in the pharmaceutical industry: if a drug isn't tested extensively on animals, it's not legal for a company to sell it, no-ifs-ands-or-buts. This isn't just an optional step that some companies/universities/researchers take because they are cruel and unusual.
Click to expand...

^Exacto, which I'm sure the organizers were aware of which appears to be the reason behind this, so these drugs never get to market.
I'm a fan of the classics personally and couldn't give a toss about legal highs , but this legislature could be a step in the right direction for drug laws and the perception of psychoactive use by the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top