To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable:
“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” (NIV)
Party pills are now on sale at supermarkets. You know, the ones that
assist you in remaining ALERT and WIDE AWAKE!
and that
relieve mental fatigue, drowsiness and general inertia, keeping you BRIGHT and ALERT!
NO-DOZ® AWAKENERS. $7.45 for a box of 24 tablets. Way better value than Cosmic Corner’s Pepe party pills which go for a cool $25 per 4-pack.
Focus, energy and a clear head. These guys are great for sports, study, shift work, or partying and are OK with alcohol.
I got my NO-DOZ® AWAKENERS at the local New World. But you can shop smarter and get them online at Countdown for only $6.79.
SHARPEN UP WITH NO-DOZ!
exhorts Countdown.
EACH TABLET HAS THE SAME AMOUNT OF CAFFEINE AS A CUP OF COFFEE, GIVING YOU THAT EXTRA KICK NEEDED TO KEEP YOU GOING
The active ingredient in both products is caffeine. NO-DOZ® AWAKENERS contain 100 mg caffeine per tablet. (And glucose.) Pepe contains caffeine in an unstated amount. (And black pepper extracts, vitamin B6 and a proprietry blend of amino acids.)
Section 9 of the Act gives the meaning of psychoactive substance.
9 Meaning of psychoactive substance
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, psychoactive substance means a substance, mixture, preparation, article, device, or thing that is capable of inducing a psychoactive effect (by any means) in an individual who uses the psychoactive substance.
On the face of it, that includes both NO-DOZ® AWAKENERS and Pepe and their active ingredient caffeine.
Section 5 of the Act gives its application.
5 Application of Act
(1) This Act applies to the importation, manufacture, sale, supply, or possession of a psychoactive substance or approved product for the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive effect in an individual who uses the substance or product.
On the face of it, the Act applies to both products and their active ingredient caffeine.
But Section (9)(3) of the Act tells us that the Act does not apply to any dietary supplement or to any food.
our understanding is that it will not affect products which are classed as herbs or dietary supplements. For example, caffeine has a psychoactive effect, but it is classed as a food product/dietary supplement. This means the COSMIC range of party pills should continue to be available because their ingredients are classed as dietary supplements and herbs.
So does the Act apply? I don’t know. But I do know that Cosmic Corner has submitted an application for an interim product approval and presumably paid the $10,000 application fee. If their application is either approved or declined (rather than returned and the fee refunded) then I expect the Ministry of Health to come down on New World, Countdown and any other supermarket chain selling the unapproved product NO-DOZ with the full force of the law, i.e., a $500,000 fine per supermarket. (Troughers gotta fill the coffers.)
Silly supermarkets. You don’t go selling caffeine “for the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive effect.” You’ve got to be way more subtle than that. Here’s how it’s done.
Whoever dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.
I will say of the Lord, “He is my refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust.”
Surely he will save you
from the fowler’s snare
and from the deadly pestilence.
He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
You will not fear the terror of night,
nor the arrow that flies by day,
nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness,
nor the plague that destroys at midday.
A thousand may fall at your side,
ten thousand at your right hand,
but it will not come near you.
You will only observe with your eyes
and see the punishment of the wicked.
If you say, “The Lord is my refuge,”
and you make the Most High your dwelling,
no harm will overtake you,
no disaster will come near your tent.
For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;
they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
You will tread on the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent.
“Because he loves me,” says the Lord, “I will rescue him;
I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.
He will call on me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble,
I will deliver him and honor him.
With long life I will satisfy him
and show him my salvation.” (NIV)
Research chemicals are chemical substances used by scientists for medical and scientific research purposes. One characteristic of a research chemical is that it is for laboratory research use only. A research chemical is not intended for human or veterinary use.
I first encountered the term on Erowid—the original go-to website for recreational drug users and “a trusted resource for drug information—both positive and negative”—and here’s what Erowid has to say about research chemicals.
Chemicals marked on Erowid by our Research Chemical Symbol should be considered experimental chemicals. Although some people are willing to ingest these chemicals for their effects, it is not reasonable to assume that these chemicals are in any way ‘safe’ to use recreationally. Although all psychoactive use involves risk, this class of chemicals has undergone virtually no human or animal toxicity studies and there is little to no data on possible long term problems, addiction potential, allergic reactions, or acute overdoses.
Publication of information by Erowid about human use of these chemicals is not intended to endorse their non-laboratory use.
Consider carefully before choosing to use these substances.
When used to describe recreationally used psychoactive drugs, the term “research chemicals” generally refers to substances that haven’t yet been thoroughly studied. The term “research chemical” partially came from the fact that some substances on the recreational markets were drugs that had been discovered in labs and only examined in test-tube (in vitro) or low-level animal studies.
Some are very new, while others may have been around for years but haven’t had adequate enough medical investigation to quantify health risks, have not been consumed by many people over a long period, or had much data accumulated about their use. Little is known about them, and a good deal of what is known is based only on first-hand psychonautical reports. Scant to no research has been completed on the toxicology or human pharmacology of these drugs. Few, if any, formal human or animal studies have been done. Because of this, some have suggested that they would more appropriately be called “unresearched chemicals”. Another term for them is “experimental chemicals”, and this may better communicate the unknown risks associated with ingesting these drugs.
Unlike better-known drugs such as ecstasy (MDMA), which has been taken by millions of people over the last 30+ years, or marijuana which has been used by billions of people over millennia, in some cases the most novel of research chemicals may only have been used by several dozen people for a few months. The risks involved with research chemicals are greater than with many other drugs, since they’re unknowns. …
Are research chemicals safe to ingest?
No! While no drug use can categorically be characterized as “safe”, using research chemicals may be riskier than using older, better-studied drugs. This is not to say that the chemicals themselves are necessarily more dangerous… the risk lies in the fact that very little is known about them. There haven’t been enough people using them in high enough doses for long enough periods of time for us to have an idea what sort of damage the chemicals are capable of producing. When one takes a new and unstudied drug, one makes oneself a human guinea pig. The drug may be perfectly safe. It may even be beneficial. On the other hand, after three uses one might suddenly find one’s body frozen-up with symptoms resembling Parkinson’s disease. If you think this is an exaggeration, do some research on MPTP, a neurotoxic by-product that was produced during underground synthesis of the opioid MPPP, which contributed to the 1984 change in law that allowed the DEA to have “emergency scheduling” powers.
When taking a research chemical, one is stepping into the unknown, and could be the unfortunate person to discover a new drug’s lethal dose. One could find oneself addicted. Or, if one overdoses and ends up at the hospital, the doctors may only be able to guess at the appropriate course of treatment. Some drugs, like Cannabis, LSD, and psilocybin, have a wide safety range over which there is little to no possibility of pharmacologically induced death (perhaps 1,000 times or more the active dose), while other substances become dangerous at much lower amounts such as mescaline (perhaps 24 times the active dose), MDMA (perhaps 16 times the active dose) alcohol (perhaps 10 times the active dose), GHB (perhaps 8 times the active dose) or iv heroin (perhaps 6 times the active dose). Accidental overdoses happen to most people who consume psychoactives for long enough, and overdoses of research chemicals have unknown consequences. One who is not prepared to accept these risks should avoid taking research chemicals.
Believe it or not, a variety of research chemicals, with little to no history of human use, is what the New Zealand government has just approved for sale to the general public. (See here.) I listed some of them in my previous post. Here they are again.
What do we know about PB-22 (also known as QUPIC)?
No information regarding the in vitro or in vivo activity of QUPIC has been published, and only anecdotal reports are known of its pharmacology in humans or other animals.
The physiological and toxicological properties of this compound are not known.
It was originally developed by Pfizer in 2009 as an analgesic medication, but was never pursued for human use.
(BTW, it looks like Pfizer has a 2009 international patent on AB-FUBINACA and related indazole derivatives with cannabinoid (CB)1 receptor binding activity. Pfizer and the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority—working together for a healthier world.)
No information regarding the in vitro or in vivo activity of 5F-PB-22 has been published, and only anecdotal reports are known of its pharmacology in humans or other animals.
No information regarding the in vivo activity of AB-005 has been published, and only anecdotal reports are known of its psychoactivity in humans.
What do we know about 4F-AM-2201? We know its chemical structure. It’s a fluoro analogue of AM-2201.
The toxicity of AM-2201 is still a matter of debate and there may be long term side effects.
What do we know about CL-2201, LDD-3, or any of the chemicals in the SGT series? Nothing whatsoever. In fact, the SGT series might as well be named the SFA series.
Now, please don’t get me wrong.
I’m a psychoactive substances enthusiast and I’ve tested a few research chemicals myself in the past. But I did so fully cognizant of the risks. I exercised due caution. (Mostly.) And I’m unscathed. (Pretty much.)
I’m a libertarian and I think that ALL drugs should be legal. And that what drugs are made widely available to the general public should be decided by a responsible, self-regulating legal highs industry. But what responsible, self-regulating legal highs industry would even dream of peddling untested research chemicals to the general public?
Sadly, what we have now is the polar opposite of my envisaged libertopia. Everything government touches turns to crap. Untested research chemicals are the only psychoactive substances the legal highs industry is allowed to offer for sale. All the safe recreational drugs have been banned. So the legal highs industry is caught between a rock and a hard place. Thanks to the prohibitionist tendencies of the New Zealand government, which is demonstrably unfit to have any involvement whatsoever in regulating the sale and use of psychoactive substances.
The Psychoactive Substances Act is a sick joke. On you.
Welcome to Part 4 of the series. This one’s a little different. Different because this time you know what you’ve been smoking *before* you smoke it! And that’s how it should be.
The list below is sourced from the Interim Product Approvals page on the Ministry of Health website.
The status of (products that contain) the following 10 chemicals is ‘Licence issued’.
There’s no doubt that the Psychoactive Substances Act is a watershed. Whereas previous posts were lists of synthetic cannabinoids that the government had *banned*, this is a list of synthetic cannabinoids that the government has *approved*. It’s unprecendented! But is it a good?
You might think that as both a libertarian and a psychoactive substances aficionado I’d be all for this ground-breaking, world-leading legislation. But I’m not. I haven’t resiled from my previous assertion that, when all is said and done, the Psychoactive Substances Act is pure evil. Here’s why.
Succinctly (in the words of Ringo Starr), “everything government touches turns to crap.”
Let’s take a closer look at the list.
Chemically speaking, we know the structure (identity) of PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, 5F-PB-22, CP-55,244 and AB-005. But what about SGT-7, SGT-19, SGT-24, SGT-42, SGT-55, SGT-56 and LDD/3? No one but the manufacturer seems to know what they are. I doubt that even the Ministry of Health knows what they are. Mere names mean nothing. See that bird? There is a difference between the name of the thing and what goes on.
What about CL-2201? No idea. I’d hazard a guess that it’s a chlorine analogue of AM-2201. Who knows?
What about Fluoropentyl, fluoro-1-naphthoyl? Chemically speaking, this is pure gibberish.
Essentially, the government has approved for manufacture, sale and use a bunch of *unidentified* chemicals. But it gets worse.
The compound on the left is PB-22 which has interim approval. The compound on the right is BB-22 which was banned as from 9 May 2013 by Peter Dunne. They are structurally similar. They are analogues.
Supposedly, under the now repealed section 4C of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Peter Dunne was (with respect to BB-22) “satisfied that the substance, preparation, mixture, or article that is to be specified in the notice poses, or may pose, a risk of harm to individuals, or to society.” According to the Ministry of Health FAQ, PB-22 is “shown to pose no more than a low risk of harm to people using [it]” but BB-22 is “known to have adverse effects on people using [it].” How’s that supposed to work? I call bullshit.
But it gets even worse.
The compound on the left is AB-005 which has interim approval. The compound on the right is XLR-11 which was banned as from 13 July 2012 by Peter Dunne. They are structurally similar. They are analogues.
The problem here is that XLR-11 has been linked to acute kidney injury in some users. Now the Ministry of “Health” has seen fit to approve an analogue of a suspected kidney toxin for human use. But it’s legal so it must be safe, right? Yeah right.
The Psychoactive Substances Act has nothing to do with your freedom or your health. It has everything to do with big government and mammon worship.
The government has lost the War on Drugs. Now it’s taking an “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” approach. And we should be afraid. Very afraid.
I’ve got too many balls. I dropped a few recently. Apologies to all concerned.
Work got very busy. So busy that I stopped paying attention to a few things. Things like blogging and Facebook. A bit like before but no advance warning this time.
And I missed a couple of important non-work deadlines. In particular, I missed the Friday 20 August noon deadline to get my paperwork in to stand as a local body candidate for Affordable City. Again, apologies to all concerned. It was my fault. But feel free to blame my campaign manager. Oh, well, at least it wasn’t an entire party list that I failed to file. 😉
Good luck to all who are standing for Affordable City. Especially my co-blogger, Tim. 🙂
We are a local group of citizens with an interest in promoting the health benefits of fluoridation.
Could you please respond to these two questions:
(1) Do you support the resumption of fluoridation in Hamilton’s water supply?
(2) If the referendum results in a majority of voters in favour, would you support the resumption of fluoridation?
The opinions of candidates obtained from this canvass will be made known to our members and released publicly.
With regards,
Selwyn June
‘Fluoridate Our Water’
A Campaign for Better Dental Health in Hamilton
Tim Wikirwhi respond’s….
Dear Selwyn,
Q1. I don’t believe my personal opinion about Fluoride is what is important, but there are higher issues/ principles at stake.|Namely it is not the councils job to force medicate the people of Hamilton, which is what the pro-fluoride lobby seems to believe is ok.
My argument is the people who want fluoride in their water can find means of dispensing it into their own supply.
Q2. No! I do not support binding citizen referendums which seek to impose upon the legitimate rights of minorities.
Ref to my answer above.
Fluoridation is one current task which the council can rightly divest itself, and pass on to citizens as a matter of personal choice and responsibility.
Kind regard’s Tim W.
Dr. Laura Keynes grew up in Cambridge, arguably the intellectual center of the United Kingdom. She studied at the University College of Oxford on a full-ride scholarship and ended up earning a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Her doctoral thesis was on epistemology, the study of knowledge and justified belief. As her last name indicates, she is the great-grandniece of the famous economist John Maynard Keynes. She is also the great-great-great-granddaughter of Charles Darwin.
Why am I telling you about this young lady? Because she recently wrote an article entitled, “I’m a Direct Descendant of Darwin…and a Catholic.” Now the title didn’t surprise me at all. I know a lot of Catholics (and even more Protestants) who believe in evolution. Indeed, one of the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement, Dr. Michael Behe, says:1
You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.
However, as I read the article, I couldn’t help but smile. You see, Laura was raised Catholic but drifted away from the faith after her mother became a Buddhist and her brother rejected all organized religion. By the time she was studying for her Doctor of Philosophy degree, she was an agnostic. During that time, however, Richard Dawkins had opened up an international dialogue on the existence of God with his thoroughly awful book, The God Delusion. Well, Laura decided to read Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists, and she says:
I expected to be moved from agnosticism to atheism by their arguments, but after reading on both sides of the debate, I couldn’t dismiss a compelling intellectual case for faith. As for being good without God, I’d tried and didn’t get very far. At some point, life will bring you to your knees, and no act of will is enough in that situation. Surrendering and asking for grace is the logical human response.
I don’t think that’s the response Dawkins and his colleagues were hoping for. The entire article is worth a read, because it really shows how an intellectual person should respond to what the New Atheists have produced:
I read central texts on both sides of the debate and found more to convince me in the thoughtful and measured responses of Alister McGrath and John Cornwell, among others, than in the impassioned prose of Hitchens et al. New Atheism seemed to harbor a germ of intolerance and contempt for people of faith that could only undermine secular Humanist claims to liberalism.
Notice what she did. She read the central texts on both sides of the debate. Most people don’t do that, but it is the most important thing a real intellectual can do. I suspect that working on her dissertation made her realize that there is no such thing as an unbiased argument. All authors start with their preconceived notions, which color the way they view and present the evidence. As a result, the only way to come close to getting an unbiased view of the debate is to read from both sides. By doing that, you will hopefully be able to start seeing how the various authors are “coloring” the evidence, and that will allow you to remove some of the “coloring” and look at the evidence a bit more clearly.
When Laura did that, she saw something that should be immediately obvious to those who read both sides of this debate: the New Atheists are full of bluster and bravado, but their arguments are incredibly weak. Those who have responded to the New Atheists (at least the ones she read) provide a start contrast. They are calm, measured, and rational in their response. According to her, this contrast helped to demonstrate that the majority of the evidence clearly goes against the atheist position, and the bluster of the New Atheists is an attempt to cover up this inconvenient fact. As a result, she returned to the faith of her childhood.
