SOLO-NZ Press Release: TradeMe Stunt Mocks EFB
Listing: Trade Me
"Although TradeMe stunts are becoming a bit passé, a listing made today takes a none too subtle swipe at the Electoral Finance Bill." Says SOLO-NZ Spokesman Lance Davey
"The listing, put up by a SOLO member, is auctioning off: 'Pre-built, preprinted, '3rd party electioneering placard and pamphlet templates.' The idea is that the printed templates are purchased the year before an election, but during the election year if an issue comes up, the 3rd party just needs to fills in the relevant gaps, then distribute the pamphlets. This would enable 3rd parties to technically remain under the spending threshold, while still being able to initiate pamphlet drops.
"Payment will be accepted as cash, bank deposit, or by anonymous donation."
Sample Template Below:
---------- is a threat to ------- and ------- in this country! We, ---------, strongly oppose this proposal/bill/legislation (cross out whichever is inappropriate). This proposal/bill/legislation (cross out whichever is inappropriate) is being pushed by ---------. A vote for ------- is a vote for -------. We, ---------, strongly urge you to not vote for ----------.
Lance Davey, SOLO-NZ Deputy Coordinator
Back Off! Campaign Indefinitely Postponed
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
SOLO-NZ Op-Ed: Pete Hodgson-Hitler, Commissar of Compulsion October 10, 2007
SOLO-NZ Op-Ed: Pete Hodgson-Hitler, Commissar of Compulsion
October 10, 2007
Pete Hodgson, megalomaniac, or just plain maniac? Hodgson, the Hitler of Health, and the Stalin of Starvation. The man in charge of health. The man, as Labour's electoral strategist, behind the Electoral Finance Bill. The Napoleon-complex, Little-Hitler Hodgson! He wants to dictate our diets, from what we mustn't eat to what we must eat, to what can be sold or marketed to us to eat! And as an extra kick in the teeth, he doesn't want us complaining about it in an election year! In fact he has never liked anyone expressing views about his party at any time, as shown when Hodgson-Hitler assaulted protester Madeleine Flannagan in December 2005.
In a press release on Tuesday, the little vermin threatened the food industry in New Zealand with this chilling piece of authoritarian bile: “if dramatic changes are not made soon to improve the food environments for kiwis, the threat of regulating the food industry will become very real.” Yep, nothing like the barrel of a governmental gun to drive a point home. The totalitarian toad went on to say, “The fact that New Zealanders are getting heavier is of great concern to me.”
No, Pete what you meant to say was, “The fact that New Zealanders are getting heavier worries me.” Literally speaking it is not any of our concern or yours, it's theirs. It's the concern of people who get fat. It's your worry, since you’re a bossyboots sticky-beak who wants to run their lives. Do you see the difference?
He then finished that thought with “It’s [obesity] not going to go away in a hurry; neither am I and nor should the food industry.” Uhhh, I'm not sure what Pete was trying to say there, but my advice to those in the food industry is RUN! Pack up shop and get out of town as fast as you can. You've seen what evils this mind can work—this is the totalitarian nut-job who co-wrote and championed the Electoral Finance Bill. If that is what he is inclined to do outside his portfolio, imagine what he will draw up for you!
I'm given to reflect that, although ministers are not generally qualified to deal with the portfolios assigned to them, it is very amusing that our Minister for Health is a veterinarian.
Hodgson-Hitler has an agenda of regulation, compulsion, and control that goes well beyond the scope of health, and completely ignores the indisputable fact, demonstrable in reality, that his agenda violates the rights of both consumers and producers, harming no-one who isn't voluntarily participating, to receive and impart goods. He justifies his penchant and perversion for power and control with pearls like these:"The whole of our society has a responsibility to address obesity." Would Mr Hodgson-Hitler care to provide a rational basis for that assertion?
"... if we're going to continue to make real achievements in improving public health, we're going to have to increasingly look outside traditional 'health issues'. There are significant gains to be made by promoting a public health approach to wider social issues and government policy."
Like Adolf’s Strength Through Joy programme, perhaps?
As soon as a gun-toting government assumes responsibility for our health—and not just the treatment of illness, but the prevention of 'unhealthiness,' even in voluntary self-inflicted forms—they will soon assume control of everything in our lives, in the name of “saving” them.
The references to guns are not emotive metaphors for governmental compulsion. They are quite literal and are intended to be. To demonstrate, imagine for a moment the Government bans hamburgers. One day you are making a hamburger in the privacy of your home and you are arrested, tried and convicted. You have not committed a crime that has impinged on the freedom or rights of anyone else. You have broken a law that impinges your freedoms and rights. If you resist the arrest to the fullest extent, you will be shot. If you allow the arrest but resist an unjust sentence to the fullest extent for a victim-less 'crime' you will be shot. If you don't follow the rules and don't accept the punishments for the rules, at the end of the day there is always a gun.
"We need to hear more from the public health community on things like urban design, social development, public transport, education and housing." (Hodgson-Hitler)
No, Pete, we need for you to back off!
Lance Davey
October 10, 2007
Pete Hodgson, megalomaniac, or just plain maniac? Hodgson, the Hitler of Health, and the Stalin of Starvation. The man in charge of health. The man, as Labour's electoral strategist, behind the Electoral Finance Bill. The Napoleon-complex, Little-Hitler Hodgson! He wants to dictate our diets, from what we mustn't eat to what we must eat, to what can be sold or marketed to us to eat! And as an extra kick in the teeth, he doesn't want us complaining about it in an election year! In fact he has never liked anyone expressing views about his party at any time, as shown when Hodgson-Hitler assaulted protester Madeleine Flannagan in December 2005.
In a press release on Tuesday, the little vermin threatened the food industry in New Zealand with this chilling piece of authoritarian bile: “if dramatic changes are not made soon to improve the food environments for kiwis, the threat of regulating the food industry will become very real.” Yep, nothing like the barrel of a governmental gun to drive a point home. The totalitarian toad went on to say, “The fact that New Zealanders are getting heavier is of great concern to me.”
No, Pete what you meant to say was, “The fact that New Zealanders are getting heavier worries me.” Literally speaking it is not any of our concern or yours, it's theirs. It's the concern of people who get fat. It's your worry, since you’re a bossyboots sticky-beak who wants to run their lives. Do you see the difference?
He then finished that thought with “It’s [obesity] not going to go away in a hurry; neither am I and nor should the food industry.” Uhhh, I'm not sure what Pete was trying to say there, but my advice to those in the food industry is RUN! Pack up shop and get out of town as fast as you can. You've seen what evils this mind can work—this is the totalitarian nut-job who co-wrote and championed the Electoral Finance Bill. If that is what he is inclined to do outside his portfolio, imagine what he will draw up for you!
I'm given to reflect that, although ministers are not generally qualified to deal with the portfolios assigned to them, it is very amusing that our Minister for Health is a veterinarian.
Hodgson-Hitler has an agenda of regulation, compulsion, and control that goes well beyond the scope of health, and completely ignores the indisputable fact, demonstrable in reality, that his agenda violates the rights of both consumers and producers, harming no-one who isn't voluntarily participating, to receive and impart goods. He justifies his penchant and perversion for power and control with pearls like these:"The whole of our society has a responsibility to address obesity." Would Mr Hodgson-Hitler care to provide a rational basis for that assertion?
"... if we're going to continue to make real achievements in improving public health, we're going to have to increasingly look outside traditional 'health issues'. There are significant gains to be made by promoting a public health approach to wider social issues and government policy."
Like Adolf’s Strength Through Joy programme, perhaps?
As soon as a gun-toting government assumes responsibility for our health—and not just the treatment of illness, but the prevention of 'unhealthiness,' even in voluntary self-inflicted forms—they will soon assume control of everything in our lives, in the name of “saving” them.
The references to guns are not emotive metaphors for governmental compulsion. They are quite literal and are intended to be. To demonstrate, imagine for a moment the Government bans hamburgers. One day you are making a hamburger in the privacy of your home and you are arrested, tried and convicted. You have not committed a crime that has impinged on the freedom or rights of anyone else. You have broken a law that impinges your freedoms and rights. If you resist the arrest to the fullest extent, you will be shot. If you allow the arrest but resist an unjust sentence to the fullest extent for a victim-less 'crime' you will be shot. If you don't follow the rules and don't accept the punishments for the rules, at the end of the day there is always a gun.
"We need to hear more from the public health community on things like urban design, social development, public transport, education and housing." (Hodgson-Hitler)
No, Pete, we need for you to back off!
Lance Davey
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Cornered Rat, Approach With Caution
Someone yesterday, compared my feelings on New Zealand with those of a cornered rat.
After getting over my initial offense at being compared to a vermin, I came up with this from an old US public health poster.
After getting over my initial offense at being compared to a vermin, I came up with this from an old US public health poster.
Friday, September 28, 2007
SOLO Press Release Child-Molesters of the Mind Close Gym Creches—Heroic Mums Protest! September 28, 2007
“That gym-going mums in Nelson have started a petition to challenge the Ministry of Misejakayshun's (Child-Molesters of the Mind’s) closure and threatened closure of gym creches in the area is welcome news,” says SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists) spokesman Lance Davey.
The closures had been ordered because the creches do not comply with Nanny State’s early childhood education rules, whereby all creches that provide education or care to three or more children aged under six need a licence. They must employ a registered early childcare teacher, develop education plans and programmes that meet Nanny’s approval, and provide suitable sleeping quarters for babies.
“In an initiative that is in stark contrast to the usual level of apathy and compliance seen in the sheeple residing in Clarkistan, these heroic mothers have taken a stand against bossy-boots Nanny State and are roundly telling the evil bitch to back off,” Davey enthuses.
“For Labour-Lite (National) MPs like the skanky Nick Smith to have climbed aboard the protest is a joke, however. The regulations that are being enforced have been in place since 1989, and both Labour and Labour-Lite have had ample opportunity to adjust or repeal them as they saw fit. Perhaps if Labour-Lite actually were a party of principles and dealt with such things based on those principles when they had the chance, this situation would never have come about. As it stands Labour-Lite are not a party of principle, just bandwagon-jumpers capitalising and electioneering on the plight of Nanny State’s latest victims. They are as low a life-form as Labour itself,” Davey concludes.
SOLO—SOLOPassion.com
Lance Davey ldavey@xtra.co.nz
The closures had been ordered because the creches do not comply with Nanny State’s early childhood education rules, whereby all creches that provide education or care to three or more children aged under six need a licence. They must employ a registered early childcare teacher, develop education plans and programmes that meet Nanny’s approval, and provide suitable sleeping quarters for babies.
“In an initiative that is in stark contrast to the usual level of apathy and compliance seen in the sheeple residing in Clarkistan, these heroic mothers have taken a stand against bossy-boots Nanny State and are roundly telling the evil bitch to back off,” Davey enthuses.
“For Labour-Lite (National) MPs like the skanky Nick Smith to have climbed aboard the protest is a joke, however. The regulations that are being enforced have been in place since 1989, and both Labour and Labour-Lite have had ample opportunity to adjust or repeal them as they saw fit. Perhaps if Labour-Lite actually were a party of principles and dealt with such things based on those principles when they had the chance, this situation would never have come about. As it stands Labour-Lite are not a party of principle, just bandwagon-jumpers capitalising and electioneering on the plight of Nanny State’s latest victims. They are as low a life-form as Labour itself,” Davey concludes.
SOLO—SOLOPassion.com
Lance Davey ldavey@xtra.co.nz
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
SOLO-NZ Op-Ed: Clarkistan—To Flee Or Not To Flee?
SOLO-NZ Op-Ed: Clarkistan—To Flee Or Not To Flee?
In his latest press release, National spokesman Lockwood Smith says that “New Zealand has overtaken the UK as the largest source country for permanent migrants to Australia for the first time.”
Dr Smith went on to blame Labour for this “worst-ever exodus,” and you know what? He's partly right.
I say “partly” because, yes, Labour is driving the more aspiring and productive New Zealanders overseas with high taxation and a Nanny-State-knows-best approach, but what Dr Smith does not appear to have considered is that the people leaving New Zealand are still leaving even though National are likely to be in power next year.
I put it to Dr Smith that the mass exodus is occurring, not solely because of Komrade Klark and her Kronies, but for the lack of a better option presented by a weak and unprincipled National (Socialist) Party. Oh, I have read your party's press releases, Dr Smith—mealy-mouthed lip service that they are—claiming to stand for property rights, enterprise, and less state interference, but I have also watched in horror as New Zealand's main political contender has slowly but surely re-mired itself in the stagnant swamp of statism, leaving us with the non-choice between Lab-scum and Nat-scum.
To the non-Bludge-scum New Zealanders fleeing the country en masse, I wish you farewell and good luck, and do not blame you for doing so. To those still here and considering the move, I encourage you to stay. If we go, they win. If you're up for the fight, there are the people and resources available, and we are only growing in number. The discontent is evident, and the dissent is getting louder.
Remember—if you’re not part of the solution, you are the problem!
It's enough to make you vote Libertarianz!
SOLO—SOLOPassion.com
In his latest press release, National spokesman Lockwood Smith says that “New Zealand has overtaken the UK as the largest source country for permanent migrants to Australia for the first time.”
Dr Smith went on to blame Labour for this “worst-ever exodus,” and you know what? He's partly right.
I say “partly” because, yes, Labour is driving the more aspiring and productive New Zealanders overseas with high taxation and a Nanny-State-knows-best approach, but what Dr Smith does not appear to have considered is that the people leaving New Zealand are still leaving even though National are likely to be in power next year.
I put it to Dr Smith that the mass exodus is occurring, not solely because of Komrade Klark and her Kronies, but for the lack of a better option presented by a weak and unprincipled National (Socialist) Party. Oh, I have read your party's press releases, Dr Smith—mealy-mouthed lip service that they are—claiming to stand for property rights, enterprise, and less state interference, but I have also watched in horror as New Zealand's main political contender has slowly but surely re-mired itself in the stagnant swamp of statism, leaving us with the non-choice between Lab-scum and Nat-scum.
To the non-Bludge-scum New Zealanders fleeing the country en masse, I wish you farewell and good luck, and do not blame you for doing so. To those still here and considering the move, I encourage you to stay. If we go, they win. If you're up for the fight, there are the people and resources available, and we are only growing in number. The discontent is evident, and the dissent is getting louder.
Remember—if you’re not part of the solution, you are the problem!
It's enough to make you vote Libertarianz!
SOLO—SOLOPassion.com
Thursday, September 20, 2007
SOLO-NZ Op-Ed: You're Doing it All Wrong
Issues of compulsion and prohibition facing New Zealand such as the prohibition of marijuana, the planned prohibition of BZP, and the mandatory medication of New Zealanders with folate are being fought against by specialized, interested groups and that’s great. But they’re doing it all wrong!
The issues are being fought on the basis of “is the prohibition justified?” or “is the compulsion beneficial?” Instead they should be asking: “Does the state have ANY place compelling or prohibiting the ingestion of substances by sovereign individuals in the first place?” The self- evident answer of course is NO.
Groups such as NORML will argue against the prohibition of marijuana by arguing for possible environmental benefits, possible beneficial medicinal uses, and the fact that it may not be as bad for you as thought. I have a strong, but un-indulged desire to punch marijuana law reform advocates on the nose when they say things like: “Ummm dude, alcohol is waaaay worse than pot. They should ban alcohol man.” Do these space-monkeys know why marijuana prohibition is so unlikely to be repealed? It's because of THAT very attitude. The attitude that substances, considered too “dangerous” by the state to consume, should be kept away from the public for their own good. Instead of arguing that marijuana prohibition should be repealed because it's “safe,” they should be arguing that prohibition be repealed because it's none of the state's damn business what people ingest, safe or not.
The Save BZP groups put forward a similar argument, contesting that the pills aren’t all that dangerous as no one has ever died from them. Again, they are missing the point. Advocating the “safety” of a particular banned substance does little to change the circumstances that led to its banning in the first place.
I'll reiterate: If you want to be free to ingest certain substances of your choosing, then you need to fight not against the justification of the prohibition, but against the notion of prohibition as a justifiable practice. You need to fight for an individual's sovereignty over his own body.
The flip-side of prohibition (banning the ingestion of “dangerous” substances) by the state, is the mandatory medication (compelling the ingestion of “beneficial” substances) by the state. For the unaware, all bread sold in New Zealand will soon be made with folate included. This will be compulsory. The state decided that it was a beneficial substance for pregnant women, but didn't trust them to take it themselves so have decided to mass-medicate the country via our bread supply. The situation is worse in Australia where all flour must have folate added. The Green party initially opposed the mandatory folate doping on the basis that it may not be safe, but then agreed so long as organic bread could be spared. Others argued over the cost/benefit, others whether was any genuine benefit. But they all, just like the anti-prohibitionists, missed the fundamental point: That an individual should have sovereignty over his own body—he should neither be forced to, nor prohibited from, ingesting any substance, dangerous or safe.
Don't think the folate is an issue of force? You, a consumer, wish to purchase a loaf of bread from the baker, a producer; you exchange money for bread, BUT the state steps in between and says, “You, baker, may only sell that bread to that consumer if you add this (folate).” It's force, plain and simple.
Marijuana could be a noxious weed, BZP an addictive heart-stopper, and folate a life-saver, and at the end of the day, the state would still have no damn business telling you what to put in and keep out of your body. THAT realisation will lead to the repeal of prohibition and compulsion, not arguing about the dangers or benefits.
Lance Davey
SOLO www.SOLOpassion.com
The issues are being fought on the basis of “is the prohibition justified?” or “is the compulsion beneficial?” Instead they should be asking: “Does the state have ANY place compelling or prohibiting the ingestion of substances by sovereign individuals in the first place?” The self- evident answer of course is NO.
Groups such as NORML will argue against the prohibition of marijuana by arguing for possible environmental benefits, possible beneficial medicinal uses, and the fact that it may not be as bad for you as thought. I have a strong, but un-indulged desire to punch marijuana law reform advocates on the nose when they say things like: “Ummm dude, alcohol is waaaay worse than pot. They should ban alcohol man.” Do these space-monkeys know why marijuana prohibition is so unlikely to be repealed? It's because of THAT very attitude. The attitude that substances, considered too “dangerous” by the state to consume, should be kept away from the public for their own good. Instead of arguing that marijuana prohibition should be repealed because it's “safe,” they should be arguing that prohibition be repealed because it's none of the state's damn business what people ingest, safe or not.
The Save BZP groups put forward a similar argument, contesting that the pills aren’t all that dangerous as no one has ever died from them. Again, they are missing the point. Advocating the “safety” of a particular banned substance does little to change the circumstances that led to its banning in the first place.
I'll reiterate: If you want to be free to ingest certain substances of your choosing, then you need to fight not against the justification of the prohibition, but against the notion of prohibition as a justifiable practice. You need to fight for an individual's sovereignty over his own body.
The flip-side of prohibition (banning the ingestion of “dangerous” substances) by the state, is the mandatory medication (compelling the ingestion of “beneficial” substances) by the state. For the unaware, all bread sold in New Zealand will soon be made with folate included. This will be compulsory. The state decided that it was a beneficial substance for pregnant women, but didn't trust them to take it themselves so have decided to mass-medicate the country via our bread supply. The situation is worse in Australia where all flour must have folate added. The Green party initially opposed the mandatory folate doping on the basis that it may not be safe, but then agreed so long as organic bread could be spared. Others argued over the cost/benefit, others whether was any genuine benefit. But they all, just like the anti-prohibitionists, missed the fundamental point: That an individual should have sovereignty over his own body—he should neither be forced to, nor prohibited from, ingesting any substance, dangerous or safe.
Don't think the folate is an issue of force? You, a consumer, wish to purchase a loaf of bread from the baker, a producer; you exchange money for bread, BUT the state steps in between and says, “You, baker, may only sell that bread to that consumer if you add this (folate).” It's force, plain and simple.
Marijuana could be a noxious weed, BZP an addictive heart-stopper, and folate a life-saver, and at the end of the day, the state would still have no damn business telling you what to put in and keep out of your body. THAT realisation will lead to the repeal of prohibition and compulsion, not arguing about the dangers or benefits.
Lance Davey
SOLO www.SOLOpassion.com
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Back Off! will be back... eventually
A ground up campaign working from the fundamentals is under way, I've no idea realistically how long this will take but Back Off! will be back. Stay tuned for upcoming developments...
Saturday, September 15, 2007
The Back Off! campaign is indefinitely postponed
I announce, with some regret, that the Back Off! campaign, due to a lack of interest, is to be postponed indefinitely. The numbers just aren't there and I feel that while it may be a noble endeavour, it would effectively be wasted energy.
Perhaps I didn't pitch it well enough or perhaps people are apathetic or perhaps the timing was bad, I don't know.
I still think it is a great concept, and has potential. But the fact is, for some reason or another, it hasn't taken off. I know it has been a short while only, but the lack of response from NORML, ALCP and other supposed pro-liberty organisations confirms for me the 'I'm all right Jack' nature I had suspected of them. They have no rational basis for freedom or any love of it. They have simply concluded that they want to be able to do, what they want to do, without being fined for it. And I suppose that's fair enough in and of itself.
Liberty in New Zealand is a disgraceful joke though, and there is a fucking great big tidal wave of further anti-freedom legislation coming. The Joe Public's that are vaguely aware of it think they can vote National and get the least of it and the rest are so firmly entrenched in statism that they think liberty is debatable or just don't give a fig.
What I have learned is that there are two important fronts to fight on. One is the battle against anti-freedom legislation, making submissions and making noise every time it is introduced. The other is the promotion of reason, establishing in people's minds that they should be free and there's a reason for it.
Yes, I'm bitter, yes I'm sad and disappointed. But I'm also angry, very fucking angry, though it is not some wild forest fire blaze of rage, it is focused, it is controlled, and it will be put to good use.
I commend and thank everyone that got behind it, and I hope that one day it can be pulled off, however for now it is simply not feasible and would be ineffectual.
In the mean time I will be keeping everything intact and turning it into a small part of a bigger, longer term plan. It is a good idea on paper but the reality, for now, is much different.
Perhaps I didn't pitch it well enough or perhaps people are apathetic or perhaps the timing was bad, I don't know.
I still think it is a great concept, and has potential. But the fact is, for some reason or another, it hasn't taken off. I know it has been a short while only, but the lack of response from NORML, ALCP and other supposed pro-liberty organisations confirms for me the 'I'm all right Jack' nature I had suspected of them. They have no rational basis for freedom or any love of it. They have simply concluded that they want to be able to do, what they want to do, without being fined for it. And I suppose that's fair enough in and of itself.
Liberty in New Zealand is a disgraceful joke though, and there is a fucking great big tidal wave of further anti-freedom legislation coming. The Joe Public's that are vaguely aware of it think they can vote National and get the least of it and the rest are so firmly entrenched in statism that they think liberty is debatable or just don't give a fig.
What I have learned is that there are two important fronts to fight on. One is the battle against anti-freedom legislation, making submissions and making noise every time it is introduced. The other is the promotion of reason, establishing in people's minds that they should be free and there's a reason for it.
Yes, I'm bitter, yes I'm sad and disappointed. But I'm also angry, very fucking angry, though it is not some wild forest fire blaze of rage, it is focused, it is controlled, and it will be put to good use.
I commend and thank everyone that got behind it, and I hope that one day it can be pulled off, however for now it is simply not feasible and would be ineffectual.
In the mean time I will be keeping everything intact and turning it into a small part of a bigger, longer term plan. It is a good idea on paper but the reality, for now, is much different.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Registrations of interest in a simultaneous Back Off! march for Aucklanders
Bearing in mind a date has yet to be set (and that if you can make the Wellington march it would be much better :P), who in Auckland would be keen for a simultaneous Auckland event to be organised? email backoff@xtra.org.nz specifying your interest in an Auckland march
SOLO Op-ed: Chemophobia Rules—Not OK!
SOLO Op-ed
Chemophobia Rules! Not OK!
Lance Davey
Spokesman, SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists)
New Zealand National MP Jacqui Dean’s embarrassing level of gullibility in inquiring of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs if they had a view on banning dihydrogen monoxide (water) highlights some actually quite serious concerns. It shows that MPs are very willing to jump on just about any bandwagon, without first being informed of the issue. It shows that in New Zealand, ‘chemophobia’ is alive and well. But come on, you say, it is a clever hoax; anyone could be fooled by it; the ‘dangers’ of water were taken out of context and made to sound much worse than they are.
Well, consider the recent move to ban BZP (Benzylpiperazine):
It is a psychoactive drug;
It causes insomnia;
It can cause headaches;
It is addictive;
It is widely available;
It causes loss of appetite;
It can cause anaphylaxis;
It can cause deterioration of the internal organs;
Serious addicts are taking it in the workplace, and while operating machinery;
The worst addicts need to take it first thing in the morning to even function;
Not only have I just described BZP, I have listed the side-effects and concerns about another prolific psychoactive drug called 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine.
Add to that list dizziness, tachycardia, blurred vision, drowsiness, dry mouth, flushed dry skin, diuresis, nausea and stomach-aches, not to mention nervousness, irritability, anxiety, tremulousness, muscle twitching (hyperreflexia), respiratory alkalosis and heart palpitations.
Not convinced we should ban it yet? Then I’ll continue:
“Like alcohol, nicotine, and antidepressants, 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine readily crosses the blood-brain barrier. Once in the brain, the principal mode of action of 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine is as an antagonist of adenosine receptors found in the brain. The 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine molecule is structurally similar to adenosine, and binds to adenosine receptors on the surface of cells without activating them (an ‘antagonist’ mechanism of action). Therefore, 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine acts as a competitive inhibitor. The reduction in adenosine activity results in increased activity of the neurotransmitter dopamine, largely accounting for the stimulatory effects of 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine. 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine can also increase levels of epinephrine/adrenaline. 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine is also a known competitive inhibitor of the enzyme cAMP-phosphodiesterase, which converts cyclic AMP in cells to its noncyclic form, allowing cAMP to build up in cells. By blocking its removal 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine intensifies and prolongs the effects of epinephrine and epinephrine-like drugs such as amphetamine, methamphetamine, or methylphenidate.”*
Phew, that’s some nasty-sounding stuff right ther—all those things with chemicals affecting your brain and what not. I mean, come on, it says it right there: 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine can be used to prolong and intensify the effect of P for goodness sake! Why isn’t it banned?!
Because 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine is none other than your humble morning friend, caffeine.
Think about that for a while, next time you willingly roll over and let the government tell you what you can and can’t put in your body.
Chemophobia Rules! Not OK!
Lance Davey
Spokesman, SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists)
New Zealand National MP Jacqui Dean’s embarrassing level of gullibility in inquiring of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs if they had a view on banning dihydrogen monoxide (water) highlights some actually quite serious concerns. It shows that MPs are very willing to jump on just about any bandwagon, without first being informed of the issue. It shows that in New Zealand, ‘chemophobia’ is alive and well. But come on, you say, it is a clever hoax; anyone could be fooled by it; the ‘dangers’ of water were taken out of context and made to sound much worse than they are.
Well, consider the recent move to ban BZP (Benzylpiperazine):
It is a psychoactive drug;
It causes insomnia;
It can cause headaches;
It is addictive;
It is widely available;
It causes loss of appetite;
It can cause anaphylaxis;
It can cause deterioration of the internal organs;
Serious addicts are taking it in the workplace, and while operating machinery;
The worst addicts need to take it first thing in the morning to even function;
Not only have I just described BZP, I have listed the side-effects and concerns about another prolific psychoactive drug called 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine.
Add to that list dizziness, tachycardia, blurred vision, drowsiness, dry mouth, flushed dry skin, diuresis, nausea and stomach-aches, not to mention nervousness, irritability, anxiety, tremulousness, muscle twitching (hyperreflexia), respiratory alkalosis and heart palpitations.
Not convinced we should ban it yet? Then I’ll continue:
“Like alcohol, nicotine, and antidepressants, 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine readily crosses the blood-brain barrier. Once in the brain, the principal mode of action of 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine is as an antagonist of adenosine receptors found in the brain. The 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine molecule is structurally similar to adenosine, and binds to adenosine receptors on the surface of cells without activating them (an ‘antagonist’ mechanism of action). Therefore, 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine acts as a competitive inhibitor. The reduction in adenosine activity results in increased activity of the neurotransmitter dopamine, largely accounting for the stimulatory effects of 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine. 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine can also increase levels of epinephrine/adrenaline. 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine is also a known competitive inhibitor of the enzyme cAMP-phosphodiesterase, which converts cyclic AMP in cells to its noncyclic form, allowing cAMP to build up in cells. By blocking its removal 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine intensifies and prolongs the effects of epinephrine and epinephrine-like drugs such as amphetamine, methamphetamine, or methylphenidate.”*
Phew, that’s some nasty-sounding stuff right ther—all those things with chemicals affecting your brain and what not. I mean, come on, it says it right there: 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine can be used to prolong and intensify the effect of P for goodness sake! Why isn’t it banned?!
Because 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine is none other than your humble morning friend, caffeine.
Think about that for a while, next time you willingly roll over and let the government tell you what you can and can’t put in your body.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Coming soon....
I am tentatively hoping to have a date confirmed for the march within the fortnight... stay tuned.
Sign up now! (erm please)
I encourage everyone who supports Back Off! to send me an email at backoff@xtra.co.nz to register your interest, I will add you to a mailing list (unless you request otherwise) that will send out one email only, to notify everyone of the march date. That way I can gauge roughly how many people we will be dealing with. The march date is still TBC as there is much, much, much, more work to be done getting support and publicity.
Tell everyone you know, we really need numbers. Thanks to Richard Goode, you can now just direct people to www.backoff.org.nz which has a link here to the blog.
Tell everyone you know, we really need numbers. Thanks to Richard Goode, you can now just direct people to www.backoff.org.nz which has a link here to the blog.
Woah, what's with this Objectivist stuff?
"I thought you said this was for all freedom lovers, what's with the big Objectivist plug?"
Yes, Back Off! is for all freedom lovers. Back Off! is not particularly concerned with which philosophical basis you have for freedom, only that you have a love of freedom.
The SOLO plugs are there because if not for SOLO this would never have come about.
The point is so many groups are fighting for their freedom to use property, to smoke marijuana, to smoke in their pub, to raise their children unhindered. Back Off! recognises (as do most Objectivists and libertarians) that to secure your own freedoms, you need to defend all freedoms (that's rational self-interest by the way).
You don't have to be an Objectivist to join Back Off! (but it helps).
Yes, Back Off! is for all freedom lovers. Back Off! is not particularly concerned with which philosophical basis you have for freedom, only that you have a love of freedom.
The SOLO plugs are there because if not for SOLO this would never have come about.
The point is so many groups are fighting for their freedom to use property, to smoke marijuana, to smoke in their pub, to raise their children unhindered. Back Off! recognises (as do most Objectivists and libertarians) that to secure your own freedoms, you need to defend all freedoms (that's rational self-interest by the way).
You don't have to be an Objectivist to join Back Off! (but it helps).
Monday, September 10, 2007
Back Off! International?
In light of this press release from the ARI, which reports on US Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards' plan to force US citizens to attend yearly medical checkups, and "a Tory panel in Britain suggested that, in order to control the spiraling costs of its socialized health-care system, Britons should be forced to adopt a government-prescribed 'healthy lifestyle'".
All (unless otherwise stated) Back Off! material and writing will be released under a GPL document license. Updates soon on which license will be used. This means anyone can freely use and adapt the Back Off! campaign in their own country.
All (unless otherwise stated) Back Off! material and writing will be released under a GPL document license. Updates soon on which license will be used. This means anyone can freely use and adapt the Back Off! campaign in their own country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
