Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Friday, July 12, 2013

I Want to Debate Yesterday’s Psychoactive Substances Bill with the MP’s Who Voted for it. The Logical Argument Against Animal Testing In This Bill.

Below is the logical argument against the animal testing required by this legislation: but first, I need to vent. (Scroll down to heading for argument if you want to get straight to it).

Here's irony; I said in my second post yesterday if the subject of animal testing for human recreational drugs was put to a conscience vote in Parliament it would fail. It didn’t, in fact it passed 119 to 1, good old Johnny Banks the only member voting against. I sat watching it open-mouthed in shock, and distress. Despite Seven-Sharp’s poll showing 97% of decent folk in a more enlightened New Zealand than we have in the Fortress of Legislation were against animal testing for recreational drugs, over 99% of our heartless politicians have voted animals - frightened, lonely, confused little animals, including beagles - will suffer inconsolably until they die, so spoilt little Jim-Bob can get a cheap thrill high on Friday night. Jim-Bob’s got two choices now: binge drinking, or a legal high.

I hope the 119 MP’s who voted for this were watching the beagle testing clip on Seven-Sharp: it was deeply distressing to those of us who have a pumping heart. I also loved the fact all three members of the panel were as shocked with the result from the Fortress as I was, and were against animal testing in these ridiculous circumstances.

Quite apart from the fact we can give away the farcical notion of the representative in representative democracy, something much more evil has happened here: we are ruled by people who have allowed ignorance to enact cruelty. I don't think most of these 119 members in the Fortress even understood the issues they were voting on, and below, I want to argue that point with them: on its own internal logic, this Bill never required animal testing. Before I give the very simple argument against the criminal act passed yesterday, look at New Zealand Justice Minister, Judith Collins, start the debate with me, trying to defend the indefensible, and then leave the argument.

Judith, whom I respect in so many other ways, but despise her, with the other 118 in this, never came back to the thread. Earlier I had been debating along the same lines with Clare Curran, whom I also once respected, along the same lines, but she ducked out before Judith did. It’s not good enough you don’t justify to the 97% of Kiwis appalled by seeing a twenty first century parliament, in a world first, voting animal cruelty so kids can get high. Because for every meaningless platitude about ‘safe’ Judith gave above, an animal, including a beagle, is going to be tortured for its short, pain racked, loveless life and die, so a kid can get high.

I posted yesterday there were two arguments against this Bill. Given the end point of this Bill, the initial, logical, argument I can happily say is a Libertarian one: after posting this I will be inviting representatives of all the parties to come and debate my points in comments. I don’t feel like being civil, but I will be. You can see pretty quickly were I was heading to with Judith above.

The Logical Argument Against Animal Testing In This Bill:

Psychoactive means mind-altering. This is the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

Under this Bill, soon to be an Act, there will still be the same group of people, mainly teens, buying mind-altering drugs. There is no initial change in outcome from this Bill in terms of stoned people buying ‘legal’ highs.

The justification for the legislation is that the mind-altering drugs will be non-toxic, that is, ‘safe’; that nebulous word Judith, or any MP I’ve argued with thus far, don’t seem to quite understand, trotting it out like a mantra. Let me clarify, it will be ‘safe’ because it will have been tested for toxicity on a range of animals: the expert on 7-Sharp last night confirmed beagles will definitely be tested – ‘tested’ is a euphemism for being put in a cage and tortured to the death.

Now here’s the rub. Cannabis, despite being used as a legal pain reliever and for its medicinal qualities in grown-up countries, is illegal in New Zealand, despite it being non-toxic. Cannabis has been tested for over 6,000 years voluntarily by humans, with not a single recorded human death. It is thought the only way to kill yourself with cannabis is smoke over 800 joints with no break: you then wouldn’t die of the THC, but of simple carbon monoxide poisoning.

Thus, the ‘safe’ high that is going to be found by testing animals already exists in cannabis. If we decriminalised cannabis we would be at the same end point as the Bill legislates for, but we wouldn’t need any animal testing.

So, my questions start:

How is cannabis not ‘safe’ under this legislation? Scientifically, not the technical nonsense that the Act simply writes in illegal scheduler drugs can’t be considered.

Why have 119 politicians just voted for animals to be subjected to one of the most painful tests, toxicity, to get us to exactly the same place as we would be without animal testing, by decriminalising cannabis? There will still be stoned people on non-toxic substances, either way.

I want answers please. I’d love to debate the members of the Fortress who voted this obscenity in yesterday, on the above points. I’m really busy today, I’ve just forsaken my breakfast to get this up, but I’ll debate all weekend and next week. I promise to try and contain my anger.

Argument B:

I brought this up yesterday also. The end point of the legislation is to have ‘safe’ – what does that mean again please? – mind-altering drugs. The alternative was the authoritarian one of simply banning all psychoactive drugs.

As a Libertarian that is anathema to me, however, animal welfare is the chink in my rationalist armour: I would have preferred in this instance, an outright ban, than the absolute barbarity of animal testing. The one time the current government, due to a backroom deal with broken down Peter Dunne, who is trying to torture animals here, while advocating to stop heli-hunting whereby deer are shot and killed outright, which I don’t like either, but that’s a better death: born wild, live wild, die instantly, compared to born in a loveless compound solely to be racked with pain and die in a lab over sometimes, years. (This is MENTAL). … Sorry, so the one time our conservative government decided to go all liberal, they vote in animal testing for legal highs: Jesus wept.

If the Fortress had gone for the ban, I could have then carried on advocating for decriminalisation, citing countries such as Portugal which has halved its addiction rate since decriminalising all drugs, even the hard ones. Because prohibition doesn’t work.

But anyway, this aside, I want to argue, with the MP’s, the logical argument please.

To all readers incensed by what happened in the New Zealand Fortress of Legislation yesterday, link to this post, tweet it, pass it round ... get it out there.

Related Posts:

My Challenge for Every MP About to Vote for Infamy.

Update 1:

I put a link up to this post on an overseas site. This is what a humane woman in England thinks of what happened in New Zealand yesterday:

"... this is terrible news. I'm horrified. I thought the world was moving in the opposite direction to this, against animal testing."

Update 2:

New Zealand's huge double standard. We lecture Japan about the cruelty of whaling, yet we pass law ensuring beagles will be tortured to the death so kids can get high:

Update 3:

Opening portion of email to Minister McClay, including link to pictures of laboratory beagle testing:

Mr McClay

This is my second email to you on this matter. To date, I've had no response to my first email. I have below copied my latest blog post, regarding my contention that under the internal logic of the PSB, no animal testing was or is necessary.

We decent people find the prospect of barbaric animal testing for recreational drugs abhorrent: I see SevenSharp's poll last night showed 97% of kiwis were implacably against animal testing in this Bill. Personally, I don't understand how you can live with yourself.

So, you're one of my representatives, the below post contains a series of questions: I expect answers that I can place on my blog, please.

At the very end of this email I have also placed a link to images of beagle laboratory testing: you voted for this abomination, have a look at the pictures and 'own it'. When you look at the pictures, remember you've voted for such unmitigated misery and suffering on creatures that trust us so children can get high. Jesus wept.

Yours with no respect

Mark Hubbard


  1. 1. The government believes itself constrained by international agreements against legalising cannabis. Cannabis legalisation proponents expect that, over the longer term, this legislation will build support for cannabis legalisation as well on the same harm standard.
    2. Cannabis is not an adequate substitute for all of the potential legal highs.
    3. Killing some animals to save or improve human lives passes cost-benefit analysis, unless you're taking an absolutist line that also prohibits it for life-saving medical treatments.

    1. 1) There are countries where cannabis is decriminalised. And regardless, I no more accept the 'but they're doing it' line in this field, or in taxation. It's a non-argument.

      2) Explain? It's a high, end of, and apparently the intent is to let the kiddies get high.

      3) No I'm not. I'm not comfortable with animal testing even for medical research, but animal testing for recreational drugs is absurd, and cruel.

      Cheers for commenting Eric. Pity the politicians feel no inclination to justify themselves.