said it b4 health department, no idea, lack of resources....
....mmm...lying in the soft lemon grass, near my holiday home, watching a white rhino covered in blueberry crush velvet...hey maurice i yelled...."is this the apocalypse outbreak?"
imagine such a beautiful political landscape.......
(ps i do like the advice for retailers on the handy MOH sheets... what to do with the "banned" products....)
Ricky Gervais saves animals from cosmetics testing
PS. But actually,
humans are animals.... even in Naenae....
....so you were quite happy with werld leading legislation...
.....but no testing in/on animals with floppy ears...
are you an animal.....
and would andrea vance... do you.... in an experimental porn scene...while you protect liberty?
...is that like a legal high...with bunny ears?
roger wabbit...does john key know a rabbit from a rodnet ?
wabbits and rodents...stop stalking me you freaks.....
all going down at the end of the post..... responses
...rodents are here....
cosmetics.....for gods sake....please save the wabbitts...
and end the testing....
Arcade Fire Live
I s'pose now they cant't use wabbits,wats and weasels to test the goodies on. I s'pose they will now want to use lawyers........
Politicians would be good!
The text of the Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill is online and being debated now.
It includes this:
Advisory committee not to have regard to results of trials involving animals
“(1)In performing the function set out in section 11(2)(a), the advisory committee must not have regard to the results of a trial that involves the use of an animal.
“(2)However, the advisory committee may have regard to the results of a trial undertaken overseas that involves the use of an animal if the advisory committee considers that the trial shows that the psychoactive product would pose more than a low risk of harm to individuals using the product.”
So the advisory committee may consider overseas animal trials that indicate a product is risky, but is required to ignore such trials that indicate a product is low-risk.
Would that it were so. Mind you, risky and low-risk are the same, if harm is the only thing you can take into account. They're both negatives on the ledger. Treating them the same is only making the impossibility of balancing such books even clearer. No matter how many negatives you add up, you'll never get a positive. The best you could hope for is zero (if the number of negatives happens to be zero). I never believed any product would pass such a test. I doubt water would pass it, considering that there have been overdoses. I'm just surprised so many managed to go so long completely untested without being blocked.
Yeah, nah. The nice man on Nat-radio the other day said that it wouldn't be possible to rate the drugs for safety without animal testing, so this is basically a way of banning them without having to ban them. I'm pretty sure that the politicians are smart enough to know that, even if they won't admit that in front of a camera.
Personally, the analogs look pretty dodgy, and (even though I'm not a smoker) the real thing looks safer. Why not legalise, or at least decriminalise, that?
"have decriminalized methadone, for medical use" and already killed a patient in Whanganui hospital on top of polypharmacy for "pain" (earlier post).
Companies will pay subjects for human trials..who will get paid for participation; sign waivers for risk; get free "highs" as well as free board and lodging and medical tests!
What If you had to get a doctors certificate to but alcohol, because you need it to go with your dinner?
I'd leave the country.
And what is their response, Steven?