Drug Reporting in the MSM - They Just Get Sillier and Sillier

I’m sure this article is joke. It must be because no editor could ever let this out without risking their job and reputation ... unless you work for News Corp. The article starts with dire warnings of “significant side effects” and deadly consequences but when the side effects are listed we are faced with nothing more than minimal drug reactions. Talk about a let down.

Police Warn Of Dangerous BZP Passed As Ecstasy
PerthNow
December 2009

POLICE are warning about a batch of dangerous drugs that may be in circulation in WA being sold as ecstasy.

The Serious and Organised Crime Squad has received an analysis of the recent 14 kg pill seizure identififying them as Benzylpiperazine or BZP -- not as MDMA or ecstasy tablets.

Detectives believe that it is not uncommon for illicit drug suppliers to pass off BZMP as MDMA, as their appearance is similar and the drugs possess similar properties.

Like MDMA, BZP also has significant side effects and can prove deadly in certain circumstances.

Side effects include: Increased heart rate; dilation of pupils; nausea; flushing; dry mouth; urinary incontinence.

These specific pills have been branded with the Nike “tick” and Apple Mac logos.

Anyone with information regarding the location of other pills matching this description is asked to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

So where did the author of the article come up with this line:

Like MDMA, BZP also has significant side effects and can prove deadly in certain circumstances

It sounds serious. That is until you read the side effects. Dry mouth? Dilation of pupils? Are they serious? Flushing and increased heart rate? Nausea ... urinary incontinence? It sounds more like drinking too much coffee than a dangerous drug.

And what the hell is urinary incontinence? I think they mean urinary retention which is a known side effect.

BZP is actually legal in many countries including the UK. Although most governments are looking to ban BZP, it can still be bought over the counter in shops with less restrictions than a packet of cigarettes or a bottle of wine. Any sensible government would research the drug thoroughly and keep it legal under regulations that reflect the associated harms. Interestingly, if we base the restrictions on the related harm, it would then be easier to buy than booze. But booze aside, regulations could entail restrictions to children under 18, a prescription from a doctor and a price that would undercut illegal dealers. Of course the quality would be of pharmaceutical grade which would entice the vast majority of users away from the black market. Anyone who is hell bent on taking the drug would now have to visit a doctor first for a prescription where they could be educated about the harms involved. A practice that isn’t performed by the local drug dealer waiting at the train station.


Reader Comments from PerthNow:
Go for it kiddies - did the guys that sold it too you tell you that a side effect is urinary incontinence? I didn't think so. LOL.
-Crackers of Freo

I love it when a joke backfires on a smartarse. Urinary incontinence is NOT a side effect of BZP. They article made a mistake and meant to write urinary retention.

I say flood the markets with these drugs. If these braindead losers want to pop these pills, then let them all suffer the consequences. When all of the addicts go belly up, then all the demand for these stupid things will dry up. Problem solved.
-Charles Darwin of Evolutionville


Easy way to deal with drugs addicts is for the government to give free 100% pure crap away and let them all die. No hassles, no worries ...
-millsy of perth

Ah, the humanity in the Murdoch press. If the drugs were pure then deaths would be averted.

What's that white stuff you get around your battery's terminals? PbSO4 if my high school chemistry doesn't fail me...
-Charles Darwin's mate of Same place

Of course, drug dealers spend hours each day looking for a tiny bit of acid that builds up around a car battery. Then they wonder why all their clients never come back.

I'm glad you're not my friend of bizarre logic - its called harm minimisation, because most people recognise that JUST SAY NO doesnt work, because beleive it or not, people take drugs.. millsy of perth - pure drugs dont kill people, its the crap they put in them, and examples like this where they "substitute" one drug for another that makes it "more" dangerous for the user.. People will do drugs, sayin they all should die etc. just show the intelligence level (or lack of) of the people making those comments Charles Darwin of Evolutionville - what if one of these "braindead losers " was one of your family, like a son or a daughter, would you want them to go belly up too?? Disgusting comment
-Matt R of Melbourne

Finally some sense.

Matt R of Melbourne - I dont have any braindead losers in my family that take drugs. Myself and all of my family are well educated and mentally sound that we don't feel the ridiculous need or braindead desire to take drugs. Not only is taking drugs dangerous, but its also against the law. All you drug taking braindead losers out there clearly have no respect for yourselves, others or the law. So feel free to pop away and go belly up. Society neither wants nor needs you.
-Charles Darwin of Evolutionville

Yes, the law stops most users of illegal drugs. pffft. But since booze is legal, it’s alright to get paralytic drunk and become one of the 3000 drinkers who die each year from alcohol.

Hahaha, if idiots are stupid enough to pop pills in the first place let them all overdose and die for their own stupid mistakes and stop wasting tax payers money on police squads trying to stop them!
-chris2pher of Adelaide

More humanity in the Murdoch press. Maybe they wouldn’t die if we stop wasting tax payers money on police squads trying to stop them.

...And as for the prohibition argument, those events occurred almost 100 years ago, so its completely invalid for todays society. And the same clown also stated that [recreational] drugs are safer and not addicive and cause very few problems for society. Are you serious???? Please tell me that you don't honestly believe that crap you just wrote. Not addicitive? Dont make me laugh. Safe? Laughing still. And very few problems for society? LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!
-Charles Darwin of Evolutionville

Because an event occurred almost 100 years ago, its completely invalid for today's society? Say no more.


Related Articles:
CourierMail - Cocaine Hysteria Thrives in Trash Media
WARNING! - Drug Users Being Responsible ... Again!
Journalist's Shame
CourierMail - The Media Scourge
Journalist Should Be Ashamed
Piers Akerman, His Readers, Oxycodone and The Truth