bansturbation
at 07:21
Norwich City Council to pursue hairdressers with undercover agents to check they're not giving their customers a glass of complimentary mulled wine while they wait:
at 20:12
I don't normally watch the "One Show" but I forgot to turn over today and Andrew Neill is on giving his take on the budget. I loved this one line in particular:
"This is a good budget for the Colombian Medellin Cartel"
He is right when he says that an ecstasy pill is now cheaper than a pint and a line of coke cheaper than an alcopop, and probably right that trying to attack binge drinking by increasing the cost will simply mean the real bingers take more pills or lines instead.
For me, cheaper alcohol simply means that when I do drink, which is not often, I can get a better quality of wine for the same money. Why should I be penalized?
Tough liberalism is what we need.
at 04:44
A: Before the government bans their legal substance of choice...
It was probably too good to be true, a "legal high" giving similar effects to ecstasy. And so it proves to be. The government, following orders from the bansturbators at Euro High Command (who says we still have control of our own domestic laws any longer?) is to move to ban BZP, Benzylpiperazine. According to the Guardian it is likely to become a class C substance by the end of the year:
Move to ban stimulant BZP | Science | The Guardian:
Owen Bowcott
The Guardian, Tuesday March 4 2008 Article history
BZP, a psychoactive stimulant promoted as a legal alternative to ecstasy and amphetamines, is to be banned in Britain. The government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs will today begin the process of making it a controlled substance, following a recommendation from the European Union. It is likely to become a class C drug before the end of the year. BZP was once almost marketed as an antidepressant until its similarity to amphetamines was noted. It has been associated with vomiting, anxiety, insomnia, mood swings and seizures. It is already a controlled drug in eight EU countries. The EU action is binding and requires all EU member states to take legal action within a year. There has been no direct evidence of BZP causing death, although it has been linked to several fatalities in the UK.
I haven't tried it yet. I was going to a few weeks ago when I felt a bit down and thought it might be safer than trying to get a black market ecstasy tablet or some MDMA - it's really good for social situations that make me nervous and where I would not want to get drunk just to be able to strike up a conversation with strangers.
The whole sorry saga highlights just how idiotic the drugs laws are, and in particular the British classification system that Jacqui Smith has recently re-inforced with her deadly new death strategy. If BZP becomes a class C drug, while those it seeks to emulate are class B, amphetamines, and class A the even less harmful MDMA/ecstasy, where is the science behind that? Yup, you're right, there isn't any.
They may as well make sugar and chocolate class Bs on a whim if you ask me. Both are "linked" to several thousand fatalities each year in the UK. There's better science there it seems to me to justify that. But more than this, no doubt the search will go on for another substance, as yet uncontrolled, that will give similar effects, and the drugs laws will play catch up once again after legal businesses have built up a good trade in unadulterated doses because they can operate in country in clean, clinical lab factories and not kitchen top clandestine chemistry sets.
at 15:06
Not quite content with their complicity in throwing smokers out into the cold, it appears some of our number in the Euro-parl are preparing to freeze us off those as well with the idea of a ban on patio heaters. Yes, they may be gas guzzlers, but there are market ways of dealing with that through the taxation of externalities and fuel and so on to make people use them sparingly.
Why shoulddn't it be my choice, say, to save 100% of my vehicle emissions by not driving any longer but have the occasional night on the patio and be able to stay there for an extra hour maybe when there begins to be a nip in the air by cranking up the heater for a while.
Honestly. What is it with some of our people and banning things. It makes me want to declare that I am not in the same party as these people.
at 21:53
Via the Environmental Economics blog comes a story about, well, bansturbators banning, yup, balls, bollocks, genitalia from the back of vehicles:
Today, a Chesapeake lawmaker plans to introduce a bill that will ban "truck nuts" from your truck or SUV.
The nutty idea is the brainchild of Delegate Lionell Spruill. We're talking about the fake testicles people hang on the backs of their vehicles. Spruill's bill would ban anything on a car or truck that looked like human genitalia.
Those nutty Americans, eh!






























