BAN MAKES PARTY PILL TRADE WORSE

Matt Bowden, of the Social Tonics Association, doubts the Government's
decision to ban the manufacturing and sale of party pills will be the
end of the matter. "Legal party pills are an established part of the
social scene and you can't pretend that you can just ban them without
generating a reaction," he says. He, and others in the trade, see it
prospering underground, possibly with gangs becoming far more
involved. They would, of course, say that, especially while fighting
to keep the trade legal to those aged over 18. Unfortunately, however,
there is a good chance they are right.

This presumption is based on the sheer popularity of party pills.
Since their introduction some seven years ago, an estimated eight
million have been sold. A Massey University study found that nearly
half of males aged 20 to 24 had used them. History suggests that
prohibition has a chance of working only when a small number of people
are using a substance or when a substitute is readily available.
Neither of those factors pertains to party pills. There is a strong
possibility that many young people, never the most likely to be
intimidated by the law, will continue to seek them - wherever on the
black market they may be found.

The Government has acted on the recommendation late last year of the
Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, which studied research on the
danger of party pills containing benzylpiperazine (BZP). It found no
evidence of deaths from the pills but worried about their frequent use
with other substances, such as alcohol, or in high doses. It conceded
there was no guarantee a ban would lead to decreased use of party
pills but suggested their side-effects, such as nausea, dehydration
and lack of appetite, would dissuade use if they became harder to
find, more expensive and carried the risk of a fine or
imprisonment.

Prohibition may, indeed, be the most desirable course in principle.
And mounting concerns that some party pills contain illicit drugs
offer a compelling argument for that course. In some cases, the police
say, people have been known to take "party pills" without having any
idea of the origins of the pills or their ingredients, and have
suffered severe illnesses. This casts a shadow over the association's
suggestion that there should be no problems with party pills if they
are taken as directed. It also suggests a curtailing of a benign
environment, which resulted in very, very few of those who consumed
those eight million pills ending up in hospital emergency wards. Those
manufacturers responsible for such blurring of the lines between legal
party pills and illicit drugs should shoulder much of the blame for
the Government's action.

Yet, in practice, a ban will, as those in the industry suggest, drive
the pill trade underground with the rest of the illegal drug business.
A more cogent response would have been to place stricter regulations
on the making and sale of party pills, especially in relation to the
BZP dosage and the presence of illicit substances. Effective control,
including the vigorous prosecution of those found selling pills
containing illegal substances, would make the pills safer.
Restrictions on advertising and where the pills could be sold would
make them less likely to fall into the wrong hands.

This would certainly suffice until more definitive research is done
into the long-term consequences of BZP use. This may, or may not,
confirm the validity of the Government's decision. Until then, a ban
is based more on morality than measured thought. One thing is certain.
The party pill trade is about to become more dangerous for all those
involved and significantly harder to control.