While Jim Talibanderton peddles BZP-based myths for the media to recycle -- including the one that he's not a killjoy -- others like Michael Earley are busying busting them.
After fisking Neanderton's speech to the house on his ban on BZP-based party pills (featured here last week), Earley sent the following letter to the Manawatu Standard correcting a blatantly misleading article on the ban:
Sir, It is clear that your correspondent Lee Matthews obviously has not done his research on BZP. Almost every statement in his article is either factually incorrect, made up or based on anecdotal evidence. He might wish to consider a career other than journalism.
BZ'P is a stimulant -- you cannot "pass out" on party pills, its pharmacologically impossible. If teens were consuming a large amount of BZP they would likely throw up the before the pills were pills digested and the active ingredient able to affect them.
"Party pills, mixed with alcohol or cannabis, could be lethal." - There is not a single recorded instance in the history of BZP (worldwide) where it has found by a coroner to be the cause of death. The same goes with Cannabis. Though you are quite correct that Alcohol can be lethal...
"Sometimes P addicts tried to used party pills to get themselves off the harder drug. It didn't work. They suffered shattering headaches and health side effects." - Actually it did work, I personally know people who have used BZP to get off P; research by Massey University and SHORE also backs this up.
"Party pills, BZP [benzylpiperazine], they're basically cattle drench, to stop worms. The kids who take them might as well squirt drench down their throats." - Since it was created in the 1940s, BZP has never been used as a cattle drench of for worming. This is an urban myth. It is correct that piperazines have been tested as wormers in the 1950s, but they were not sold commercially as drench, and none of these were BZP, MeOpp, TfMPP or other Piperazines
Matthews's article is simply no different from the 'Reefer-Madness'-type articles that appeared last century. Surely an article with this many factual errors deserves a correction or retraction?