ACT on campus defy party pill ban

20 comments on “ACT on campus defy party pill ban ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Andy Moore 1

   1 April 2008 at 10:06 am

   good point. I don’t know how they can reconcile it.
2. MikeE 2

   1 April 2008 at 10:09 am

   I’m shocked and appauled…
3. noting $200, 3

   1 April 2008 at 10:26 am

   Absolutely disgusting!
4. Ruth 4

   1 April 2008 at 11:17 am

   Pretty funny – rich white kids trying to be all ‘hood 😉

   Not a vote catcher.
5. Mike Collins 5

   1 April 2008 at 11:24 am

   No need to be racist Ruth.
6. Matthew Pilott 6

   1 April 2008 at 11:44 am

   Those evil bloody bastards!

   They were much cheaper yesterday – they’re price gouging. ACT is as ACT does 😉
7. MikeE 7

   1 April 2008 at 12:07 pm

   April Fools Guys!

   “ACT on Campus challenges young Progressives to debate.

   This April fools day the government is playing a cruel joke on hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders but nobody is laughing.

   The actions of 400,000 people will today become illegal as Parliament passes a ban on Benzylpiperazine or BZP.

   ACT on Campus says it is time for Jim Anderton’s youth wing to defend their principles and debate the merits of prohibition.

   ACT on Campus President Mike Bridge said “If Jim Anderton is so confident that prohibition will work with party pills then I am sure his hordes of young supporters will be only too happy to argue that the same will work with alcohol and tobacco.”

   Party pills containing BZP have claimed less lives than peanut butter, in fact there are no confirmed fatalities resulting from the consumption of BZP alone.

   ACT on Campus challenges the Young Progressives to debate the proposition that banning alcohol and tobacco would be a good move. ACT on Campus will argue against the proposition. Prohibition did not work during the 1930s and it will not work today.

   “ACT on Campus feels that Jim Anderton has alienated any young supporters that he may have had with his irrational crusade against BZP. If this is the case then we would welcome Jim consulting with his caucus and finding a suitable replacement, even if this does involve a wig, some ‘hip’ clothes and a crash course in the language used by younger people. We will debate them any time anywhere.”

   -Ends

   These are the views of ACT on Campus, not the views of ACT New Zealand.”
8. Steve Pierson 8

   1 April 2008 at 12:52 pm

   “These are the views of ACT on Campus, not the views of ACT New Zealand.’

   – then how come ACT New Zealand’s logo is on their website?
9. Mike Collins 9

   1 April 2008 at 1:54 pm

   Look closely – it says ACT on Campus, not ACT NZ.
10. Steve Pierson 10

    1 April 2008 at 2:23 pm

    but the logo above ‘on campus’ is registered to the ACT party. http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/registered_political_parties.html

    ACT on campus is part of the ACT party it can not purport that its actions are seperate from ACT’s.
11. Mike Collins 11

    1 April 2008 at 2:38 pm

    Nah Steve,

    AoC appropriated the logo for its own uses I understand. Shit I used to do that when President of AoC. ACT NZ probably hasn’t seen fit to pursue them to stop using it. AoC is independent in that it doesn’t seek the permission of the party for its activities, nor necessarily advises them of its plans. ACT doesn’t necessarily support what AoC does. Separate organisations working to achieve broadly the same goals. At least AoC has the balls to be controversial and get its message out there. Shit when was the last time the Young Nats got recognised? When Don Brash told them to pull down a website referring to Helen Clark in inappropriate ways? For that matter how about Young Labour?
12. Steve Pierson 12

    1 April 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Well, there’s being contraversial and there’s breaking the law to sell drugs. (not that I support the ban but rule of law comes first)
13. MikeE 13

    1 April 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Except that they weren’t breaking the law.

    As it was an april fools day stunt.
14. Matthew Pilott 14

    1 April 2008 at 3:16 pm

    Those rat-bastards – I’m getting the Commerce Commission on to them for false advertising.
15. Rich Prick 15

    1 April 2008 at 11:05 pm

    This thread has been really funny. Really, really funny.
16. Neilson 16

    2 April 2008 at 12:36 am

    The real question here is about the authorisation by the ACT party secretary in the top left corner.

    If it is only AOC and not any part of the party and not using the official logo why does it need official party authorisation and if it doesn’t why is it there?

    Regards
    Alexander
17. Mike Collins 17

    2 April 2008 at 8:17 am

    Neilson,

    Short answer, the fascist law supported by you lot requires it. The website as a whole is marked with that authorisation – not because Nick Kearney approves of the message necessarily but the law demands it when it looks like votes are being solicited. ACT on Campus does solicit votes for ACT (surprise surprise).

    If that is your real question I would hate to see what a joke question would be. I somehow find it hard to believe it keeps you up at night thinking about AoC’s party authorisation on the website. Why don’t you worry about something a little more substantial sunshine?
18. Neilson 18

    2 April 2008 at 8:27 am

    Mike

    You have to remember that we all need some time to relax and review what’s going on. at 12:10 am I was not worried about more substantial things but that piqued my interest.

    Regards
    Alexander
19. Clint Heine 19

    2 April 2008 at 9:43 am

    AOC has never ever been under the influence of the ACT party and some of you need to take a chill pill.

    What’s the going rate guys? 🙂

    The Standard – what a bunch of April Fools.
20. MikeE 20

    2 April 2008 at 10:47 am

    Anyways – back to supporting fascist laws guys.. its one thing you are good at.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS