OPINION: When it comes to testing products on animals before they are used by humans, every individual falls somewhere on a spectrum.
There are some who abhor such testing in any form, while others think it's best to try things out on animals to protect the humans that will use the products.
Of course, most people fall somewhere between those extremes.
Animal testing has been around for decades and in the past many animals from rats to dogs to chimpanzees suffered immensely for the benefit of men, women and children.
In the past two or three decades such testing has come under more scrutiny and the scale of testing and its nature have been eased.
It would be generally accepted that testing on an animal of something like an experimental drug to fight cancer would be acceptable.
There is risk, yes, but most people could see the potential greater good of any side effects.
But the same can't be said for party pills. It's been revealed that under New Zealand law people who want permission to make and sell prohibited party pills still have the right to test them on animals first.
It may be legal to do so, but it is also highly immoral. Party pills were made illegal by our law makers, with the onus put on the pill makers to prove they were safe before they could be consumed. In a way, the old system was madness. The regulation was so relaxed that it was almost the wild west when it came to party pills in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
The question remains: What good will come out of allowing party pills on to the market? There was a reason they were banned. The type of testing that is technically allowed in New Zealand is banned in many other countries.
The argument about animal testing for party pills may be a subject of the "law of unintended consequences" but it needs to be sorted out.
Allowing it to happen will be a terrible combination of bad law and greed. It must be outlawed.
ONE MORE THING:
Surprisingly, the world did not come to an end when the All Blacks were well beaten by England at Twickenham over the weekend.
The players and management may not have been making excuses, but the sheer length of the rugby playing year was surely a factor in the loss.
The men in black were outplayed and outgunned by a hungry and committed English team.
Thankfully, there was minimal blood-letting from fans as there would have been in years gone by and instead an acceptance that you simply can't win them all.
- The Manawatu Standard
Who do you think won Key v Cunliffe's second debate?Related story: Leaders debate reveals more even contest