European Tribune

Display:
The text you quote does indicate, though, that this is the first time the EP has been called upon to consider a matter like this one. Presumably because it was felt the question was not simply a technical one, there being some doubt about potential problems with the recreative use of BZP.

Benzylpiperazine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Benzylpiperazine (street names include "A2", "frenzy" and "nemesis"[1] ) (BZP) is a recreational drug with euphoric, stimulant properties. Its mechanism of action is believed to be similar to MDMA and the effects produced by BZP are comparable to those produced by amphetamine. Adverse effects have been reported following its use including psychosis, renal toxicity, and seizures. It does not appear to be very addictive and no deaths have been reported following a sole ingestion of BZP. It is banned in a few countries, including the United States, Australia and in parts of Europe. However, its legal status is less restrictive in some other countries such as Ireland, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada.

I don't see, a priori, why a parliament shouldn't be called on to look into this kind of matter.

And, after all, doesn't it raise the level of transparency you (and I don't disagree) were asking for?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Nov 10th, 2007 at 03:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's good that the EP is getting some say in criminal law matters. But this is a mere 'implementing measure' on a previous 'decision', which is a bit too particular IMO. Still, it could be that you are right and they are looking into it because the EP feels it is important.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sat Nov 10th, 2007 at 04:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series