Overwhelming support to end unnecessary animal testing

More than 4,500 emails have been sent through our website to MP’s since last Friday, and MPs have been receiving many more directly. I am blown away by the speed and size of this response.

I know that this is a reflection of the depth of public feeling about this issue – that it’s just not okay to do animal testing of recreational drugs.

The Psychoactive Substances Bill will be having its second reading on Thursday and I am hoping for many more emails to be sent before then.

Some of you have been sending me the responses you have been getting from other MPs. I have been very interested to see their comments. Paul Hutchinson, the chair of the committee that considered the bill and who made the call not to hear submissions on the issue of animal testing, is concerned about the effect of these drugs on young people’s brains. I am too, but short term safety testing using animals isn’t going to pick up developmental impacts. Animal testing is not going to prove that these drugs won’t affect developing brains. Paul Hutchinson didn’t hear the evidence that non-animal tests can be as good or better predictors of safety, because he didn’t allow these submissions to be heard.

One of you sent me an incredibly moving undercover video of the realities of animal drug testing. Warning – this is a heart-breaking thing to watch as it really brings home the sadness of the process.  Even without being forced to take the drugs, keeping animals in these sterile steel cages in isolation is bleak to say the least.

6 Comments Posted

  1. You want this garbage tested? Fine by me; do it on yourself.

    Well, that is the current situation, and this is the situation that Peter Dunne is seeking to change.

  2. Punk Science, you need to get of your emotive high horse and consider for a moment that animal testing for recreational drug use is about as obscene as humans can get. By what right do you believe that other living creatures are theree to be used so you can get your jollies with “recreational highs” (aka; crap)

    You want this garbage tested? Fine by me; do it on yourself. Though by the sounds of your litte rant, you’re already well on the way.

    Chur, bro.

  3. @punkscience

    Oh dear.. how many more vitriolic words can you use ?

    The reality is that the best way to ensure that these substances are safe for humans is to get those who want to use them.. to try them. I for one have tried ‘natural cannabis’ & would prefer they just regulate that & ban all these unknown synthetic ones.. but NO this Govt. wont listen to that rationale.. its far too sensible !
    BTW if they suggested allowing human to do trials of ‘natural cannabis’ they would be thousands of humans lining up, i’m sure..

    Kia-ora Mojo

  4. @punkscience 5:41 PM

    What is wrong with testing them on human beings. I am sure there would be lots of volunteers willing to participate in such trials.

  5. What drivelling, hippy arsepus. How many weasel words can I see in this post? “*Unnecessary* animal testing”? “Testing of *recreational* drugs”?

    The fact is that if you want to ascertain the hazards posed by a substance you have to test it in live animals. The closer the animal is to a human the more relevant the findings. Just because short term tests don’t show long-term developmental effects doesn’t mean that they are meaningless, you pillock! If they were meaningless I can assure you they wouldn’t be being done!

    Get a grip, educate yourself as to the realities of the scientific process and please try to understand that THERE ARE NO ROBUST ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL TESTING AT THE CURRENT TIME. If you want alternatives how about lobbying the government to fund the fundamental research required to develop and comprehensively test such technology? Try to make a positive difference for a change.

Comments are closed.