Policy Papers II
Health Select Committee. 2005. Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3): Government Bill: As reported from the Health Committee. [Wellington, N.Z.]: Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. [accessed 3 June 2005].
The report of the Health Select Committee on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment (No 3) Bill. The Committee recommended that the Bill be passed, with some amendments. The Bill lowers the bar for presumption of supply in the case of methamphetamine, and creates new offences of importing precursor substances, along with new powers of search and seizure for precursors.
The Committee recommended the addition of a new Part 3 to the Bill, based on Associate Health Minister Jim Anderton's (2004) Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) (House of Representatives, 2004), which recommended the creation of a new class of controlled substances, for drugs that were not considered a "high or moderate risk" to health, but were still considered to need regulation. BZP is a drug that would fit into this classification. The Committee did propose a tighter recommendation of such drugs than was given in the original SOP, in order to exclude various classes of substance that could be regulated through other legislation.
Specific recommendations on the sale of social tonics are proposed, including the suggestion that they not be sold from licensed premises, owing to possible negative interactions with alcohol.
This is sensible, but probably futile - users will presumably purchase the drugs elsewhere, and take them to the pub.
Manufacturing conditions are recommended, and a total advertising ban is suggested.
Several parties presented minority views: National and New Zealand First were concerned that restrictions on BZP did not go far enough, and believed that the current drug legislation was an appropriate way to control this substance. ACT criticised an amendment that would make it more difficult to downgrade a drug's classification than to upgrade it, as an attack on liberty. The Greens also disagreed with this change, arguing that it was introduced by United Future's Judy Turner because she was afraid that the Greens would use it to downgrade the status of cannabis.
Inter-Agency Committee on Drugs. 2004. National drug policy: Inter-Agency Committee on Drugs (IACD): minutes. Wellington, N.Z.: National Drug Policy. [accessed 12 April 2005].
The IACD is a "monitoring group of officials [that] ensures that policies and programmes developed by government agencies are consistent and mutually supportive, [and] makes recommendations. on new policy initiatives." The minutes of IACD meetings from 2000 to 2004 are available at the National Drug Policy website.
Inter-Agency Committee on Drugs. 2000-2004. Drug Policy Update. Wellington: Ministry of Health. [accessed 27 May 2005].
A short quarterly newsletter, which aims to "promote, communicate and seek feedback on the National Drug Policy and initiatives undertaken under the policy". It contains articles on possible changes to legislation, on seizures of drugs, on conferences and similar topics.
[Issues paper: towards a national drug and alcohol policy]. 1995. [Wellington, N.Z.]: [Ministry of Health] Forward by Hon Jenny Shipley and Hon Maurice Williamson.
A short discussion paper providing scoping material for the development of a national drugs policy. It reviews the evidence on drug-related harm and sets out a possible approach for government. There is a description of legislation and programmes targeted at reducing drug harm.
The proposed policy structure is described, from high-level priorities to strategies and interventions to achieve desired outcomes. Suggested priorities focus almost exclusively on alcohol and tobacco, though in the 'other drugs' area there are suggestions to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to align it more closely with the Medicines Act 1981, and to provide more funding for drug treatment workers.
Ministerial Action Group on Drugs. 2003. Methamphetamine Action Plan: [Wellington, N.Z.]: National Drug Policy. [accessed 14 May 2005].
Outlines plans to reduce the "prevalence, use and harm associated with methamphetamine use, and outlines the nature and the magnitude of the methamphetamine problem in New Zealand." The goal is a whole of government approach, bringing together actions taken by individual government agencies and by NGOs.
Proposed actions include:
- controlling supply: through changing the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow police to seize precursors, and improved monitoring and surveillance;
- reducing demand: through education and public health programmes and encouraging "resilience and self-prohibition" among user groups;
- limiting the problems: greater resourcing for treatment services, focus on proven treatment methods (behavioural change), improved support and training for drug educators, police and health staff dealing with methamphetamine users;
- research: into dealing with clandestine laboratories, methamphetamine related morbidity, police statistics, research into treatment outcomes, more conferences/symposia.
Current initiatives are reported, including:
- the reclassification of methamphetamine into Class A (allowing police to search without a warrant);
- a clear focus by police on the methamphetamine problem;
- training of specialists to investigate clandestine laboratories;
- working with pharmacists and the chemical industry to limit access to precursor chemicals;
- a greater focus by Customs on precursors;
- research; and
- police work on the illicit drug monitoring system (IDMS)
Provides a review of the problem, with definitions: speed usually means methamphetamine (5-15% pure) but sometimes means amphetamine sulphate; P means pure methamphetamine (80-90% pure); ice means a smokeable version of methamphetamine, and therefore P and ice are not the same; ya ba is another name for methamphetamine.
Note that P has also been defined, by users and in the media, as the smokeable form of methamphetamine.
Seems generally realistic and evidence-based, although evidence is not really cited. Doesn't imply that every user will experience mental problems ("heavy users may display a number of psychoses").
Describes binges, followed by crashes. Binges last for 2-6 days, followed by a physical and mental crash, including depression, fatigue, cravings to use again.
Reports that methamphetamine use has caused death (including in New Zealand): "the individual started to have hallucinations, seizures, high blood pressure and high pulse rate. The individual then became hypertensive and began bleeding from all orifices and went into paralysis and could not be resuscitated. The cause of death was later determined to be irreversible shock, acute respiratory failure, hepatic necrosis and renal failure from acute methamphetamine and alcohol ingestion."
Dependence is cited as another possible problem. Claims that both physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms are possible, as well as rapid development of tolerance. Withdrawal can include strong physical cravings as well as delusions, hallucinations and paranoia or depression.
HIV through sharing needles, violence and the environmental risk of clandestine laboratories are all cited as public health risks of methamphetamine. However there is no data on hospital admissions (except in Auckland, which reported 36 admissions in 2002).
Seizures of methamphetamine greatly increased over 1996-2001, as did detection of clandestine laboratories. Links between violence and methamphetamine use (overseas) are cited - these are much higher than those in the Wilkins, et al, 2004 study. Methamphetamine users might take part in crime more for the rush they get from it, compared to opiate users, who commit crime to fund their addiction.
Reports drug testing of inmates - 97% of all positive tests were for cannabis (although of course cannabis stays in one's system for much longer than any other substance).
A well-researched report, presenting research-based evidence, that should be a key resource in the methamphetamine debate.
Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy. [1999?]. National Drug Policy Work Programme: cannabis and hard drugs. Wellington, [N.Z.]: Ministry of Health. [accessed 12 March 2005].
The Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy requested this work programme, with the goal that it would (a) "address the cannabis problem in the Far North and on the East Coast" and (b) "prevent the formation of a hard drugs market in New Zealand". "Hard drugs" includes both ecstasy and methamphetamine, and the report notes the distinctive nature of the ecstasy scene and the growth in the market for both drugs.
Provides background information on the drug scene and the policy response in New Zealand, and how the work programme was developed, including community consultation.
Recommendations include: research; police intelligence gathering; educational programmes; and legislative reviews. Work to improve drug treatment programmes and educate providers is proposed.
It is interesting to compare later reports and see that the same issues crop up. Researchers always complain of a lack of detailed knowledge about the New Zealand drug scene, and about the most effective ways to intervene with drug users.
Some of the proposals detailed in this report have been implemented, notably through the Guidelines for Safe Dance Parties (Ministry of Health, 1999) and legislative changes to enhance police powers to deal with drug offenders.
(MCDP), Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy. 1998-2004. Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy (MCDP). Wellington, N.Z.: National Drug Policy. [accessed 8 June 2005].
The Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy meets at least twice a year, and is responsible for drug policy decisions in New Zealand.
This page gives details of Committee membership, minutes of Committee meetings, and links to papers prepared for the Committee. The material is mostly generic or high-level. None of the papers relate specifically to stimulants, though some discuss the National Drug Policy (Ministry of Health, 1998).
Ministry of Health. 1998. National Drug Policy: A national drug policy for New Zealand 1998-2003. Wellington, N.Z.: Ministry of Health. [PDF. Accessed 6 March 2005].
The government's policy for dealing with drug problems in New Zealand. The approach emphasises strong law enforcement, credible messages about drug-related harm, and effective health services. The over-riding commitment is to minimise drug-related harm through prevention and reduction of use, with a focus on upholding individual rights when these don't impinge on others.
Specific priorities are described: limiting harm of drugs in general, limiting tobacco and alcohol harm, restricting the prevalence and use of cannabis and other drugs, and reducing health risks, crime and social disruption associated with illicit drugs.
Strategic areas include research, health promotion, assessment and treatment, law enforcement and policy.
Supply control and demand reduction are the two key strategic approaches.
Key groups and settings are identified including young people, Maori, polydrug users, pregnant women, people with coexisting drug and mental health problems, schools, prisons. Different strategies are needed to target different groups. Key groups vary from strategy to strategy (e.g. pregnant women are a target group among cannabis users). Polydrug users, and people with mental health and drug problems, are key groups.
This report represents the first time all government policy on drugs has been brought together in one place. In the past, a lack of such coordination has led to a haphazard approach, and also meant that conflicts of interest could exist (for example, fear of police involvement may stop someone calling an ambulance).
Desired outcomes are listed:
- enable New Zealanders to increase control over and improve their health by limiting the harms and hazards of drug use: acceptance of harm minimisation as goal by government staff, increased involvement of the community, improved treatment options and expertise;
- reducing the prevalence of cannabis and other illicit drugs: reduction of prevalence of use of cannabis, and especially among named groups, reduction in use of other drugs, reduction in drug use in prison,
- reducing health risks, crime and social disruption associated with illegal drugs: preventing a hard drug market establishing in NZ, reduction in the availability of drugs, reduction in crime and violence, reduction in blood-borne viruses, reduction in abuse of pharmaceutical drugs and the non-medical use of steroids, reduction in volatile substance abuse.
Future directions include:
- research;
- health promotion (value of remaining drug free, preventing or minimising drug harm, school and workplace programmes, information for at-risk groups);
- treatment (better services for at-risk groups);
- law enforcement (increased cooperation among law enforcement agencies, community policing to reduce drug-related crime, development of drug intelligence systems);
- policy and legislative development (allowing greater surveillance, diversion of precursor chemicals, review of the classification of methamphetamine under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, review of drug education and treatment programmes).
The strategy is based on the principles of:
- cost-effectiveness;
- equity;
- harm prevention and reduction;
- upholding individual rights (a specific example is choosing a health promotion approach over law enforcement, if only one can be chosen);
- developing strategies acceptable to Maori.
New bodies are created to oversee this work: a Ministerial Committee, a monitoring group (including Ministries of Health, Education, Justice, Department of Corrections, Te Puni Kokiri, Police, and others), and regular reports from all relevant government agencies.
Provides background information on drugs in New Zealand, focusing on harm to health, crime, and social disruption. Considers legislation, and sets out NZ and international law that relates to this issue. Notes law enforcement staff need to be trained about health risks, so their work doesn't contradict what health workers are trying to do.
It is worth noting that the official government strategy strongly emphasises harm reduction ahead of law enforcement. In contrast, most media attention is focused on legislative and law enforcement measures to control drug use.
Ministry of Health. 1999. Guidelines for SAFE dance parties: the big book. Wellington, N.Z.: Ministry of Health. [PDF. Accessed 6 March 2005].
Ministry of Health guidelines for operators of dance parties, that do not endorse drug use but aim to reduce the hazards of drugs for those who choose to use them.
They are voluntary guidelines and are not intended to be rigidly applied across all venues and events.
They suggest organisers need to plan for problems associated with alcohol, heat stroke, dehydration, paranoia, and disorientation/anxiety.
Specific recommendations include:
- make free drinking water available;
- control temperature and humidity, provide chill-out areas,
- allow people to take off clothes to stay cool;
- prevent overcrowding;
- ensure staff have first aid knowledge;
- adhere to host responsibility principles (with relation to alcohol);
- ensure there is adequate car parking space, consider providing transport;
- provide first aid facilities,
- provide drug information;
- liaise with emergency services.
This is generally a very sensible document. It follows the government's policy of harm minimisation, and expects dance party promoters to support this. Many of the guidelines are common sense, and would apply whether or not any patrons of the event were using drugs. Those that are specifically drug-related accord with the research evidence on harm minimisation. The only weakness in the guidelines is that they are guidelines only, there is no way for the Ministry to enforce them.
Ministry of Health. 2002. Public health services handbook service specification for the prevention of alcohol and other drug related harm. Wellington, N.Z.: Ministry of Health. [44kb PDF. Accessed 6 March 2005].
A short guide explaining how the Ministry Of Health funds public health services.
Focus is on community action approaches and environmental strategies, with a lesser focus on health education and other demand reduction strategies. The report claims "clear evidence" shows this is the correct approach.
The community-based policies include implementation and monitoring of policies in communities (councils, schools, marae etc), including developing policies for raves (e.g. Guidelines for Safe Dance Parties). The focus is on community members advocating and developing strategies; youth development initiatives (broad ones); early intervention; diversion and community sentencing for young people involved in illicit drug crime; increasing level of awareness of drug-related harm, including for pregnant women; strengthen knowledge in the health sector, monitor programmes, and research effects of drug harm.
It is interesting to compare this approach with how anti-drug efforts are portrayed in the media, where the focus is on punitive and criminal justice approaches to drug use.