Policy Papers IV
House of Representatives. 2004. Supplementary Order Paper: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3): Proposed amendments. [accessed 2 June 2005].
Presents proposed amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
The amendments would create a new class of drugs, that could be placed under certain restrictions relating to age, advertising, labelling, or signage.
The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs would have power to evaluate substances and recommend restrictions. The government must consider certain issues before imposing restrictions on a substance, such as lawful uses for the substance, the practicalities of regulation, the risk that changing restrictions would increase abuse of the substance, or would lead users to seek out an alternative and more dangerous substance as a substitute.
Penalties, mainly fines, can be imposed for failing to comply with any of these restrictions. Some classes of people who will be forbidden from selling the substances, and an enforcement regime.
The proposals seem sensible. The amendment provides clear justification for the continued sale of social tonics, which STANZ argues have the benefit of keeping users away from harder, illicit drugs. This is a stated reason to avoid placing restrictions on a substance.
Turner, Judy. 2004. Meth makers, dealers should pay for endangering children. [Wellington, N.Z.]: United Future New Zealand. [accessed 12 April 2005].
The United Future policy on drugs, which includes the provision that "[m]ethamphetamine manufacturers and dealers should have the damage and danger of their products to children and unborn children factored into their jail sentence". The argument is that if the dealers had not sold the drug, the user could not use it and endanger their children.
How exactly the manufacturer of the drugs used by an individual user will be identified is not discussed – perhaps there is an assumption that all manufacturers have caused harm to someone, somewhere.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2003. Global illicit drug trends 2003. Vienna: Office of Drugs and Crime. [accessed 3 April 2005].
Provides global statistics for sale, use and trafficking of all kinds of illicit drugs. New Zealand's reported use of methamphetamine and ecstasy is one of the highest in the world (3.4% of the population in the last year for each substance). However the report does not cite New Zealand sources, but was compiled with reference to Australian research. Its accuracy has therefore been called into question ('Getting a handle on drug issues', 2003; Hurley, 2003; Ross, 2003).
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2004. 2004 world drug report: volume 1: analysis. Vienna: Office of Drugs and Crime. [accessed 3 April 2005].
Provides statistics and information on the worldwide use of illicit drugs. Results from the Drugs in New Zealand surveys (Black, Casswell and Wylie, 1993; Field and Casswell, 1999) are presented. New Zealand has a relatively high rate of use of both methamphetamine and ecstasy. The report suggests that this may be due to a greater willingness to discuss drug use in this country, as doing so may be perceived as being relatively safe.
Webb, Michael. 1998. 'E' is for - emerging drug policy issue. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand (10):86-100.
A comprehensive review of the policy issues surrounding ecstasy in New Zealand. Most people think of opiates and marijuana when they think of illicit drugs, but amphetamine type substances are a growing issue. 9500 pills were seized in 1997, compared with 871 in all years combined up till then.
There is little information on usage rates, though it will probably settle at 1% of the population taking one pill every 2 or 3 months, with 2-3% having ever tried ecstasy. Use of the drug is largely self-limiting, due to its cost and the fact that users experience diminishing returns: the highs become less euphoric, and the lows become worse. Most users are fully functioning, and not involved in crime.
But there are still risks: pills sold as ecstasy might contain something else. There is a risk of polydrug use. Heavy use can lead to depression, psychological dependency (where users feel they are unable to experience intimacy without the drug). Organised crime may become involved in the sale or manufacture of ecstasy.
Government response should include Customs and Police focusing on stopping importation of ecstasy. The Ministry of Health can help with information. Legislative changes can help Police deal with manufacturers and suppliers. Providing harm reduction information is a key goal. Many users rely on hearsay for their drug information. Harm reduction information could be provided in dance magazines, or on the labels of water bottles sold in clubs.
The history and effects of ecstasy are discussed in detail.
This is a groundbreaking piece of work. Webb's recommendations led to the Ministry of Health's Guidelines for safe dance parties (Ministry of Health, 1999), and have clearly informed much of policy thinking on this subject over subsequent years.
Webb, Michael. 1999. The 'A-B-C' of E. New Zealand Law Journal (Dec):443-445.
Webb argues that New Zealand's proposal to re-classify ecstasy to Class A is based around a moral panic driven by a view of drug dealers as evil, and by the death of Ngaire O'Neill. Ecstasy has very low risks of death, addiction, and mental illness. The risk of death is estimated at 1 in 3 million per use, based on UK figures. There is no need for a panic about ecstasy when far more harmful drugs, such as tobacco, are available.
He argues that from a legal point of view there is no need to re-classify the drug. Dealers and importers are already receiving penalties at the top end of the scale for Class B drugs. It is unlikely that users would choose to use ecstasy, or dealers choose to sell it, merely because it is a Class B drug. Users are unlikely to understand the penalties for different drug classes. So the change will have little deterrent effect. The government should focus on demand reduction, rather than supply reduction.
Webb, Michael. 1999. New Zealand's National Drug Policy. Drug and Alcohol Review 18 (4):435-440.
Reports on the development of New Zealand's National Drug Policy [59], "one of the clearest articulations of harm minimization as the philosophical thrust behind any country's drug-related efforts". Discusses how the policy was born from the mental health strategy developed under Prime Minister Jenny Shipley, and how it was held up by inter-agency discussions, political considerations ahead of the 1996 general election, and the issue of assigning portfolios after that election.
Sets out policy priorities, and the desired outcomes for each of those priorities (for example, "reduction in the transmission of blood-borne viruses via injecting drug use"). Key groups and settings are named. Notes the gaps in official knowledge about drug use. Describes the establishment of the Ministers' and officials' committees on drugs. Argues that the establishment of these committees is the biggest success of the NDP so far, and that anything else accomplished would have been achieved anyway as part of agencies' core functions. Argues that the NDP may prove to be a Trojan Horse for increased funding for drug and alcohol services. Also seen as important is the NDP's success in 'locking in' harm minimisation as the organising philosophy behind drug-related efforts by public sector agencies.
Wilkins, Chris. 2002. Designer amphetamines in New Zealand: policy challenges and initiatives. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 19:14-27.
A comprehensive discussion of policy issues surrounding ecstasy and methamphetamine in New Zealand.
Reviews the drug situation in New Zealand – seizures, arrests, drug-related crime and psychiatric patients with drug problems all increased sharply in the late 1990s. Methamphetamine had previously been confined to 'white' motorcycle gangs who smuggled it in. It was not manufactured due to low demand and a lack of technical knowledge. But with the rise of interest in ecstasy and methamphetamine, beginning in the rave scene, and the advent of the internet, demand had increased and recipes were available.
Discusses the effects of methamphetamine and ecstasy. A detailed and accurate review. Describes the health risks posed by clandestine laboratories.
Designer drugs are described as synthetic drugs that are new substances, not simply copies of plant-based drugs, and have been modified to get around legal restrictions or controls on precursor chemicals. Synthetic drugs have advantages for manufacturers. They are easy to make, can be made quickly (in days rather than the months it takes for cannabis to grow). They can be made year-round, in small scale labs. The precursors are often not illegal – only the end product is illegal (whereas for cannabis, all parts of the plant are illegal). Users may prefer them – seeing them as less dangerous, especially because they do not have to be injected or smoked. They may be associated with affluence, success and modernity.
Recommends a number of policy initiatives, many of which have been adopted:
- revisiting classification of drugs (MDEA is only class C, which may be too low; amphetamine sulphate, methamphetamine, and MDMA are all class B – we should differentiate among them);
- reclassifying analogues: they have a de facto classification of class C – but some are more harmful than the drugs they are analogues of;
- presumption of supply for methamphetamine is too high and should be lowered to be consistent with MDMA and cocaine;
police should have power to search for methamphetamine without a warrant; - a new offence of 'intent to manufacture methamphetamine' should be created;
- greater control should be exercised over precursors;
greater research should be conducted – all drugs seized should be tested, to discover exactly what they are and how they were manufactured; more frequent surveys of drug users should be conducted; - drug use among violent offenders should be studied.
Many of these suggestions have been adopted: methamphetamine has been re-classified upwards, and the presumption of supply has dropped. Precursors have been brought under stricter control. Wilkins and his colleagues have conducted research along the lines that he suggested (Wilkins et al, 2003)
Although this is a detailed and perceptive work, it's worth pointing out that a lot of Wilkins' conclusions are based on mass media news stories, including (Cropp, 1997; Philp, 2002; and articles by Bridget Martin (an article by Martin appears in this bibliography: Martin, 2002.
Wilkins, Chris, and F. Scrimgeour. 2000. Economics and the Legalisation of Drugs. Agenda 7:334-344.
Reviews and critiques the economic approaches to the debate over drug legalisation. These approaches differ from conventional approaches to this issue, which take either a libertarian stance (arguing that drug use should be legalised, as consequences fall primarily on the user), or a prohibitionist one (arguing either that drug use impacts society as a whole, or that there are moral reasons to prohibit drug use).Economic approaches take a cost-benefit approach to the issue, analysing the social benefits and social costs of legalisation or of loosening drug laws. Two main approaches are discussed, a simple cost-benefit approach, and a Pigouvian approach, which looks at the marginal social costs of drug use, compared with the marginal private benefits. The former is considered to be too simple, because it would classify a moderately harmful, but widely used, substance as having a high social cost, and therefore suggest it should be banned. The latter approach is recommended, though it has flaws, such as only taking into account the costs that drug use places on society, without considering the costs of prohibition.
Williams, Dale (ed). 1994. DARE to support your kids: a drug education programme for parents and caregivers of nine to twelve year-olds: a guide for facilitators. [Wellington, N.Z.?]: New Zealand Police.
Provides guidance for facilitators running drug education programmes. Much of the content is problematic or disputable.
'Other' drugs are grouped together as "polypills" - a meaningless and confusing name, apparently made up by the report writers. "Polypill users are a very distinctive breed. They tend to identify with groups such as cults, or they are isolated beings ("loners"). They usually have many more emotional, behavioural and psychological problems." Other, equally unsound claims are made throughout. The booklet presents wild conjecture or deliberate misinformation as fact, and goes against all the principles of good drug education programmes (see e.g. Ministry of Youth Development, 2004).