Search

The contamination of houses from clandestine methamphetamine manufacture emerged as an issue in New Zealand in the early 2000s. This perspective reviews and discusses the series of policies developed to address methamphetamine contamination in New Zealand houses over a 15-year period, ending with the reversal of the established policy approach in 2018. The policies addressing methamphetamine contamination of New Zealand properties were influenced by a range of sources including overseas scientific guidelines, local scientific reviews, public housing agency policies, and the local methamphetamine testing industry. A post-remediation methamphetamine level of 0.5 μg/100 cm2 was initially implemented in 2010, leading to the termination of public housing tenancies, suspensions from the public housing list, and financial charges for decontamination on public housing tenants. Subsequent reviews of the policy led to some increase in the thresholds (up to 1.5-3.8 μg/100 cm2 ) and the adoption of less punitive sanction processes. A scientific review in 2018 recommended a substantial threshold increase to 15 μg/100 cm2 (a 30-fold increase on the 2010 standard), resulting in HNZ initiating a plan to compensate previously sanctioned tenants. Overreliance on the "precautionary principle"; strict interpretation of scientific guidelines; and the public housing agency's "zero tolerance approach" to drug use, contributed to an overly punitive policy approach to methamphetamine contamination in New Zealand that negatively impacted vulnerable public housing tenants, landlords, and property owners. Investigation into the extent that all possible influences had on the development of the policies, as well as the consequences of their implementation, should be undertaken.

The problem of defining what psychoactive products and substances should be covered by legislation aimed at controlling new psychoactive substances (NPS; 'legal highs') is central to the current debate on designing new legislative responses to NPS. In New Zealand, implementation of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (PSA) revealed uncertainties about which psychoactive products are covered by the new regime, with important implications for legal penalties. We reviewed five pieces of legislation which can cover substances with psychoactive properties: PSA, Misuse of Drugs Act (MODA), Food Act, Dietary Supplements Regulations and Medicines Act. Our analysis revealed that a number of psychoactive substances which are not MODA-scheduled may potentially fall under more than one regulatory regime, including kava, Salvia divinorum, nitrous oxide, 25I-NBOMe, and 1,3-dimethylbutylamine (DMBA). For example, kava may be classified as a food, a dietary supplement, a herbal remedy, or a psychoactive substance, depending on how it is presented (including advertising and labelling). There are considerable differences in penalties and regulatory requirements between the different legislative regimes and these may result in unnecessary prosecutions or 'gaming' of the system. We discuss a number of ways to more clearly categorize products, including a public schedule of psychoactive substances and products, demarcation criteria based on the quantity of the active ingredient, and demarcation based on 'discernible intoxication'. Routine use of forensic testing is essential to ensure appropriate prosecutions and penalties. Robust safety standards are also required in legislative regimes exempted from psychoactive substances regime to prevent 'creative compliance'. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The problem of defining what psychoactive products and substances should be covered by legislation aimed at controlling new psychoactive substances (NPS; 'legal highs') is central to the current debate on designing new legislative responses to NPS. In New Zealand, implementation of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (PSA) revealed uncertainties about which psychoactive products are covered by the new regime, with important implications for legal penalties. We reviewed five pieces of legislation which can cover substances with psychoactive properties: PSA, Misuse of Drugs Act (MODA), Food Act, Dietary Supplements Regulations and Medicines Act. Our analysis revealed that a number of psychoactive substances which are not MODA-scheduled may potentially fall under more than one regulatory regime, including kava, Salvia divinorum, nitrous oxide, 25I-NBOMe, and 1,3-dimethylbutylamine (DMBA). For example, kava may be classified as a food, a dietary supplement, a herbal remedy, or a psychoactive substance, depending on how it is presented (including advertising and labelling). There are considerable differences in penalties and regulatory requirements between the different legislative regimes and these may result in unnecessary prosecutions or 'gaming' of the system. We discuss a number of ways to more clearly categorize products, including a public schedule of psychoactive substances and products, demarcation criteria based on the quantity of the active ingredient, and demarcation based on 'discernible intoxication'. Routine use of forensic testing is essential to ensure appropriate prosecutions and penalties. Robust safety standards are also required in legislative regimes exempted from psychoactive substances regime to prevent 'creative compliance'. Copyright © 2016 John WileySons, Ltd.