Search

As the number of new 'psychoactive substances' detected globally has risen exponentially, the policy response of assessing and prohibiting each new substance individually has become increasingly unworkable. In an attempt to disrupt the availability of new as-yet-unscheduled substances, Ireland (2010), Poland (2011), Romania (2012), New Zealand (2013), Australia (2015) and the United Kingdom (2016) have enacted generic or blanket ban legislation that prohibits all 'psychoactive substances' that are not already regulated or belong to exempt categories. How such generic legislation defines 'psychoactive substance' is therefore crucial. While there is a growing critical literature relating to blanket bans of 'psychoactive substances', the Australian legislation is yet to be described or critically analysed. In this commentary, we aim to draw the attention of local and international drug policy scholars to Australia's newest legislative approach to 'psychoactive substances'. Using the Australian experience as a case study, we first describe and trace the origins of this generic banning approach, especially focusing on how 'psychoactive effect' came to be defined. Then, we critically examine the assumptions underpinning this definition and the possibilities silenced by it, drawing on the work of poststructuralist and critical scholars. In doing so, we explore and raise a series of questions about how this legislation works to stabilise drugs, drug harms and drug effects, as well as addiction realities; how the category of 'psychoactive substances' is produced through this legislation; and some of the material-discursive effects which accompany this rendering of the 'problem'. We offer this commentary not as a comprehensive discussion of each of these elements but rather as a starting-point to promote further discussion and debate within the drug policy field. To this end, we conclude with a suggested research agenda that may help guide such future work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International drug law enforcement agencies have identified an apparent rise in high level drug traffickers choosing to deal in multiple different drugs. It is hypothesised that this may be a "deliberate modus operandi" and that the formation of "portfolios of trades" may make such traffickers more profitable, harmful and resilient to changes in drug supply and policing. In this paper we provide the first exploration of the extent, nature and harms of poly-drug trafficking at Australian borders.Methods: Two different methods were used. First, we used Australian Federal Police (AFP) data on all commercial level seizures at the Australian border from 1999 to 2012 to identify the proportion of seizures that were poly-drug and trends over time. Second, we used unit-record data on a sub-set of 20 drug trafficking cases and linked-cases (defined as the original drug trafficking case and all other criminal cases that were connected via common offenders and/or suspects) to compare the profiles of poly-drug and mono-drug traffickers, including: the total weight and type of drug seized, the value of assets seized, and the level of involvement in other crime (such as money laundering and corruption).Results: Between 5% and 35% of commercial importations at the Australian border involved poly-drug trafficking. Poly-drug trafficking occurred in almost every year of analysis (1999-2012), but it increased only slightly over time. Compared to mono-drug traffickers poly-drug traffickers were characterised by: larger quantities of drugs seized, larger networks, longer criminal histories and more involvement in other types of serious crime.Conclusion: Some fears about poly-drug traffickers may have been overstated particularly about the inherent escalation of this form of trafficking. Nevertheless, this suggests poly-drug traffickers are likely to pose added risks to governments and law enforcement than mono-drug traffickers. They may necessitate different types of policy responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]