Search

The initial unregulated flow of firearms into New Zealand was problematic in terms of the impacts that resulted for the Indigenous population. The tight regulation that followed in the second half of the nineteenth century was akin to a civil war situation, as firepower was denied to groups in rebellion against the Crown. In the twentieth century, as the country stabilised, regulation evolved to a civil setting, encompassing applicant age and suitability and the registration of firearms. Although firearms control remained important over the following decades, by the early 1980s, registration had largely been done away with, and the trend moved from 'prohibited' to 'restricted' types of firearms. The law moved towards greater regulation after the first mass shooting in 1990. However, when it came to the second in 2019, the system reverted to prohibition of the type of firearms used in the atrocity, a rethinking of who was fit and proper to possess a firearm and a reintroduction of comprehensive registration for all firearms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In New Zealand, the debates surrounding legal highs have been developing for approximately a decade. New Zealand’s historical grappling with the problem of legal highs reflects a global problem in addressing the issues related to new psychoactive substances. The focus of this article is the prohibition of BZP-based party pills under the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Act, 2008 (hereafter the 2008 Act). This article reports on a qualitative study of the banning of BZP-based party pills in New Zealand, using thematic analysis of the discourses contained in the 2007 Parliamentary Bill readings of the 2008 Act. Six key themes were identified from the bill readings: prohibition is not an effective way to deal with drug use; BZP has a ‘gateway effect’; availability and accessibility means young people can access BZP-PPs too readily; young people are at risk; BZP has contributed to establishing a pill popping culture in New Zealand; and BZP has the potential for harm/has a moderate risk of harm. The thematic analysis revealed that evidence was often not fully represented in parliamentary debates, and that many of the concerns raised about BZPPs could have been dealt with through regulation rather than prohibition. A punitive moral populism aimed at drug use and drug users was also identified, driven by fears of drug using groups, and the symbolism associated with drug use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article briefly examines a range of economic, moral, political, theological and other arguments against the introduction of prohibition in New Zealand c1890-c1930 and the individuals, organisations and strategies used in this campaign. As with other countries that witnessed a sustained campaign for prohibition, existing historiography has focused very largely on the anti-alcohol lobby and has tended to convey an impression that theirs was a necessary and justified response to contemporary circumstances. Yet as well as predictable opposition from the licensed trade, in New Zealand, there were also articulate critiques of prohibition from abstainers, academics, theologians and the business community. Perhaps, most prominent was William Salmond, ordained Presbyterian minister and Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy at the University of Otago, who published Prohibition a Blunder a trenchant, multi-dimensional critique of the 'vicious moral coddling' of the New Zealand Alliance and its allies. If we are to accept the conventional wisdom that voluminous prohibitionist oratory and tracts influenced many to join the prohibitionist cause and help it achieve over 55% support against a 60% threshold at the 1911 general election, then it is only logical to conclude that the arguments and methods of anti-prohibitionists dissuaded many others. Moreover, as the vote for prohibition retreated after 1911, it is evident that many voters changed allegiance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Legal highs containing benzylpiperazine (BZP) were widely sold in New Zealand until BZP was prohibited in 2008. We examined the impact the prohibition had on the availability and price of BZP over following years. Methods Two national population surveys of BZP use were conducted in 2006 and 2009. Four annual targeted surveys of frequent drug users (FDU) were conducted from 2007–2010. Availability and price measures were obtained. Inflation-adjusted real retail prices were calculated. Other drug markets were monitored as quasi-controls. Results The proportion of BZP users from the general population who considered the availability of BZP to be ‘very easy’ declined from 76% in 2006 to 21% in 2009. The proportion who thought BZP had become ‘harder’ to obtain increased from 5% in 2006 to 71% in 2009. The proportion who reported the price of BZP was ‘higher’ increased from 27% in 2006 to 51% in 2009. FDU who considered the availability of BZP to be ‘very easy’ declined from 98% in 2007 to 15% in 2008, and then increased to 42% by 2010. The real retail price of a BZP tablet increased from $9.86 in 2007 to $15.83 in 2010. The proportion who considered the price of BZP to be ‘increasing’ rose from 3% in 2007 to 47% in 2010. Conclusions The availability of BZP declined immediately following its prohibition. Availability recovered in subsequent years, but not to the pre-prohibition legal level. The price of BZP increased slowly over a number of years following the prohibition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The last decade has seen the emergence of a new phenomenon in recreational substance use with the availability of herbal and synthetic, unregulated, psychoactive drugs in the market place; alongside this, international concern has developed in relation to their use and associated harms. New Zealand (NZ) was one of the first countries to experience this new phenomenon, with products containing chemicals of the piperazine group – mainly benzylpiperazine (BZP) and trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine (TFMPP). In 2008, the NZ Government prohibited these substances, but allowed a 6-month amnesty period for possession. Our study aimed to obtain a measure of change in BZP use over time. Methods: This study used a longitudinal, web-based survey, with data collected at two time points from the same participants. The first survey was carried out 3 months after BZP prohibition, and included retrospective questions for the 6 months preceding the survey. The second survey was conducted 9 months after prohibition and also included retrospective questions for the 6 months preceding the survey. Results: 273 sets of paired data were identified. The use of BZP party pills (p <0.0001) and legally available smokeable products (p =0.002) reduced over time. A majority of users of party pills obtained them from friends or from their own stockpiled supplies. The misuse of prescription drugs (p =0.02) increased over time, whereas statistically significant increases in stimulant or alcohol use were not noted. Conclusion: Following prohibition of piperazine-based party pills, we noted a significant reduction in the proportions of participants using them. The observed increase in the misuse of prescription medicines may relate to their perceived ‘quality’, or as being less ‘illegal’ than illicit drugs. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Benzylpiperazine (BZP) is the psychoactive ingredient in a range of ‘legal highs’ sold worldwide. BZP was prohibited in New Zealand in 2008. Aim: To investigate the impact of the prohibition of BZP legal highs on the prevalence of BZP, replacement legal highs and other drugs. Methods: A population survey of BZP and other drugs was conducted in 2006 (while BZP was legal) and repeated in 2009 (+12 months after BZP was prohibited). Respondents were asked to provide the reason(s) why they had stopped using BZP. Annual surveys of frequent drug users were conducted from 2006 to 2010. Results: Last year prevalence of BZP among the general population fell from 15.3% in 2006 to 3.2% in 2009. The most common reasons for stopping BZP use in 2008 were ‘it''s illegal now’ (43%), ‘just experimenting’ (26%), ‘don’t know where to get it now it''s illegal’ (24%) and ‘bad hangover effect’ (18%). Three per cent of the general population had used any new legal high in 2009. Use of BZP declined among frequent methamphetamine users from 32% in 2006 to 7% in 2010; among frequent ecstasy users from 65% in 2006 to 11% in 2010; and among frequent injecting drug users from 30% in 2007 to 20% in 2010. The use of new legal highs in 2010 was lower than the former use of BZP in 2006. Conclusions: Unpleasant side-effects and the prohibition contributed to a decline in BZP use. The overall level of legal high use was lower following the prohibition of BZP. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The authors discuss a study regarding the new psychoactive substances (NPS) in New Zealand. Topics include the challenges in the regulations of NPS in the country, the speculations about the absence of market for synthetic cannabinoids and the availability of cannabis, and the move of Peter Dunne, former Minister of Health, to reconsider prohibitions for the Psychoactive Substances Act (PSA).