 | NORML News: party pills pass test |
 expert committee hints at possible r18 classification BY MILS RATHBONE, Norml News Autumn 2004
Legal piperazine-based "herbal highs" have passed an expert evaluation following a media feeding-frenzy surrounding the use of the products, sold under such names as Frenzy, Exodus, Charge, Rapture, Blast and Euphoria.
The Government's Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs (EACD) acknowledged the inappropriateness of a ban, instead proposing some form of regulation, possibly including an R18 restriction.
With the EACD playing a crucial role in New Zealand's drug policy as the statutory body charged with classifying drugs, this recent decision has potentially significant consequences for recreational drug use in Aotearoa. Yet, how much does the average person know about the committee's role in a policy affecting all New Zealanders and particularly those choosing to use substances categorized as illicit?
The events leading up to the EACD's evaluation of the products containing benzylpiperazine (BZP) and trifluromethylphenlypiperazine (TFMPP) occurred several weeks ago when five young people presented themselves at Dunedin Hospital's A&E as a result of problems they say were associated with the legally available substances.
Their disregard of the products' warnings went uncommented upon in media articles and police responses to these. These warnings concern potential side-effects, including heart palpitations, increased blood pressure and increased body temperature, and typically advise not to consume with alcohol, take only two and then wait for the effects before taking more, don't use if pregnant or suffering from certain health conditions, etc.
It transpires that a number of those attending the A&E clinic had used a significant amount of alcohol and it is suggested that at least one person, while not being drunk, had consumed up to 18 of the capsules.
The problems arising from this inappropriate style of consumption is clearly contrasted with their previous history of use. Industry sources estimate more than five million doses have been sold in this country, "and no one's died."
The drugs' previously clean slate appears to have escaped the attention of the head of the police National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB), Detective Inspector Gary Knowles. Also a member of the EACD, he said it is of "grave concern to me that these pills are being labelled as a natural high, when people taking them have no way of really knowing what's in them and what they could do to them". It is interesting that the Police perspective did not translate into a ban.
The EACD was established by a 2000 amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act, with the aim of classifying drugs by their actual risk to safety. When considering a particular drug, the EACD recommends how drugs should be classified in accordance with section 3A of the Act, which states that classification of drugs is to be based on the risk of harm to individuals or society. Harms are classified as class A (very high), class B (high) and class C (moderate) in terms of risk.
The EACD's website says: "The Minister of Health is then provided with the EACD's advice and decides whether or not to make a recommendation to the Governor-General that the substance in question be classified under the Act. The matter will then be referred to Cabinet. If Cabinet agree, the Governor-General may then issue an Order in Council and the issue is referred to the Health Select Committee for consideration. The Select Committee will undertake a public consultation as a part of its process. Finally, before any law change is made regarding the classification status of a drug, it must be approved by Parliament."
On paper the process seems solid and accountable, with an evidencebased statutory body evaluating the harms of drugs as they come to their attention. Critics could, however, argue that the procedure is not as open as it might appear.
Dominated as it is by representatives of medical science, the committee's perspective is less a wholistic one representing a rounded perspective than one constrained by a narrow health perspective. Quite clearly in cannabis' case, for example, those harms associated with prohibition seem not to be on the EACD'S radar. It is also debatable that the committee is free from the political agendas so obvious in the National Drug Policy's application. Evidence of this comes from a change of heart that occurred after the EACD's initial reassessment of LSD last year.
Information obtained under the Official Information Act shows that the initial reassessment indicating LSD posed less danger than was previously claimed was overturned by a second police-initiated assessment, thus maintaining the legendary drug's Class A status. From this example, the EACD is seen to be guarding the status quo.
In fairness, however, at least in the case of the piperazinebased party pills, the committee seems to have gone for less heavy-handed regulation, possibly in part due to previous industry liaising with Ministry of Health officials. Party pill industry sources point out their products are already covered by the dietary supplements regulations, and the industry has begun developing a code of practice which would see selfregulation address concerns.
Green MP Nandor Tanczos has proposed amending the Misuse of Drugs Act to create a new "Schedule D" for substances such as BZP where use would be "controlled but not criminalised", including an R18 age limit. There is, however, concern in some quarters that this approach is another form of prohibition and that by going down this road, the substances' advantage for many - that they offer a safer alternative to more dangerous illicit substances such as P - will be undermined, a vital argument as it must be remembered that the principal philosophy behind New Zealand's National Drugs Policy is that of harm minimization.
The value of party pills as an alternative to potentially more dangerous illicits seems to have been acknowledged by the EACD in its decision.
Even anti-drug stalwart Jim Anderton, Associate Minister of Health in charge of drug policy, appears to be in at least partial agreement, although it's a shame Mr Anderton refuses to see the same is true for cannabis.
On the web: www.ndp.govt.nz/committees/eacd01.html
|
|
|
|
| |
| Login |
|
You can register for some special extra features. | |
| Article Rating |
Average Score: 3.56
Votes: 39
| |
|
