New Zealand vil legalisere lavrisiko designer drugs

New Zealand law permits 'low risk' designer drugs

Selve forslaget og anbefalingerne (107 sider)

Helt kort går forslaget ud på, at en række psykoaktive stoffer som p.t. er ulovlige eller lovlige bliver mulige at sælge lovligt såfremt, at man har 1) tilladelse til at gøre det, 2) stoffet er blevet testet i præ-kliniske og kliniske forsøg og fundet til at være "lav risiko". Forslaget kommer derfor ikke til at gøre noget stort mht. den generelle narkohandel i landet, og må anses som en slags minireform. Men det er da i det mindste en reform i den rigtige retning - i retning af legalisering og regulering. Måske når denne model har bevist at den kan virke i et par år, at man så vil overveje at prøve noget lign. for cannabis eller de meget ufarlige psykedelika psilobycin, LSD, og lign. Det bliver dog svært for det er ulovligt at legalisere de rusmidler hvis man er underskrifter på Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961).

Nedenfor ses et par citater fra forslaget, og nogle kommentarer.

Citeret fra introduktionen:

The bill seeks to regulate otherwise unregulated psychoactive sub- stances such as “party pills” and other “legal highs” in New Zealand. The bill aims to restrict the importation, manufacture, and supply of psychoactive substances unless authorised by a regulator , while allowing the sale of products that meet safety and manufacturing requirements. Currently , any psychoactive substance can be sold legally if it is not listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. This bill aims to place the onus on the industry to demonstrate that a psychoac- tive substance is not harmful or poses only a low risk to human health before approval for sale is given. Approval could be given only to finished, packaged psychoactive products, allowing the regulator to assess all the ingredients and the risk that they might present in the particular combination.

The bill proposes the establishment of a regulatory authority within the Ministry of Health, and an independent Expert T echnical Com- mittee to advise the regulator on products submitted for approval. The bill is in three parts. Part 1 contains the interpretation section and provisions to establish the Regulatory Authority and Expert Advisory Committee. Part 2 would establish a licencing regime and process for approvals; and Part 3 would establish controls on approved products and provide for enforcement matters, and confer regulation making powers.

Our commentary covers the main amendments we recommend to the bill.

Purpose statement

We consider that the primary purpose of this bill is to “regulate the availability of psychoactive substances in New Zealand and protect the health and minimise the harm to individuals who use psychoactive substances”. W e recommend amending clause 3 to make this clear.

Ligesom med det amerikanske forslag til at legalisere+regulere cannabis, så vil jeg gennemgå forslaget her en smule. Den særligt interesserede læser bør naturligvis læse forslaget selv.

Interpretations and definitions

We recognise the ar gument that the term “psychoactive substances” in clause 9(1) is very broad, which could have the ef fect of bringing other substances such as garden plants and low - risk herbal products into its ambit. After careful consideration, however , we think that the definition should remain broad to avoid leaving loopholes. Current exclusions for food and herbal products are suf ficient for the purpose; and for products inadvertently caught by the legislation there is the declaring power in clause 81 to deem them not to be psychoactive substances for the purposes of the bill.

Altså, de vil ikke klart afgrænse hvilke rusmidler som hører til på forbudtlisten, men vil bare bredt referere til "psykoaktive stoffer". Det er en et noget bredt område, fordi det også inkluderer ikke-rusmidler men stadig psykoaktive stoffer, særligt nootropics (mental doping). Det ser man også i selve forslaget:

(Principles, 4, d) a psychoactive product that has not been approved by the Authority should be prohibited, on a precautionary basis, until it has been assessed by the Authority and the Authority is satisfied that it poses no more than a low risk of harm to individuals who use it.

Dette forslag kriminaliserer derfor en meget lang række psykoaktive stoffer fordi "de måske kan være farlige". Det er en dårlig løsning som er i stil med de nuværende forbudsmodeller. Det viser også en total mangel på vejning af andre forhold, særligt borgernes frihed, respekten for politiet/loven, og prisen for at håndhæve.

Control of approved products

We are aware of strongly held views that the age for purchase of approved products should be 20 or 21, rather than 18 as provided for . Discussion centred on expert advice concerning brain development in young people; it was ar gued that this was a new bill and it might be appropriate to start this new regime with a higher age threshold level to help minimise harm to young people. W e consider , however , that a higher age limit for approved psychoactive products that pose a low risk to users might suggest to young people that alcohol and tobacco, having lesser age restrictions, are safer alternatives. W e therefore recommend that the purchase age in clause 46 remain at 18, aligning it with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. If the age limit in that Act is amended, we recommend that the purchase age for approved products should be automatically amended. W e also recommend that clause 46 be amended to include an of fence of possession of a psychoactive substance, including an approved product, by a person under the age of 18.

De burde gå mindre op i at spekulere over hvad det måske måske ikke får folk til at tro, og mere op i at alkohol og andre lovlige rusmidler fra 18 år-alternativer er mere skadelige. Hvis rusmidlerne bruges komplimentært, så er det en god ide at forsøge at få folk til at bruge det mindst farligste alternativ. Det betyder selvfølgelig også at dette skal være lovligt.

I øvrigt forstår jeg ikke hvorfor man dog skulle have særligt kunstigt høje grænser for netop rusmidler. Man tillader gerne folk at stemme fra de er 18 år (nogle gange 16!), lader dem tage kørekort, straffer dem hvis de bryder loven... men man vil ikke tillade dem at købe rusmidler som er testet og dermed verificeret til at være lav-risiko. Det giver ikke mening.

Labelling and packaging

W e are concerned that some packaging might be designed to appeal to minors, and although we consider that to define “appeal” in this con- text would be dif ficult in practice, we recommend replacing clause 54 with new clause 54 which prohibits a design of this type. W e also recognise the ar gument for requiring approved psychoactive prod- ucts to be sold in plain packaging, but are not convinced that this is necessary . Unlike cigarettes, these products will need to be of “mini- mal or low risk” to be approved and psychoactive products are made up of a range of chemical formulations. W e recommend, however , clarifying the provisions in clause 54 regarding the wording required on the label of the approved product, and for any further requirements to be prescribed by regulations.

Det er noget man godt kunne diskutere nærmere. I et forsøg på at undgå effekter af reklamering og andre irraitonelle måder at overtale folk til at købe på, så kunne man kræve at alle rusmidler sælges i plane, ens pakker, udover den information som skal stå derpå: navn, varedeklaration, risiko ved brug (gerne i frekvenser), evt. hvad man skal gøre i tiflælde af problemer, fabrikantens hjemmeside.

Local approved products policies

Despite advertising restrictions to limit advertising to the inside of retail premises and reduce visibility of the products in communities, we are concerned that retail outlets might be situated near schools or in other places considered inappropriate by the local community . W e therefore recommend making provision for local community input on decisions as to the location of outlets, including a requirement to have regard to their density , by inserting clauses 61A, 61B, and 61C.

Ikke i min baghave tænkning? I hvert fald et studie har ikke kunne påvise nogen sammenhæng mellem afstanden fra cannabisklubber i Holland og hvor meget folk røg. Mon ikke at det også gælder for skoler?

50 Prohibitions and restrictions on place of sale of approved products

(1) A person must not sell an approved product from any of the following:

(a) a shop commonly thought of as a dairy:

(b) a shop commonly thought of as a convenience store:

(c) a grocery store or a supermarket:

(d) any premises where the principal business carried on is—

(i) the sale of automotive fuels; or

(ii) the repair and servicing of motor vehicles and the sale of automotive fuels:

(e) any premises where alcohol is sold or supplied under a licence issued under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012:

(f) any premises that are not a fixed permanent structure, for example, a tent or marquee:

(g) any vehicle or other conveyance (for example, a mobile street cart):

(h) any other place or premises specified or described in the regulations.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an of­ fence and is liable on conviction,—

(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $10.000:

(b) in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $50,000.

Compare: 2005 No 81 s 41

Virker lige lovlig stramt.

52 Prohibition on free-of-charge distribution and rewards of approved products

En af de mere underlige.

Der er en hel del flere af sådanne forbud i loven. Det er ikke en specielt liberal tilgang til det, men dog en smule bedre end det nuværende, især hvis det kan inspirere andre til at legalisere fx cannabis.