New Zealand took a step backwards Sunday night with proposed changes to their New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) legislation.

Last year, the Psychoactive Substances Act was introduced. This piece of legislation regulates the sale, manufacture, and importation of New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) or drugs commonly referred to as ‘legal highs.’ After numerous attempts to simply ban legal highs, only to see them quickly replaced by new substances, the New Zealand government decided to take a new approach. The Act turned the tables, placing the onus of proof onto manufactures to prove the substances are ‘low risk’ before they can be sold.

While the bill was going through Parliament, the select committee decided that an interim period was needed between the Act coming into force and the introduction of regulations and rules around a clinical testing regime. The rationale behind this was to prevent people (particularly those who were dependent on these products) from turning to the black market and to ensure manufacturers had faith in the system. Once the Act was passed, products which appeared to be the least harmful were given temporary licenses and could still be sold until the testing process was in place.

Forty-seven products were initially granted temporary licenses. The Act provided the government with the power to instantly remove products from sale should they prove to be causing harm. The decision to revoke licenses had to be based on evidence provided by the National Poisons Centre and Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM). In the first nine months of the Act being in place, five products had their interim licenses revoked for these reasons.

However, on April 27, the Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne announced plans to change the Psychoactive Substances Act to revoke 

 interim product approvals. The amendment has not been tabled in Parliament yet, but it is expected that it will remove provisions for the interim period, thus making all currently approved products unapproved until they can go through the clinical testing process.

This would mean that no NPS products could be legally sold in New Zealand until the regulations for the clinical testing process are in place and products can prove they can pass. At a minimum, this will take 12–18 months.

Minister Dunne said that because the reports of severe reactions received by the National Poisons Centre and CARM cannot be attributed to any particular products, the government has decided to remove all products off the market. This is a departure from the legislation which focused on the need for evidence and due process to remove a product from sale.

The reasons for this change from the Minister are political. It is an election year in New Zealand and the continued sale of NPS products has created a perfect storm of NIMBYism, media fuelled hysteria and genuine concern about their effects. Two opposition political parties announced policies to change the law if they were in Government after the election. This forced the Minister’s hand in announcing the law change because he did not want to be seen to be giving the opposition parties a win on this issue.

Parliament is starting a two week recess period, which means that in the lead up to the change, retailers are likely to heavily discount products in firesales and people who use the products, or plan to distribute them, will be stocking up. New Zealand has already seen cases of discounting and there have been media reports of stockpiling. One shop which sells NPS products has been broken into and their entire inventory stolen.

The New Zealand Drug Foundation’s Executive Director, Ross Bell, explained that he suspects the decision to push through this amendment is about looking “tough on drugs,” as the Act already allowed the government to ban any substances that posed a danger to health. Mr. Bell has called on the government to use existing powers under the Act to remove the products that are causing harm, not to simply ban them all.

Find out more by following @nzdrug and visiting http://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/.

IDPC wishes to thank the New Zealand Drug Foundation for its inputs in this article.

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.

U-turn in New Zealand legal highs regulations

On April 17, representatives from the development sector gathered to discuss the negative impacts of current drug policies on impoverished populations, and the importance of bringing the development perspective to the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on illicit drugs in 2016. Broadening civil society engagement by including the development sector at the UNGASS will emphasize the cross-sectoral nature of drug policy and bring more power in numbers. Martin Drewry of Health Poverty Action and Eric Gutierrez of Christian Aid presented on the importance of recognizing international drug policy as a pertinent development issue.

Drewry began the discussion by highlighting the impacts of law-enforcement led drug policies on poverty. Although the intersections of drug policy and development are abundant, Drewry focused on three key categories of negative outcomes. First, current prohibitionist drug policies undermine governance, and therefore breed activities common to states with weak institutional structures, such as corruption and human rights abuses. Second, the authority of governments is limited by the power of drug cartels, which inhibits the state’s ability to protect and provide services to their citizens. Third, limited financial resources are wasted globally on fighting the war on drugs - this unintended consequence, known as “policy displacement”, means that available resources are diverted from both public health and socio-economic programmes.

Gutierrez continued the conversation by presenting the work Christian Aid has been doing to increase their understanding of drug policies within the development context. He pointed out that those who grow illicit substances do so as a survival mechanism and make the decision at a household level. Restricted access to land, and lack of food security and other sources of income, leaves farmers and their families with no other choice. Gutierrez stressed the importance of going deep into understanding the local context and the “messy politics” in order to address illicit drug situations. Although the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) annually produced World Drug Report offers a comprehensive overview of the latest developments in drug markets, it is little more than an “impressive collection of snapshots.” Looking at illicit drug situations at one point in time is not useful without understanding the circumstances which led to the current situation, and projecting future scenarios. In order to enhance the collection of “messy politics” research in drug policy, Christian Aid is producing a series of case studies.

Jane Slater of Transform Drug Policy Foundation highlighted the failures of prohibition and made the case for regulating illicit markets. She echoed the concerns of the development sector, particularly those presented by Drewry and Gutierrez, regarding the distortion of development interventions by drug war objectives.

Jamie Bridge of IDPC then proceeded to provide an overview of the international drug control regime and the unique opportunity presented by the 2016 UNGASS to have an open debate about current drug policies and the way forward. For the development sector, the UNGASS is a crucial opportunity to advocate on an issue with so many ties to development and to the future of developing countries.

Please click here for more information about the 2016 UNGASS.

Please click here to read the briefing document created for the development sector about engaging at the 2016 UNGASS.

Development sector recognizes importance of advocating for drug policy reform at UNGASS 2016

In this HCLU video, Allan Clear, from the Harm Reduction Coalition, explains that we do need to regulate illicit drug markets to bring more control over these substances.

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.

Harm Reduction Coalition: "We need a regulated market to control drugs"

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) met on 23rd April 2013, and elected by secret ballot five members for five-year terms beginning on 2 March 2015. Four members were elected in the first voting round:

Following a subsequent special ballot to break a tie between Zhimin Liu (China) and Flore Ndembiyembe (Cameroon), 

ECOSOC elects INCB members

An INCB mission visited Iceland from 25 to 27 March 2014. The mission was conducted by the First Vice-President of the Board, Dr. Galina Korchagina, accompanied by Ms. Beate Hammond of the INCB Secretariat. The purpose of the mission was to discuss specific issues related to the country's implementation of the three international drug control conventions, to which it is party. This was the first mission of the Board to Iceland.

The mission met with senior officials from the Ministry of Welfare, the Directorate of Health, the Icelandic Medicines Agency, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, the Ministry of Interior, the Directorate of Customs and the Metropolitan Police. The mission also had the opportunity to visit Vogur Hospital which is managed by SAA, the National Centre of Addiction Medicine. Meetings were also held with representatives from the Icelandic Red Cross as well as FRÆ, the Center of Drug and Alcohol Prevention.

Deliberations focused on recent developments in drug trafficking and abuse in Iceland, the Government's cooperation with INCB, measures taken by the Government to control narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and the chemicals needed for their illicit manufacture and policies to reduce the demand for illicit drugs and to treat and rehabilitate drug users. The consumption of methylphenidate in Iceland was also discussed with the national authorities.

The findings of the mission will be reviewed by the Board at its forthcoming session in May 2014 and will be reflected in the INCB Annual Report for 2014, which will be published in early 2015.

INCB visits Iceland

INPUD: "Drug conventions are not biblical texts"

On the 26th June 2013, people in 41 cities around the world gathered for a ‘Day of Action’ as part of the Support. Don’t Punish campaign – a global advocacy campaign to raise awareness of the harms caused by the criminalisation of people who use drugs.

To promote the ‘Day of Action’ for this year, the campaign team have worked with the professional video producers Not by Hook to create a new video – a call to all those who want to get involved in the campaign in 2014.

This video reviews the past year of the Support. Don't Punish campaign -- a global call to raise awareness of the harms caused by the criminalisation of people who use drugs -- and looks forward to what you can do in 2014.

Please click here to read more about this event.

Support. Don't punish-Let's make 2014 even bigger!

Coletta Youngers, a Senior Fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America says the International Narcotics Control Board overstepped its mandage in its criticism of Uruguay's legalization of cannabis. In addition, she emphasizes that the INCB is the only UN agency that works in secrecy.

Coletta Youngers says that the INCB is a tool of the Member States not the contrary and it is the only UN agency that does not have any transparency.

The INCB must be transparent 

Mike Trace, the chair of the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) is sending a message to the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) - a body that monitors the compliance to the UN drug conventions.

INCB should focus on its original mandate

The President of the INCB, Raymond Yans, accused Uruguay of acting as a "pirate" after having approved the autocultivation and legal trade of cannabis. However, Uruguay does not only have international obligations with regards to drugs, but also with regards to human rights.To read the full arcile by Rodrigo Uprimny in El Espectador (in Spanish), please see below.

EL presidente de la Junta Internacional de Fiscalización de Estupefacientes (JIFE), Raymond Yans, acusó a Uruguay de actuar como un “pirata”, por haber aprobado el autocultivo y el suministro legal, pero estrictamente regulado, de marihuana.

La JIFE es la institución encargada de supervisar el cumplimiento de las convenciones sobre drogas y Yans opina que la decisión tomada por Uruguay las viola. Una interpretación aislada de las convenciones parece darle la razón, pues éstas sólo admiten el consumo legal de marihuana para fines médicos o de experimentación científica, mientras que la nueva ley uruguaya prevé también formas legales de acceso a la marihuana para usos recreativos. ¿Significa eso que Uruguay es un pirata que desprecia el derecho internacional por admitir un suministro legal de marihuana para fines recreativos?

No lo creo, pues Uruguay, al igual que las demás naciones, no sólo tiene obligaciones internacionales en drogas sino también en derechos humanos. Y estas obligaciones en derechos humanos prevalecen sobre los mandatos derivados de las convenciones sobre drogas, como lo sostuve en una reciente columna. No puede entonces acusarse a la ligera como pirata a un Estado que decide adoptar una política que entra en tensión con lo prescrito hace más de 50 años por la Convención Única de Estupefacientes de 1961, si ese Estado justifica razonablemente que esa nueva política es necesaria para garantizar los derechos humanos. Ese Estado, en el fondo, busca respetar en mejor forma el derecho internacional pues prefiere cumplir con las obligaciones en derechos humanos, que son prevalentes.

Esto sucede en Uruguay pues la nueva ley tiene una clara perspectiva de derechos humanos y de salud pública; su propósito es evitar que los consumidores adultos de marihuana sigan sometidos a redes ilegales y mafiosas de distribución, pero sin crear un mercado libre de esa sustancia, que podría tener riesgos sanitarios. La ley prevé entonces formas legales pero estrictamente reguladas de autocultivo y distribución de marihuana. Por ejemplo, al igual que con el alcohol, no está autorizado el acceso a la sustancia por menores de edad; quienes produzcan sin autorización o manejen trabados serán sancionados; la publicidad está prohibida, etc.

Dados los desastrosos efectos sociales y humanos que ha tenido el prohibicionismo, los Estados tienen derecho a experimentar nuevas políticas en este campo, como la que está intentando Uruguay, a fin de garantizar en mejor forma la salud pública y el respeto a los derechos humanos.

La política uruguaya es controvertida y requerirá evaluaciones y ajustes, pero que Yans acuse a Uruguay de comportarse como un pirata por intentarla no habla mal de Uruguay sino de la JIFE. Muestra que en el fondo el pirata es Yans, que con su interpretación aislada y fundamentalista de las convenciones de droga, desprecia el derecho internacional, pues ignora las obligaciones prevalentes que tienen los Estados en derechos humanos.

And who is the drugs pirate?

During the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, INCB President Raymond Yans participated in an informal dialogue with NGOs. A summary of the meeting is available below:

We tend to meet with government agencies, but also NGOs. Those we meet are advised by us. NGOs are an important link for us. They are important for drug prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. 

Given the changes taking place in Uruguay, USA and Europe around drug policy, how can the INCB react to these changes in the future?

The INCB’s role is that of a monitor. We look in all the scope of our drug policies. Our role is not just law enforcement. We also deal with prevention and treatment as fundamental pillars of drug policy. We also advise agencies, and when there is a breach in the conventions we have the duty to advise states when they are no longer in line with the countries. Governments are fully responsible to establish their own drug policies. We always insist that effectiveness of prevention programmes depends on how balanced their strategy is. We can assist member states with our technical knowledge. NGOs help us on how to promote the best approach. Kazakhstan, Spain, and others, have different attitudes towards drug policy. We have to appear as independent as we cannot force countries to adopt cultural values or policies that are not in line with their cultural considerations. 

We welcomed the INCB statement on the death penalty. Will the INCB also do the same for harm reduction?

There is a misunderstanding which may be only based on semantics and ideology. In your question you ask whether we would recognise harm reduction as under human rights. As if harm reduction were a human right! Human rights are access to health. The conventions do not contain or refer or define harm reduction. The conventions say that countries need to take measures for prevention, treatment, after care and rehab. Certain aspects of the so-called harm reduction measures are of course useful, but member states are not obliged by the conventions to adopt what some of you call harm reduction. Let’s be frank, harm reduction is ideological. They should not be carried out as an alternative to other interventions such as drug abuse prevention. To come back to pragmatism, let’s see what harm reduction is – we can really call them prevention measures. Some of these measures can be considered as useful – treatment measures can be useful. If you take NSPs, these are in line with the conventions. Those of you who were there when I presented the report, you will have heard me mention access to essential medicines, including methadone and buprenorphine. These are in line with the conventions – but are not required – member states have the power to allow for those or not. We remind governments of the fact that none of the conventions require users to be punished. But governments may choose to do so. Drug users should be considered as human beings, not outcasts and proportionate responses should be given. VNGOC explains that harm reduction was never defined by us to be an alternative to other measures. We need to be clear on definitions.


How does the INCB work when countries’ proposals for estimates for access to essential medicines are clearly insufficient for their needs?

The use of drugs should be limited because of their addictive nature, to medical and scientific purposes. There are annual estimates made by every member state at the beginning of each year. Countries are also free to submit reports on statistics and trade on their needs for import, export, etc. If a country does not submit an estimate (e.g. on morphine), the INCB does it automatically so that the country would not be prevented to improve the medicine. We do it on the basis of a standard daily dose based on consumption in the region. If we consider that an estimate is too low, we suggest increasing the dose, but this is up to the country. The INCB advises but does not decide. We have drafted a global report on the availability of internationally controlled drugs where we give recommendations to member states. 

We decided to upgrade our work with NGOs, in particular in West Africa. We ask them to provide the INCB information about the needs of people on the medical use of controlled substances so that the INCB can have more global information than the partial one (or scarcity) sent by governments. 

Compulsory treatment – what is the position of the INCB on the use of these programmes? 

We have to deal with the words in different political, traditional and cultural uses. INCB will support all member states in their way of tackling the drug problem as long as policies are within the framework of the three UN drug conventions. Concerning the example of Cambodia, after analysing the results of the Board’s mission, we urged it to continue developing community-based drug treatment programmes. We did that because there were two systems – camps being one of them, and the other being community-based treatment programmes. The results of the community-based treatment programmes worked better. In Kazakhstan, treatment was forced on people because there was no other alternative in the community. No doubt, we will promote community-based treatment there when it is possible to do so. But the INCB is not in a position to oblige countries to close down compulsory treatment if there is no other alternative. It was not the case in Cambodia where there are community based centres. VNGOC: if the INCB could strongly encourage countries to set up community-based programmes, in line with other UN agencies, it would be appreciated by NGOs. 

This is an ongoing dialogue. NGOs are invited to be in contact with the INCB Secretariat to provide the Board with analysis and data on the problems arising in individual countries. It is important for us as the whole drug control community is aware that governments are necessary, but the work of NGOs on prevention is essential. Drug users are human beings.

NGO dialogue with INCB President Raymond Yans

During the CND High Level Segment, INCB President Raymond Yans delivered the following speech

The examination of the political declaration and plan of action focuses on the health and welfare of mankind. We could ask ourselves what kind of situation we would be in today without these conventions. Without them, we would probably have about 100 million people consume drugs across the world. In fact today, we have 5 times less. UNODC estimated that the prevalence was much lower than alcohol and tobacco, two substances that kill much more people than narcotic and psychotropic substances.

It is true that time and circumstances changed since 1961. We had less UN members, there was no internet, no globalisation, no some global health challenges such as HIV/AIDS. Incidentally, today's high concentration of THC in cannabis was also different. Not that this alters the basic principles of the 1961 Convention. The access to these substances was only for medical and scientific substances, on the advice of the World Health Organisation. The second principle is that of multilateral consensus implementation.

Blog