Hon Jim Anderton
Minister of Agriculture, Minister for Biosecurity
Minister of Fisheries, Minister of Forestry
Associate Minister of Health
Associate Minister for Tertiary Education
Progressive Leader

Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill 1st reading

Madame Speaker

I move, that the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move that the Bill be referred to the Health Select Committee and that the Committee presents its report to the House on or before 15 November 2007.

Madame Speaker,

BZP and related party pills were first introduced to NZ under the guise of dietary supplements and marketed as ‘herbal’ not only suggesting that they were safe, but also that they were good for you!

We now know that BZP has adverse side effects and the potential for severe toxicity in some individuals.

BZP is a synthetic stimulant, similar in its action to amphetamine and about a tenth as potent. Other psycho-active phenylpiperazines, such as TFMPP, are also used in ‘party pills’.

Back in 2005 we knew enough to exercise some caution. This House passed an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act that made it an offence to supply BZP to anyone under 18. It also banned giveaways and advertising of the drug.

That amendment helped put in place some control while we found out more about the potential harm.

We have a very strong process in this country for looking at the harm caused by drugs.

We have an Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. It’s not the Minister alone, nor any other lay person, who looks at the research and assesses the facts.

In November the expert committee advised me that the research on BZP and related drugs, which this government had commissioned, was now in. They pose a moderate risk of harm.

The committee's advice was straightforward: the drug should be classified C1.

When you have research that tells you this drug poses a moderate risk of harm, what do you do with that information?

You could sit around and do nothing, in which case, when the inevitable happens and someone taking them becomes seriously ill or dies, you have the responsibility for it on your hands.

You could decide that your own judgement about the safety of the drug is better than that of the expert committee, in which case you might as well get rid of the committee and make law by prejudice and knee-jerk reaction.

Or you could take the information seriously. When you are told something is harmful, you can act to reduce the harm.

So when I received the advice from the committee, I initiated a three-month period of public consultation. I looked carefully at the submissions that came in and at further advice from officials.

That process confirmed my belief that the advice from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs was right. These drugs should be classified C1 − that is, the same classification as cannabis.

The penalties for importing, manufacturing and supplying the drug are tough − up to eight years in jail. Anyone caught possessing class C1 drugs can go to jail for three months, or be fined $500.

This Bill proposes that if someone is caught with more than five grams or one hundred tablets, they can be presumed to be possessing for supply.

This presumption level was advised by the Expert Advisory Committee after an assessment of other drug presumption levels in the Act.

And it is this issue which has led the Attorney General to warn the House that this Bill “appears to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act and that the inconsistency cannot be justified under section 5 of that Act.”

Such a warning requires the House to think carefully, which I am sure we will do, on all sides.

In my view the entire purpose of this Bill is to better protect the rights of people.

As a House we must weigh the presumption of innocence against the right to protection from drugs and the practicalities of law enforcement.

There are many, many examples where that balance is weighed and different results are reached − and every single example is based on careful consideration.

So it will be for this proposal, by this Parliament.

In putting forward this Bill, I am acting on expert advice from respected scientists and clinicians.

That advice includes the exact amount that it would be regarded as 'demonstrably justifiable' (to quote the Bill of Rights Act) to assume it is for supply, rather than for personal use.

The argument, simply, is that law enforcement is impractical without such assumptions. On that precise limit, as on all aspects of this Bill, I look forward to the Select Committee process and its advice.

I think that we can work through any concerns about the burden of proof, about personal use and supply, and the presumptions of innocence, so that we do not in spirit or letter breach the Bill of Rights Act protections.

On the contrary, as indicated, I believe we will be enhancing human rights − and indeed it is our responsibility to do so for our young people in particular.

But in protecting the young from drugs of this kind there is a need to be judicious when making an offence out of possessing something that was previously lawful.

Good lawmaking requires time for users to find out about the change in legal status. So this Bill includes a 6 month ‘amnesty’ before penalties for possession for personal use will be applied.

Once this amnesty expires, those found in possession of under 5 grams of BZP or 100 tablets containing BZP for personal use will be liable to a penalty of up to 3 months imprisonment, a $500 fine, or both.

There will be no such amnesty for those who manufacture, supply or sell BZP-based products.

The Bill as drafted has a commencement date of 18 December. This means the amnesty for personal possession will be up on 17 June 2008 if the bill is passed by December 18.

This parliament should vote in favour of classifying these psychoactive substances because there is a potential for serious side effects and even fatalities associated with its use.

Public safety must always be of prime importance in considering these matters.

I have heard critics claim that BZP is no worse than caffeine and I have heard them claim that I am a killjoy who simply wants to end their fun.

But the expert advice is very clear − BZP is at the very least a moderate threat to the health and well-being of those using it.

Seizures have been reported. There is a potential for severe toxicity in some individuals, which has been reported after relatively low doses.

That doesn’t sound like much joy to me.
And sooner or later, supplied to the public, we won’t be talking about killing joy. We will be talking about the drug killing a young person.

We must take a precautionary approach. We have enough harmful legal drugs to control by regulation already. Tobacco and alcohol cause far more harm than any other drugs in New Zealand − they cost billions of dollars a year in economic damage, and the social costs are incalculable − and they are legal substances.

Why add another? If you make harmful stuff lawful, harm will result − that is the hard lesson of history.

This Bill will remove at least one potential source of harm.

And for that reason I commend the Bill to the House.

ENDS

© Scoop Media