Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill - First Reading Speech. Nandor Tanczos, Green Party
This bill, as the Libertarianz have said, is about putting the P into BZP.
Because despite his intentions, that will be the legacy of Jim Anderton from his years as would-be drug Czar - the
criminalising of a wide range of New Zealanders and the boosting of the illegal drug market as a result.
About 20% of New Zealanders surveyed say they have used party pills. It is estimated that BZP has been used for 7 years
by 400,000 New Zealanders consuming 26 million pills over 9.5 million occasions with no deaths or lasting injuries. All
available research shows that banning BZP will send many thousands of young adults to the more dangerous illegal drug
market of counterfeit street ecstasy and methamphetamine (P).
People have spoken about the dangers of BZP. Interestingly, with an estimated 200 000 pills used a month, 21 patients to
Emergency Departments in a year is relatively small.
But that will not be the case when prohibition is enacted under this bill. The many people who will continue to use
party pills - because as this Parliament seems to find difficult to understand, people do not obey unjust or
unreasonable laws - will no longer be assured about what they are actually taking. There will be no consumer protection,
no consumer information, and they will be pushed into the arms of organised criminal organisations who will most
certainly fill the gap.
Today the Government announced they are setting up a specialist organised crime agency - at the same time as they are
essentially writing another blank cheque for organised crime with this bill.
So what is the heinous evil that the government is attending to remedy by this Bill? Well, the Expert Advisory Committee
on Drugs has described BZP as a moderate risk, and that there is no evidence of aggressive behaviour, sexual assault or
date rape type behaviours.
* There have been no recorded deaths solely as a result of BZP use. * Should BZP be made illegal, this may
discourage people who continue to use it from seeking medical attention if they experience adverse effects. * there
is no guarantee that scheduling a substance as a controlled substance under the Misuse Of Drugs Act reduces the
availability or potential risk of harm from a drug.
I want to emphasise that last point. The legislation that empowers the EACD does not, despite attempts by the Green
Party, include as a criteria for recommending scheduling a drug whether harm, or even use, would be increased or
decreased by scheduling. And that's the basic flaw of this bill.
The Drug Foundation, one of our more impartial and independent bodies with expertise in this area, has said "Clear
patterns of 'adverse effects' are starting to emerge from the research: seizures; dystonia (uncontrollable twitching or
repetitive movement); inability to sleep; and nausea/vomiting. Across the population-based research and the clinical
trial, adverse effects appear reasonably common, but generally mild and short-lasting."
In a study of the Auckland City Hospital Emergency Department Overdose Database (2002-2004) which compared party pills
with ecstasy, GHB, amphetamines, cocaine, and alcohol, by the New Zealand Medical Journal, it was found that most
patients presented with "multidrug ingestions" and almost all patients were discharged home after "reassurance, IV
fluids, and diazepam."
Reassurance, IV fluids, and diazepam? Oh, that's what the EACD meant by moderate harm.
Well, maybe the bill is needed to do something about the sellers? No. The Attorney General's advice is that in relation
to supply the bill breaches the bill of rights. What that means is that the reverse onus provisions breach the Bill of
Rights Act guarantee that a person charged with an offence should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that
limitation cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.
This advice follows the Supreme Court finding in Hansen v R. The majority of the Court held that the reverse onus of
proof in s.6(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 was not only a breach of s.25(c) but could not be justified in terms of
s.5 of the Bill of Rights. Setting the level at which presumption of supply is set at 5 grams is so ridiculously low
that even the AG's report says the amounts specified in the Bill are not sufficiently high that it is safe to conclude
the drug is for 'supply'. Therefore it breaches the Bill of Rights.
So what should we do?
The Greens policy on these matters is about reducing harm. We believe that a drug-free lifestyle is the healthiest, and
that all drug use, regardless of legal status can cause harm. But it is also a fact is that not all drug use is
problematic and that many of the government policies in this area exacerbate harm rather than reduce. This Bill is a
classic example.
The Greens favour strict regulation of party pills, not prohibition. Regulations such as heavily enforced age
restrictions, restrictions on where outlets can be, mandatory health information, quality and quantity controls, severe
restrictions on advertising and severe penalties for breaching such regulations. This approach would more effectively
address the problems raised by members than criminalising users and putting control into the hands of organised crime.
The Drug Foundation noted that in the Massey study 26.7% of users under 20 had 'never' been asked for age ID when
attempting to buy pills, 80.7% of those under the age of 20 had 'never' been refused when buying party pills. Most users
could get pills within 20 minutes.
The 2005 Act provided for regulations on where restricted drugs (new class D, including party pills) could be sold, and
the dosage, packaging and marketing of products. These regulations have not yet been passed, and to our best knowledge
no enforcement officers have been appointed, so no formal monitoring or enforcement of the industry has been carried
out. There is no licence or training required before selling the product, and because of this many dairies, off-licences
and garages are currently selling them (an area of major concern to the public and health sector workers). Many outlets
also display extensive point-of-sale advertising.
So having failed to make use of the regulatory provisions the 2005 Act provided them with the Government is now saying
that the status quo isn't working and jumping to prohibition. Of course the status quo isn't working, there is still
very little regulation and access is very easy. Party pills are being sold at dairies, young people aren't being asked
for ID, there is little enforcement - sellers don't need to get licensed and are not trained - these drugs are far less
regulated than alcohol and yet instead of upping the level of control over their sale we're jumping straight to an
outright ban.
Instead of passing a sledgehammer law that will crack not just the nut but break the table as well, why wouldn't the
Government put in place the regulations that the 2005 legislation provides for, and which the evidence suggests is more
likely to actually reduce harm from party pills?
But this isn't about reducing harm is it? It's about another agenda. We oppose this bill.
ENDS.