Should there be more restrictions on party pills?
New psychoactive substances, such as new types of party pills, are not actively regulated at present. The restricted substances regime does not impose restrictions on new psychoactive substances until they are brought within that regime.
This creates risks for the public because it is possible for a potentially unsafe substance to be manufactured, imported and sold without restriction until it is proven to be harmful.
We are advocating a new approach that would require manufacturers and importers of party pills to obtain an approval before they can release their products onto the market.
We think that there need to be restrictions on the sale and supply of an approved psychoactive substance. We have suggested that as a minimum these should include restrictions that:
• prohibit their sale and supply to people under 18
• restrict advertising
• impose labelling and packaging requirements
Do you agree with these suggested restrictions? Are there any other conditions that should be imposed on psychoactive substances new to the market?
Read more in our Issues Paper: Download 'Our Proposed Approach to Drug Regulation'
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
ferrouswheel Comment 1 11 Feb 2010, 5:44 PM
All three of the minimum restrictions suggested are completely sensible.
However, it's a slippery slope to define what constitutes a psychoactive substances. Coffee is psychoactive, so are many "supplements" and cooking ingredients.
Why isn't coffee (or caffeine energy drinks for that matter) restricted to over 18s?
It's impossible to start imposing these laws without becoming hypocritical and making moral judgements about what's okay and what isn't and it seems that as soon as anything is used for fun or recreation it's suddenly a bad thing.
Heaven forbid we enjoy our lives.
Kaschei Comment 1.1 12 Feb 2010, 2:27 PM
Caffeine shots which have recently been used for altering ones mind will be attacked next.
this action should highlight the ridiculous nature of the way our government ban recreational substances.
russellnz Comment 2 11 Feb 2010, 11:19 PM
Yes, I agree with with the regulation methods above. They make total sense. The difficulty is there is a large community of people under the age of 35 who now take some form of legal 'upper' everytime they go out. It's been avaliable for many years. To suddenly take that away is a dangerous road as people will immediately seek another option, be it on the black market or in the form of another illicit drug. Party pills have created this 'informal dependecy' within culture. Hard to take that away now that everyone's used to buzzing on them. Regulation and education is really the safest option.
ferrouswheel Comment 2.1 12 Feb 2010, 6:57 PM
I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that party pills have created such a dependency. Some people have strong coffee before a big night, that contains the drug caffeine and has been around for a long time before party pills.
BTW, King Charles II tried to ban coffee when it first started becoming popular:
http://drugr.org/2009/11/19/king-charles-vs-us-government-in-the-honesty-stakes/
tenchinage Comment 2.2 19 Feb 2010, 8:48 AM
From a series of interviews with party pill users, still underway, it has been indicated that the majority of users were taking some form of substance as a social tonic before party pills came on the market. While this research is yet incomplete, I would like to suggest that party pills have not created a dependency on social tonics within culture (hello, alcohol?) - they have simply provided an alternative social tonic for those who do not enjoy alcohol.
Marla Comment 3 12 Feb 2010, 8:51 AM
The simple way to improve the quality of 'party pills' is for the Government to manufacture them and make all other manufacturers meet the Government's own standards.
Restrictions based on age do not work- look at alcohol and how age limits have been a miserable failure.
Restricted advertising also doesn't work- word of mouth is still the best advertising there is.
As society gets more difficult to live in, more people will want mind altering substances such as coffee, chocolate etc. Rather than trying to stop the use of such substances, the Government should accept that the need to escape the humdrum, boring and treadmill driven existence of life is normal for humans (we have been doing it for millenia), and that quality is what matters- there is a revenue raising opportunity for a Government who can get in on the ground floor.
The simple way to improve the quality of 'party pills' is for the Government to manufacture them and make all other manufacturers meet the Government's own standards.Restrictions based on age do not work- look at alcohol and how age limits have been a miserable failure.Restricted advertising also doesn't
more…
ferrouswheel Comment 3.1 12 Feb 2010, 7:00 PM
Or, you know, if they let people use drugs that some find inspire them during their ordinary lives... that would be pretty cool too.
In the past, controlled use of MDMA and LSD broke me out of a depressive phase of my life. Now I have a PhD, and am starting my own information tech business.
Quarter Comment 3.2 20 Feb 2010, 9:08 PM
...or going one step further, why don't we simply get the Government to provide us their 'soma' right after work, then we can all get straight on it! =)
julianbuchanan Comment 4 12 Feb 2010, 10:51 PM
seem sensible but just make sure you keep the criminal justice system away from the control of drug users -the cjs is inappropriate for what are essentially social and health issues, and does more harm than the actual drugs.
dwest Comment 5 13 Feb 2010, 11:35 AM
good comments here,the criminalising of this normal & usually healthy human activity has massively distorted the flow of info around the issue [truth is stuck in the closet].Info flow has been dominated by a bigotted, conservative U.S.A driven research & enforcement edifice -fact - -85% of all world drug research is NIDA funded - undesired findings are shelved or unable to find publishing.A compliant tabloid media approach ensures the sheeting home of this blatant,oppressive grosssly hypocritical approach [alchohol is ordres ofmagnitude more harmful than ecstasy] .I`m not mincing words here - current policy is a broken travesty -hopefully this review is a small step toward sanity
good comments here,the criminalising of this normal & usually healthy human activity has massively distorted the flow of info around the issue [truth is stuck in the closet].Info flow has been dominated by a bigotted, conservative U.S.A driven research & enforcement edifice -fact - -85% of all world
more…
MildGreens Comment 6 14 Feb 2010, 5:26 AM
There has been a massive disconnect that deludes everyone here.... the "RESTRICTED SUBSTANCES REGULATIONS" passed into law in November 2008 made all these provisions, legal age, advertising, manufacture, labeling - a near perfect model administered by the Ministry of Health (Not Justice, Police, Corrections, Border Control and other's who populate the so called expert advisory council on drugs [EACD]). The 'order in council' amendment to the Misuse of Drugs makes the historical crucial adjustment... provision for USE of drugs. It notes that the new 'rules' are for recreational psychoactive 'soft' drugs, while these may include party pills (a poor nomenclature at best) they also provide the model for de-classification of currently classified drugs be it LSD, MDMA, Cannabis or current and emerging substances currently and artificially placed in ABC. ABC classification is not about relative harms. It is about sentencing guidelines. That in and of itself deserves scrutiny, but for the Law Commission to seemingly void any discussion around the existing LAW (read:solution) that controls drug sale, place of sale, advertising, age of consent, labeling and yet defines 'soft' drug administration as a matter of 'health promotion' beyond criminal sanction beggars belief.
The OMISSION of Class D from the debate colours the dialog. Look it up yourself.. http://legislation.govt.nz search for "regulated substances regulations" and prepare to be amazed we could be so sensible and oh so damned adult.
I shall leave my cynicism regarding the non-comparison of relative harms between neighboring intoxicant policy "alcohol and cannabis" - the crucial drugs we drink and smoke issue for another time.
There has been a massive disconnect that deludes everyone here.... the "RESTRICTED SUBSTANCES REGULATIONS" passed into law in November 2008 made all these provisions, legal age, advertising, manufacture, labeling - a near perfect model administered by the Ministry of Health (Not Justice, Police, Corrections,
more…
tenchinage Comment 6.1 19 Feb 2010, 8:56 AM
I wholeheartedly support this comment - where is the reference to Class D in the Law Commission's statement?
The lack of regulation in the BZP party pill market led to some manufacturers attempting to write their own code of practice, yet lack of action and support from the government meant that this was voluntary at best. Seven years of lobbying by Matt Bowden for regulation of the market failed almost completely, and I believe that lack of regulation was a major contributing factor to the eventual classification of piperazines.
Class D was developed to help prevent such an occurrence in future, to place laws around the release of new psychoactive substances and to regulate their release to the public. Omitting it from this debate seems counterproductive, since it seems to directly apply to the measures listed above.
I wholeheartedly support this comment - where is the reference to Class D in the Law Commission's statement? The lack of regulation in the BZP party pill market led to some manufacturers attempting to write their own code of practice, yet lack of action and support from the government meant that this
more…
Anonymous Comment 7 15 Feb 2010, 12:07 PM
All three of those suggestions are sensible and I support them in principle. BZP was a perfect opportunity to show that such a system can work, however current political attitudes (ie. psychoactive = bad) were always going to prevent that.
Perhaps such a system is best left until our government has finally abandoned prohibition and is prepared to make decisions based on reason and fact.
MrNiceGuyNZ Comment 8 30 Mar 2010, 3:34 PM
If I remember correctly the decision on BZP was a 50/50 split at the EACD and the majority vote against it came from Jim Anderton who has a self interest in making all psychoactive substances illegal.
BZP taken on it's own was quite safe, no one in NZ has died from using it, and it caused less social harm than alcohol.
Removing it from the market has meant previous users of BZP are now using alternatives that are less well known and with dubious effects.
Class D was introduced for this but total lack of regulations or controls in that class meant things got out of control. I think the govt did this on purpose simply to make out how bad the substance was so they could get rid of it.
As a result of Banderton having his way all these years has meant an increase in the use of E and P, but I doubt he will want to take credit for that.
If I remember correctly the decision on BZP was a 50/50 split at the EACD and the majority vote against it came from Jim Anderton who has a self interest in making all psychoactive substances illegal.BZP taken on it's own was quite safe, no one in NZ has died from using it, and it caused less social
more…
Dr Bob Comment 9 16 Apr 2010, 1:42 AM
I could easily make a party pill and did in the late eighties before red bull and the like became popular. Some I prepared were wrong and caused stomach upsets.
My point is that because rather than a harvest able product like cannabis or say opium, a recipe prepared in a lab or kitchen always has the possibility of a bad recipe. Or worse still a deranged cook trying to really get them high!! In the process causing health problems for users. Not everything is as non toxic as cannabis.
pystol Comment 10 24 Apr 2010, 12:56 AM
Removed by moderator - the comment failed to respect other users
pystol Comment 11 24 Apr 2010, 1:09 AM
Does this topic cover the synthetic cannabinoid products like Dream, Illusion, Spice, Tai High, Kronic, Aroma etc? I laugh at the suggestion that some of these 'legal drug' merchants want to be self regulating. These are the people who would deceitfully sell products with undisclosed ingredients with no regard for the people who buy and use them. Self regulating ...hahahaha. Yeah right!
pystol Comment 11.1 24 Apr 2010, 1:28 AM
I should add that they sell these products with a 'not for human consumption' warning. More deceit.
pystol Comment 12 24 Apr 2010, 1:16 AM
Absolutely YES to all the restrictions - particularly the 3rd one. These 'legal drug' merchants are totally irresponsible even if they pretend to be otherwise - give them an inch and they'll take 1000 kilometers. They've already done that. Why they decided to allow the sale of non-bzp party pills is beyond me. The idea that people are being rescued from using other 'more harmful' drugs is rubbish. I used to sell these 'legal drugs' and at least 90% of the people buying them were not the people who were using the 'harder' drugs they were supposedly being rescued from. If the government wants to condone the usage of 'legal' mind affecting drugs they may as well just legalize marijuana.
Absolutely YES to all the restrictions - particularly the 3rd one. These 'legal drug' merchants are totally irresponsible even if they pretend to be otherwise - give them an inch and they'll take 1000 kilometers. They've already done that. Why they decided to allow the sale of non-bzp party pills is
more…
pystol Comment 13 24 Apr 2010, 1:37 AM
How would you 'regulate' the sale of synthetic cannabinoids? I see the ingredients are readily available on www.alibaba.com. Search for JWH-018 - just one of the many synthetic cannabinoids available. So how will it be possible to stop any Tom Dick or Harry from selling this stuff?
MrNiceGuyNZ Comment 13.1 25 Apr 2010, 10:31 AM
If cannabis were legal there would be no need for synthetic cannabinoids. Changing the legality of cannabis would require regulation and controls.
What I suggested for the Law Commission's review of the sale of alcohol was to stop selling it in supermarkets and dairies and put it back into bottle shops where it belongs, I would suggest similar for cannabis - sold in a shop specific to cannabis, this would require a registered shop owner, registered growers, regulated sales and age restrictions similar to that of alcohol, but first it has to be made legal for that to happen.
pystol Comment 14 1 May 2010, 1:43 AM
Erox Adult stores sell digital scales and min cliplock plastic bags to P dealers. Shouldn't their customers be requested to supply personal details like Switched On Gardener customers.
pystol Comment 15 9 May 2010, 5:12 PM
Just BAN them all and be done with it. You can't trust these people. Even sex pill manufacturers lie - pretending their pills are 100% natural whilst endangering the lives of people by adding undisclosed prescription only ingredients. Party pill manufacturers are the same people who market synthetic marijuana products. When they have one product banned they SNEAK similar undisclosed ingredients into their products and they're in business again. Stop them completely- the sooner the better.
carlos Comment 16 9 May 2010, 5:12 PM
I agree with the Resrictions..totally. In fact would much prefer to get rid of the bloddy things all together. I was astounded, when I came back from overseas in the 90's to see how blatenly available BZP based pill were in the Local Dairy for goodness sake. What sort of message does that send to young people..just reinforces the whole current "quick fix" society we currently live in, I would much prefer to see tham banned all together.
