Search

Background and aims: The short‐lived regulated legal market for new psychoactive substances (NPS) in New Zealand marked a radical departure from the traditional prohibition‐based approach to drugs. This paper aimed to enhance understanding of this policy change using Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET). Methods: The analysis draws on 3 years of evaluative research, including interviews with key stakeholders, analysis of legislation and policy documents and academic and grey literature. Results: The reframing of the NPS issue from one of drug control to the need for stricter market regulation was achieved by the efforts of strategic policy entrepreneurs, including the legal high industry, drug law reform advocates, influential politicians and an independent legal advisory institution. This reframing was aided by the perceived saliency of the NPS problem and ineffectiveness of previous prohibition‐based responses. In the absence of any political opposition to the regulatory approach, the Psychoactive Substances Act rapidly progressed through the Parliament. However, once the interim legal market was established, portrayal of the issues shifted away from experts and lobbyists to critique from local communities, local government, animal rights activists and the media, who viewed the new regime as a source of social and health problems. The mobilization of criticism ('Schattschneider mobilization') drew on ideas of animal welfare and community safety. With a looming national election, the government responded by ending the interim market with the urgent passage of amendment legislation. Conclusions: Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) helps explain how New Zealand's Psychoactive Substances Act (PSA) policy first emerged on the political agenda and how the initial positive tone of expert support for reform shifted to a tide of popular criticism during the interim regime. However, with its emphasis on explaining agenda‐setting, PET does not account for the legislative design shortcomings of the PSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims Prohibitions on producing, distributing and selling cannabis are loosening in various jurisdictions around the world. This paper describes the diversification of cannabis supply laws and discusses the challenges to and opportunities for learning from these changes. Methods We document changes in cannabis supply laws that de jure legalized cannabis production for medical and/or non-medical purposes (excluding industrial hemp) in Australasia, Europe, North America and South America. We also highlight challenges to evaluating these legal changes based on our experiences studying cannabis laws and policies in the United States. Findings As of August 2016, two countries have passed laws to legalize large-scale cannabis production for non-medical purposes at the national (Uruguay) or subnational level (four US states). At least nine other countries legally allow (or will soon allow) cannabis to be supplied for medicinal purposes. Most of the changes in cannabis supply laws have occurred since 2010. The data available in most countries are inadequate for rigorously evaluating the changes in cannabis supply laws. Conclusion The evidence base for assessing changes in cannabis supply laws remains weak. Efforts should focus upon collecting information about quantities consumed and market transactions as well as validating self-report surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background New Zealand has recently attempted to address the underlying drivers of the escalating new psychoactive substances ( NPS) ('legal highs') problem by establishing the world's first pre-market approval regulatory regime for NPS. NPS products which can be shown with clinical trial data to pose a 'low risk' of harm will be approved for legal manufacture and sale. Aims and method This paper critically assesses the new regime, drawing on experience of the pharmaceutical sector and legal BZP market. Findings A number of characteristics of the recreational use of NPS may not be well addressed by standard medical clinical trials, including binge use, polydrug use, use by vulnerable groups and high-risk modes of administration. The overt advertising and covert promotion of approved NPS products on the internet may make them fairly visible to young people. The black market for unapproved NPS may be difficult to suppress given that unapproved NPS will be physically identical to approved NPS. If the legal market for NPS encourages the use of NPS, alcohol and other drugs there may be an increase in drug-related harm. Alternatively, if the legal NPS market reduces the use of more harmful drugs, there may be a considerable public health benefit. Conclusions The clinical trials required for NPS products should address the characteristics of recreational NPS use. Enforcement resources and technical solutions are required to clearly distinguish legal NPS products. The impact the new NPS regime has on other drug use is a key issue and demands further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]