Search

Introduction: New Zealand's Psychoactive Substances Act (2013) established the world's first regulated market for 'low risk' psychoactive products ('legal highs'). Under an interim PSA regime, 47 existing products were permitted to be continued to be sold.Aim: To explore issues with the implementation of regulatory systems to monitor the safety of products on the legal market under the interim Psychoactive Substances Act regime.Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 30 key stakeholders, including industry, government agency, health and drug service professionals were conducted, transcribed and analysed thematically.Results: In retrospect stakeholders questioned the decision to approve strong synthetic cannabinoid smoking products, noting their health risks because of product formulation, inconsistent manufacturing practices and smoking as the means of administration. Industry actors claimed the decision to approve synthetic cannabinoid smokeable products prevented potentially safer products from gaining market share. The system for withdrawing approved products which were subsequently found to be harmful was criticised for the poor quality of data available, limited engagement with health professionals and the slowness of product withdrawal. Many of the problems with the regime were attributed to the urgency under which the legal market under the interim Psychoactive Substances Act was established and implemented.Conclusions: The selection of 'safer' products, implementation of the product monitoring system, and engagement with health professionals may have benefited from more time and resources. An incremental approach to establishing the new market may have made the regulatory management of the new regime more workable. [Rychert M, Wilkins C, Witten K. Issues with monitoring the safety of psychoactive products under a legal regulated market for new psychoactive substances ('legal highs') in New Zealand. Drug Alcohol Rev 2017;00:000-000]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "A critical first assessment of the new pre-market approval regime for new psychoactive substances (NPS) in New Zealand," by C. Wilkins in the 2014 issue.

The author comments on the commentary by Wilkins on the way in which policy options for new psychoactive substances (NPS) are evaluated in the absence of data. She explores the issue surrounding the use of a medical regime designed for drug (medication) registration. She says that Wilkins side-stepped what she viewed as the fundamental problem associated with a medically oriented regulatory regime.

The authors comment on an article by Hughes & Winstock which discusses controlling the availability of new psychoactive drugs. The authors state that Hughes & Winstock have concluded that novel uses of existing non- drugs legislation might be just as effective at protecting public health. In the authors’ opinion, the new legislation in New Zealand which proposes to rectify anomalies surrounding its drug analogue provisions, is based on the rationale by Hughes & Winstock.

The author comments on an article by Hughes & Winstock which deals with criminalization while dealing with problems posed by psychoactive drugs. He states that Hughes & Winstock have correctly pointed out that the question is how to control the market without excessive use of penal sanctions, especially if they are directed against users. The author opines that the idea to use medicine or consumer protection laws rather than drug control laws should make it possible to solve the real problem.

The article offers reports on legal issues related to medicine in the U.S. Topics discussed include the introduction of the bill which permit the partial filling of opioid prescriptions upon the request of patients or physician, the hearing held by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) regarding the prescription of opioid among seniors, and the actions of Democratic lawmakers in cracking down conversion therapy practice citing concerns related to changing sexual orientation.

The article discusses the proposed rules of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on painkillers in the U.S. It is inferred that the new mandate is based on the FDA Amendments of 2007 which requires companies to secure a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to ensure the benefits of an agent and to respond to an inreasing rates of prescription opioid diversion, abuse and overdose. It is stated that approval is required on certain drugs such as opioids contaning morphine, fentanyl and oxycodone otherwise the drug may be pulled out from the market.

Comments on the proposed regulation of psychiatric medications in schools in the United States. Lobbying by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights to ban the administration of psychotropic drugs in schools; Number of state legislatures considering banning psychiatric medication in the schools; Call for psychiatric nurses to oppose the planned ban through an information campaign.

The article looks at the psychoactive substances bill introduced by the British government which aims to ban the use of recreational drugs and mentions topics such as maximum sentence, rise in the use of club drugs, and the government's commitment to physical and mental health care.

In this article the author comments on the sale of legal highs or psychiatric drugs through the internet and head shops in Great Britain despite their being termed as illegal as of 2015. Topics include their sale via internet and head shops, supply of old favorites like Peyote, magic mushrooms, and Fly agaric by head shops, and the Great Britain's Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs and Great Britain's Home Office's move towards more effective blanket bans on these various products.

The article highlights the Psychoactive Substances Bill 2013 of New Zealand, which was introduced to protect New Zealanders from the harm caused by untested drugs and an unregulated market. Topics discussed include the impact of the increasing availability of new substances, particularly y-hydroxybutyrate, benzylpiperazine and a range of synthetic cannabinoids and onus put forward by the Act for drug manufacturers to prove that their product pose no more than a low risk of harm.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Controlling new drugs under marketing regulations," by Hughes and Winstock in the November 2011 issue.

A response is presented by the authors of the article "Controlling new drugs under marketing regulations," in the November 2011 issue.

This article reports that a new proposed regulation in the U.S. regarding the access of opioids will pose as a problem for cancer patients.

Focuses on a bill being considered by the U.S. Senate that contains an amendment that makes it illegal for a public school and administrator to tell parents that their disruptive child will be dismissed permanently unless they take medications, such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) or dextroamphetamine (Adderall). Concern of psychiatrists on the Child Medication Safety Act of 2003, sponsored by Representative Max Burns (R-Ga.); Views of Burns about reports of school officials taking it upon themselves to decide whether or not a child needs psychotropic drugs; Factor attributed to the bill.

Describes the Public Act 01-124, a law prohibiting school personnel from recommending psychiatric drugs for schoolchildren in Connecticut. Advantages of the law; Implications for professional ethics of teachers and counselors.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article on the control of hallucinogenic drugs.