Understanding the development of a regulated market approach to new psychoactive substances (NPS) in New Zealand using Punctuated Equilibrium Theory.

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]