文摘
The problem of defining what psychoactive products and substances should be covered by legislation aimed at controlling new psychoactive substances (NPS; ‘legal highs’) is central to the current debate on designing new legislative responses to NPS. In New Zealand, implementation of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (PSA) revealed uncertainties about which psychoactive products are covered by the new regime, with important implications for legal penalties. We reviewed five pieces of legislation which can cover substances with psychoactive properties: PSA, Misuse of Drugs Act (MODA), Food Act, Dietary Supplements Regulations and Medicines Act. Our analysis revealed that a number of psychoactive substances which are not MODA-scheduled may potentially fall under more than one regulatory regime, including kava, Salvia divinorum, nitrous oxide, 25I-NBOMe, and 1,3-dimethylbutylamine (DMBA). For example, kava may be classified as a food, a dietary supplement, a herbal remedy, or a psychoactive substance, depending on how it is presented (including advertising and labelling). There are considerable differences in penalties and regulatory requirements between the different legislative regimes and these may result in unnecessary prosecutions or ‘gaming’ of the system. We discuss a number of ways to more clearly categorize products, including a public schedule of psychoactive substances and products, demarcation criteria based on the quantity of the active ingredient, and demarcation based on ‘discernible intoxication’. Routine use of forensic testing is essential to ensure appropriate prosecutions and penalties. Robust safety standards are also required in legislative regimes exempted from psychoactive substances regime to prevent ‘creative compliance’. Copyright
