“Lost in translation”: Issues with the establishment of a legal market for “low risk” psychoactive products (“legal highs”) in New Zealand

Lessons from the implementation of residential methamphetamine contamination policies in New Zealand

INTRODUCTION

Methamphetamine contamination of housing has been discussed as a significant issue in New Zealand. However, scientific evidence to determine a threshold level at which health harms occur is inconclusive, resulting in conflicting and changing guidance. The initial strong precautionary policy, with significant unintended impacts on vulnerable public housing tenants, dramatically changed following a scientific review. This study explores the policy response to residential methamphetamine contamination in New Zealand over the past decade.

METHODS

Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 13 key stakeholders involved in policy development/implementation, including those from government, industry, residential housing and academic sectors.

RESULTS

Consistent application of a methamphetamine contamination threshold for housing has been problematic due to legislative and regulatory gaps. Stakeholders in the residential sector have been influenced by perceptions of methamphetamine contamination as a health risk, political views on drug use, media coverage and the testing industry's business practices. Public housing tenants have faced disadvantages when resolving methamphetamine contamination disputes. The testing industry's participation in committees shaping the regulatory response presents a possible conflict of interest. Wide media coverage heightened public anxiety about the problem but may also have stimulated policy changes to alleviate unintended consequences of the precautionary approach.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

New Zealand's fragmented policy response to residential methamphetamine contamination is likely rooted in the lack of scientific evidence, with some key actors further exacerbating the response. Future policy development should seek to produce overarching regulation that guides the whole sector while balancing powers of the stakeholders involved.

Why did New Zealand's referendum to legalise recreational cannabis fail?

New Zealand recently held the world's first national referendum on cannabis legalisation involving a detailed bill to regulate retail sale and supply of cannabis for recreational (non-medical) adult use (i.e. the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill; CLCB). The referendum generated significant domestic debate and lobbying from both sides of the issue. The CLCB was narrowly defeated, with 48.4% voting to support versus 50.7% opposed. In this commentary, we discuss the referendum campaigns and other political and social factors that may have contributed to the result. Voting patterns appeared to largely follow traditional conservative-liberal, urban-rural and age divides. The referendum format created a public campaigning environment that encouraged persuasion and selective use of evidence rather than rational discussion of all the evidence and related knowledge gaps. The self-imposed neutrality of the centre left Labour Party and its popular leader may have been a decisive factor in the narrow defeat. It did not appear to be the case that anti-CLCB groups outspent the pro-CLCB movement in online promotional advertisements, and the leading digital media appeared largely neutral or mildly in favour of reform. The recent New Zealand experience illustrates the uncertainties of attempting to achieve cannabis law reform via a public referendum vote.

Assessing New Zealand's Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill: prospects and challenges

BACKGROUND

Few countries have developed detailed legislative proposals for legalizing cannabis. New Zealand recently released the Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill (CLCB) that will be the subject of a referendum in September 2020.

AIMS

To assess the CLCB, drawing on emerging evidence from cannabis legalization overseas, public health research on alcohol and tobacco and the attempt to establish a regulated market for 'legal highs' in New Zealand.

DISCUSSION

The CLCB proposes a strictly regulated commercial cannabis market that resembles the Canadian approach, but notably without on-line sales or regional heterogeneity in retail distribution. The objective of the CLCB of lowering cannabis use over time appears at odds with the largely commercial cannabis sector that will focus on expanding sales. The CLCB includes provision for home cultivation and social benefit operators, but it is not clear what priority these operators will receive. A potency cap of 15% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) for cannabis plants is included, and this is at the high end of black-market cannabis. The proposed progressive product tax based on THC will be challenging to implement. There is no formal minimum price, but rather discretionary powers to raise the excise if the price drops too much. The CLCB includes a comprehensive ban on advertising, but non-conventional on-line promotion will be difficult to suppress. The central government cannabis authority is tasked with developing local retail outlet policies. We caution against the temptation to employ an interim regulatory regime following a positive referendum result, because a partially regulated market will expose users to health risks and undermine public support.

CONCLUSIONS

New Zealand's Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill's objective of reducing cannabis use via a commercial market will be challenging to achieve. The bill could be strengthened with formal minimum pricing, lower potency cap and greater clarity concerning social benefit operators and the role of local government.