Rychert Marta, Wilkins Chris
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre, College of Health, Massey University, PO Box 6137, Wellesley Street, Auckland, 1141, New Zealand.
Drug Test Anal. 2016 Aug;8(8):768-78. doi: 10.1002/dta.1943. Epub 2016 Feb 9.
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 © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
界定旨在管控新型精神活性物质(NPS,即“合法兴奋剂”)的立法应涵盖哪些精神活性产品和物质,这一问题是当前关于设计新型NPS立法应对措施辩论的核心。在新西兰,2013年《精神活性物质法》(PSA)的实施揭示了新制度涵盖哪些精神活性产品存在不确定性,这对法律处罚具有重要影响。我们审查了五项可能涵盖具有精神活性物质的立法:PSA、《药物滥用法》(MODA)、《食品法》、《膳食补充剂条例》和《药品法》。我们的分析表明,一些未列入MODA管制清单的精神活性物质可能会受到不止一种监管制度的约束,包括卡瓦、鼠尾草、一氧化二氮、25I-NBOMe和1,3-二甲基丁胺(DMBA)。例如,卡瓦可能被归类为食品、膳食补充剂、草药疗法或精神活性物质,这取决于其呈现方式(包括广告和标签)。不同立法制度之间在处罚和监管要求方面存在相当大的差异,这可能导致不必要的起诉或对该系统的“钻空子”行为。我们讨论了一些更清晰地对产品进行分类的方法,包括公布一份精神活性物质和产品的公开清单、基于活性成分数量的划分标准以及基于“可察觉的中毒状态”的划分。常规使用法医检测对于确保适当的起诉和处罚至关重要。在豁免于精神活性物质制度的立法制度中,也需要强有力的安全标准,以防止“创造性合规”。版权所有© 2016约翰·威利父子有限公司。