Content area
Full text
Paul Gee, John Fountain
The need to become intoxicated with mind-altering substances is probably older than civilisation. The history of organised drug control is more recent, and follows general patterns: if a particular psychoactive substance is (ab)used and causes sufficient adverse health or social consequences, a public outcry will result in regulation. Alternately, concern regarding recognised ill-effects of a substance produces immediate or pre-emptive regulation. Indeed, such laws can appear quite confusing: we see legal use of tobacco (responsible for almost 5000 deaths annually in New Zealand), and all are aware of the personal and societal woes of ethanol abuse. It would seem that having escaped 'Pandora's box' some psychoactive substances are then very difficult to return.
Due to their stimulant and euphoric properties, piperazine party pills (PPPs), also known as "herbal highs" or "social tonics", have become increasingly popular in New Zealand since 1999. The main ingredient is 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP), a synthetic chemical originally developed as an antihelmintic. This compound was investigated as a potential antidepressant medication, but rejected when research reported that BZP had amphetamine-like effects and was liable to abuse.1 This same research concluded that BZP "should be placed under statutory control similar to those regulating the use of amphetamine." Indeed, BZP is banned in the USA, Japan, Australia, Denmark, and Sweden.
In New Zealand, however, PPPs initially enjoyed a complete lack of regulation; and when speciously promoted as "herbal" or "natural", quickly became popular. The industry projects than an estimated 5 million "servings" will be sold in 2007.2
In March 2004, the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs (EACD) met to consider BZP and related substances and to formulate advice for the Associate Minister of Health (The Hon Jim Anderton). After review of the available evidence, the Committee was unable to find sufficient evidence to justify a complete ban. Their report makes interesting reading and included the recommendation that a new category of classification be added to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for "restricted substances":3 those compounds not considered a high or moderate health risk, but in need of regulation. They were advised that PPPs were being marketed as a 'legal' alternative to illicit substances and that substitution was occurring allowing users to "exit the illicit market". There was, however, no...