The Drug Foundation says our current laws are worsening drug addiction, overdose, deaths and criminalisation.
Their report released today, Safer drug laws for Aotearoa New Zealand, concludes that decriminalisation of drug use, coupled with significant investment in health and harm reduction services, has the clearest evidence of success.
The SMC asked experts to comment.
Associate Professor Fiona Hutton, Institute of Criminology, Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University, comments:
“I was delighted to be at the launch of this important evidence-based report – it calls for urgent changes to our drug laws which are outdated and not ‘fit for purpose’. In fact, as the report outlines, the laws have caused untold harms to individuals, families and communities over the past 50 years.
“Sadly, the very law that was introduced 50 years ago to reduce and stop drug harm now stands as a barrier for people who use drugs which prevents them from seeking help. It also prevents the introduction of harm reduction measures to mitigate the harm both from drugs and the 1975 Misuse of Drugs Act.
“Drug laws like those in Aotearoa have been referred to as ‘shambolic’ (Buxton & Burger 2020), and as a ‘devastating public-policy disaster’ (Werb et al., 2009) – no other policy or law with such a poor record of failure and harm would ever be allowed to continue without a major overhaul and demands for accountability. It is way past time to move forward, away from our failed drug laws, and I hope that politicians from all parties will take this report seriously and implement its recommendations – let’s end the era of prohibition and harm and move towards compassionate, evidence-based reform.”
No conflicts of interest.
Professor Chris Wilkins, SHORE & Whariki Research Centre, Massey University, comments:
“I support the general call for greater investment in drug treatment, mental health services, and broad drug prevention (e.g. funding sport, culture, arts for young people), including innovative and less resource-intensive peer support and community action approaches.
“I agree there is growing international risk of synthetic opioids (Fentayal and nitazenes) which present high risk of overdose, and these high potency substances have been used to adulterate illegal stimulants like methamphetamine and cocaine leading to mass overdose events overseas (see U.S. and Canada). NZ should be planning for these risks (similar to UK and Australia) with investments in harm reduction, such as drug checking and overdose prevention and emergency response.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Rose Crossin, Senior Lecturer, Department of Population Health, University of Otago, Christchurch, comments:
“For too long, New Zealand drug policy has pursued a prohibition approach that is costly and ineffective. A health-based response to drugs is long overdue. This report from the New Zealand Drug Foundation presents a sensible and evidence-based case for change, and a path forward, so we can have drug laws that are appropriate for modern New Zealand.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I provided some advice to the NZ Drug Foundation on the methods for their data collection. I’m acknowledged in the report on p4 for this support.”
Professor Joseph Boden, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago – Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka, comments:
“I am very gratified to see the report released today by the New Zealand Drug Foundation, calling for an overhaul of the Misuse of Drugs Act (1975), and the enactment of drug laws that are designed to reduce harm in communities in Aotearoa. The report presents clear and compelling evidence that the Misuse of Drugs Act is not fit for purpose, and that it creates far more harm to both drug users and to our society generally, than any good that might have been intended when it was first enacted 50 years ago.
“Drug use is in Aotearoa a complex and multifaceted problem. Its roots lie in undiagnosed mental health disorders, exposure to crippling poverty and lack of opportunities, the legacy of colonization and marginalization of tangata whenua, and our own very human desire to alter our conscious states. Importantly, over the past 50 years, there has been a very large amount of research into substance use that has not only allowed us to better understand the origins of this behaviour, but also to understand that criminalizing people who use drugs has been a complete failure as policy and law. The criminalization of drug users has not reduced drug use, or made the public “safer”, and it has not saved drug users from harm in any material way. Indeed, it has increased harm, by increasing the population of people who are subject to criminal penalties, by the application of punishments that persist throughout the lifetime of those unlucky enough to get caught, by empowering the existence of a black market of unregulated drugs that is worth billions of dollars, and by occupying the time and resources of a police force that could put these to better use in protecting our communities.
“I fully support the Drug Foundation’s call for full decriminalization of illicit drugs, and in particular the removal of the unjustified and unscientific Schedule of drugs in the Act. I also fully support a move to protecting drug users from all forms of harm related to drug use, including harm caused by the state as punishment for using drugs. These changes would be consistent with both our responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and more generally our obligation to care for the health and wellbeing of all members of our society.
“The Misuse of Drugs Act is now 50 years old and is even less useful than ever. It’s time for us to go in a much better direction.”
No conflict of interest.
Associate Professor Andy Towers, Co-Director of the Mental Health & Addiction Programme, Massey University, comments:
“This report is an extraordinary evidence-based review that offers hope for the future direction of our failing drug laws. This report not only highlights the critical issues with the of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (commonly referred to as MODA) but offers a wealth of tangible solutions that are genuine options for Aotearoa New Zealand to repeal and replace an Act that causes significant suffering. The MODA is a piece of legislation that has failed entirely to prevent drug misuse and reduce harm for our communities, and there are a few key reasons for this.
“First, the MODA was never based on evidence of harm. While the stated intent of the MODA was to classify a range of drugs based on the risk of harm each drug posed to individuals, or to society, by its misuse, this classification has never reflected the wealth or international and national evidence on drug harms. Indeed, both international and national research ranking legal and illegal drugs on their harms to individual users and to the community show that the classification used in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 has no bearing on reality. Consequently, the MODA does not reflect good evidence; instead, it reflects drug harm rankings based on mid-twentieth century prejudice, racism, personal bias of legislators, and misunderstanding.
“Second, the MODA conflates the harms of ‘drug use’ with the harms of ‘drug misuse’. The stated focus of the classification system was to reflect harms based on misuse, but it specifically outlaws use at any level. This ignores a wealth of international evidence that many illegal drugs (e.g., cannabis, LSD, MDMA) can be used with relatively little risk of harm. It also ignores evidence that many legal drugs (e.g., alcohol, tobacco) are some of our most harmful for the individual and for communities. Consequently, the MODA is not protecting against drug harms; it is promoting a classification system based on Western, white, and privileged considerations of what is an ‘acceptable drug’ and what is not.
“Third, the MODA reflects a ‘War on Drugs’ approach which evidence clearly shows has made drug harm worse. Over 50 years our war on drugs approach has made drugs more easily attainable, facilitated criminal control of international drug markets, criminalized anyone involved in the drug trade (i.e., from manufacturers to users), made drug use more prevalent and far more harmful, reinforced racist and classist stereotypes, and created significant stigma about drug use and users that reinforces harm and prevents treatment. Consequently, the MODA does not prevent harm and support treatment; instead, it punishes users, increases harms and creates social and economic barriers to treatment, particularly for Māori and those in our most socioeconomically deprived communities.
“Fourth, the MODA reflects assumptions that prohibition reduces harms. The MODA is a tool for prohibiting specific drugs or drug types with an idea that the use and associated harms of these drugs should therefore reduce. However, the reality is that our five most harmful drugs in Aotearoa include two legal drugs – alcohol and tobacco – whose harms stem from their light regulations, while international evidence shows that decriminalizing or legalizing illicit drugs coupled with supporting health initiatives can result in little if any uptick in use and significant reductions in harms. Consequently, the prohibitionist model of the MODA will never work to reduce harm; instead, it will continue to encourage greater drug use, greater criminality, and greater harms across all communities.
“The critical point to take from the New Zealand Drug Foundation report is that the MODA does not work and it never will. This is because it is not based on good evidence, it uses a prohibitionist model that does not work, it reflects heavily politicized concepts of drug use instead of health approaches and it focuses on punishment rather than on support and treatment. This report also illustrates multiple different approaches to reduce harms that are workable solutions for Aotearoa New Zealand, and that – unlike the MODA – these solutions should:
- focus on supporting the health and wellbeing of people (not punishment and incarceration),
- be based on evidence of what works well (not prejudice),
- be apolitical (not a political weapon),
- reduce the stigma of drug use and treatment seeking (rather than facilitate it),
- support treatment and recovery options (not reinforce the cycle of imprisonment)
- reflect the preferences of those who have been, and are, in the system (not politicians),
- reverse the disproportionate harms experienced by Māori and draw on solutions reflective of or aligned with te ao Māori approaches to hauora (not perpetuate Western concepts and ideals).”
Conflict of interest statement: “Dr Towers is the Co-Director of the Mental Health and Addiction Programme at Massey University, he is a board member of Te Pou (the national mental health and addiction workforce development agency) and is the Chair of the board of the Speed Freaks Charitable Trust, a charity focused on supporting recovery from mental health and addiction challenges.”