Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3)

This debate includes debate on schedule 4.

It is Part 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) that National has grave concerns about. We have grave concerns about the knee-jerk way that the Hon Jim Anderton has rushed to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper that has been put as Part 3, when there has been absolutely crystal-clear guidance from the Regulations Review Committee that the affirmative resolution procedure should not be used for substances such as party pills and benzylpiperazine, with which it will deal.

I think it is worthwhile just to look at the evidence regarding benzylpiperazine given to the Minister by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. The executive summary concluded that insufficient information was available on which to base a recommendation to classify those substances in the schedules of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The recommendation was absolutely clear, but the Hon Jim Anderton of the new “Jim Anderton Party”, which used to be known as the Progressive Coalition, is defying the very important process that the Regulations Review Committee warned against. Oh no, he will put that resolution procedure into Part 3! It is because of that that the National Party has said it does not agree with this. We have made the commitment to bring through, when in Government, well-considered legislation that indeed addresses in an appropriate way the very concerning problem of party pills in New Zealand.

That legislation will allow the proper parliamentary procedure to occur, and submissions will be able to be heard not in 28 days but in a time that is appropriate to hear them properly, so that we can have well-considered legislation.

It is important to point out that we heard some pretty colourful submissions regarding Part 3 of the bill, including from members of the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand, otherwise known as “STANZ”. They pointed out that members of the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand have sold an estimated 8 million servings of benzylpiperazine and related products in the past 5 years, with no credible evidence, they say, of these products causing significant harm. Indeed, this is the nub of the situation: these drugs, while they are of great concern to New Zealand—and it is a particularly great concern that many young New Zealanders are taking them—do not fall into the category of the very, very worrying controlled substances such as amphetamine, P, and its precursors.

I think it is worthwhile to point out what the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs says about these substances, and about benzylpiperazine, which is the most commonly used, in particular. It states: “They are stimulant type substances that produce effects similar to known amphetamines and hallucinogens.” However, the effects are of nowhere near the severity of those of drugs that fall into the controlled A, B, and C classifications. The advisory committee states: “There is indeed some concern over the increase in supply of these products, which are marketed and distributed independently over the internet, through counter-culture retailers, and more recently in liquor outlets, service stations and dairies.”

That, indeed, is how Jim Anderton has finally woken up to the fact that they are being sold all around Christchurch, where his electorate is. Finally, in a truly dinosaur-like reaction, after 10 years of the gradually increasing proliferation of these party pills, Jim Anderton has woken up and decided to flick in a Supplementary Order Paper to sort the problem out, but unfortunately that Supplementary Order Paper has not been well considered. The National Party believes that thoroughly considered legislation should be brought in to address this worrying problem of party pills.

Part 3 deals with a new class of restricted substance. It puts in place the same sorts of regulations that we currently have around tobacco and alcohol: restriction to those aged 18 and over, health warnings on products, advertising controls, and, of course, penalties if people break the law. And there will be restrictions around what is good manufacturing practice for these pills.

The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs said that benzylpiperazine is not a drug that causes serious harm. I think that drug was a cattle drench to start off with; I think that is where it originated. There are people out there who will use all sorts of things. The minute we regulate for it, there will be something else. We are not just talking about benzylpiperazine. That is why National has concerns—because in the future other drugs, other substances, will be used. Because there will be other substances, we need a process that we feel is robust and has been well considered.

I ask members to think about the other things that are used. Datura is something the effect of which I, as a doctor, dealt with just about every year, when young people who had taken it would come in to the accident and emergency department. Datura produces atropine. It makes people slightly crazy, makes their eyes dilate, and makes them very hot, but it gives them a high, and every year people poison themselves on this drug. The plant grows around New Zealand, and people are sometimes stupid enough to try to manufacture a psychoactive substance from it and take it. I am not sure if there have been deaths from this drug, but many people have certainly got very close to dying from it. Then there are magic mushrooms, which people go and pick. We hope they do not manage to eat death cap mushrooms and completely ruin their livers so that they need liver transplants.

People will go and find other substances to use. It would be better if we were looking at the reasons why our young people feel they have to take those sorts of things to have a good time. I guess that is one of the reasons why there is concern about these party pills. Even though the expert advisory committee said these pills carry a low risk of harm, they condition our young people into thinking they have to take a pill in order to have a good time. Some of it may just be a placebo effect. We know in medicine that, in 30 percent of cases where people take a sugar pill believing it will do something good for them, it actually does, because of what is called the placebo effect. That young people get into this mindset that they cannot have a good time—that they cannot get a natural high, that they cannot enjoy an evening out—without taking something to help them do so is, I think, of great concern.

We have to ask ourselves why we have such a high youth suicide rate, why we have such poor statistics in relation to our youth. I believe that some of it is to do with their low self-esteem, and that that is why they feel they have to use alcohol to loosen up a bit, or have to take a pill to make themselves more sociable. Those are some of the issues we need to deal with—along with the breakdown of the family and the social decay that make these children feel that that is what they have to do.

Although the National Party has concerns about this area and would like to see restrictions, we believe that Part 3 should have come in as a separate bill. We could then have called for submissions on it, so that we hit the target that we want. We have seen time and time again legislation with good intentions—and I think Part 3 has good intentions—that misses its target, and we end up coming back to it to make amendments, to change things. That actually makes things more difficult, not better.

Benzylpiperazine does need restriction. This bill will pass today, and we will see that restriction put in place. But the minute that substance is restricted, there will be something else being used. We need to know whether the process that is being set up by this bill will actually work. All that Part 3 does is restrict advertising, restrict the sale of substances to under-18-year-olds, and make sure that there is good manufacturing practice. That is another concern. It is not just the main substance in the tablet; it is what gets puts in with it that, as we have seen with some health products, can cause harm.

I would like to know why the National Party wants to have it both ways on this part. We are told that these drugs have been a problem for the last 10 years. If there has been a problem for the last 10 years, then, at least on reasonably primitive arithmetic, for half of that time the National Party was in Government. What did it do? The answer is “Nothing”. We are now trying to do something, and we are told that we should have done it 10 years ago when National was in Government. Oh, really? I can see one of those Tui advertisements coming up: “Yeah, right.”

Mr Hutchison said that this a worrying problem. But what did he suggest? He suggested that it was too difficult. This is like the process police. I suggest that he go out and ask the parents in shopping malls in New Zealand what they think. Mr Hutchison thinks this problem exists only in Christchurch. Does he go anywhere else in New Zealand than where he lives? Does he understand what is going on in the hinterland, in the regions of New Zealand? No. He should ask the parents of 12-year-olds in shopping malls, who actually get proselytised and promoted to by those who are pushing these drugs, what they think.

The National Party’s view is that it is difficult, we should think about it, and we should wait and see. Is that what parents think? No, it is not. It is “make my day” time as far as the rest of New Zealand is concerned in relation to the kind of attitude Mr Hutchison takes. He said that this part is the whim of a Minister. Does he realise that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advised me as Minister to take a precautionary position on this matter and to, for example, restrict the age of sale—which is exactly what this bill does? Is the National Party for it, or against it, or has it not made up its mind? Will it repeal the provisions under the affirmative resolution process? I ask National to answer that. It has railed against a process that delivers on time, in a timely way, changes that address immediate, acute issues in New Zealand.

National members say that this is a terrible legal process and that it is undemocratic, even though it goes through an Order in Council process, through the select committee, and back to Parliament. They call it a draconian whim. Well, there may be one thing worse than a “Jim Anderton Party”, and that is a “Don Brash Party”. If Don Brash is the answer, there must have been a very silly question in the first place.

💬 Darren Hughes: Would they repeal it?

Yes, they can tell us whether they would repeal it. That would be honest. I can understand that. They can say that it is such a terrible process, and that when National becomes the Government—in another 30 years’ time—they would repeal it. I ask them to tell us that, so that I can have some respect for their position. But this posturing around the place is ridiculous.

Licit substances—and benzylpiperazine has been one up until now, and still is—are not necessarily without danger. I ask members to read the coroners’ reports on the kids who have died from solvent abuse. Members should read the coroners’ letters to Associate Ministers of Health, like me, that ask us to do something about this stuff—and then write back to them and to say that it is too hard: “Look, I am sorry, we are only the Parliament of New Zealand. What do you expect us to do?”!

Why did I get elected here—to do nothing? Coroners have written to me saying that they have presided over the inquest of five young kids who died from solvent abuse, and they have asked whether I could try to do something about it. Well, the Opposition would say: “No, I am sorry. We are thinking about it. We do not know.” It is ridiculous.

The Health Committee, to its credit, addressed the issue, did its best on it, and referred it back to me and said that it was a bit hard and it would have to be looked at. Well, we will look at it, and I am getting urgent advice on that. That has been in the too-hard basket for so long that it is ridiculous. In truth, more kids die from solvent abuse than from party pills, or anything like that, so we have to address that. In reality, of course, not all outlets are irresponsible. Some retail outlets, such as The Warehouse, have taken off the shelves some of the licit substances like butane, which has actually killed kids, and they actually sell them responsibly. Unfortunately, not everyone is like that. I give credit to them and others who do the same.

Parliament cannot just say that it is too hard and that we cannot do anything about it. Not all outlets are so responsible. People want to know what Parliament will do about it. This party in Government, supported by responsible Opposition and supportive parties in the House, is giving support to doing something. I wish the National Party would make it clear whether it was for or against it. We have had so many positions put by the National Party that we would not have a clue whether it is for or against it, whether it wants to repeal provisions, or whatever else. I am getting very clear messages from most of the Parliament that it is strongly supportive of this. I think the National Party should say yes or no. If it is not supportive of it, it should say whether it would repeal the provisions. Let us hear it, and then we will know. I think the rest of us want to get on with this bill and get it into law as fast as we can.

I must say it was quite strange to hear Lynda Scott talking about the other substances that are already available. It is quite true, but that was one of the issues the Health Committee addressed quite carefully in the way that “substance” is defined. It includes any mixture, preparation, or article manufactured for the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive effect. That is a deliberate attempt to ensure that the category is opened up so that new substances can be added. Let me add, once again, that it was the Green input that actually got that definition, because the committee was looking at restricting it to simply benzylpiperazine alone, and it would have been a major mistake if we had gone in that direction.

I will address three of my amendments. One amendment is to clause 36, “Matters to which Minister must have regard before recommending Order in Council under section 34(1)”. The bill puts forward a number of criteria that the Minister must have regard to that are in addition to the matters already set out in the primary Act, in section 4B(2). I made the point in the second reading stage that I do not understand why we would have one set of criteria for controlled drugs classified under A, B, or C class, and a different set of criteria for those under D class. As I said before, it suggests that we have already determined what classification we will make, before we have even looked at the criteria and the evidence. It makes obvious sense to have one set of criteria, incorporating both those sets, for all substances, and then the recommendation of where they should be classified would drop out of that.

Why would we not want those criteria to apply to any drug? Let us look at them. In clause 36(2)(b)(v) one of the matters is “the risk of encouraging persons to use more dangerous substitutes in place of the substance:”. I take the example of khat, which, I understand, is a class C drug. It is a bush that Somalian and North African people have been chewing for a long time as a mild stimulant. If we were going through the evidence-based criteria that we now have in place, which we did not have when khat was classified, would we not want the Minister and the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to consider whether making khat illegal might encourage North African people to use a more dangerous stimulant? Would we not want to ask that question? Would we not want to know? Would we not want that to be considered? It is unbelievable to me that we think those criteria do not apply in terms of classifying drugs as A, B, or C.

Subparagraph (vi) refers to the matter of “whether alternatives to restrictions or requirements imposed on the substance are available and are likely to be effective in reducing the risks or harm resulting from abuse of the substance.” Surely, we would want to ask whether there were alternatives to making people criminals. Surely, we would want to consider that, to have it in our mind, and to make it part of the equation. I hope members will support my amendment to clause 36 in that regard.

The other amendment is to clause 58. As I have said before, the enforcement powers are very draconian. At the moment, if an enforcement officer—health officer—or member of the police believes that an offence has been, is being, or will be committed, he or she has the right to go in and seize any restricted substance, document, or record. That could put someone out of business if there are no safeguards around that. My amendment states that it has to be done by warrant—not just because a police officer or health officer believes that there is an offence. There has to be some evidence, some basis for that belief. That is quite appropriate, and is like most legislation in this country.

The other aspect of the amendment is a time limit. If officers seize any substance, they may not retain it for any longer than 72 hours unless an information is laid in respect of the relevant serious offence. The situation at the moment is that a health officer could say: “I think you’re going to commit an offence sometime in the future.”, and could then go in and seize all the products off a person’s shelf, and seize his or her computer records. The officer would never have to charge the person, or to give the items back, but could just hold on to them forever. That will simply put people out of business; that will destroy businesses. There has to be some safeguard. If people break the law, of course they should be punished. But this legislation opens the door to punishing people who are abiding by all the laws and regulations, and simply gives unrestricted power. If members look at other kinds of offences, they will see that my amendment is quite in line with them.

I call on the Associate Minister of Health to take another call, because there seems to be a glaring inconsistency in his thought processes with regard to this bill and another bill before the House that aims to increase the drinking age. Both of those bills were brought forward to the House by the Progressive Party. I would like the Minister to explain why it is OK for an 18-year-old to buy a party pill, yet why, according to the Minister, that young person is not able to make the decision to buy a beer until he or she is 20 years old. Why does the Minister assume that a New Zealand citizen is responsible enough to make a decision about whether he or she buys benzylpiperazine, but not responsible enough to make a decision about whether he or she buys a glass of wine? There is a major, glaring inconsistency in the approach of the “Jim Anderton Party” to this issue. It is saying that it is OK for young people to buy party pills at the age of 18, but if they want to buy a beer at the pub they need to be 20.

The Minister told National members to go into the shopping malls and explain our position to concerned parents. I say to that Minister that he should go into shopping malls and tell parents why it is OK for New Zealand youth to buy party pills when they are 18, when he is going to turn round and vote to raise the drinking age for alcohol. That is not consistent—there is a glaring inconsistency. He is saying that young people are responsible enough to make a decision about one licit substance, yet are not responsible enough to make a decision about another licit substance that has been in our community for centuries. I ask the Minister where the logic is that allows him to vote for the regulation of the sale of party pills to 18-year-olds, yet also allows him to say that he does not trust young people with the ability to make a decision about whether they share a beer with their parents or friends, etc.

There is no consistency in the two bills the Minister’s party has brought before this House—well, Part 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) has basically been brought to the House by his party, although it is now incorporated into a Government bill. There seems to be no logic in the dual positions the Minister is currently holding about two substances that are legal in this community. I would like him to explain how he will vote to allow New Zealand kids to buy party pills and herbal highs, yet will tell them they are not responsible enough to buy a beer or to make a decision about alcohol—which is something the community has had a lot more experience with than some of the herbal highs and substances we have seen proliferate in our communities in the last few years. The Minister has asked us to make his day by explaining our position; I would like him to make our day by explaining that glaring inconsistency.

There does not seem to be a helluva lot of logic in trying to regulate two different licit substances and saying to New Zealand citizens that they need to be 18 to buy one substance yet 20 to buy another. Although we have all this feigned concern about what is going on in the community, it seems to be more about politics and winning votes for the “Jim Anderton Party” as opposed to really dealing with the issues consistently and logically, with evidence and science, and bringing in laws that are consistent and that make some sense.

The other point I would like to bring up in relation to Part 3 concerns the definition of “substance”. We all know that people who are involved in drugs will try to work around regulation, so why does the bill define “substance” as something that has the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive response?

I will give just a brief explanation. At least at the end of my explanation people will understand my position; I still do not understand National’s position, even after I have heard that speech—and there have been a number of such speeches. The first thing is that this is a Government measure, not a member’s bill. The Government and other parties in this Parliament are bringing this bill before the Parliament. The bill concerning the alcohol age limit was a member’s bill that was a conscience issue for Parliament, and let me remind the member who raised the issue that plenty of evidence out there, plenty of studies nationally and internationally, show the serious effect of alcohol on young people. Benzylpiperazine, as has been indicated, is a new substance in terms of its use by ordinary people. [Interruption]

It was a cattle drench—that is true—and people probably did not have any idea that someone would sell cattle drench as a party pill. But they are now doing that—and, guess what? The Government has commissioned studies and research on benzylpiperazine, and when that research comes back it may well be that it will show there is no problem whatever. However, it may well be that the research will show more problems than we even know about. If there are such problems, and if the recommendations of the expert advisory committees and researchers are that we should take further action, then we will. So that is the difference between alcohol and benzylpiperazine research.

The evidence is in on alcohol, in my view, and in the view of a lot of other members in this Parliament; we are waiting for the other evidence. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advised us to make a precautionary stand, and it suggested making that stand for the age of 18. It suggested the age; I did not. We have had the age of 18 for alcohol, and in the minds of many people in this Parliament—and in the minds of many people outside it; in fact, in the minds of the majority of New Zealanders outside it—that experiment of lowering the drinking age failed. So we are now addressing it, and we cannot be blamed for doing that. Seventy percent of New Zealanders actually agree with us, so if National members are saying that that is a bad thing, they can make my day twice. If they are saying they cannot make up their minds on this bill, they can make my day again.

I think it is timely that I enter the debate, particularly in terms of what the two previous speakers have spoken about. My colleague Barbara Stewart has put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that suggests that benzylpiperazine, party drugs, herbal drugs, and all other psychoactive substances should be included in the list of drugs prohibited from being available to the general community. Now, as the Hon Jim Anderton, the Minister in the chair, mentioned, there is no evidence about benzylpiperazine available at the moment, but I would suggest to this Committee that given the impact that the use of illicit drugs has had on our society, it would be better to err on the side of caution than to run the risk of waiting in the meantime for research to take place. We do not know how long that research will take, and in the meantime benzylpiperazine and other drugs will be available to our young people to use in the way they feel fit.

New Zealand First believes that all party drugs, including benzylpiperazine and other psychoactive substances, should be placed on the controlled drugs schedule. Although we are pleased some regulation is being placed around party pills—in relation to their place of sale, age limits for use, and manufacturing practices—we believe that that does not sufficiently address the problems and possible long-term health effects upon young users.

I found it very interesting that during the course of the debate on this very important bill, we had a group of young people in the Chamber. They would have been listening intently to the respective views, and wondering whether some people in this Parliament really have their future as a concern. How can the effects of those drugs be considered low-risk? New Zealand First does not think they are, and we are waiting for the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to carry out further research into that area. The research, as we all know, is desperately needed; no one is sure of long-term effects. We do not want to see a whole age group of young New Zealanders harmed from possible toxicity or brain damage from substances that currently are legally available.

Simon Williamson, Manager for Drug Investigations in the Customs Service, has said: “These pills are literally pouring into the country in huge quantities and New Zealand seems to be a unique market for them. In my view this is a clear case of the current regulations not keeping pace with the influx of synthetic designer substances that are available.” Further on, he says that the people “pushing this stuff” have invariably got a vested interest in its sale: “These people are making a lot of money by arguing that this is a safe alternative to illegal drugs, and all I can say to that is its”—I cannot use the word in this Chamber! “The pills are central nervous system stimulants, and there is evidence becoming available now, which suggests that they are toxic in content and damaging to the brain in high doses.”

So although we are pleased to see some regulation of those substances, we would like to see stronger regulations surrounding their sale. It is particularly noticeable that manufacturing standards cannot be guaranteed under current regulations. One of the most urgent problems is the continued supply of benzylpiperazine, in excessive and sometimes dangerous doses, by irresponsible operators. As Mr Anderton well knows, that is particularly problematic in Christchurch. This is also something that should be addressed in this Committee stage. If we are to hold the manufacturers accountable under this law, we need to be sure that justice is seen to be done.

I refer to a press release put out by my colleague Barbara Stewart, which quoted a medical toxicologist from the National Poisons Centre as saying that the adverse effects of these drugs are just beginning to show and that the pills should not be sold in New Zealand without a prescription. That reinforces our view that there should be no softening of drug laws for these new designer drugs. To that extent, I hope the Committee will support the Supplementary Order Paper put in by my colleague.

I stand to talk to Part 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) and to Supplementary Order Paper 298 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton, which was tabled when we were already considering the bill in the Health Committee. From the outset when it was first tabled—and the select committee members will remember this—I was extremely cautious about the party pills issue. I know that the Green member thinks that makes me fickle. However, I did not want to approach this matter with a sort of arrogant belief that I had a monopoly on the truth. I was very interested to hear the opinions of the various select committee members on this matter. The tension that we worked with was that on the one hand there was a huge call from the community—and I remember particularly a letter from the Christchurch City Council—asking us not to shy away from our responsibilities as legislators, and to move to put something in place, at least in the short term, to deal with the problem that people see on the streets. On the other hand the counterbalancing tension was that it appeared to many of us that putting party pills under the Misuse of Drugs Act was not necessarily the best option.

The officials gave us some very good advice, and it was their advice that tempered my position. They said—and I heard several different lines on this—that 6 to 12 months’ work would need to be done, and I have since read that possibly even 2 years’ work would need to be done, to get a stand-alone restricted substances bill. We recommended in the commentary on the bill that that work be continued, and I would still like it to continue. I think that would ultimately be our preferred outcome. But it did not provide an immediate solution, and it would be cowardly of us, as members of Parliament, not to make some attempt in that regard. I want to thank the chair of the select committee, Steve Chadwick, for her guidance on this matter, and also the officials, because I really do think we have to be pragmatic in such situations.

I appreciate the conservative approach of the New Zealand First amendments. Starting from a position of prohibition is, I guess, an extremely safe position to take. However, we were not—

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member is obviously in some discomfort. Perhaps I could seek the leave of the House for just a moment, for her to collect herself—so that other members do not attempt to take a call or anything—and resume her speech when she is ready.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for raising that. We will just bide time for a moment. There is no hurry, Judy Turner.

On the New Zealand First amendments, I do feel that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has given us some guidelines on the matter of party pills, and I think we need to move on those. However, I share the concerns of the New Zealand First members. I think we do want to see the role of the expert advisory committee include the opportunity for constant and active review of this decision. My concern with regard to party pills is the cocktail effect when they are combined with alcohol. Part of what we regulate may be that party pills are unable to be sold in a context where alcohol is being sold as well—that may be a good solution. However, we did want to support this measure so that something is put in place now, to respond to the many requests that certainly came across my desk in that regard. So we are very happy, and I want to thank also the Hon Jim Anderton, because when I approached him with my concerns he had a very open door on the matter. I appreciate that, because I do feel that we need to proceed on all these matters with great caution.

This problem will not go away. As fast as we put regulations around products, new products are coming online. We do need to be extremely vigilant as we monitor those substances and their effect, and how they are consumed. I read a media release the other day on party pills, which stated that one of the concerns is the quantities in which party pills can be sold. There are recommended dosages on the product, but there is strong anecdotal evidence that young people ignore those recommendations and take far more than is recommended. We need to look, then, at the quantities the product is sold in. To wait for 2 years is absolutely not an option, and it is a very irresponsible position to take.

However, let me just reiterate that United Future would challenge whoever is in Government after this election to make this matter a priority, to advance the work that does need to be done—to take the 2 years if that is what it will take—and to get up a restricted substances Act. I think there are some long-term problems. I accept—and this will please the Green member—that one of the things I found very difficult in working on this bill was that it was a bit of a dog’s breakfast. I am not sure that Mr Tanczos and I would agree on how it should be improved. However, I found it quite difficult at times to get my head around some of the provisions, because they have been amended by adding bits on all over the place. I do think that an overall reworking could be done of our drugs legislation.

To be fair to the previous speaker, Judy Turner, perhaps I made some uncharitable remarks earlier, and it is a very complex and difficult bill. One of the things I think there is widespread agreement on is that there needs to be a major review of the misuse of drugs framework, in order to produce some kind of coherent, integrated drugs framework.

I rose, though, to address the amendments of Barbara Stewart, and I do so because the New Zealand First member raised the issue. Unlike Judy Turner, I do not think New Zealand First’s amendment is a particularly conservative or safe approach to these substances. Ms Stewart is trying to add party pills, herbal drugs, and all other psychoactive substances to the schedule, as we have done with benzylpiperazine. I have to ask what that would mean. Herbal drugs—does that mean that health food shops selling chamomile tea, which is a known relaxant, will now have to restrict it, make it R18, and have labelling and manufacture restrictions? Does that mean grocers selling lettuce, which we know contains an opiate, latex, will suddenly have to make it R18? Does it mean that nutmeg will be restricted to adults? Will we be raiding Little India franchises to bust them for selling curries to minors? It is just bizarre! Let us get real about what it would actually mean.

Adding all other psychoactive substances to the schedule would clearly include Coca-Cola, because it contains caffeine. The rumour I have heard—I do not know whether it is true; I am a bit younger than many of the members here—is that one of the contributing factors to the horrors of the Pinochet regime in Chile was the nationalisation of Coca-Cola. If that is true, imagine what it will do to us if we try to make its product R18! It will not just be a military takeover; it will be lining us all up against the wall.

When we start to use those kinds of definitions, which are so broad, we have to actually understand what they mean. Perhaps I am being a bit light with the member’s amendment, but I think it does demonstrate that we have a pretty strange attitude when it comes to psychoactive substances, because they are all through our society. Drugs are all though our society, and I do not know whether there is a member in this Chamber who does not use drugs in one form or another. I would be highly surprised if that were the case. Very few people use no drugs, and I think that situation would probably apply only to strict Mormons.

💬 Steve Chadwick: Nicotine.

Nicotine—exactly! Many members of this Parliament smoke. Drugs are rife in this society. Many members of this Parliament use some of the most dangerous drugs that are available in this country. Tobacco is one of the most addictive drugs and one of the most damaging to the body. Members of this Parliament smoke.

💬 Bill Gudgeon: What about cannabis?

Well, actually, that is quite incorrect. The member needs to look at the evidence on how many people die from smoking tobacco a year compared with how many people die from smoking cannabis a year, which is zero. Then the member might be informed enough to express an opinion on the matter.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 36 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1) after the words “section 34(1), the words “or section 4(1) of the principal Act”.