DANGEROUS DRUGS

Health officials have moved quickly to take the dance-party drug One4b off
the shelves. Their action was prompted by the recent need for hospital
treatment of four young Auckland party-goers. The speed of the response is
commendable, says The Press in an editorial.

Yet it can not disguise the reality that as long as there is a market,
officials and lawmakers will always be one step behind the drug designers.
One4b illustrates the potential dangers of these drugs and the difficulties
inherent in controlling them.

Aside from dance-party aficionados, few New Zealanders would previously
have heard of One4b, which had been legally sold as a dietary supplement.
The public was suddenly shocked to learn that four people had collapsed
after taking it. Three were at an Auckland nightclub. The Ministry of
Health immediately warned against its use, ordered a halt to sales, and is
studying the legal position of the drug. The ministry said that it contains
1,4 butanediol, which can produce unconsciousness and potentially fatal
respiratory depression. Many doctors want the ministry to go further and
ban the product altogether.

Nothing is surer than that another designer drug, with similar effects,
would emerge to fill the vacuum a ban on One4b would create. The product is
a close chemical relative of GHB, better known as Fantasy or liquid
Ecstasy. This was made a prescription-only drug a year ago, after eight
overdoses in Christchurch and six in Auckland.

Ecstasy itself, the first of the prominent dance-party drugs, is classified
as a class B drug. It was the imprisonment of disgraced athlete Simon
Poelman for importing this drug which first alerted New Zealanders that
designer drugs had arrived. And it was the nightclub death of young
Aucklander Ngaire O'Neill which confirmed their potential danger.

The Government has made an effort to keep up with designer drugs. An
amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act last November will allow new
substances to be quickly proscribed by order-in-council. Previously
legislation had to be drafted, then passed through Parliament. The same
amendment lowered the threshold at which possession of Ecstasy was deemed
for supply.

At present the Government is considering raising the classification of
Ecstasy to a class A drug. Presumably this is intended to create a greater
deterrent to trading in it. Yet banning a drug and imposing strict
penalties are not answers in themselves. The recent seizure of 25,000
smuggled Ecstasy tablets was a major coup. Yet it also highlighted the
extent to which there remains a market for this illicit drug, whose annual
consumption has been estimated at more than 315,000 tablets. To help the
police combat this trade, anomalies in the law must be cleaned up. They
have greater powers of search, for example, for the class C drug marijuana,
than for amphetamines such as Ecstasy.

Another legal problem is the point at which a product described as a
dietary supplement is deemed to be a medicine. The difference is
significant. As a dietary supplement no pre-market approval process is
required, although a product must be safe for human consumption. The makers
of One4b insist their product is not marketed as a medicine and is
perfectly safe if used according to instructions.

Anecdotal evidence suggests, however, that those who take it at rave
parties do so to enhance their experience on the dance floor, not their
figures. The drug is said to promote a euphoric condition lasting several
hours. Certainly in the United States it is treated as an unapproved drug,
not a dietary supplement. The ministry is examining how it complies with
the Food Act and the Medicines Act.

Users of the designer drugs no doubt believe that their use should be
liberalised and normalised. They will point to an ill-informed generational
moral panic fuelled by a very small number of deaths and overdoses. These,
it is sometimes argued, were caused not by the designer drugs themselves
but by mixing them with alcohol or depressants.

Younger people could fairly argue that society sends mixed messages on drug
use. Even as the use of their drugs is attacked several senior politicians
publicly endorse the decriminalisation of marijuana. The latest is Alliance
MP Laila Harre, whose call provoked outrage from teachers who already deal
with still-stoned pupils on Monday mornings. Likewise greater tolerance has
been shown for alcohol, with the extension of trading hours and the
lowering of the drinking age.

It is also certainly true when it comes to killing New Zealanders it is the
legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco, which are the most lethal. Under new
criteria, illicit drugs are now classified according to their risk of harm
to the individual and society. Were the use of cigarettes and booze not
already entrenched in society they would probably attract the "very high"
risk category.

Yet the real social and personal cost of these legal drugs is no reason to
compound the problem. This is precisely what would occur if society relaxed
its tough stand against illicit drugs. Use of designer drugs might be
widespread in certain social groups. As with marijuana, this is not in
itself good cause for decriminalisation until the absence of health risk is
beyond question.

To those who argue that the death and illness toll of designer drugs is low
there should be a clear response. Any death or near tragedy is rather
confirmation that a continued tough and vigilant stance is required.