EXPERT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DRUGS (EACD)
MEETING
Thursday, 15 February 2007, 10am – 11am
Teleconference to discuss options regarding the presumption for supply
of benzylpiperazine (BZP), phenylpiperazine and related substances.
MINUTES
EACD MEMBERS PRESENT
Dr Ashley Bloomfield (Chair)
Dr Helen Moriarty
Dr Keith Bedford
Dave Cliff
Dr Geoffrey Robinson
Rajesh Chhana
Professor Doug Sellman
Professor Tim Maling
SECRETARIAT ATTENDING
Bruce Atmore
Olivia Stapleton
Mark Heffernan
1. WELCOME
Dr Bloomfield welcomed members to the teleconference.
2. APOLOGIES
Paul Campbell
Stewart Jessamine
Adrienne Fruean
Clinical Associate Professor Tim Maling joined the teleconference at
approximately 10.40am.
3. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MEETING HELD 30 NOVEMBER 2006
The Chair updated the EACD on developments since the 29 November
2006 EACD meeting regarding the EACD’s advice to reclassify BZP,
phenylpiperazine and related substances as Class C1 controlled drugs
under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
One member queried whether the Committee should approve the
minutes from the 29 November 2006 EACD meeting at the
teleconference. In particular, the member felt that further discussion was
needed on the reasons behind the recommendations to reclassify BZP,
phenylpiperazine and related substances as Class C1 controlled drugs.
1
The Chair noted that the EACD’s recommendations were reached by
following a systematic review of all evidence before it and discussion of
BZP and related substances against the nine criteria outlined in the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The Chair also advised that the minutes have
been approved out-of-session as a true and accurate record of the
meeting and have been made publicly available on the National Drug
Policy website.
Members agreed that the agenda for the teleconference was to provide
the Minister with a recommendation on the presumption for supply of
BZP, as required by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The Committee also
agreed that it would be appropriate to discuss issues arising from the
recommendation regarding BZP made at the 29 November 2006 EACD
meeting, along with the analysis of submissions from the consultation on
BZP, at the next EACD meeting scheduled to be held on 3 May 2007.
Agreed:
That the Secretariat would organise a full meeting of the Committee
on 3 May 2007 to discuss the issues arising from the discussion
and recommendations regarding BZP at the 29 November 2006
meeting and the subsequent advice to the Minister, and to review
the analysis of submissions from the consultation on the EACD
recommendation to reclassify BZP and related piperazines.
4. DISCUSSION ON OPTIONS FOR THE PRESUMPTION FOR SUPPLY
OF BENZYLPIPERAZINE (BZP) AND RELATED PIPERAZINES.
A paper from the Secretariat on the background of presumption for
supply matters and options for BZP and related piperazines was tabled.
The Commit ee discussed five potential approaches to calculating what
could be considered a reasonable level or quantity at and above which
BZP, phenylpiperazine and related substances could be presumed to be
for supply should the proposed classification of these substances take
place. Below is a summary of the various approaches discussed by the
Committee.
2
a. The Commit ee discussed using a timeframe as a basis for
calculating a presumption amount for supply. This could be
based on an average dose of two to three tablets during one
weekly session. Assuming an average of 150mg of BZP per
tablet, it would be possible to roughly estimate the amount of
BZP required for a six-month or one year supply of BZP for
recreational use and provide a reasonable basis to set the
amount of BZP which could be presumed to be for supply.
b.
The Commit ee discussed whether it would be reasonable to
relate the recommended gram and tablet amount. For instance,
while many substances listed in Schedule 5 have an amount of
five grams or 100 units, it may be appropriate in this case to
schedule 15 grams or 100 tablets, as 100 tablets at an average
of 150mg per tablet would equate to 15 grams.
c.
The Commit ee discussed a recommendation for presumption
for supply based on the potency of the substance. Given that
the Committee had previously considered BZP to be
approximately 10 percent of the potency of dexamphetamine, a
level for presumption of supply that recognises this difference in
potency may be appropriate. However, it was felt that potency
is captured in the classification of a substance, as it relates to
the risk of harm.
d. The Commit ee discussed the option of scheduling a higher
limit, for example 20 grams, to account for the fact that other
more potent Class A and B substances have a five gram limit. It
was suggested that setting a large dose level (e.g. 100 doses) is
unnecessary considering that BZP is not a drug that is generally
taken daily, use is not likely to escalate substantially and
available evidence indicates a relatively low potential for
addiction. It was also noted that a recommendation based on a
high upper limit would make the presumption for supply level
irrelevant as no one would likely carry that amount and therefore
it would be difficult to prosecute for supply without clear proof of
a person selling BZP.
e. The Committee considered a level of five grams or 100 tablets
as this is consistent with the presumptions for supply of most
other substances listed in Schedule 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act
1975 and consistency wil assist with enforcement. However, it
was noted that the Commit ee should be free to recommend a
level for supply that would be most appropriate for this
substance and not just to achieve consistency with the levels for
other substances. It was noted that there are existing
exceptions, e.g. 28 grams is the level at which cannabis is
considered to be for supply, which is different from that of other
substances listed in Schedule 5.
3
The Commit ee also noted that BZP is available in powdered
form or in one-gram sachets. It was noted that a presumption
for supply of around five to ten grams in Schedule 5 could
readily incriminate those who have BZP in powdered form or in
high dose tablets. For example, a person in possession of six
one-gram sachets of pure BZP for personal use in separate
sessions could argue for personal use, as this would effectively
equate to six ‘doses’.
The Commit ee noted that manufacturers that are part of the
Social Tonics Association of New Zealand state that they self
regulate against selling BZP in powdered form, and that the
prevalence of using BZP in this manner is low due to the ease of
access to ‘party pil ’ preparations. It is considered that sachets
of BZP are currently mainly sold for export and not for domestic
use.
It was noted that the presumption for supply was only the
‘default’ presumption of being considered to be a dealer. A
lower level of a drug found in possession can also represent
dealing, if proved. It was also noted that a range of factors are
weighed up in deciding whether or not to prosecute a person for
being in possession of an amount above the level of
presumption for supply, and a prosecution is not ‘automatic’.
The Commit ee carefully considered these different approaches and the
impact of setting different levels for presumption for supply on both
enforcement and people using BZP and related substances
Having weighed up the different issues and approaches carefully, the
Committee agreed that it would be reasonable to recommend a threshold
of five grams or 100 tablets.
Agreed:
That the EACD would recommend five grams or 100 tablets,
capsules, or other drug forms each containing some quantity of the
drug as the level for the presumption for supply of BZP,
phenylpiperazine and related substances in Schedule 5 of the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
4
Document Outline
