EXPERT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DRUGS
MEETING
Thursday, 30 March 2006, 9:30am – 3:35pm
C01 & C02, 180 Molesworth Street, Wel ington.
MINUTES
Members present
Dr Ashley Bloomfield (Chair)
Dr Keith Bedford
Dr Helen Moriarty
Paul Campbell
Professor Tim Maling
Professor Doug Sellman
Rajesh Chhana
Secretariat attending:
Olivia Tuatoko
Chris Laurenson
Colin Lee
Bruce Atmore
Cynthia Maling (Health)
1. WELCOME
Dr Bloomfield welcomed members, and Olivia Tuatoko as a new member
of the Secretariat.
2. APOLOGIES
Keremete Warbrick, Dr Stewart Jessamine, Peter Marshall, and Dr
Geoffrey Robinson, Professor Tim Maling (lateness)
3. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Dr Keith Bedford advised of a potential conflict of interest in relation to
item 9 and asked if he could leave the meeting at the appropriate time.
The Commit ee agreed with this.
4. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD
27 October 2005.
Members noted that there had been media interest in the minutes of the
last meeting, which had been placed on the NDP website.
The minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2005 were confirmed as a
true and accurate record of that meeting.
2
5.0 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MEETING HELD 27 October 2005
Report on actions arising from 27 October 2005
5.1 Minute item 5.3
Media interest in the suggestion, by one member, of possibly restricting
the number of drugs in Class A had been taken out of context. It was
reiterated that the issue had been raised in general discussion but that the
Committee is not planning to make any recommendations on this.
Members confirmed that having the minutes posted on the website is
appropriate in the light of the statutory objectives of the Commit ee, as set
out in S5AA of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and that the public have the
right to see what is discussed.
5.2 Minute Item 6 Ketamine
The Committee’s recommendation on Ketamine had been made to the
Minister, who had accepted the Commit ee’s advice.
5.3 Minute Item 7 Nitrous Oxide
The Minister had accepted the recommendation that Nitrous Oxide could
be regulated under the Medicines Act, and no further action under the
MODA is currently indicated.
5.4 Minute Item 8 Zopiclone
Zopiclone was to be discussed under agenda item 7.
5.5 Minute Item 9 Update on Methamphetamine Activities
Dr Bedford would look into this and report back to the Committee at the
next meeting
5.6 Minute Item 10 BZP
BZP was to be discussed under General Business.
6. LSD
Members considered a paper prepared for this agenda item comparing
LSD and Methamphetamine. Members then discussed LSD’s current
classification as a Class A controlled drug.
The current status of LSD, dating originally from 1967, reflects its historical
classification as a Class A drug. Based on what is known now about LSD,
it does not appear to be as harmful as many other Class A drugs,
especially methamphetamine. However, members also agreed that LSD
is not alone in this respect and there are other apparent anomalies in the
classification of some substances, probably for historical reasons.
2
3
Members noted that, given these wider anomalies in the classification of
some substances under the MODA, further consideration of the overall
framework is indicated in time.
Agreed:
1. That no recommendation on LSD would be made at this time.
2. That the Secretariat would prepare a paper on how United
Nations decisions on classification are made and see what
implications this has for work of the EACD and the obligations
New Zealand has to the UN.
3. That the Chair would write to the Minister outlining the
substantive issue of apparent anomalies in the classifications
of some substances, for example as identified by a
comparison of LSD and Methamphetamine, and seek the
Minister’s view on whether he would like further advice he
would like on this issue.
7. ZOPICLONE AND ZOLPIDEM
Members received two papers for this agenda item:
• An update on Zopiclone, which was a revised paper of item 8 from the
previous meeting held 27 October 2005.
• An Overview of the Scheduling of the Hypnotic Sedatives
The Commit ee considered that further information is required before a
recommendation on the matter can be made.
Agreed:
1. That the main references from the papers be made available
to the Committee.
2. That a further context paper for the next meeting, including
details of international research, be prepared by the
Secretariat.
3. That further information be obtained from the pharmaceutical
manufacturers of Zopiclone.
8. NOREPHEDRINE
Members received notes from Dr Bedford on Norephedrine.
Dr Bedford pointed out that Norephedrine had the same relationship to
Norpseudoephedrine as Ephedrine had to Pseudoephedrine.
Norephedrine could also be used as a precursor for amphetamine.
Phenylpropanolamine, already listed as a prescription medicine, could be
read as including Norephedrine. It had been found that products
3
4
containing Norephedrine varied widely and, if possible, it should be listed
in the controlled drug schedules.
Members commented that Norephedrine would be too high in the
schedules as a B2 and that it should match other precursors. Members
noted that Norephedrine was a problem only because it was a precursor to
amphetamine and therefore it should be classified no higher than C5, as it
is not dangerous in itself, addictive, nor does it lead to psychosis or death.
Agreed:
1. That Norephedrine should be considered for classification
fol owing a formal assessment process.
2. That the secretariat prepare a formal assessment of
Norephedrine for the consideration of the Committee.
9. METHYLONE TRIALS
At the request of the Minister, the Ministry had requested a Crown Law
Office opinion regarding the use of Methylone in trials on human subjects.
Questions posed included whether Methylone is an il egal substance in
any legislation and if such human trials are legal.
The key points in the Draft Crown Law Office opinion were presented.
While the final Crown Law Office opinion on the legality of the “trial” in
question had not been received, members noted that no ethics committee
approval had been obtained and that this is considered essential before
any such trials are undertaken.
Dr Bedford outlined that ESR considers Methylone to be captured by the
Class C7 controlled drug analogue provisions as it is an analogue of
Cathinone, a Class B2 controlled drug.
Dr Bedford left the room.
A proposal was made that the Committee recommend Methylone to be
specifically listed as a C7 Controlled Drug as it is an analogue of an
existing controlled drug. This could be considered an appropriate level of
classification at this time as Methylone may prove to be less harmful than
Cathinone and other Class B drugs, as has been claimed. A C7
classification provides enforcement and sentencing powers and would stil
allow for its classification level to be increased, if indicated, as further
information about its effects becomes available.
Discussion also occurred around the lack of current evidence to assess
the harm of the compound and that an alternative approach would be to
recommend a classification to match its parent compound (Cathinone) and
schedule Methylone as a B2 controlled drug.
Dr Bedford was invited back in.
4
5
Dr Bedford felt that, given a lack of evidence about methylone,
classification at the level of the parent compound (Cathinone) could be
justified based on the assumption that it has similar effects until proven
otherwise.
Agreed:
That the two possible approaches outlining the advantages and
disadvantages of each be put to the Minister for his consideration.
10.0 GENERAL BUSINESS
10.1 Cynthia Maling from the Ministry of Health was introduced to the
Committee by the Chair. The Ministry is looking at what might be done to
further restrict access to BZP.
The Commit ee discussed the issue of setting of a ‘safe dose’ or upper
limit for BZP. This would require greater knowledge of the harms of the
substance as well as consistency in the manufacturing process.
The Commit ee discussed a range of other issues related to the possible
regulation of BZP. However, the Chair clarified that the Committee’s
mandate was to provide advice on drug classification and not on how the
legislation or regulations are framed. The Commit ee could provide advice
to the Minister on whether further regulation might be warranted.
10.2 Dr Sellman advised that he had been invited to present to the Law and
Order Select Commit ee in relation to the Sale of Liquor (Youth Harm
Reduction) Bil and that the Secretary of the Select Committee had
referred to his membership of the EACD. The Committee agreed Dr
Sellman would present in his own right and not as a representative of the
EACD, which had no Committee position on Alcohol. Dr Sellman agreed to
make his submission available to Commit ee members for information.
10.3 The Chair thanked Dr Bedford for his notes and the Secretariat for the
papers submitted.
11. NEXT MEETING
The next meeting would be scheduled for Thursday 27 July 2006 and
would be arranged by the Secretariat.
The meeting closed at 3:35pm.
5
Document Outline
