NATIONAL DRUG INTELLIGENCE BUREAU

A Joint Operation of Customs, Health and Police

PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT ACT

One Year Through the Looking Glass

Originator

Reviewed by

Released by

Analyst (Police)

Lead Analyst

NDIB Coordinator

Name
Role

IN CONFIDENCE

OCTOBER 2015

PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT ACT: One Year Through the Looking Glass
KEY FINDINGS
Seizures & Supply
Although the Amendment Act removed psychoactive substances from the legal market in May 2014, increasing seizures at the border demonstrate that the illicit market for
these substances, particularly synthetic cannabis, remains. Distribution is facilitated through overt methods as well as traditional underground ones, as substances may be
intentionally mislabelled as non-psychoactive and sold from retail stores. Organised crime involvement in both manufacture and distribution has been noted in some regions.
Market & Demand
While demand is believed to have narrowed following the Amendment Act, a core user group clearly remains. Facebook trading is known to be prevalent in some regions, making
synthetic cannabis easily available to young users. Other drugs are increasingly being sold through such sites as well. Liquid cannabinoids, which emerged internationally only
recently, have begun to be seen in New Zealand, with the easy concealment of such substances likely to drive further demand.
Harm
Although there has been a decrease in Helpline calls, Middlemore Hospital reports that presentations of synthetic cannabis users remain at similar levels as pre-Amendment.
Further, a single bad batch of product can result in considerable harm, as demonstrated by the admission of 32 individuals in Auckland over a two week period in May, all having
consumed the same product. Many users are already vulnerable due to youth, mental health issues, or criminal history, exacerbating the issues associated with synthetic
cannabis. The distribution of fake synthetic cannabis, using household chemicals such as weed-killer, also presents significant risk of harm to often unwitting users, and with no
legislation covering such products, enforcement agencies are unable to disrupt this activity.
The Criminal Link
The harm caused by synthetic cannabis extends beyond the effects on users themselves. Synthetic cannabis use has been implicated in property crime, violence, and organised
crime across the country, including murder, sexual assault, and arson. Family violence staff have noted increasing numbers of younger offenders using synthetic cannabis, while
nurses in the Christchurch custody unit estimate that approximately 50% of AOD referrals are for users reporting they have taken synthetic cannabis.
Enforcement Issues
Enforcement agencies face a number of issues under the current legislation. The low penalties for offences committed under the Act make the industry appealing to offenders,
while making it difficult for investigators to prioritise against competing issues. Responsibility for enforcement is primarily on Police until approved products return to the market;
the absence of a defined list of substances considered psychoactive can hinder prosecutions and may be a source of confusion to the public. There is currently no test available to
enforcement staff to give an early indication on whether plant material contains cannabinoids, meaning arrests or recall of products cannot be made until ESR testing is
undertaken.
The Outlook
With the regulated industry effectively at a standstill for at least the next five years, the black market industry will remain the primary concern for enforcement agencies. As
psychoactive substances continue to evolve, it is likely that products other than synthetic cannabis will continue to emerge and influence the market. When products do
eventually return to the market, it is inevitable that the public will question whether substances currently controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act should be tested under the
frameworks criteria as well. Appropriate management of psychoactive substances which do not meet low risk of harm criteria when tested needs to be considered. Pending
wastewater analysis, to commence in 2016, may provide more information about synthetic cannabis use but its scope is limited in terms of these substances.

RECOMMENDATIONS
IN CONFIDENCE

OCTOBER 2015

PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT ACT: One Year Through the Looking Glass
Seizures & Supply
There are two main types of psychoactive substances in New Zealand at present: cannabinoids (used to produce synthetic cannabis); and NBOMes (an LSD substitute
typically administered on blotter tabs). Certain other stimulants have been categorised under the Psychoactive Substances Act, but are seen infrequently (for instance, 2CBromo-Dragonfly, DMBA). Due to the likely rescheduling of NBOMes under the Misuse of Drugs Act in the near future, and the low prevalence of the other stimulants noted,
this report will focus on cannabinoids and synthetic cannabis.
Cannabinoid seizures have steadily climbed through the first half of 2015, in both frequency and quantity, clearly indicating that a domestic industry remains firmly in place.
Synthetic cannabis seizures are sporadic, but there have been 139 seizures, totalling 62.74 kilograms of product since the Amendment; 44 kilograms of that total was the
result of a single operation in October 2014. Cannabinoids are seized almost exclusively at the border, unlike synthetic cannabis (plant material treated with cannabinoids)
which is predominantly seized domestically. It is likely that the increase in border seizures is partly due to the inevitable depletion of existing domestic stockpiles following
the termination of the interim regime. The United Kingdom is our predominant source country, although some consignments have also been intercepted from China, Spain,
and the Netherlands.
Unlike many other illicit substances, synthetic cannabis distribution is being facilitated through both underground methods and overt, commercial premises. The latter is
enabled by the remaining market for non-psychoactive smoking blends and pills, which do not meet the criteria for a psychoactive substance as defined by the Act, and
are therefore not controlled by this legislation. Neither Police nor the Office of the Psychoactive Substance Regulatory Authority (OPSRA) have the resources to test every
non-psychoactive product on the market, leaving enforcement agencies reliant on the honesty of operators that they are not selling psychoactive substances labelled as
non-psychoactive, unless other evidence is received, such as adverse reactions or intelligence
reporting. Many of the businesses selling such products were licensed for psychoactive product sales
Cannabinoid Seizures at the Border PostAmendment
during the interim regime; they therefore have the existing experience, supply sources and customer
(May 2014 - July 2015)
base to continue operating illicitly. However, a programme is currently being established to allow for
Quantity

1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

25

20
15
10
5
0
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
July

Quantity (grams)

Freq.

Frequency

random testing of a select number of non-psychoactive substances each year to ensure compliance.

IN CONFIDENCE

OCTOBER 2015

PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT ACT: One Year Through the Looking Glass
Market & Demand
Although the size of the user group appears to have decreased with the dissolution of the interim regime, a narrower but dedicated group of core users has remained. The
continuing border and domestic seizures of cannabinoids and synthetic cannabis demonstrate the demand generated by this group. Some regions appear to have greater
demand than others, although this may be more a reflection of available intelligence than the actual situation. While prices vary between regions, they appear to remain
steady within their own location. This is likely a reflection of availability within each area, and how many steps there are between manufacture and street-level supply.
Younger users may be attracted to synthetic cannabis by its relative availability compared to other drugs, including alcohol
for those under 18. The lower penalties, and perceptions of safety driven by the use of terminology such as legal or safe
highs during the interim regime, are possibly also a factor. Many of the young users trading synthetic cannabis on social
media sites use their real names, even on open (publicly visible) trading pages, suggesting little worry of apprehension.
When first emerging, Facebook sites for synthetic cannabis traded almost exclusively in this product, with a sideline trade
for cannabis and pharmaceutical opioids or sedatives. However, over time, other drugs have started to be sold through
these sites with increasing frequency, including blotter tabs, ecstasy, and sometimes methamphetamine. This may
increase the likelihood that users of predominantly synthetic cannabis will begin to abuse other drugs as well.

Although cannabinoids are most commonly mixed with plant material and smoked, more diverse administration methods
have started to emerge globally. C-liquids, which can be vapourised in e-cigarette type devices, are now popular in
Europe, and at least one consignment has been seized at the New Zealand border. In the same way that e-cigarettes are
viewed as healthier than traditional cigarettes, vaping c-liquids may appeal to users as safer than smoking synthetic
cannabis. E-cigarettes release a smaller dose than smoking, resulting in a shorter duration of effect; users will likely redose
more frequently in response.
C-liquids are manufactured by dissolving cannabinoids in propylene glycerol or vegetable glycerin; due to a multitude of
licit uses, including for use in e-liquids, purchase of these chemicals is unlikely to raise suspicions in the same way as
acetone or similar solvents required to manufacture synthetic cannabis. Cannabinoids can even be mixed with premade eliquids, although this would be slightly more expensive. If c-liquids become popular in New Zealand, this may have some
impact on the domestic manufacturing industry. C-liquid uptake will also hinder enforcement agencies ability to easily
identify consumption.

IN CONFIDENCE

OCTOBER 2015

PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT ACT: One Year Through the Looking Glass
Harm
A decrease in calls to the National Poison Centre and the Alcohol and Drug Helpline following the Amendment Act is promising,
but should be tempered by the probability that users would have become less inclined to seek help once psychoactive
substances became illegal. This data is also somewhat skewed by the sharp, but unusual, increase in calls to these numbers in
the months leading up to the two legislative changes (the Act and the Amendment Act), which almost certainly reflects an
increase in public awareness and need for information about these changes at the time, not just use. Conversely, staff at
Middlemore Hospital report no noticeable change in presentation numbers from pre- to post-Amendment.

I DONT WANT TO END UP DEAD FROM

SMOKING SOMETHING THAT IS LEGAL.
ITS LIKE PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE.
Quitting legals was hell I had such a
fever couldnt sleep couldnt eat I turned
into a monster to the people around me.
I cried a lot for no reason when I was
detoxing

Although calls to the Helpline declined steadily through the second half of 2014, they returned to higher levels at the start of
2015 and have since remained steady, although still only around 20-30% of pre-amendment levels. The Choco Haze incident in
May also demonstrates how easily this picture can be influenced by a single product or batch. Worryingly, the cannabinoid found Forum comments on synthetic use and withdrawal
in that product has now become one of our most popular imports based on border seizures. Users are almost
certainly unaware of which chemical they are ingesting in products, adding to their risk.
CHOCO HAZE
32 individuals presented to the emergency
In some regions, groups are producing synthetic cannabis which does not even contain cannabinoids, but is made
departments at Auckland and Middlemore
by spraying plant material with substances such as fly spray or weed killer. Such mixtures present significant risk of
Hospitals over two weekends in May 2015,
harm, as they deprive the users brain of oxygen, but they do not fall under any legislation. Users may or may not be
suffering from nausea, dizziness, and in some
aware that what they are being sold contains these substances; some may make such substitutes for themselves if
cases seizures.
they are unable to obtain the genuine product. These substances also contribute to public confusion around what
The patients told health staff that they had
consumed synthetic cannabis called Choco Haze
(in some cases referred to as Black Widow). A
sample of Choco Haze was handed to Police, and
subsequent testing identified that it contained
MDMB-CHMICA. MDMB-CHMICA is an extremely
potent cannabinoid, active at less than 1 mg in
some individuals.
Black market manufacturers typically have little
concern for quality control, with poor measures
for controlling dosage when mixing cannabinoids
with plant material, and it is likely that high
dosages were responsible for the adverse
reactions seen in Auckland.

constitutes a psychoactive substance, and likely create a lack of confidence in enforcement agencies ability to
prevent harm.

The typical demographic of todays users also presents concern. Investigation conducted across several Facebook
groups used for trading in psychoactive substances in Canterbury identified that approximately half of the users on
those sites had some Police history. Many were also flagged for mental health issues, and/or were youths. Although
this is a snapshot of only a particular section of users, it clearly demonstrates that these substances are being used
by an already vulnerable population, with conditions likely to be aggravated by synthetic cannabis abuse.
Although the intent of the Act was to create a regulated market for low risk products, the ban on animal testing
means that it will likely be at least five years until such a product is developed and approved. In the mean time, users
will continue to consume the untested, potentially high-risk, products for which a demand was established prior to
the Act.
IN CONFIDENCE

OCTOBER 2015

PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT ACT: One Year Through the Looking Glass
The Criminal Link
ORGANISED CRIME

VIOLENCE

Organised criminal groups have been identified as involved in synthetic cannabis Synthetic cannabis ability to induce psychosis and aggression means it is often linked
distribution in several regions.
to violent offending. Family violence teams and service providers have reported
increasing numbers of younger FV offenders abusing synthetics.

PROPERTY

CUSTODY UNIT

Even before the introduction of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, synthetic
cannabis had begun to be noted as a driver of property offending, with users
committing offences to fund their synthetic cannabis habits. Unsurprisingly, given that
many users have existing criminal histories, this trend has continued.

Statistics collated by a Christchurch custody unit show that in the first half of 2015, 26
out of 70 AOD referrals (37%) were made specifically for self-reported synthetic
cannabis use, with the remainder primarily for alcohol. This does not include those
users who declined offers for AOD services; nurses in the unit estimate that 50%
would likely be a more accurate representation with those numbers included.

Facebook trading sites for synthetic cannabis often also function as avenues for
disposing of stolen property, with items obviously illegally obtained often posted for Withdrawal for heavy users can pose almost as many risks as use itself, with psychosis
sale, or offered in exchange for synthetic cannabis.
and aggression still potential issues.
IN CONFIDENCE

OCTOBER 2015

PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT ACT: One Year Through the Looking Glass
Enforcement Issues
The low penalties available under the Act not only make the industry appealing to offenders, they can also impede
investigation and preventative activities. The maximum penalty available, for supplying or manufacturing an
unapproved psychoactive product, is two years imprisonment, or a $500,000 fine for a body corporate. In
comparison, the lowest penalty for supply or manufacture offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act (MODA) allows for
up to seven years imprisonment. Although the Psychoactive Substances Act provides for greater financial penalties
than MODA, these apply only to commercial enterprises. However, staff should be aware that cumulative, rather than
concurrent, sentencing has been handed down in at least one psychoactive substance case to date, for a sentence of
over three years.
The approach to enforcement of the Act is necessarily multi-faceted, with responsibilities divided between Ministry of
Health (MoH) and Police depending on the nature of the offence. MoH are responsible for enforcing compliance of
licences and approved products, while Police are responsible for all offending related to unapproved products. Under the current situation, with no approved products likely
to make it to market in the near future, enforcement is therefore primarily undertaken by Police, who must balance this against a number of other priorities. Without
changes to the legislation, MoH are unable to undertake compliance activities for unapproved products, which would free up Police resources for more serious breaches.
Although the relationship between MoH/OPSRA, Police, and Customs is working well at the strategic level, co-operation between agencies at the enforcement level is still
being established, to ensure frontline staff in all agencies are aware of, and can utilise, each others knowledge, capabilities and responsibilities.
The ambiguous definition of psychoactive substance has created confusion in many instances. The lack of a comprehensive list of psychoactive substances for enforcement
agencies, retailers, and the public to refer to makes it difficult to educate and investigate. These issues are particularly clear when there is potential overlap with other
legislation (e.g. the Food Act 1981, the pending Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill). Offenders may (and do) also argue that they were unaware that the
substance they were manufacturing or supplying was psychoactive, potentially affecting prosecution outcomes. Although it is impossible to create a full list of psychoactive
substances, given that decisions on status are made only as each substance comes to OSPRAs attention, there is potential to make a list of these decisions publicly available
to aid both enforcement agencies and public. However, the benefits of establishing such a process must be weighed against the possibility that omission of a substance from
the list (i.e. due to novelty or lack of seizures) could again provide offenders with an argument of ignorance.
The lack of specified substances also presents barriers to testing, with ESR unable to define substances as psychoactive; a referral must instead be made for OPSRA to
confirm the substances status on a case by case basis. As a result, there may be significant time delays between seizure of substances and arrest of the responsible party,
while waiting for testing and confirmation of psychoactive status
There is also currently no NIK test or other tool available to give an initial indication of whether plant material contains cannabinoids, prior to ESR submission. Even
Customs First Defender devices are only able to identify cannabinoids in their raw powder form. In cases where the offender is known to have been distributing both nonpsychoactives and psychoactives, this can have a serious impact on resources;
Therefore, the development of a NIK test or similar resource would significantly aid frontline and
investigative staff. This would also allow quicker turnaround when adverse reaction reports are received, so that the public can be advised of potentially dangerous products
on the market.
IN CONFIDENCE

OCTOBER 2015

PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT ACT: One Year Through the Looking Glass
Outlook
The regulated psychoactive substance industry is effectively at a standstill, with the ban on animal testing introduced in the Amendment Act making it unlikely that any
products will be able to meet approval requirements for at least the next five years. With a single exception, the only entities that have applied for licences to date are
academic or testing institutions; that is, entities with no interest in actually developing a product or putting it through the approval process. The black market industry will
therefore remain the primary concern for enforcement and health agencies for the foreseeable future. Even once approved products do return to the licit market, it is
unlikely that they will resemble the kind of products available under the interim regime, and a black market demand for those products will therefore continue, as will the
issues associated with such products.
Although synthetic cannabis is our predominant issue at present in terms of availability, demand, and
harm, the constant evolution of the designer substance industry makes it likely that other substances, not
controlled under the analogue provisions in MODA, will continue to emerge. With NBOMes, a common
LSD substitute, likely to be rescheduled under MODA shortly, a new LSD replacement may emerge. There
is also potential for non-analogous mimics of ecstasy or other substances popular in New Zealand to enter
the market.
Once approved products return to the market, it is inevitable that at some point the question of running
those substances currently controlled under MODA through the low risk of harm tests will be raised.
Already there has been suggestion that such a process should be considered for MDMA. The long term
implications and likely outcomes of the Act providing a successful framework for regulating drugs need to
be considered and planned for. There is also the question of what should happen if a product is submitted
for approval but does not pass the criteria; should that product then remain an unapproved psychoactive
substance regulated under the Act, or should a process be put in place for such products to then be
scheduled under MODA? Arguably, products that have been confirmed as having substantial risk of harm
should not be treated in the same way as substances that are unknown. Although such products will likely
be referred for MODA scheduling, there is currently no actual requirement for this to occur.

IN CONFIDENCE

THE RETURN OF THE KRONIC KING

Former licence holder under the interim regime, Matthew
Wielenga, and his New Zealand-based company Lightyears
Ahead, were infamously responsible for one of our earliest
synthetic cannabis products, Kronic. The company lost its
licence under the Amendment Act, while Wielenga himself
temporarily stood down as director following charges for
drug trafficking in Australia, until those charges were
dropped.
The company has since continued developing new
psychoactive products overseas, and has had marked
success with their new range of c-liquids, called Kronic
Juice, in the UK. It is possible Wielenga will eventually
attempt to re-enter the New Zealand market, given that he
still has a number of commercial interests and properties
here.

OCTOBER 2015

PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT ACT: One Year Through the Looking Glass
RECOMMENDATIONS

IN CONFIDENCE

OCTOBER 2015