Chapter 15: Achieving balance in drug policy

Background

New Zealand’s drug policy is based on the principle of harm minimisation – which aims to improve social, economic and health outcomes for the individual, the community and the population at large.

Harm minimisation encompasses a wide range of approaches. The strategies that support harm minimisation can be divided into three groups or ‘pillars’ – these are supply control, demand reduction and problem limitation. All three ‘pillars’ can be used in various combinations.

Ensuring that an overall balance is met between the pillars is vital, as each pillar contributes to the universal approach.

There are concerns currently that the demand reduction approach, in particular, does not receive the level of support and attention required. Current treatment services are inadequate. There are specific problems in some geographical areas, for some service types (e.g. residential programmes), and for some population groups - especially youth. Treatment services available to the court system are also insufficient.

This chapter describes a range of demand reduction and problem limitation approaches –  including their limits and effectiveness – and examines what possible changes are required to improve the balance between the ‘pillars’.

The Drug Foundation agrees with the Law Commission that any new legislative framework should recognise and better support all three pillars of our drug policy - supply control, demand reduction and problem limitation.

The Drug Foundation supports the Law Commission’s proposal for the new legislative framework to be administered solely by the Ministry of Health. This should help ensure that the drug use is seen firstly as a public health rather than a criminal justice issue.

Key questions to consider

Should more use be made of treatment for alcohol and drug dependence when people come before the courts? If so, how?

Yes. The Drug Foundation agrees with the Law Commission that those who abuse or are dependant on alcohol or drugs should have greater opportunity to receive assessment and treatment when they come before the courts. Drug courts and similar programmes implemented overseas, which ensure that appropriate focus is given to the particular needs of drug users in the criminal justice system, appear desirable. However, further refinements to programmes like these are required before they can become an established part of the criminal justice system. At the moment, there is the potential for delay in the court process if offenders who would otherwise be dealt with on their first appearance must instead be remanded to the specialist court or programme. The success of these types of programmes depends very much on adequate treatment services being available. This in turn is dependent on adequate resources being invested.

Do you think that the new legislative framework should allow for additional problem limitation measures to be adopted by regulation?

Yes. The Drug Foundation shares the Law Commission’s view that a new legislative framework should allow for additional measures aimed at reducing the harm associated with drug use to be adopted by regulation.

Problem limitation measures such as Needle Exchange Programmes aim at reducing the specific harms that result from existing drug use. A range of measures and approaches have been developed internationally.

We think that it is important that legislation anticipates the development and adoption of new types of harm reduction measures.

Would the development of a blueprint for drug and alcohol and other addiction services be a practical way of giving more emphasis to treatment? What else might be done?  

Yes. The Drug Foundation welcomes the consideration the Law Commission has given to supporting and encouraging Government efforts in the treatment area. We believe that the development of a blueprint for drug, alcohol and other addiction services provides a very practical way to increase the emphasis on treatment. This would be preferable to imposing additional reporting requirements on the Minister of Health or the establishment of yet another advisory committee. We support the Law Commission’s initial view that the Mental Health Commission would be an appropriate agency to lead such work, with support from key groups such as ALAC, the New Zealand Drug Foundation and the National Committee for Addiction Treatment.