INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE ON DRUGS (IGCD)
FRAMEWORK FOR A NATIONAL RESPONSE
TO NEW PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES
JULY 2014
Contents
1. Summary of proposed response ............................................................................. 2
2. Background ............................................................................................................. 5
3. Challenges and Key Considerations ....................................................................... 7
4. Guiding principles .................................................................................................. 11
5. Elements of a National Response ......................................................................... 12
1. Detection and identification capability................................................................ 12
2. A Drug Monitoring System and associated data collection ................................... 13
3. Harms assessments ........................................................................................... 16
4. Rapid response laws .......................................................................................... 16
5. Uniform treatment of drug analogues ................................................................ 17
6. Consumer protection laws .................................................................................. 18
7. Other existing laws. ........................................................................................... 19
8. A Broad Precautionary Psychoactive Substances Control Scheme .......................... 19
9
Developing agreed terminology ......................................................................... 22
10
Public awareness and education..................................................................... 22
11
Better coordination between jurisdictions ........................................................ 24
12
International Engagement .............................................................................. 24
Appendix A: Current systems/networks for sharing information on NPS ............... 26
Appendix B: Drug Monitoring System, Issues for consideration ................................ 30
Appendix C – Proposal for a uniform definition of drug analogue ............................. 31
Appendix D: NPS Regulatory Options: International Models ................................. 35
1
1. Summary of proposed response
ICGD members agree that:
1. Detection and identification capability

Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) play an important role in identifying NPS, and potentially
their metabolites, and need to be kept up-to-date in the face of an evolving drug market.

Improved forensic capability at a national level is essential to enhance agencies’ ability to
identify and detect a range of NPS to acceptable scientific standards, including through the
provision of physical samples of CRMs.

Given the nature of the NPS market, CRMs may not always be available and jurisdictions
should explore other opportunities to enhance existing forensic capabilities to ensure that they
can keep pace with the introduction on NPS.

The Illicit Drug Specialist Advisory Group is best placed to explore options to support the
identification of suspected NPS where CRMs to support chemical characterisation are not
available.
2. A Drug Monitoring System and associated data collection

Timely dissemination and sharing of intelligence will increase the speed and accuracy of
responses to NPS and reduce duplication of effort and unnecessary cost.

Jurisdictions should establish standing arrangements to share information between law
enforcement, forensic, health and policy agencies and discuss and prioritise the jurisdictional
response to NPS.

A comprehensive arrangement to share information relating to NPS between jurisdictions
should be developed.

The Commonwealth’s proposed Drug Monitoring System, which will contain relevant
unclassified reporting and information relating to the identification of NPS, will usefully
complement existing information-sharing systems.
3. Harms assessments

Responses requiring the inclusion, or analysis, of health and/or social risks should be
developed by Commonwealth Health and/or jurisdictional health departments with relevant
expertise.

A comprehensive national framework for prioritising and sharing information on harms
assessments should be developed.
4. Rapid response laws

The ability to carry out emergency or temporary scheduling of NPS where their harm is not
known is a key mechanism in protecting the public from potentially harmful substances.

Jurisdictions should ensure that they have enacted appropriate emergency or temporary
scheduling provisions. Jurisdictions should aim for national consistency in emergency or
temporary scheduling provisions.

Jurisdictions should communicate scheduling actions and proposed actions to each other.
2

A comprehensive arrangement to share information between jurisdictions relating to
emergency or temporary scheduling decisions should be developed.
5. Uniform treatment of drug analogues

Drug analogue provisions, which expand the coverage of controls on illicit substances to
include substances with similar chemical structures, are crucial in ensuring that harmful
substances are banned and that controls are not easily circumvented.

Jurisdictions should aim for national consistency in definitions of drug analogues, including
considering using the model definition set out in Appendix C.
6. Consumer protection laws

Consumer protection bans are just one of a number of ways to control the sale of NPS.

While these consumer protection laws may offer a rapid response option, NPS are more
appropriately controlled through drug legislation administered by health and law enforcement
agencies.

Long term consumer product bans based solely on product or “street” names have limited
utility
7. Other existing laws

Keeping lists of controlled substances up to date is critical in ensuring that substances known
to be harmful are subject to appropriate controls and restrictions.

Where they have not already done so, jurisdictions should consider processes to automatically
update controls on substances in line with the Commonwealth Standard for the Uniform
Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons.
8. A Broad Precautionary Psychoactive Substances Control Scheme

The development of a national precautionary scheme to control NPS at the border will help to
address the problem and respond to emerging drug markets.

To deal with the rapid rate of emergence of NPS, jurisdictions should consider implementing
broad precautionary schemes to ban potentially harmful substances without a legitimate use
or which are designed to mimic illicit drugs.

Jurisdictions should work together to ensure that their schemes to control NPS are
complementary and there are no regulatory gaps.

To assist in building an evidence base about the structure and potential harms of NPS,
jurisdictions should consider whether any broad precautionary schemes to control NPS should
also include mechanisms to allow law enforcement to seize NPS in the possession of
individuals.
3
9. Developing agreed terminology

In most instances, the term “new psychoactive substances” should be used in official
correspondence and messaging, to ensure consistency with language used by major
international sources of information on these drugs. Terminology should be developed to
consistently and clearly describe the categories of NPS to support clear policy and technical
discussions
10. Public awareness and education

Key public awareness messages about NPS should include the facts that these substances are
not legal alternatives to prohibited drugs, they are of unknown composition and purity, the
effects can be highly variable between batches and individuals and far from being safe, they
can expose people to harms associated with physiological reactions, overdose and erratic
behaviour.

Given the variability of the drug market in different states and territories, local public
awareness messaging may need to vary to accommodate local circumstances.
11. Better coordination between jurisdictions

The IGCD plays a key role in bringing together officers from Commonwealth, State and
Territory Health, law enforcement and justice agencies to discuss how to work together to
address issues surrounding NPS, and these networks should continue to be formally and
informally used.

The IGCD should continue to draw upon the expertise of agencies outside the IGCD
membership when those agencies have an integral role in addressing a particular aspect of the
NPS problem.
12. International Engagement

Australia should maintain international engagement on NPS issues.

Agencies should continue to cooperate, both operationally and on policy responses, with
overseas partners to respond to NPS.
4
2. Background
In recent years, law enforcement and health professionals have seen the emergence of new drugs
and chemicals that have pharmacological effects akin to existing controlled drugs. These drugs can be
collectively called New Psychoactive Substances (NPS). While the pharmacological effect of these
substances is often reportedly similar to existing drugs, the harm and long term-toxicity caused by
these substances is usually unknown.
NPS are often marketed as alternatives to internationally controlled drugs. NPS have also been
detected mixed with or sold as common internationally controlled drugs. The NPS market remains
relatively small but is evolving rapidly, both in scope and in the substances involved, aided by
advances in manufacturing and by the distribution and marketing opportunities provided by the
internet.
NPS is a transnational and national issue that poses unique challenges for governments. The rate at
which new NPS are emerging, and the fact that there are a range of potential health risks poses
challenges for identification, monitoring, community education, harms assessment and traditional
regulatory and treatment responses.
This paper sets out the IGCD’s Framework for a national response to NPS.
DEFINITION
The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) defines a ‘new
psychoactive substance’ as ‘a new narcotic or psychotropic drug, in pure form or in preparation, that
is not controlled by the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs or the 1971 UN Convention on
Psychotropic Substances, but which may pose a public health threat comparable to that posed by
substances listed in these conventions.’
The United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC) also use the term ‘new psychoactive substances’ to define such substances.
There are an almost limitless number of possible synthetic drug compounds. International evidence
suggests that there are large numbers of these drugs on the market, and hundreds more are believed
to be held in reserve by illicit manufacturers to be released progressively to stay ahead of legislative
controls. For example, the EMCDDA is monitoring about 300 new substances: 24 were first identified
in 2009; 41 in 2010; 49 in 2011 and 73 in 2012. New substances are now emerging at a rate of more
than one per week.
CURRENT CONTROLS
A range of NPS, including several forms of synthetic cannabinoids, 3,4-methyl-methcathinone
(mephedrone), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV), other cathinones and phenethylamines,
with similar effects to more commonly known internationally controlled drugs such as cannabis and
amphetamine type substances (ATS), have already been identified as potential risks to public health
and are controlled in Australia. Where controls vary across jurisdictions, this can create inconsistency
and uncertainty about whether or not these substances are legal or illegal. In 2013 there has been a
5
move towards greater alignment of Commonwealth and state and territory level controls, and all
jurisdictions have aligned their drugs and poisons legislation to cover those substances listed as
prohibited under the Commonwealth Poisons Standard. There is still variation in relation to
approaches to enforcement.
Commonwealth
At the Commonwealth level, synthetic drugs which have been identified in Australia as posing a risk
to public health have been scheduled as Prohibited Substances under the Commonwealth Poisons
Standard (the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons (SUSMP)), which is
administered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This has been either by the inclusion of
entries for specific substances or broad classes of substances and included a broad generic listing in
2012 capturing all substances which mimic cannabis-like substances.
In addition, a number of new substances are now subject to the Commonwealth serious drug
offences framework, the analogue clause has been successfully used, the Prohibited Imports
Regulations have been updated to capture a number of these substances as they have emerged. In
2013 interim Product Safety bans have also been used at a national level to support action by states.
Changes have also been made to the serious drug offences framework to better meet the emerging
threat. Substances may now be listed quickly and permanently in the Criminal Code Regulations
2002 (Cth) once the relevant criteria, which is harm and evidence based, have been met.
To provide for even quicker response when the full harms are not yet known, substances may also be
listed temporarily under an emergency determination made by the responsible Minister. These
emergency determinations last for 12 months, extendable to 18 months, so that suitable testing and
analysis may take place. Substances listed temporarily are subject to the full range of serious drug
offences in the Criminal Code.
States and Territories
States and territories have introduced controls on many NPS. Each State and Territory has its own
laws that determine what substances are subject to criminal controls. Some adopt the
Commonwealth Poisons Standard schedules by reference. Others replicate certain schedules with
amendments.
Jurisdictions have also each independently incorporated certain synthetic cannabinoids and other
new substances into their legislation. Further, other approaches, such as extending analogue clauses
and using consumer protection laws, have also been adopted in some jurisdictions. Some
jurisdictions have introduced broader non-substance-specific controls, such as those prohibiting
unregulated substances with psychoactive effect or substances with or purported to have similar
pharmacological effect to controlled drugs.
Internationally
NPS are not subject to control under the international conventions (the Single Convention on
Narcotic Drugs, 1961: the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971; or the Convention against
Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988). However, many UN member
states have put in place measures to address the emergence of these substances. Most notably,
Ireland and New Zealand have introduced broad ‘precautionary’ scheme to prohibit or control
unregulated NPS and which seek a pre-emptive approach to controlling new psychoactive
substances. This is discussed in more detail below.
6
3. Challenges and Key Considerations
The rate at which new NPS are emerging, and the fact that there is little available evidence of their
health risks, poses challenges for identification, harms assessment and traditional regulatory
responses.
Lack of a sufficient evidence base on NPS
By definition a substances which has significant psychoactive properties has the capacity to subject
the user to the risk of short term harm. Longer term health effects are not known due to the short
time many of these substances have been on the market. However there is strong evidence that
impacts similar to conventional illicit drugs can arise from use.
Many NPS have been marketed as ‘legal highs’ or ‘safe and legal’, and/or packaged as a product not
for human consumption. Until recently they have been available through the legitimate retail
environment, in part because of delays at a jurisdictional level in aligning state drug control law to
national controls. However, most of these substances have not been subject to scientific testing,
largely because NPS are emerging and disappearing so rapidly. When initially detected, these
substances require identification, which is a costly and time consuming process, particularly without
reference materials. The limited availability of suitably certified reference materials makes it more
difficult for authorities to meet the evidentiary burden in court. Other issues contributing to a poor
evidence base include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most current drug reporting systems do not collect data on these substances
Self-report data is flawed as users are not always aware of what they are taking
Often products are not accurately labelled
Products have no quality control and ingredients vary significantly from batch to batch
Many substances cannot be positively identified by routine detections technologies
There is little or no toxicological or coronial data
Because most NPS are not controlled, often data is not collected
Evidence is not readily available on best practice treatment responses, where users
experience adverse impacts
Speed of response
There are already hundreds of known NPS, with many more that could be released at any time.
Systems used to manage NPS must be able to respond quickly to an anticipated constant stream of
substances expected to be released onto the market.
Legitimate use
Consistent with the approach applied to therapeutic goods, foods and beverages, agricultural,
veterinary and industrial chemicals, any decision to control NPS must be balanced against the
consequences of banning as yet unknown substances which may have legitimate uses. This
unintended consequence will be diminished with legislation that specifically excludes ordinary
products and/or enables exemptions.
7
Using other laws – therapeutic goods, food safety, environmental protection
A number of existing regulatory frameworks may also be relevant when addressing NPS, including
regulations that require pharmaceutical, agricultural and veterinary goods or food on sale to be
clearly and accurately labelled in relation to their use, laws penalising false or misleading advertising,
and placing licensing requirements or age restrictions on the outlets selling these goods.
Drug categories and certainty under criminal law
Many new NPS are slight chemical variants on earlier ones, which presents a challenge in terms of
drug control legislation. There is a need for controls and offences according to broader types or
categories.
Existing analogue clauses already provide for the ability to capture a wider range of substances than
are specifically listed. For example, the Commonwealth serious drug offences apply to substances
that have a particular structural modification from a controlled drug. To some extent, analogue
clauses such as the one found in the Criminal Code already provide for new and emerging drugs to be
quickly captured by the provisions, provided these specified structural modifications are met. There
are of course gaps in an approach that only relies on analogue clauses to capture emerging drugs. In
particular, gaps are evident in relation to substances that mimic the effects of controlled drugs that
are not structurally similar to a listed drug. Temporary scheduling mechanisms could allow for
substances that have a similar pharmacological or physical effect to a listed drug to be captured by
offence provisions. However, this is reliant on some knowledge of the effects and harm of the
substance, which are often difficult and time consuming to establish.
Technical Support
The unprecedented increase in the number of substances of concern will require increased capacity
in areas such as chemical analysis, toxicology, harms assessments and drug data for identification.
This will be needed for frontline detection, healthcare responses, intelligence, investigation and
prosecution purposes. Information sharing will go some way to providing this capacity, but increased
resourcing is likely to be needed as well to keep up with the suppliers. This level of technical support
will need for example, to enable translation of newly emerging substances into communications
about how the substance may present on the street – names, appearance and ease of detection.
Treatment Capabilities and Harm Minimisation
These new substances cover a broad range of chemicals with a broad range of pharmacological
effects. It may be appropriate to use existing treatment modalities for users of some substances,
while others may present unique challenges requiring the development of new capabilities. It will be
particularly important to have new information as it becomes available to ensure that acute
responses to adverse responses to NPS are available.
Displacement of law enforcement and other resources
Depending upon how NPS are controlled, this may have a flow-on effect on the resources of
Customs, forensics laboratories, police, prosecutors, courts and correctional services. Monitoring
and analysis of harms will also place demands on health services.
8
Unintended consequences
Like any market, the market for illicit substances responds to changes in supply and demand,
competition, user preferences and fashion, profit, or the availability of raw materials. In considering
response measures, governments need to consider the likely effects on the market for the substance,
as every intervention changes the mix of incentives and risks that shape the behaviour of the
particular illicit drug market. It is also important, given continuing confusion over legality, that
consumers are not unfairly treated in the transition to new controls, where products previously legal
become subject to new laws or regulation.
Risks from non-substance-specific impairment
In certain situations, such as in the workplace or driving, short-term functional impairment from NPS
can present unacceptable risks. Substance-specific tests for many NPS are not easily available and
impairment-based testing may need to be considered.
Upstream implications – precursor chemicals
Each NPS will have a number of precursor chemicals used in its manufacture. Some of these
precursor chemicals may overlap with those used to manufacture controlled drugs, and may already
be subject to controls. At present there is no evidence of significant local manufacture of the actual
substances. However, additional controls on NPS may require further regulation of precursor
chemicals (or even some automatic controls where legislation includes precursor clauses).
Alternate Sentencing
In accordance with the harm minimisation approach of the National Drug Strategy 2010-2015 (NDS),
it is important that users of new substances and substances with unknown harms are able to access
appropriate options and are not inadvertently subjected to harsher penalties or more limited options
than users of established drugs. In particular, if new controls are introduced they should maintain
the existing discretion to divert users into alternate sentencing regimes or treatment programs
where available. As with other aspects of the NPS strategy, efforts should be made toward nationally
consistent eligibility criteria.
Harm relative to other drugs
While NPS create new challenges, it is important not to overstate their importance in the wider
context of drug use in Australia. The NDS makes it clear that the drugs that cause the greatest harm
to public health remain alcohol and tobacco. Equally, although individual NPS may be more harmful
than some established illicit drugs, the overall harms of NPS – so far at least – remain slight in
comparison with those of the established illicit drugs, particularly heroin, cocaine and ATS.
While the harms of many of the NPS are yet to be fully established a wide range of potential harms
have been identified. Unless these substances are approved for legitimate use a preventative
approach should be adopted to ensure public safety.
There is also a risk that a lack of response may lead to a large demand market becoming established.
9
Potential interest to organised crime
Supply of NPS to date has been largely driven through personal and online networks. However, due
to the potentially large profits, ease of access and an established user market, there is significant
potential for organised crime to become increasingly involved in the supply and trafficking of NPS.
Particularly as criminal groups know that the risk of identification is low compared to other drugs and
the ambiguity of substances’ legal status can make prosecution challenging. There is already evidence
that organised crime is becoming involved in some supply of NPS. There have been multiple large
scale detections domestically and at the border.
10
4. Guiding principles
Drawing from the issues outlined above, a national response to NPS should be guided by the
following seven guiding principles.
1. Protect Australians: Australia’s national response to NPS must protect Australians from the risks
posed by untested, unknown and potentially harmful products sold through various sources
including shopfronts and the internet.
2. Align with the National Drug Strategy: the response should be based on the principles set out in
the NDS, with the objective of minimising harm through a balanced suite of demand reduction,
supply reduction and harm reduction measures, including but not limited to legislation.
3. Develop appropriate actions: precautionary, preventive and rapid actions as well as harm
minimisation strategies should be used where possible, followed by full harms assessments and
long term controls where appropriate.
4. Use existing frameworks and infrastructure: existing frameworks for controlling illicit drugs and
other dangerous substances, forensic capability, drug and alcohol research capability, and
networks within the drug and alcohol sector provide opportunities for responding in certain
circumstances and should be used wherever possible.
5. Develop an evidence base: a commitment to the development of a solid evidence base to inform
decisions, backed by technical, information and forensic capabilities is vital. Appropriate
monitoring and surveillance processes should be put in place.
6. A commitment to coordination across jurisdictions and sectors: the differing responsibilities and
powers of the Commonwealth relating primarily to identification of harmful substances, border
control and international engagement, and of states and territories relating to domestic controls,
require a cross-jurisdictional commitment to share information, coordinate responses and
achieve legislative and broader policy consistency where possible.
7. Promote clear and agreed information: including appropriate information to the community to
dispel the myth that NPS are safe or legal.
11
5. Elements of a National Response
The national response to NPS is divided into four categories:




establishing a solid evidence base and response capabilities
implementing appropriate legislative responses
raising public awareness, and
increasing national and international coordination.
The following section of this paper deals with each of the four categories and sets out an agreed way
forward.
Given that this is an emerging and complex issue it is not likely that any one approach will prove
sufficient to guarantee public safety. It is therefore important not to consider the responses
canvassed below as competing alternatives to each other, but rather as aspects of a comprehensive
national response.
Some of the elements of this comprehensive national response can be actioned immediately. Others
will be subject to resourcing, policy and legislative processes that will take longer.
Establishing a solid evidence base and response capabilities
1. Detection and identification capability
The rapid expansion and evolution of the NPS market and the substances it involves continues to
challenge the detection capabilities of Australian health and law enforcement agencies and forensic
facilities. This is a critical problem which is faced by all jurisdictions.
Detection and analysis equipment used by front-line police and forensic laboratories are dependent
on Certified Reference Materials (CRMs). This is a key gap in responding to the NPS challenge.
A recent IGCD Cost Shared Funding Model (CSFM) proposal was developed by the Australian Federal
Police (AFP) in consultation with key partners, namely the National Measurement Institute (NMI) and
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS), in order to address the NPS gap. The
proposal has now been endorsed by the Mental Health, Drug and Alcohol Principal Committee
(MHDAPC).
The proposal will facilitate, over a 12 month period, the procurement, certification and distribution of
approximately 170 reference materials through the AFP partnership with the NMI, targeted against
substances currently appearing across Australian jurisdictions. This will assist operational law
enforcement with more timely detection of substances at the border, at domestic street seizures and
in the laboratory.
12
While this proposal will allow Australia’s law enforcement agencies to ‘catch-up’ to the current wave
of NPS, the dynamic nature of the NPS market means that suitable CRMs may not always be
accessible in a timely manner, particularly to meet the demands of intelligence and operational
investigations, or to support potential early warning systems.
In these circumstances, chemical characterisation of the emerging NPS could be supported through a
number of other processes including the use of published peer reviewed data or secondary
standards. The Illicit Drug Specialist Advisory Group (ID-SAG), which is a national group of forensic
representatives responsible for promoting science excellence, is best placed the explore these
options.
There are also a range of initiatives that may assist law enforcement, health and treatment experts to
identify NPS and NPS use. For example, a number of law enforcement agencies use drug screening
devised for the rapid identification of the presence of a controlled substance. However, current
devices have a very limited capability with respect to NPS. This is largely due to the rapid emergence
on new substances and the limited availability of CRMs.
ICGD members agree that:
 Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) play an important role in identifying NPS, and potentially
their metabolites, and need to be kept up-to-date in the face of an evolving drug market.
 The IGCD’s Cost Shared Funding Model proposal to be undertaken by the AFP, which will provide
forensic laboratories with physical samples of CRMs for a number of known NPS, will enhance
agencies’ ability to identify and detect a range of NPS to acceptable scientific standards.
 Given the nature of the NPS market, CRMs may not always be available and jurisdictions should
explore other opportunities to enhance existing forensic capabilities to ensure that they can keep
pace with the introduction on NPS, and to sustain forensic capability at the conclusion of the 12
month IGCD project.
 The Illicit Drug Specialist Advisory Group is best placed to explore options to support the
identification of suspected NPS where CRMs to support chemical characterisation are not
available.
2. A Drug Monitoring System and associated data collection
While there are a number of existing information and data-sharing systems and networks operating
at a jurisdictional, national and international level, there is no consistent national coordination and
accessibility for information regarding emerging substances. Due to the nature of the NPS market,
many substances are initially identified and assessed in other countries before they appear in
Australia, and often appear in some Australian jurisdictions before others. Timely dissemination of
intelligence from all these sources could increase the speed and accuracy of responses and reduce
duplication of effort and unnecessary cost.
13
Existing information sharing mechanisms
South Australia, New South Wales and Western Australia have established interagency working
groups, consisting of representatives from law enforcement, health, forensics and policy. These
groups meet regularly to discuss NPS and provide advice to stakeholders through various means. In
addition to these formal information-sharing networks, jurisdictions also have informal networks,
both within and across agencies, for disseminating relevant information relating to NPS. For
example, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia provide regular updates on NPS
through published newsletters and bulletins.
On a national and international level, data on NPS from various Australian projects is collected and
collated to inform a number of reports, including the Australian Crime Commission’s Illicit Drug Data
Report and the UNODC’s World Drug Report.
A number of national committees and advisory bodies have been established to progress health and
law enforcement issues related illicit drugs and NPS, in support of the pillars of the National Drug
Strategy 2010-2015. These include the National Policing Senior Officers Group (NPSOG) and the
Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management (SCPEM), but also:

Australian Government Drug Officers Group (AGDOG);

Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD);

Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs (IGCD);
The majority of these national committees or advisory bodies consist of representatives from
Commonwealth, State and Territory law enforcement and/or health agencies. Other advisors, for
example technical advisors in the form of forensic experts, may be invited as required.
Informal reporting also takes place through the Illicit Drug Specialist Advisory Group (ID-SAG), as well
as the transnational Clandestine Laboratory Investigating Chemists (CLIC) Association and the
Scientific Working Group for the Analysis of Seized drugs (SWGDRUG).
Further information on existing systems and networks are set out in Appendix A.
At a minimum, information and data sharing on NPS would be improved if each jurisdiction
established a formal interagency working group to facilitate this sharing. The membership would
need to include representatives from law enforcement agencies, forensic laboratories, health and
policy departments. The role of each working group will be to discuss and prioritise the response to
NPS within each jurisdiction. Responses may vary depending on the category or ‘tier’ rating of each
NPS, with possible thresholds to be determined based on number of overdoses or identifications (i.e.
internet forums, health services, forensic laboratories).
The prioritisation and relevant responses to NPS, identified within each jurisdiction, would feed into
discussion at the national level in order to enhance inter-jurisdictional collaboration. A key focus of
the national committee should be to coordinate jurisdictional responses and identify avenues for
further investigation. The committee will draw upon existing networks, including research
institutions, in order to develop an informed national response for consideration by relevant decision
14
makers. This may be in the form of a Joint Report with relevant jurisdictions or research institutions,
and should be made available to key stakeholders.
Drug Monitoring System (DMS)
The Commonwealth will develop an online database, which will contain relevant unclassified
reporting and information relating to the identification of NPS. It will make use of existing
intelligence sharing networks and information sources from around Australia and internationally
where possible, and make intelligence available to relevant agencies. The database would provide a
secure source of information regarding new psychoactive substances including such things as their
chemical data, formal nomenclature and geographic distribution. Provisions can also be made for
appropriate health authorities to upload data on harms. The system would ideally be an automated
secure access IT system which would provide an updatable database and alert/message service, and
enable stakeholder contributions from all jurisdictions. The DMS should not be viewed as a
replacement for existing systems and networks. It should complement and provide an additional
avenue for sharing information. The database will be available to key stakeholders via secure log in.
The usefulness of such a system will depend upon the size of the evidence base it is able to draw
upon. Agreement will be required regarding terminology, classification and data collection.
Engagement with international systems and with border and domestic detections and healthcare
presentations will all add value, but may incur costs.
Some of the key considerations in developing the DMS are set out at Appendix B.
IGCD members agree that:
 Timely dissemination and sharing of intelligence will increase the speed and accuracy of responses
to NPS and reduce duplication of effort and unnecessary cost.
 Jurisdictions should establish standing arrangements to share information between law
enforcement, forensic, health and policy agencies and discuss and prioritise the jurisdictional
response to NPS.
 A comprehensive arrangement to share information relating to NPS between jurisdictions should
be developed.
 The Commonwealth’s proposed Drug Monitoring System, which will contain relevant unclassified
reporting and information relating to the identification of NPS, will usefully complement existing
information-sharing systems.
15
3. Harms assessments
Harms assessments are a vital part of the evidence base for consistent, effective and appropriate
controls, and in many cases are required before controls can be introduced for new substances.
While many jurisdictions have existing frameworks in place there is a lack of coordination and
communication between these, and opportunities exist to increase efficiencies and responsiveness
on a national scale. National cooperation and information sharing would enhance efficiency and the
assessments could then provide the basis of nationally consistent decisions on the long-term
regulation of a substance if necessary. Once harm assessments have been completed, the drug
monitoring system could provide a means for this information sharing, with relevant data
contributed by appropriate experts. Other existing frameworks, such as the Therapeutic Goods
Administration and the Food Standards, may provide useful models or may be appropriate channels
to assess some substances relevant to them.
IGCD members agree that:
 Responses requiring the inclusion, or analysis, of health and/or social risks should be developed by
Commonwealth Health and/or jurisdictional health department with relevant expertise.
 A comprehensive national framework for prioritising and sharing information on harms
assessments should be developed.
Legislative responses
4. Rapid response laws
The rate of appearance of new, potentially harmful substances is too rapid for full harms assessment
processes and long term legislative responses alone to respond. Rapid response mechanisms are
required which can adapt quickly to newly identified NPS which carry a significant risk of harm. Such
mechanisms should operate on the principle of precautionary community safety. These mechanisms
should operate in parallel with any broader precautionary scheme to ban substances based on their
psychoactive effect, and are aimed at criminalising specific substances of significant concern. The
drug monitoring and early warning system would provide an important source of evidence for such
responses by linking domestic and international jurisdictions.
Some jurisdictions already have mechanisms in place to allow emergency, temporary scheduling to
be used where a significant risk of harm from a newly identified substance exists, and some have
recently introduced legislation creating such mechanisms. Some jurisdictions list entire classes of
compounds which can assist by controlling new variations of substances.
IGCD members agree that:
 The ability to carry out emergency or temporary scheduling of NPS where their long term health
effects are not known is a key mechanism in protecting the public from potentially harmful
substances.
16
 Jurisdictions should ensure that they have enacted appropriate emergency or temporary
scheduling provisions. Jurisdictions should aim for national consistency in emergency or
temporary scheduling provisions.
 Jurisdictions should communicate scheduling actions and proposed actions to each other.
 A comprehensive arrangement to share information between jurisdictions relating to emergency
or temporary scheduling decisions should be developed.
5. Uniform treatment of drug analogues
Harmonised definition of ‘drug analogue’
There is no nationally-agreed definition for a ‘drug analogue’. This creates a loophole that is
exploited by organised criminal groups and complicates the work of forensic chemists and
prosecutors.
The most common criticism of analogue clauses is that they lack clarity and do not provide sufficient
certainty as required by criminal law. Both in the US where a broad analogue definition is in use, and
in the UK where such a clause was being considered, concerns were raised over the expense of
prosecuting, disputes between experts over which substances were controlled and a lack of certainty
for defendants over whether an offence had been committed.1
At the 2013 Drug Analogue Workshop, hosted by the AFP and the Australia New Zealand Policing
Advisory Agency National Institute of Forensic Science (ANZPAA NIFS), there was general agreement
that the analogue clauses in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (section 301.9) provided a
good basis to develop a model definition of ‘drug analogue’. The ‘drug analogue’ definition is based
on chemical structure and complements other control mechanisms based on similar ‘pharmacological
effect’. These clauses provide wide coverage and have been applied successfully for the control of
drug analogues seized by the AFP. A uniform definition for ’drug analogue’ was agreed by all IDSAG
attendees, who represented each state and territory’s Forensic Science laboratory , and is set out at
Appendix C.
In early 2013 Queensland amended its Drugs Misuse Act 1986 to expand the definition of dangerous
drug to include substances which have similar chemical structure or pharmacological effect to
dangerous drugs, as well as substances intended to have a similar pharmacological effect.2 The
Government of Victoria is currently considering a bill to update the State analogue clause along these
provisions3.
IGCD members agree that:
1
King, Nutt et al., Analogue Controls: An Imperfect Law, (2012) UK Drug Policy Commission - Briefing
Note
2 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (QLD), S4 .
3 Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment Bill 2013 (VIC)
17

Drug analogue provisions, which expand the coverage of controls on illicit substances to include
substances with similar chemical structures, are crucial in ensuring that harmful substances are
banned and that controls are not easily circumvented.

Jurisdictions should aim for national consistency in definitions of drug analogues, including
considering using the model definition set out in Appendix C.
6. Consumer protection laws
Under the Competition and Consumer Act, interim bans of up to 90 days may be imposed on
consumer products by a state or territory Minister where the goods will or may cause injury to a
person. The relevant Commonwealth Minister can impose nationwide interim bans, which can last
up to 120 days, or permanent bans.
In June 2013 NSW introduced an interim ban on the sale and supply of 19 synthetic drug products,
listed by the trade names under which they were being sold. The NSW actions were in response to
growing concerns of the dangers of emerging drugs following the widely reported drug related death
of a NSW teenager in June 2013, and a report of the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Law Reform
Issues Regarding Synthetic Drugs, released on 30 May 2013.
On 16 June 2013, the then Commonwealth Assistant Treasurer announced a national interim ban on
the sale of a range of dangerous synthetic drug products and substances, including NBOMe to
provide opportunity for states including NSW to update their drugs and poisons legislation to align
with the Commonwealth SUSMP to control NPS.
On 7 October 2013 NSW amended its drug laws to automatically control substances listed in
Schedule 9 of the Poisons Standard (otherwise known as the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of
Medicines and Poisons (SUSMP)), including NBOMe. The Commonwealth national consumer ban
gave NSW authorities the scope to act quickly to address the threat posed by harmful NPS while their
legislation was updated.
The interim national consumer protection ban expired on 13 October 2013. As it had served its
purpose in providing coverage for states and territories to align legislation with the Commonwealth
Poisons Standard, the Commonwealth Minister for Small Business decided not to make the ban
permanent.
18
IGCD members agree that:

Consumer protection bans are just one of a number of ways to control the sale of NPS.

While these consumer protection laws may offer a rapid response option, NPS are more
appropriately controlled through drug legislation administered by health and law enforcement
agencies.

Long term consumer product bans based solely on product or “street” names have limited utility.
7.
Other existing laws.
Existing laws controlling illicit drugs domestically may provide an appropriate response to certain NPS
where sufficient evidence of harms exists.
Given the rapid emergence of NPS it is also necessary for legislative approaches to keep the list of
controlled substances up to date. In relation to this, it is important that States and Territories
reference the recommendations from the SUSMP or else regularly update lists to include particular
substances and/or chemical classes of substances (such as the chemical classes of synthetic
cannabinoids listed in the SUSMP) which have undergone the rigorous harms assessment process
required for substances to be listed in a schedule of the SUSMP.
In addition to laws which specifically control illicit drugs at the border and domestically, there may be
other existing laws which could be used to reduce the supply, use and harms of NPS. Other relevant
laws could also be used to protect the public, such as laws relating to labelling, marketing and supply.
Where sufficient evidence exists that substances present a relevant risk of harm to the public, or the
substance otherwise meets the threshold criteria for listing existing laws controlling illicit drugs
should be used.
IGCD members agree that:

Keeping lists of controlled substances up to date is critical in ensuring that substances known to
be harmful are subject to appropriate controls and restrictions.

Where they have not already done so, jurisdictions should consider processes to automatically
update controls on substances in line with the Commonwealth Standard for the Uniform
Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons.
8.
A Broad Precautionary Psychoactive Substances Control Scheme
Due to the number and rate of emergence of NPS, controls on specific substances will always lag
behind. NPS which have been neither controlled as illicit drugs nor authorised by other regulatory
regimes, such as food standards or therapeutic goods, will be present in the community.
The outcome is the rapid expansion of products containing psychoactive substances being sold and
supplied to Australian consumers. While being supplied for their psychoactive properties, these
products have a potential for harm but have not been subjected to a process demonstrating fitness
19
for human consumption. While some products may come with advice that they are not for human
consumption, they are marketed as having psychoactive properties.
With so many unknown substances on the market, and more emerging all the time, it is not feasible
for lawmakers to specifically prohibit every harmful substance in a timely manner, nor is it possible
for law enforcement to recognise, identify or prove that suspect substances are in fact controlled by
law.
The responses adopted in Ireland and New Zealand prohibit unknown psychoactive substances unless
the seller can prove that they are in fact a substance which is permitted under a law or is otherwise
subject to an exception.
The Commonwealth is currently developing a border control scheme to ban the import of NPS
without authorisation. Such a scheme would be in addition to existing laws controlling illicit drugs,
and would be intended to cover gaps in existing controls. This would not result in the removal of
current criminal sanctions. Rather it would provide some measure of community protection against
unknown substances which are not otherwise controlled, and where, for lack of evidence and
certainty, criminal penalties for possession may not be appropriate.
Ireland
Ireland has introduced the Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010 which makes it an
offence to sell, import, export or advertise psychoactive substances. This scheme has a focus on
community safety and seizure of suspicious substances, and has no possession offences. For
community safety, some ability to seize small amounts from users may be required.
Psychoactive substances are defined broadly, along with a list of exceptions for medicines, tobacco,
alcoholic beverages, approved food, controlled drugs or other substances specified by Ministerial
order. This enables the scheme to distinguish between products such as petrol, which may have a
psychoactive property if inhaled but sold/supplied for other purposes, and products which are
sold/supplied for the product’s psychoactive properties. Ireland has found that this scheme has
reduced shopfront sales of NPS, but online NPS sales remain a problem.
New Zealand
The New Zealand scheme, which came into force in August 2013, is similar but adds a new permit
scheme under which a sponsor may pay for a harms assessment for a new psychoactive substance
and attempt to prove that the product is safe. If the substance is assessed as having a low risk of
harm it will be granted a permit for sale in New Zealand, subject to conditions. This assessment
scheme is modelled on existing schemes applied to therapeutic goods. A possible downside of the
New Zealand approach is that it may result in substances being approved for sale for no other
purpose than recreational psychoactive use. On the other hand, this may reduce the introduction of
more harmful drugs onto an uncontrolled black market, and allow point of sale and other controls to
be placed on relatively safe substances.
Further information about the schemes in Ireland and New Zealand are set out at Appendix D.
Issues for Australia
Australia’s constitutional arrangements mean that the Commonwealth and the states and territories
are responsible for different aspects of controlling NPS. The Commonwealth is primarily responsible
20
for regulating the importation of NPS and the assessment and scheduling of prohibited substances on
the Commonwealth Poisons Standard by the Health Minister’s delegate. The states and territories
are primarily responsible for regulating the manufacture, supply and advertisement of these
substances. It is therefore vital that the Commonwealth, states and territories consider
complementary legislation to ban the importation, sale, manufacture or advertising of NPS without a
legitimate use. Administration of these schemes will require the co-operation of both law
enforcement and health agencies, as well as the support of relevant industries.
A broad, non-substance-specific control scheme for psychoactive substances could take a number of
different approaches. A key issue is whether there is a preference for the basic safety net approach
taken by Ireland, which seeks to ban potentially dangerous products sold for their psychoactive
properties once consumed and which are not otherwise controlled by existing laws, or for the New
Zealand approach which extends this by introducing a new approval scheme for psychoactive
substances which would not otherwise be approved under existing approvals schemes.
Some jurisdictions have already moved to implement broad precautionary schemes.
The Commonwealth is developing options for a precautionary scheme to control NPS at the border.
The proposed approach is to ban the importation of substances that have a psychoactive effect and
that do not have a legitimate use, in a manner similar to the Irish scheme.
On 7 October 2013, New South Wales implemented legislation that bans the manufacture, supply
and advertisement of all substances with a psychoactive effect unless they have a legitimate use,
such as a food or therapeutic good. There are penalties of up to two years imprisonment, more than
$2,000 in fines or both for the manufacture, supply or advertisement of NPS. In many respects, this
legislation is similar to the Irish scheme.
On 25 September 2013, South Australia introduced a Bill to ban the manufacture and promotion of
substances with similar pharmacological effects to controlled drugs or which are to be presented as
legal alternatives to those drugs. The Bill includes penalties of up to four years imprisonment,
$15,000 in fines or both.
Other approaches, such as expanding analogue definitions discussed above, may also extend existing
illicit drug controls to a broad range of new substances. Jurisdictions should, however, consider
whether the full penalties for illicit drugs should apply to substances whose potential harm is often
unknown.
IGCD members agree that:

The development of a national precautionary scheme to control NPS at the border will help to
address the problem and respond to emerging drug markets.

To deal with the rapid rate of emergence of NPS, jurisdictions should consider implementing
broad precautionary schemes to ban potentially harmful substances without a legitimate use or
which are designed to mimic illicit drugs.

Jurisdictions should work together to ensure that their schemes to control NPS are
complementary and there are no regulatory gaps.
21

To assist in building an evidence base about the structure and potential harms of NPS,
jurisdictions should consider whether any broad precautionary schemes to control NPS should
also include mechanisms to allow law enforcement to seize NPS in the possession of individuals.
Raising Public Awareness
9
Developing agreed terminology
To avoid confusion in cross-jurisdictional and public discussion, consistent terminology should be
used. This paper recommends the use of the term new psychoactive substances (NPS) to refer to the
substances at issue, as this is the terminology used in many other countries and the United Nations
drug control bodies. This term does not risk the potential ambiguities of other terms such as
‘analogues’ or ‘synthetics’, which, while overlapping with NPS, have different scopes. The term NPS
also avoids the misleading message carried by terms such as ‘legal highs’ or ‘party pills’.
Other neutral terminology is in current use to describe this group of substances, including “emerging
psychoactive substances”, “novel psychoactive substances” and “research chemicals”. However,
given its adaptation by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the European Monitoring
Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, the phrase “new psychoactive substances” should be preferred
for consistency.
In addition, it is important that wherever possible consistent terminology is used in discussing broad
types or categories of NPS. This is essential to support clear policy and technical discussions and to
help inform community education, as discussed below.
IGCD members agree that:
 In most instances, the term “new psychoactive substances” should be used in official
correspondence and messaging, to ensure consistency with language used by major
international sources of information on these drugs. Terminology should be developed to
consistently and clearly describe the categories of NPS to support clear policy and technical
discussions.
10
Public awareness and education
There is a lack of public awareness about the nature and risks of NPS and a number of
misunderstandings in the community about NPS, including some public perceptions of NPS as a safe
alternative to illicit drugs. In this respect there is a potential role for government and nongovernment organisations to disseminate information about the health and safety risks from misuse
of these substances. However any efforts to raise awareness of NPS need to be balanced against the
imperative of doing no harm. In particular public awareness efforts must not inadvertently promote
new products or the pathways by which they can be accessed, and must not confound existing
confusion about their legality and safety. There is international and Australian evidence that some
past attempts to raise awareness of NPS have been counterproductive.
22
While prevalence of use appears to remain relatively low, these substances have attracted new drug
user groups through their visibility on the internet and availability from sources not traditionally
associated with illicit drug supply. Suppliers often mislead the public about the contents, origin,
effects and safety of NPS. Most NPS products contain untested, unregulated substances of uncertain
origin or composition, but which may be perceived to be safe because of purported legality and
claims of natural origin of ingredients.
This is compounded by the dangers associated with the variability of NPS substances. The potency of
NPS products in the marketplace may vary from batch to batch, making the effects unpredictable and
accurate doses difficult to control. Some NPS have the potential to cause effect in much smaller
doses than traditional drugs, heightening the risk of adverse events, including overdose.
Public education strategies must serve to dismantle popular misconceptions that NPS are a legal, safe
alternative to existing controlled drugs. It should be reinforced that individuals taking substances
which purport to have psychoactive properties can never be confident of what they contain and are
always putting their health and safety at risk.
A further challenge remains in communicating information on NPS to the public. In the first instance,
governments must resolve to convey agreed messages using clear terminology. Nationally consistent
messaging is essential not only for educating individuals but also informing the responses of health
professionals, service providers and the wider community. There should also be agreement on ways
to avert increasing public interest in NPS through public awareness, including for example, avoidance
of terms such as 'legal highs'. Opportunities to cooperate with the media and non-government
sector should also be explored to encourage appropriate reporting and to avoid, for example,
promoting information on internet pathways through which to access NPS.
This level of
cooperation, particularly at a jurisdictional or local level will also be important in the event that there
is a need to swiftly communicate the dangers of new substances as they emerge, and/or to respond
to particular local trends or availability problems.
Efforts to advance appropriate and accurate public awareness of NPS and their risks should build
upon existing communication methods targeting illicit drugs, such as the National Drugs Campaign,
which is part of the Australian Government’s contribution to the National Drug Strategy.
Complementary campaigns at the jurisdictional level can help augment National Drug Campaign
messages by responding to local priorities.
Harms assessments, based on available data may be used to inform the development of public
awareness and education campaigns.
IGCD members agree that:

Key public awareness messages about NPS should include the facts that these substances are
not legal alternatives to prohibited drugs, they are of unknown composition and purity, the
effects can be highly variable between batches and individuals and far from being safe, they can
expose people to harms associated with physiological reactions, overdose and erratic
behaviour.

Given the variability of the drug market in different states and territories, local public
awareness messaging may need to vary to accommodate local circumstances.
23
Increased national and international coordination
11
Better coordination between jurisdictions
Any inconsistencies between the controls in different jurisdictions can be exploited by suppliers of
NPS.
While local factors will mean complete legislative consistency is challenging, coordination and
communication are vital tools for authorities. Without timely communication between jurisdictions
regarding changes it can be difficult to develop consistent controls and to maintain situational
awareness for those involved in education, policy and enforcement.
The IGCD provides a suitable forum for such communication. Other relevant agencies and networks,
such as the departments of the state and territory Attorneys-General, should also be involved.
IGCD members agree that:
 The IGCD plays a key role in bringing together officers from Commonwealth, State and Territory
Health, law enforcement and justice agencies to discuss how to work together to address issues
surrounding NPS.
 The IGCD should continue to draw upon the expertise of agencies outside the IGCD membership
when those agencies have an integral role in addressing a particular aspect of the NPS problem.
12
International Engagement
The international nature of this emerging market presents opportunities for governments to share
strategies, information and resources with other countries and international bodies. Most NPS first
come to the notice of authorities in one jurisdiction before then spreading to others. Information
sharing can increase Australia’s responsiveness and the resources we can draw upon, as well as
aiding source and transit countries in applying effective controls. Through engagement with bodies
such as the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Australia can encourage increased data
collection and support measures such as greater controls in source and transit countries.
The Australian Government has been pursuing an active program of action at the international level
with organisations such as the United National Office on Drugs and Crime and the Commission on
Narcotic Drugs, and with individual countries. This includes information sharing and engagement at
operational and policy levels, and in future should provide added information for the drug monitoring
system through engagement with similar systems in Europe, the UK and the UN.
ICGD members agree that:
 Australia should maintain international engagement on NPS issues.
24
 Agencies should continue to cooperate, both operationally and on policy responses, with overseas
partners to respond to NPS.
25
Appendix A: Current systems/networks for
sharing information on NPS
Current Systems and Networks - Australia
Agency / Jurisdiction
System / Network
Illicit Drug Data Report (IDDR)
Internet Monitoring Initiative
Australian Crime Commission (ACC)
Organised Crime Assessment
Waste Water Initiative
Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA)
Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC)
Waste Water Initiative
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC)
Commonwealth Department of Health
Drugs and the Internet Project (DNET)
Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System
(EDRS)
Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS)
National Illicit Drugs Indicator Project (NIDIP)
National Drug Research Institute (NDRI)
National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction
(NCETA)
Australian Government Drug Officials Group (AGDOG)
Commonwealth Poisons Standard (SUSMP)
New South Wales
NPS Working Group
Queensland
Forensic and Scientific Services Newsletter – The Buzz
South Australia
South Australia Drug Early Warning System (SADEWS)
Western Australia
Western Australia Emerging Psychoactive Substances
Review Group
26
Australia
Drug Use Monitoring Australia (DUMA)
DUMA is a project which seeks to measure drug use among those people who have been recently
apprehended by police. Data from DUMA is used to examine issues such as the relationship between
drugs and property and violent crime, monitor patterns of drug use across time, and help assess the
need for drug treatment amongst the offender population. The DUMA program is a partnership
between the AIC, State Police Services and local researchers. DUMA is an invaluable aid to
community planning, monitoring, and resource allocation and represents an important source of data
for state and federal policymakers. Data collected through DUMA sites provides a research and
evaluation tool for local analysts, policymakers and practitioners.
Drugs and the Internet (DNET)
This project provides analysis of trends over time in the availability and type of substances sold via
the internet to Australia, through the monitoring of both the surface web and deep web (i.e. Silk
Road).
Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) and Ecstasy and Related Drug System (EDRS)
The IDRS is a national illicit drug monitoring system intended to serve as a strategic early warning
system, identifying emerging trends of local and national concern in illicit drug markets. The IDRS
monitors the price, purity, availability and patterns of use of heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine,
cannabis and ecstasy and related drugs.
National Illicit Drugs Indicator Project (NIDIP)
The aim of NIDIP is to provide epidemiological data on trends over time in drug-related harms, to
complement other Australian monitoring systems such as the IDRS and EDRS, and to improve the
understanding of, and systematically track changes in, drug-related harms for both illicit and
prescription drugs.
Waste Water Analysis (WWA)
Chemists can now quantify a wide variety of substances in wastewater (i.e. sewage) including those
associated with illicit drug consumption. The method has been used to measure drug use in Europe,
North America and Australia and to compare drug use across different cities and time periods. Unlike
the drug monitoring systems that provide person centric data, WWA is population-based and cannot
provide person level information on individuals’ drug consumption, including frequency of use or
polydrug use. However, WWA can efficiently provide reliable, objective chemical data on drugs of
major concern to the community—in both small and very large population groups (potentially
hundreds of thousands of people).
27
Current Systems and Networks – International
Agency / Jurisdiction
System / Network
European Drug Report
Risk Assessments
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and
Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)
Joint Reports (Europol)
European Information System and Database on New
Drugs (EDND)
Global Drug Survey
International Reporting
United Kingdom (UK)
Forensic Early Warning System (FEWS)
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC)
Early Warning Advisory (EWA) on NPS
United States (US) Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA)
World Drug Report
Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN)
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)
Behavioural Health Services Information System (BHSIS)
European Union (EU)
When EU Member States receive information regarding a NPS, detailed information is forwarded to
the European Police Office (Europol) and to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug
Addiction (EMCDDA).
If Europol and EMCDDA consider that the information provided by the Member States on a NPS
merits further collection and analysis, this information is presented in the form of a Europol-EMCDDA
Joint report, which include information regarding the chemical and physical description, associated
product names, frequency and patterns of use, how it is manufactured and sold, characteristics of
users, health and social risks, current legal status, and whether it is under assessment in other
jurisdictions.
After considering the Joint Report, the council may request a risk assessment of the health and social
risks, caused by the use of, the manufacture of, and traffic in, a NPS, the involvement of organised
crime and possible consequences of control measures.
The EMCDDA also operates a closed online database for information sharing called the EDND
(European information system and database on new drugs) to facilitate the process described above.
28
United Kingdom (UK)
In 2011, the UK began its Forensic Early Warning System (FEWS).4 FEWS collects samples of NPS from
the internet, store fronts, music festivals (using on-site laboratories to test police-seized drugs), other
police seizures and customs seizures, and analyses their content in order to determine which NPS are
available for use in the UK.
United Nations (UN)
In March 2013, the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs resolved to enhance international
cooperation in the identification and reporting of new psychoactive substances.5 Australia was
among a large number of countries to sign onto this resolution. Member States are encouraged to
take a coordinated approach to detection, analysis and identification of NPS, to collect health harms
information, and to take a proactive approach to detection and testing by obtaining products and
monitoring emerging trends in their use and harms. The resolution urged international collaboration
and coordination of these efforts.
Independent Organisation – Global Drug Survey
The Global Drug Survey (GDS) conducts an annual online questionnaire that monitors alcohol and
other drug use, harms and market characteristics. GDS is an independent organisation that does not
rely upon external funding. GDS specifically asks about new and emerging psychoactive substances
(patterns of use and harm and market characteristics) and use of the internet to purchase drugs.
While the sampling methodology means that results cannot be generalised, the GDS has proven
useful due to its quick turn-around time of about 4 months from survey to results dissemination, and
its capacity to recruit relatively large samples of people who use obscure or new drugs, enabling first
assessments of NPS to be conducted.
4
Home Office. (2013). Annual Report on the Home Office Forensic Early Warning System (FEWS).
London: Home Office.
5 Commission on Narcotic Drugs. (2013). Enhancing international cooperation in the identification and
reporting of new psychoactive substances (No. E/CN.7/2013/L.2/Rev.1): Fifty-sixth session.
Vienna, 11-15 March 2013
29
Appendix B: Drug Monitoring System, Issues
for consideration
Developed by the working group on a proposed Drug
Monitoring/Early Warning System
1. Bearing in mind the need to ensure the information contained within the DMS is available to
all relevant stakeholders, any decision regarding the progression of the DMS will need to
consider the variance in levels of security clearance within and across organisations. In order
to overcome this issue, consideration needs to be given to limiting the DMS to unclassified
material. Should there be a requirement for classified material; consideration needs be given
to scoping the feasibility of developing a closed online database, similar to the EDND
maintained by the EMCDDA.
2. Information regarding NPS should complement the information provided to the
Commonwealth Department of Health (Health) via a number of sponsored projects, allowing
Health to develop appropriate public awareness and education campaigns, where relevant,
on this issue.
3. The DMS will enable information sharing for the forensic and law enforcement analysis of
NPS. While the system may not initially capture other information around NPS, such as health
and trade information, the model could be used as a basis for sharing data on NPS that other
portfolios may wish to develop in the future.
4. Responses requiring the inclusion, or analysis, of health and/or social risks should be
developed by Commonwealth Health and/or jurisdictional health department with relevant
expertise.
5. Where possible, the development of a DMS should make use of existing networks and
systems across Australia and internationally, noting the formal systems established in NSW,
SA and WA.
6. There needs to be an analytical component to the DMS, whereby the material is collated and
assessed, used to inform an understanding of the market and appropriate responses, and
identify vulnerabilities and sources of threat.
30
Appendix C – Proposal for a uniform
definition of drug analogue
The proposal for a uniform definition for the term “drug analogue” is presented along with an
explanation of restrictions and issues with the existing analogue clauses of the Commonwealth
Criminal Code Act 1995 in the following three sections:

Section 1: Explanation of the existing analogue clauses of the Commonwealth Criminal Code
Act 1995 (Sections 314.1(2) and 314.4(2))

Section 2: Potential issues / restrictions with the existing clauses and reasons for making
adjustments for the general definition

Section 3: Proposed general definition for ’drug analogue’
31
Section 1: Explanation of the existing analogue clauses -Commonwealth
Criminal Code Act 1995
Sections 314.1(2) and 314.4(2)
32
Section 2: Potential issues / restrictions with the existing clauses
(2) A substance is a controlled drug6 if the substance (the drug analogue) is, in relation to a
controlled drug listed in subsection (1)7 (or a stereoisomer, a structural isomer (with the same
constituent groups) or an alkaloid of such a controlled drug):8
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
a stereoisomer; or
a structural isomer having the same constituent groups; or
an alkaloid;9 or
a structural modification obtained by the addition10 of one or more of the following groups:
(i) alkoxy, cyclic diether, acyl, acyloxy, mono-amino or dialkylamino groups with up to 6 carbon
atoms in any alkyl residue;11
(ii) alkyl, alkenyl or alkynyl groups with up to 6 carbon atoms in the group, where the group is
attached to oxygen (for example, an ester or an ether group), nitrogen, sulphur or carbon; 12
(iii) halogen, hydroxy, nitro or amino groups;13or14
(e) a structural modification obtained in one or more of the following ways:
(i) by the replacement of up to 2 carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring structures with different
carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring structures;
(ii) by the addition of hydrogen atoms to one or more unsaturated bonds;
(iii) by the replacement of one or more of the groups specified in paragraph (d) with another such
group or groups;
(iv) by the conversion of a carboxyl or an ester group into an amide group;15 or
(f) otherwise a homologue,16analogue,17chemical derivative18 or substance substantially similar in
chemical structure;19 however obtained, except where the drug analogue is separately listed in
subsection (1).
The Criminal Code Act 1995 uses the terms “controlled drug” (Section 314.1(2)) or “border controlled drug”
(Section 314.4(2)). These terms will need to be adjusted to match the terminology used in the particular State /
Territory legislation. For the purposes of the proposed general definition, the term “drug” has been used.
7 This refers to the list of controlled or border controlled drugs. This will need to be adjusted to match the
terminology used in the particular State / Territory legislation. For the purposes of the proposed general
definition, the term “listed drug” has been used.
8 The text in brackets is redundant – e.g. a stereoisomer of a listed drug is itself a drug analogue under Section
2)a). No need to list stereoisomers of stereoisomers.
9 The term “alkaloid” in this context is ambiguous.
10 The term “addition” may cause confusion with an “addition reaction”. Also, addition of any one of these groups
typically requires the replacement of an existing atom or group from the molecule (generally a hydrogen atom).
For the purposes of the proposed general definition, this has been reworded to allow the “replacement” of any
group for another such group and “hydrogen atom” has been added as one of the listed groups.
11 “carbonyl” and “carboxylic acid” groups have been added to this list in the proposed general definition
12 This clause has been moved to apply to all the groups that can be replaced in the proposed general definition.
Also, phosphorus (although and unlikely addition to a drug molecule) has been added to ensure wide
coverage.
13 “hydrogen atom” has been added to this list in the proposed general definition
14 The use of the word “or” here limits the types of modifications that can be made to either those listed in
subsection d) OR those listed in subsection e). For the purposes of the proposed general definition, this has
been changed to “and/or” to allow changes that satisfy one clause or the other as well as changes that require
BOTH clauses.
15 Clauses e iii) and iv) are redundant given the changes in the proposed general definition. These types of
modifications are now captures in earlier clauses.
16 The term “homologue” has been retained in the proposed general definition
17 The term “analogue” in this context is ambiguous and self-referential and has been removed in the proposed
general definition.
18The term “chemical derivative” may be interpreted differently and therefore,to avoid ambiguity, a definition for
chemical derivative has been added to the proposed general definition Section (d).
19 The term “substantially similar” is ambiguous and has been removed in the proposed general definition.
6
33
Section 3: Proposed general definition for “drug analogue”
A substance is a drug if the substance (the drug analogue) is, in relation to a listed drug:
(a) a stereoisomer; or
(b)
a structural isomer having the same constituent groups; or
(c)
a homologue; or
(d)
a chemical derivative formed by a chemical process (for example, conversion of a
carboxylic acid to an ester or an amine to an amide); or
(e)
a structural modification obtained by the replacement of one or more of the
following groups with another such group or groups:
(i)
alkoxy, cyclic diether, carbonyl, acyl, carboxylic acid, acyloxy, monoalkylamino or di-alkylamino groups with up to 6 carbon atoms in any alkyl
residue;
(ii)
alkyl, alkenyl or alkynyl groups with up to 6 carbon atoms in the group;
(iii)
hydrogen atom, halogen, hydroxy, nitro or amino groups;
where the group is attached to oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus or carbon;
and/or
(f)
a structural modification obtained in one or more of the following ways:
(i)
by the replacement of up to 2 carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring structures
with up to 2 different carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring structures;
(ii)
by the addition of hydrogen atoms to one or more unsaturated bonds;
however obtained, except where the drug analogue is separately listed in subsection
[Insert relevant reference to drug list].
34
Appendix D: NPS Regulatory Options:
International Models
New Zealand
The New Zealand Government has implemented a new regulatory regime which will require the
supplier or manufacturer of a new psychoactive substance to prove that the substance causes no
harm to an individual or the community before Government will grant permission to import,
manufacture or sell the substance as a legal product.
The Psychoactive Substances Act20 commenced in July 2013. The scheme bans new psychoactive
substances which have not been proven to be safe by their supplier or manufacturer, and regulate
those which are shown to be low risk through labelling, content, and retail restrictions. There is
currently a transitional period between the Act’s commencement and when Psychoactive Substances
Regulations are in place, this is expected to be later in 2013. During the transitional period product
owners and businesses had 28 days from when the Act commences to apply for interim product
approvals and licences.
Under this scheme a significant administrative fee is expected to be charged for each assessment.21
The Act includes provisions for:

A regulatory authority within the Health Ministry to
o
consider and approve or decline psychoactive substances
o
issue a manufacturing code of practice
o
issue importation, manufacturing and sale licences
o
conduct post-marketing monitoring, audit and recall functions

Establish an expert advisory committee to provide the authority with technical advice

Set offences and penalties under the Bill, including up to two years’ imprisonment for some
offences, and fines of up to $500,000

Restrict sale of products to those under 18, and place restrictions and prohibitions on places of
sale; and

Establish an appeals committee.22
The aim of this scheme is to have a regulated market of legally available low risk psychoactive
substances.
20NZ
Regulation - Psychoactive Substances
See NZ Cabinet Paper and Regulatory Impact Statment (RIS).
22 See Annex 1: NZ Health Media Release
21
35
New Zealand has noted that the potential for inconsistencies in the approval of substances between
New Zealand and Australia could raise issues due to the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997
which could require specific exclusions by either nation if desired.23
Ireland
In August 2010, Ireland introduced the Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010.24 This
Act essentially makes it an offence to sell, import, export or advertise psychoactive substances.
This act uses a broad definition of psychoactive substance combined with a list of exceptions, as
follows :
“psychoactive substance” means a substance, product, preparation, plant, fungus or natural
organism which has, when consumed by a person, the capacity to—
(a) produce stimulation or depression of the central nervous system of the person, resulting
in hallucinations or a significant disturbance in, or significant change to, motor function,
thinking, behaviour, perception, awareness or mood, or
(b) cause a state of dependence, including physical or psychological addiction;25
The Act then specifies that it will not apply to medicines, tobacco, alcoholic beverages, approved
food, controlled drugs or other substances specified by Ministerial order.26
This approach has had some success in closing down many ‘head shops’ (shopfronts selling tobacco
and drug smoking paraphernalia), which had previously been a prominent feature of the Irish NPS
market. However, a 2011 review of the Irish situation noted that the online sale of NPS, with postal
distribution, remained a problem.27
23
See RIS, p26.
Statute Book
25Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010 (Ireland), Section 1 ‘Interpretation’.
26Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010 (Ireland), Section 2 ‘Exclusions from
application of Act’.
27 An Overview of New Psychoactive Substances and the Outlets Supplying Them, Kellerher et al
24Irish
36