Study proves success of Psychotic Substances Bill

A study shows that  the introduction of the Pstchotic Substances Bill plus further tightening of legal availability of synthetic highs has “virtually stopped the flow of users needing mental health care.”

So have synthetic users stopped using drugs? Or have they switched to other drugs that either don’t cause the same need for mental health treatment?

Or did the study not look at treatment levels required for the effects of other drugs?

Radio NZ reports in Synthetic drug ban success – study

Otago University chair of psychiatry Paul Glue, who is also a consultant psychiatrist at the Southern DHB, led a study into the impact of the law change, published today in the New Zealand Medical Journal.

Professor Glue said, before the law change, emergency departments saw young people with psychosis, severe mood problems, aggression, depression, anxiety and suicidal tendencies as a result of taking legal highs.

“In early 2013, we had a large number of young people turning up who needed admission to hospital related to smoking synthetic cannabis… and so it was obviously a real concern in terms of patients’ health and safety, and really as a public health problem as well.”

“In the middle of 2013, the Psychoactive Substances BIll came along, and that approximately halved the number of products that were available for sale, but more importantly it reduced the number of places where synthetic cannabis could be sold from,” he said.

“We saw a 50 percent reduction in attendances at ED [emergency department] or EPS [emergency psychiatric service], but the presentation was exactly the same, exactly the same kind of demographic, these were primarily young men who had histories of mental illness.”

So the Bill seems to have had an immediate significant impact.

Last year, following high profile campaigns and media coverage about the impact of synthetic highs on individuals and communities, the law was further tightened, removing all products from the shelves.

Under the law, a product has to pass a testing regime and be sold with a licence, and no companies have so far applied for or received a licence.

Professor Glue said, after this change, the number of people needing care after taking legal highs almost disappeared altogether.

“People had gone out and bought lots of products, and then smoked it, and once it was gone, the harm stopped.”

This sounds like the Bill has been a major success. The media hasn’t been reporting problems or concerns.

Are people with mental health issues not taking drugs any more or have they switched to drugs that cause less problems.

NZ First’s Stewart clear on Psychoactive Substances Bill support

NZ First spokesperson on health Barbara Stewart has made the NZ First position clear regarding the Psychoactive Substances Bill – they prefer a full ban but accept that the Bill is a practical step so support it.

The Bill passed in Parliament yesterday with support from all seven NZ First MPs. The final vote was 119 for, 1 (John Banks) against.

In the first and second readings of the bill Stewart was consistent with this NZ First position. Things were confused by a column by NZ First leader Winston Peters last week, where he appeared to be highly critical of the bil – The problem with politics. That highlighted the problem with trying to follow what Winston Peters means.

On my first reading of the column I thought he was signalling that NZ First would oppose the bill, but on further more careful readings he didn’t actually say that. It was typical of Winston, full of bluster but vague on what he was actually meaning to say.

In the final debate on the bill in Parliament yesterday Stewart repeated her previous positions – that NZ First preferred a drug ban but accepted that the bill a good step and that the party would support it.

PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL

Third Reading

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First):

I stand to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Psychoactive Substances Bill. New Zealand First believes that ideally these products should have been banned. We are realistic and we know that this cannot and will not occur at this particular point.

However, this bill is a very positive step forward from the situation that actually exists at this point in time.

We want this bill passed today.

We are sick of seeing the damage and the harm that is created among our young people from these particular drugs. It is ironic that the manufacturers, the importers, and the dairies are getting wealthier and wealthier at the expense of young people’s health right here in New Zealand.

We have to congratulate those dairies who acted before this bill actually came into the House and stopped the sale of these substances. Of course, we have to recognise the Waikato of Pūtāruru that has actually banned synthetic highs from its town—so well done, Pūtāruru.

There is a whole range of regulations that will stop the manufacturers from their merry trip around with these particular drugs.

We want the bill passed.

It will provide greater transparency. It will improve the health of our New Zealanders, once the substances are proven to be safe. We want young people to be safe. We care for our young people.

These substances have basically been an outrageous assault on our young people, which we in this House have let it happen here, so this is an important step forward with this particular bill.

New Zealand First supports it.

At the end of that an exclamation was heard – “Excellent speech!”

I agree, it was clear, concise and in my opinion correct. And it signalled appropriate support of the bill from NZ First.

InTheHouse video of Stewart’s speech:

NZ First confused on Psychoactive Substances Bill

As the Psychoactive Substances Bill moves through stages in Parliament it looks like NZ First minds are altering regarding their support of the bill.

During the first reading and the first part of the second reading there has been almost universal support, including from NZ First health spokesperson Barbara Stewart. But in an opinion column yesterday party leader Winston Peters hints at some mind altering.

First reading:

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First)

I stand on behalf of New Zealand First today to support the Psychoactive Substances Bill. This bill has been a long time coming to this House and we are really pleased that at last it is finally here. We need to front up to the problems caused by these legal highs. We know that, actually, they are happening right across the whole country, and we are looking forward to working on this legislation.

We in New Zealand First have regularly, consistently urged the Government to actually make a start on this legislation, and we realise, of course, that this particular problem is a worldwide challenge.

Despite seeing some areas as lacking in the bill—and we are looking forward to working on them at the select committee as well—we believe that the positives of this bill actually far outweigh the negatives.

This bill is a much-needed start, regulating the use of psychoactive substances, and something that we have been calling for, like other parties, for a long, long time. We are looking forward to working on it, and we will support this bill.

Second reading

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am delighted to speak on the second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. I am very pleased with the work that the Health Committee has done in terms of its consideration of the legislation, and with the bill that has emerged, which looks like enjoying the unanimous support of this House.

Hon John Banks: No, no, no.

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am sorry.

Banks was the only MP to question “looks like enjoying the unanimous support of this House“.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

Ideally—and before we went to the select committee—New Zealand First would have liked to see these substances banned. We know they are a very high risk, but during the select committee process we had our opinions changed, because these products contain many ingredients that are commonly available for purchase now.

That’s odd. In her speech in the first reading Stewart never talked about wanting these substances banned. Did her mind alter between the First Reading and the Select Committee, and then “had our opinions changed” during that process?

New Zealand First supports this bill because it actually protects the health and safety of New Zealanders, which is most important.

New Zealand First supports the provisions in the bill that wish to make manufacturers prove that their products are safe.

New Zealand First, along with others, wanted plain packaging for these particular products, but throughout the select committee process we, like other parties, changed our mind on this particular aspect.

The bill is a much-needed start at regulating the uses of psychoactive substances; it is something that we are very pleased to see.

We believe that this bill is a very positive step forward. These drugs will be tried and tested. We will not have these drugs in dairies, and we know that advertising is not going to be as widespread as it is at this point. It is for all of these reasons that New Zealand First supports this bill and we look forward to its speedy passage through the House. Thank you.

Clearly Stewart was indicating NZ First support of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

The bill completed it’s second reading with apparent full support of NZ First, with Stewart joiningg the near unanimous praise and support of the bill.

But yesterday her leader Winston Peters seemed to have an altered state of mind.

The problem with politics

By Winston Peters

There is an old saying that a horse was designed by God, while a camel was designed by a committee. Without denigrating the ship of the desert in any way, the point is that too many issues facing politicians end up being changed by endless compromises until the final result is something entirely different.

We are referring to the Psychoactive Substances Bill currently before Parliament. Under this legislation, party pills and other legal highs will have to be proven safe before they can be sold.

New Zealand First’s position is that these substances should be banned – full stop. They are designed to help their manufacturers, distributors and retailers get rich, while the idiots who consume them get off their faces, with lighter pockets. From all the research and discussion we have had, we cannot find any benefit to humankind whatsoever.

Now, there are some people in Parliament who slavishly adhere to the principles of private enterprise – even the sale of psychoactive drugs. So, to allay the concerns of parents and health professionals who see the end results of these drugs, the manufacturers/distributors/retailers have to prove they are safe. This in turn has sparked outrage among animal lovers and other people in Parliament who cannot bear the thought of Felix or Fido sniffing, smoking or ingesting these concoctions. (Apparently it is OK for teenagers!)

The end result of this is yet to be decided. In politics going around in circles is perfectly normal. It hurts the heads of ordinary people, but governments pay big money for professional advice on how to explain why black is really a different shade of white and that something is really being done about psychoactive substances.

In our view psychoactive substances should be completely banned and the legislation going through Parliament is only tinkering with the problem. The sale of mind wrecking muck will continue, people will get off their faces and overworked health professionals will be left to clear the carnage. As usual, we might add.

If you wonder why we sometimes vote a certain way, it is because of this messy, political distortion. Parliament has a serious duty to protect the young people of this country and once again their representatives have failed them.

Winston Peters is Leader of New Zealand First

Peters has long been reported as a consumer of certain mind altering substances. You have to wonder what he was on when he wrote this rambling, sometimes bizarre and inclusive column.

Contrary to his colleague Stewart (and every other party speaker except John Banks) Peters is very critical of the bill and claims it has been substantially altered and compromised – “ end up being changed by endless compromises until the final result is something entirely different” and “the legislation going through Parliament is only tinkering with the problem“.

What will NZ First do in the final vote? After my first couple of readings I had presumed they had altered their minds and would now vote against the bill.

But after further readings I’m not sure, in typical Peters fashion he rambles and rants rubbishes the bill but doesn’t commit to a specific vote for or against.

Peters’ views as expressed in his column are very different to Stewart’s in both readings. We’ll have to wait and see if NZ First minds are actually altered, and likewise their votes.

I’ll try to find out from health spokesperson Barbara Stewart what the NZ First position is on the bill.

Peter Dunne praised in Parliament

Praise in Parliament for Peter Dunne has been in short supply lately, but he was speaking positively and being spoken of positively yesterday during the second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

It’s been a rough few weeks in Parliament for Peter Dunne, but suggestions (and hopes of some) that he’s down and out are premature.

And Dunne was praised by other speakers for his efforts in initiating and progressing the bill (a notable exception being John Banks who called Dunne a puppy hater).

Hon TODD McCLAY (Associate Minister of Health):

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the considerable amount of work by the Hon Peter Dunne in getting this bill to this stage. The Hon Peter Dunne has been a driving force behind this world-first legislation, and we need to recognise the great work that has been put in place by Mr Dunne in this area.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour):

I also ought to recognise the Hon Peter Dunne, who is the architect of this legislation, who steered it through its first stages in the House, and who steered it from its genesis as a set of recommendations out of the Law Commission report to becoming legislation. It is good to see Peter Dunne in the House this evening.

…we simply needed to get this legislation to the House much sooner than we did. In fact, because the Law Commission reported its recommendations over 2 years ago, there has been plenty of time for the Government to make this a priority. This is no reflection in any way whatsoever on Peter Dunne.

Dunne corrected Lees-Galloway on the genesis of the bill – see Psychoactive Substances Bill.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):

I want to acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne and the leadership that he has shown in bringing this piece of legislation to the House, and to also thank him for tabling a petition on behalf of 3,533 members of the Manurewa community.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua):

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very innovative Psychoactive Substances Bill. I would like to acknowledge and thank, first of all, the Hon Peter Dunne, who has pressed on with this bill. I was under the impression that it was initially the Law Commission, but he has told us this afternoon that it was through a United Nations committee.

Dunne tripped himself up over the GCSB and the Kitteridge report which led to him resigning as Associate Minister of Health (and Minister of Revenue) but he is still well respected and continues to make a positive contribution in Parliament.

And the Psychoactive Substances Bill will be a notable Dunne legacy.

In The House video of the Psychoactive Substances Bill – Second Reading speeches:

Banks calls Dunne “puppy-hater” on Psychoactive Substances Bill

John Banks clashed with Peter Dunne during the second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill yesterday, interjecting frequently. During Dunne’s speech Banks called him a puppy hater.

Hon John Banks: Will it happen, yes or no? Will animal testing—

Hon PETER DUNNE: Can I say again to the member it was never the intention. How many words does he need to explain it? I am not going—

Hon John Banks: No, you won’t, you puppy-hater.

Hon PETER DUNNE: That is absolute, ridiculous nonsense. If the member for Epsom wants to go out there and oppose this legislation, he can answer to his communities, he can answer to the parents and to all of the people affected by it, and he will be the one who will be reviled as the person out of step with public opinion.

At some stage Dunne tweeted “John banks idiot”.

Banks’ criticism of Dunne may be misdirected. Associate Health Minister Todd McClay:

Mr Dunne asked that committee for advice on non-animal tests, clearly articulating his strong preference for a regime that excluded animal testing. The committee’s advice was that some animal testing would be necessary at first to ensure that the risk of products was accurately assessed.

And Green MP Kevin Hague:

The fact is that the previous Associate Minister of Health encouraged people to make submissions about animal testing. The committee did receive advice from the Clerk that amendments that absolutely ruled out animal testing per say would be out of scope. We received no advice that those submissions were out of scope. So the chair was wrong to rule those submissions out of scope. The National majority was wrong to not hear those submissions.

The bill is seen as world leading and ground breaking and has near unanimous support. Banks is the sole opponent.

Banks interjected through Dunne’s speech. First he corrected Dunne saying “looks like enjoying the unanimous support of this House”:

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am delighted to speak on the second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill ….. I am very pleased with the work that the Health Committee has done in terms of its consideration of the legislation and the bill that has emerged and looks like enjoying the unanimous support of this House.

Hon John Banks: No, no, no.

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am sorry. I should have known better perhaps than to presume that the ACT Party would be in line with public opinion.

Banks gave more detail about his opposition in his speech:

Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): I rise to oppose the Psychoactive Substances Bill , and I will oppose it at every turn until it ends up on the statute book with the numbers, except for myself, in this House.

This bill is well-intentioned—there is no doubt about that—and it is aimed at ensuring that psychoactive substances sold in New Zealand are as safe as possible. I want to pay my respects to the new Associate Minister of Health, Todd McClay, for his noble intentions with this bill, which he inherited from the ex-Associate Minister .

However, I simply cannot support it. I find it totally unacceptable that this bill fails to rule out—rule out—testing these recreational drugs on innocent animals. Protecting animals is ingrained in my soul.

I think that most New Zealanders will be outraged at the idea that chemicals people use just for fun can be, and likely will be, tested on harmless animals. Animals will be put to extreme pain, animals will suffer, and animals will die.

Dunne had previously explained “one of the great red herrings of this debate, the animal testing issue”.

Hon PETER DUNNE: Let me deal with one of the great red herrings of this debate, the animal testing issue. There was never any intention ever to embark upon a programme of animal testing associated with these products—never ever any intent. What happened was simply this—what happened—

Hon John Banks: There was going to be.

Hon PETER DUNNE: If the member would just give me the courtesy of some silence, I will explain to him what actually happened.

Dunne provided an explanation until Banks started a series of interjections:

That was why I worked with the Health Committee through the expert advisory committee to make sure that the instances where animal testing might be even a possibility were minimised and reduced. But I say to the House it was never the intention—

Hon John Banks: Is there any animal testing? Is there any animal testing?

Hon PETER DUNNE: Mr Banks, if you ask a question, it is customary to let the person answer it before you come back with the next one.

Hon John Banks: Is there any animal testing?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am just in the process of explaining to the jabbering preacher to my left the answer to his question. It was never the intention to embark upon an animal-testing regime as part of this legislation.

Hon John Banks: Will there be animal testing?

Hon PETER DUNNE: Can I explain again. This is becoming like a routine. It was never the intention to embark upon any form of animal testing. The expert advisory committee has given very clear advice to the select committee. The reality is that a lot of the stuff—and I am still getting emails today in Cyrillic script, in various different languages, from around the world from people saying “Don’t test psychoactive substances on dogs.” That was never the intention.

Hon John Banks: Will it happen?

Hon PETER DUNNE: It was never going to happen. The member says: “Will it happen?”. Can I say it was never going to happen.

Hon John Banks: Will it happen?

Hon PETER DUNNE: Dear me. You can only go so far in terms of legislating—

Hon John Banks: Will it happen, yes or no? Will animal testing—

Hon PETER DUNNE: Can I say again to the member it was never the intention. How many words does he need to explain it? I am not going—

Hon John Banks: No, you won’t, you puppy-hater.

Hon PETER DUNNE: That is absolute, ridiculous nonsense. If the member for Epsom wants to go out there and oppose this legislation, he can answer to his communities, he can answer to the parents and to all of the people affected by it, and he will be the one who will be reviled as the person out of step with public opinion.

I say to the ACT Party that if it wants to show any form of relevance, it will grow up, it will respect the conscience of New Zealanders on this issue, and it will support this legislation. He is welcome to be on a limb; it will be a very lonely place, I assure him.

Banks later devoted his speech to the animal testing issue. He concluded:

I want to thank Mojo Mathers for her work on this bill and her Supplementary Order Paper, which I will be supporting. I am sure other parties will support it as well.

But I say to her and the Green Party, if your amendment fails at the Committee stage to get the numbers, you should vote against this bill anyway. The Green Party has an excellent set of credentials around animal rights and animal welfare and I applaud you today for those.

We are sacrificing animals at the alter of recreational drug use. It is a disgrace to this country. It should not happen. It does not need to happen. We could stop it. It could be world-leading education. I repeat these words: as the most powerful creatures on this earth, humans have a responsibility to protect all animals from senseless, worthless, and shameless cruelty at all times and in all places, and I am starting with this legislation here today in this Parliament.

This will be addressed later in the debate when another Green MP Mojo Mathers speaks.

The other issue that I address in the minority report, and that has to be addressed, I believe, by this House—and my colleague Mojo Mathers will speak more about this—is the animal testing issue.

We must adopt Mojo Mathers’ Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage, in order to have that world-best practice—that model for the rest of the world. Thank you.

Animal testing is an emotive issue. There’s more to come on it.

Ground breaking Psychoactive Substances Bill progresses

The Psychoactive Substances Bill was back from the Health Committe in the House for it’s second reading yesterday. It is now the responsibility of new Associate Health Minister Todd McClay, but Peter Dunne has driven this bill from the start.

The bill is seen as ground breaking and world leading.

A very commendable cross party approach has been taken to the bill by the Health Committee, as McClay says:

 I want to thank the Health Committee for its thoughtful consideration of this bill, and also to the many people who made submissions on this important piece of legislation. I appreciate your broad support for, and the helpful comments on, the detail of the bill.

Because of the overwhelming wish of New Zealanders for the Government to act on the sale and use of psychoactive substances, so-called legal highs, the committee has had a shorter period than usual to consider this bill. I greatly appreciate the cross-party support that has enabled Parliament to expeditiously deal with this issue.

The desire to see the bill progress, the hard work and co-operation amongst MPs and parties were evident through most of the speeches.

Peter Dunne’s speech covered the history and the intent of  the bill. There were a number of interjections from John Banks, who looks like being the only MP to oppose the bill

Edited draft transcript (I’ll post separately on most of the exchange with John Banks).

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am delighted to speak on the second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill . I must confess that the debate this afternoon is taking place in slightly different circumstances from those I had originally imagined would occur when we talked about this bill proceeding at this time. None the less I am very pleased with the work that the Health Committee has done in terms of its consideration of the legislation and the bill that has emerged and looks like enjoying the unanimous support of this House.

Hon John Banks: No, no, no.

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am sorry. I should have known better perhaps than to presume that the ACT Party would be in line with public opinion.

The reason I sought to table this petition, very simply, is it is indicative of the wide range of community concern up and down New Zealand about the impact of psychoactive substances being sold through dairies and various other outlets with impunity by some very irresponsible retailers.

The Manurewa example was one, and I know the member for Manurewa and Dr Calder had been very vigorous in their local efforts, and I was pleased to receive this petition. I want to correct a myth that has been circulating about this bill. It did not actually arise as a result of the Law Commission’s recommendations.

In fact, the genesis of this bill came at the UN convention on narcotic drugs meeting in Vienna in early 2011. It became clear to me in discussions at that meeting that the British Government at that stage was seeking to move down this path. I thought that was a particularly good idea and as we were developing our interim regime I tasked officials in the Ministry of Health with finding out all we could about what the British were proposing and then developing a regime that met our needs.

Along the way, the Law Commission made its recommendations.

The irony is that when I went back to Vienna in March this year for the follow-up discussions, the British were curious to know where we were, because they were actually stalled in their efforts. In other words, we picked up their idea from 2 years ago, had the legislation almost before Parliament at that stage, and they were still working through their internal bureaucracy to get to that point and were asking us with some envy what progress we were making and how this would occur.

I acknowledge the comments by both the Associate Minister of Health and the previous speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, about my own role, and I thank them for that. It is no secret that I was frustrated at the time that it was taking to get this legislation into the House, and I am delighted now that we are through the process and the bill looks like passing fairly quickly.

This is world-breaking legislation. The reason is it tackles the problem in quite a lateral way. It simply says to the manufacturers and suppliers of these pernicious substances: “You prove they are low risk, and if you can, we will let you sell them.” It is a very simple proposition.

Other countries—the Australians, the Irish, the French, the Americans, the Russians, the British, many of the European nations with whom I have spoken—have all been playing the same game of trying to define what a psychoactive substance is and how you ban it.

There have been many variations on that theme. All have come to the point of saying it is too difficult and asking what a way through is. New Zealand is being looked on as world-leading in this regard.

If this legislation is, as I believe it will be, successful, then we can expect to see that model picked up and implemented right around the world, because this issue is not just one for this country; it is one that is affecting every jurisdiction. When you look at the debates that are going on in those countries and you follow the tenor of the argument, it is exactly the same as we have had here over the last couple of years or so.

One of the great frustrations that I also experienced during my time as the Associate Minister of Health was the anger of communities who wanted to see action, and the sense that they had was often reflected in the comments that I would get asking why I did not just simply ban these things. Well, for various reasons that is not possible.

Their chemical composition is such that these things are almost indefinable. You ban one substance, and one element is changed and the same substance reappears.

In my time as Associate Minister, we banned 30-odd different substances, over 50-odd products, and we were vigorous in doing so. But you can go only so far down that path. That is why this legislation becomes vital and necessary.

I make no apology for the fact that we will set a deliberately high bar. I make no apology for the fact that those who want to go through the process will pay an exorbitant fee to get there. There are huge proceeds involved from this trade, and I think it is only fair and reasonable to expose those people to a very rigorous standard of testing and a very rigorous process before we even get to the point where they get on to the market.

Let me deal with one of the great red herrings of this debate, the animal testing issue. There was never any intention ever to embark upon a programme of animal testing associated with these products—never ever any intent. What happened was simply this—what happened—

Late last year an Official Information Act request was lodged with the Ministry of Health for a whole range of papers relating to this new regime. One of the papers was a paper prepared by Dr Leo Schep of the National Poisons Centre in Dunedin.

Dr Schep has done a huge amount of work in this area, but is at one end of the spectrum in terms of the debate. He is a purist. I acknowledge that. He is an exceptional toxicologist, but he is a purist. He produced a paper that was headed “Report to the New Zealand Government on Animal Testing”. It was his initiative.

Unfortunately, when we sought to release that batch of papers I did not check the title page. What appeared in the Sunday Star-Times was “Here is an official report to the New Zealand Government recommending animal testing.” It was an unsolicited piece of advice. That was why I ruled out—very immediately—the LD50 test. That was why I worked with the Health Committee through the expert advisory committee to make sure that the instances where animal testing might be even a possibility were minimised and reduced.

But I say to the House it was never the intention embark upon any form of animal testing. The expert advisory committee has given very clear advice to the select committee. The reality is that a lot of the stuff—and I am still getting emails today in Cyrillic script, in various different languages, from around the world from people saying “Don’t test psychoactive substances on dogs.” That was never the intention.

The bulk of New Zealanders want to see this legislation pass immediately. It will be, and I acknowledge the support of the Government. I acknowledge the support of other parties who take an approach in this particular legislation that is beneficial. This is the opportunity to make huge progress.

The world is watching us.

I think this Parliament will not only do the people of New Zealand and the young people of New Zealand a huge service in passing this legislation but set a standard that other nations will follow. Hopefully, working collectively at an international level, we can start to turn back the clock on this particular issue.

In The House: Psychoactive Substances Bill – Second Reading – Part 3 (Peter Dunne)

Hansard: Draft transcript – Thursday, 27 June 2013 

The Second Reading debate was interrupted when the House rose for the week and will be continued next week.