Calum Paterson Jones 3rd of February 1995 - 1st Sept 2017 Incident Report Lewis Jones’s Report on the Death of Son Calum Paterson Jones 1st Sept 2017 Lewis Jones www.safework.company Member of the NZISM To be submitted to Parliament for the Select Committee in relation to the increase in penalty for dealers and suppliers of Psychoactive drugs Researched Statutes Psychoactive Substance Act 2013 Psychoactive Substances Bill a ‘game-changer’27/04/2013 Amendment to the Psychoactive Substance Act 2013 The New Zealand Drug Harm Index 2016 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 New Zealand Drug Foundation Report ACC Inference 2013 The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 came into force The Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne introduced a bill to regulate the sale, importation and manufacture of psychoactive substances, and the bill went through the select committee process over June 2013 11 July 2013 Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 was passed. July 2013 – May 2014: Interim regime where some products were granted interim approvals and some manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers were granted interim licences. 8 May 2014: The Psychoactive Substances Amendment Act 2014 was passed which: • removed all interim approvals and licences from the New Zealand market (resulting in a recall of all products) • prohibited the consideration of animal testing by the Expert Advisory Committee when assessing if products are of low risk and therefore able to be approved introduced a moratorium on processing any product approval applications or licensing applications until regulations came into force 3 November 2014: Regulations providing for product approval applications and licensing applications for importing, research and manufacturing to be processed, came into force. 21 April 2016: Amendment to the Psychoactive Substances Regulations 2014 came into effect. This allows for applications for licences to sell approved products by retail and wholesale to be made to the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority. I have researched the Report literature and federal laws in relation to changes to the above Amended Act (to increase the Penalty for those people manufacturing and dealing in Psychoactive substances), and, also the history of the original Act to obtain an opinion based on my experienced and the facts. I would like to give thanks to the Henderson and Massey Police for the help they provided me in closing down dealers in my area and other related issues last year, and, advice after being stopped by Constables at one time taking matters into my own hands. I also would love to give thanks to the Federal St Detox centre and the medical teams that assisted my son at different times of crisis up until to the 1st of September 2017. It is not until you are in need of their help you are humbled by the devotion of these people, to assist in the support of your emotional turmoil you find yourself in, and, come to realise their specialist knowledge is a neglected service we take for granted, as in the paramedics that tried relentlessly to save my son on that day Inference Doctor Savage stated, that on closure of the Mental Health facilities due to the change from Institutional to a community integrated system in the 1990’s he hopes Government would commit to the same amount of money being spent in the community, as around 47% of New Zealanders are likely to experience some form of mental illness at some stage in their lives. New Zealand’s first lunatic asylum opened in 1854, and for nearly 130 years most mentally ill people were generally looked after in institutions. In the 21st century most people suffering from mental illness are cared for in the community, records show Substance-use disorders (such as alcohol and drug addictions) are more common among men. People with experience of mental illness make up 35% of those on the sickness benefit, and 27% of those on the invalid’s benefit.. the question that needs to be asked, have we have gone from an institutional system to 21ST Century community integration into another institution, JAIL As an OHS Advisor I have investigated the death of my son, as of the cause, I have concluded from my research of the relevant statutes and experience with the various drug addiction facilities - that the Government of the time is responsible for my son’s death due to negligence, negligence not only for the introduction of the Psychoactive Act, allowing interim licenses for Psychoactive drugs deemed safe and low level to be sold at venue’s around New Zealand with approx. 3000 suppliers, but with chemicals found later to be harmful being sold in venues like Dairies etc, but, also negligent of not implementing a frame work of rehabilitation and education for the public affected by addiction. Since the Amendment to the Psychoactive Act Government has allowed unknown chemical products of varied toxicity to be sold on the black market without reclassification of the products as harmful, as there are no controls over the chemical products being distributed illegally. I also discovered that there is a conflict in legislation between the Psychoactive Substance Act, the Miss Use of Drugs Act in relation to Illegal substances possession and supply in regards the penalties and Penalties for Importation of banned chemicals, Regulatory impact statement for the Amendment to the Psychoactive Act – stopping the sale of these products states that there would be approx. 200 addicts that will need assistance, and there are facilities within the DHB qualified to handle this, and, the threat of the sale of the psychoactive products going to a black market, due to the Amendment of the Original Act - yet the Government of the day has turned its back on both, the Act has been in place since 2013 with anticipation from the Government to be a financial gold mine and I feel safety was neglected based on predicted revenue which I anticipate to have exceed 2 billion dollars pa, the legislation in 2014 stopped the use of animals for testing due to Veterinary doctors knowing the use of these Inference products cause internal organ failure, but instead, were happy to use the New Zealand public to implement the Act in 2013. Psychoactive Substance harm to the public has never been researched since the Amended Psychoactive Act , as no register of incidents or Safety Action Plan through hospitals and care givers has ever been introduced, this information would show the severity of harm of the illicit chemical products being sold through this black-market are causing, and would identify the size of the health problem to the public, by closing our eyes to the problem and apposing reclassifying these Psychoactive products in relation to the harm they cause being supplied on the black market to a Class B under the Misuse of Drugs Act or upgrading the penalty in the Amended Psychoactive Act to a penalty of 8 years for those convicted, is slowly killing our people, and by opposing this change is allowing it to be sold on the black market for considerable profit to underworld organizations with minimal penalty, using addicts to push their products of unknown chemical substance, your vote on this further amendment is a conscience vote to decide what side your on as there is no middle ground on this topic. But not limited, we do not have a rehabilitation facility for those affected, contrary to the National Drug Policy Progress Report 2015-2020, even education has been neglected until present; There are presently 30 medical detox beds in Auckland, only since my son’s death there has one been available for addiction to psychoactive products, hence I say Psychoactive, as Synthetic Marijuana is a branding for a chemical that mimics the effect only, but susceptible to being 80 times stronger in strength. The worst feeling, I have ever had in my life, was when we got Calum to the doctor, his mother had taken him to the chemist and the doctor tells you privately after he calls you back in the room, “if you don’t do something your son is going to die”. Federal St Detox center was the place I managed to get Calum into after chasing around trying to find help from CADS, Mental Health and all other rehabilitation centers in the country. I finally managed to get the documentation for a court order to force Calum into care for his addiction as Inference long as I had a place that could take Calum, I then contacted Federal St Detox center with the paperwork and they finally admitted him that day - after 2 weeks clean at Federal St I then managed to persuade the Bridge Rehabilitation Center to take him into full time residential for his own protection, to recover from 5 years of drug use, Calum wanted to live. After several weeks at the Bridge as a residential full time patient Calum visited the doctors 7 days prior to him passing away, for he was not well and was detoxing from being a long term Psychoactive Drug user and was in pain, un beknown to us his organs were dyeing due to chemical poisoning, which I feel the doctor from the Bridge Rehabilitation Center should have discovered when examined (shown in the autopsy Calum’s heart was double the size) Calum was then evicted after seeing the Doctor from residential rehab and placed into a non-residential day patient care to make way for an alcoholic who needed the bed, 5 days later Calum passed away. Showing me total negligence from the care giving organization the Bridge and the non communicative system of advice and help within the health system in New Zealand between doctors and medical specialist as Calum was in need of Medical Detox not lectures on Alcohol. We have been dealing with this issue of Psychoactive substances in the community since 2013 when things should have been put in place for the protection of the public through education and rehabilitation, 2018 is now the time for action not excuses, and deserves a conscious vote to rectify the wrongs of the previous Governments legislation. Upgrading the penalty for these products is only part of the mechanism needed to help resolve the amount of deaths due to these highly toxic chemical products being sold with no consequence by these illegal organizations on the black market, and a frame work of rehabilitation and education put in place that Peter Dunn and Government have neglected to put in place, since the introduction of the Act in 2013. I feel strongly about this due to ACC giving our family nearly $20,0000.00 for the death of my son but unable to help to keep him alive, the reason I would like to see the Psychoactive Substance Act be abolished to be honest is due to lack of controls and regulation to protect the community, I agree with the drug foundation in regards some of their solutions, and, they needed to be in place back in 2013, but here in the present, with an epidemic of deaths and no record of true Inference casualties, due to the truth being an embarrassment we need a firm adjustment in sentencing to stop the flow of these products on the street and addicts being used as dealers shutting organized crime down giving rehabilitation services to those affected not jail as there is to many drug addicted and mentally ill being sent to jail due to no mental health facilities available after all this time, Rehabilitation facilities not jail is the first step in reducing prison numbers, or is the present system a more cost effective way letting ACC pay out for those affected with addiction to die, and the profit from crushing gangs assets more profitable. Yours Sincerely Lewis Jones www.safework.company Ltd Australian accredited OHS Advisory & Trade Recruitment Consultancy Member of the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management Specialist in Electrical, Mechanical Automation Full Time and Contract Procurement Inference statutes Psychoactive Substance Act 2013 105 Application of Customs and Excise Act 1996 The provisions of the Customs and Excise Act 1996, except section 209 of that Act, apply to a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product (or part of an approved product) as if it were prohibited goods under that Act, unless the person importing the psychoactive substance— (a) holds a licence to import psychoactive substances; and (b) has notified the Authority of the importation in accordance with section 17(1). 25 Offence relating to importation of psychoactive substance without licence (1) A person must not, without reasonable excuse, import a psychoactive substance without a licence to import. (2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction,— (a) in the case of an individual, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years: (b) in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $500,000. Regulatory Impact Statement Amendment to the Psychoactive Substance Act 2013 Impact on people who use psychoactive products 1. These legal impacts may be further complicated if we factor in issues of dependence. Some people will have developed dependence to these products, the maintenance of which will involve them in criminal activity. To estimate how many people this could apply to we have measured the utilisation of treatment services for approved products at the county’s largest alcohol and other drug service provider. This is Waitemata DHB which has a catchment for metro Auckland. Taking these usage rates and extrapolating them to the wider New Zealand population we cautiously estimate that around 150-200 people might be sufficiently dependent on these products to require a degree of professional withdrawal management. 2. The Ministry understands that the profit margins for product owners, manufacturers and sellers are large. Synthetic psychoactive substances typically, are imported from China at around $1,500-$2,000 per kilogram. A kilogram of psychoactive substance is sufficient active ingredient to manufacture around 10,000 small-medium sized packets of smokable product. The most popular products sell in packets of 1.5 to 2.5 grams and costs around $20. The Ministry understands that the cost of manufacturing a product (packaging and contents) is around $1-2 per packet. 3. There are currently 149 retailers with interim licences to sell psychoactive products. Prior to enactment, the Ministry understands that there were between 3,000-4,000 retailers. This was a much larger number than the Ministry’s 2012 estimate of 1,000 retailers. Many of those retailers were dairies and outlets that are now prohibited from applying for licences under the Act. 4. District Health Boards could expect to see an increase in demand for addiction treatment services. Primary care services may be called on to assess and treat people with withdrawal symptoms. The government funded AlcoholDrug helpline can expect to receive an increase in calls. Inference Mitigation 5. The impact on primary care services could be mitigated by the Ministry publishing information for primary care on how to handle people with withdrawal symptoms, and proposing referral to specialist services. 27 FEBRUARY 2013 Psychoactive Substances Bill a ‘game-changer’ Will this just backfire and create a bigger black market? No. We expect that having low risk psychoactive products legally available will make it less likely that consumers will resort to a black market. Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 6 Dealing with controlled drugs (1) Except as provided in section 8, or pursuant to a licence under this Act, or as otherwise permitted by regulations made under this Act, no person shall— (a) import into or export from New Zealand any controlled drug; or (b) produce or manufacture any controlled drug; or (c) supply or administer, or offer to supply or administer, any Class A controlled drug or Class B controlled drug to any other person, or otherwise deal in any such controlled drug; or (d) supply or administer, or offer to supply or administer, any Class C controlled drug to a person under 18 years of age; or (e) sell, or offer to sell, any Class C controlled drug to a person of or over 18 years of age; or (f) have any controlled drug in his possession for any of the purposes set out in paragraphs (c), (d), or (e). (2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence against this Act and is liable on conviction to— Reprinted as at 21 February 2018 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 s 6 15 (a) imprisonment for life where a Class A controlled drug was the controlled drug or one of the controlled drugs in relation to which the offence was committed: (b) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years where paragraph (a) does not apply but a Class B controlled drug was the controlled drug or one of the controlled drugs in relation to which the offence was committed: (c) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 8 years in any other case.