Sabin Mike: Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 06 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17533. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): It is no surprise that the Green Party is not actually voting against the Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill; they are abstaining. I actually think that the New Zealand public deserves better than that. The Greens are either for it or against it. To sit somewhere in the middle on an issue that has concerned and affected so many people in this country—Hon Trevor Mallard: The member’s been on both sides of the issue.MIKE SABIN: Well OK let me pick that up Mr Mallard. I actually think that the starting point for this legislation is that no drug use is the safest drug use. No one forces people out there to take mind-altering substances of any sort all right? People should all be grown up enough to know that when we take a mind-altering substance—surprise surprise—it will alter our mind. For some people that will be substantial and for some people that will lead to addiction. The legality of a substance will never alter the chemical nature of a substance.So I think the starting point is that not only in this House should we acknowledge and accept the issues around drugs but also the populace of New Zealand and those who choose to ingest those drugs should do that too. One could argue that once people are addicted then possibly there is an excuse. They take because they cannot not take but the reality is that they have made a conscious choice to take them in the first place. So there is actually a responsibility in this that should be shared by all of us not just parliamentarians.The second point I would say is that because of the ability of the drug manufacturers—or those I like to think of as drug peddlers actually—to beat the legislation through altering chemical compounds the starting point of this new approach is actually to put the onus on to those people who are manufacturing to show that the drugs are low risk. And what does low risk actually mean? Actually low risk will mean that it is something that is not capable of causing addiction because we know that addiction is harmful. Therefore it must be something that is not capable of stimulating sufficient dopamine or neurotransmitters of that nature for people to get withdrawal symptoms when they stop using them. So therefore by definition it shouldbe something that is not capable of giving a high and therefore not capable of creating an addiction.So what we should end up with here is drug peddlers who spend countless millions of dollars and a long period of time to end up with a product that will not make people high and therefore will be low risk. So I actually think that this legislation has merit. It is a legitimate track to take. I just want to remind us all that the difficulties that this legislation and that New Zealand has been traversing is pioneering sort of stuff. There is no one way to reach the promised land I guess of eliminating the harm that drugs cause but we all have a responsibility in this and this Government is taking its responsibility seriously and is doing something about it.