Summary
Effective drug policy should put the health of people at the centre and prioritise reducing the risk of drug harm, provision of timely access to support and accurate information, and eliminating stigma for people worst affected. However, New Zealand’s current legislative framework falls short in these areas, does not achieve these aims, lacks a harm reduction focus, and has failed to prevent a wide range of harms.
Over the past five decades, drug availability has increased and prices have declined. Drug-related harms including substance use disorder, overdose mortality, and criminal justice involvement have increased, with Māori disproportionately affected.
Research indicates widespread consensus among affected communities that current drug laws are not fit for purpose, alongside common experiences of stigma and barriers to accessing healthcare. Evidence shows that health-based approaches to drug policy achieve better outcomes than punitive models. This evidence provides a strong rationale for replacing current legislation with a health-centred framework that prioritises harm reduction and equity, in alignment with te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Good drug policy should be around making sure the person who’s taking the drugs has got good choices, the right help when they need it, and the right information when they need it, and that they’re not stigmatised for their choices and feel they can engage.
—Study participant1
Drug laws in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) are not effective at achieving the goals envisaged by one of the research participants in the quote above. This is hardly surprising, considering that the words ‘harm reduction’ do not appear in the legislation whose goal is to prevent illicit drug use. Evidence shows that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (MoDA) has not been effective at preventing that, either.
In this Briefing, we outline the rationale and key tenets for undertaking an evidence-based drug law reform in NZ.
Fifty years of ineffective protection from harm
The MoDA received its Royal assent in 1975 – half a century ago. Similar to British legislation passed four years earlier, it was created in a context of relatively low use of a handful of substances, limited interconnectedness with global illicit drug markets, and a scarce evidence base on drug harms and drug harm prevention.
Despite a prohibitionist approach with investment concentrated on supply-side interventions, illicit drugs have become more available and affordable over time. In fact, all commonly used drugs in NZ are now substantially cheaper than in 2002 – especially in real-terms (Table 1).
Table 1. ‘Street price’ ($) per gram of selected drugs over time 2
| Drug | Change in average or median $ value between 2002 and 2024 | Decline in price between 2002 and 2024 | Real-terms decline in price (taking inflation into account; Reserve Bank of New Zealand, 2025) between 2002 and 2024 |
| | 2002 | 2024 |
| Cannabis (gram/tinnie/bullet) | $22.50 | $20 | 11.1% | 48.8% |
| Cocaine (gram) | $500 | $350 | 30% | 59.7% |
| Heroin (gram) | $1,100 | $200 | 81.8% | 89.5% |
| MDMA (tablet) | $85 | $45 | 47.1% | 69.5% |
| Methamphetamine (gram) | $800 | $360 | 55% | 74.1% |
Most indicators of drug use and drug harm have been increasing in NZ:
- With the exception of cannabis, the consumption of substances such as MDMA, amphetamine-type stimulants (including methamphetamine), and cocaine has been on the rise.3
- The number of people with substance use disorder has also substantially increased over decades. Māori have been impacted more severely, and comprise 39.2% of those in addiction treatment.4
- Since 1988, there has been an over 13-fold increase in the number of accidental drug overdoses. The population rate of fatal drug overdose among Māori (5.4 per 100,000 population) is now twice as high as among non-Māori (2.7 per 100,000 population).5
- The criminal justice approach has also resulted in many convictions for drug offences – at substantial financial and social cost. Since 1980, each year has seen more than 3,000 people receiving a drug conviction; the majority of these for drug possession and use. Strikingly, more than half of imprisonments for drug offences have been among Māori.6
Preventing and reducing drug harm
In the research conducted by the New Zealand Drug Foundation (the full report is available from: Safer Drug Laws for Aotearoa: Evidence to inform regulatory change), the study team engaged with communities at risk of drug harm in NZ through an online survey (n=442) and a series of workshops (n=31).1 The purpose was to understand what policy goals and levers could perform better at reducing the harm these communities experience (see further details in Appendix).
Unsurprisingly, the vast majority (90.8%) of the participants felt that our drug laws were not fit for purpose. In addition, in our sample:
- 56.7% have experienced stigma or discrimination in healthcare in relation to their drug use,
- 54.0% believed disclosing their substance use would make their healthcare access worse, and
- Concerningly, 39.6% would be worried about calling 111 in the event of an overdose.
Feasible policy options to better prevent drug harm
Compared to 1975, we now have real-world evidence on drug policy benefits and harms. We now know that adopting health-based approaches helps achieve better outcomes than relying on punitive models. There is a clear justification for replacing the MoDA with a new framework that prioritises health, equity, and te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Specifically, we agree with the 2011 Law Commission recommendation that the MoDA needs to be repealed and replaced with a new, health-centring Act.7
Based on international evidence and local research, we believe that this new legislation should have the major features listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Major features of new drug legislation to replace MoDA
Decriminalise personal possession of drugs and drug use.
| Evidence shows that decriminalisation can reduce problematic substance use and drug harm and reduce the burden on courts, prisons, and police, without leading to increases in drug use. Decriminalisation is most effective when implemented alongside resourcing treatment and harm reduction – evidence shows that such implementation may help reduce the most serious harms of drug use, such as fatal overdose and transmission of blood-borne viruses.8,9 |
- Redirect resources to health in an equitable way
| Decriminalisation should be introduced in tandem with significant investment in harm reduction and health interventions. Currently, over two thirds of spending on drug issues is on law enforcement, with only 24.8% being spent on drug treatment, 5.5% on prevention, and only 1.4% on harm reduction, which is not in line with public preference.10 |
- Establish harm reduction as responsive public health infrastructure
| International evidence shows that drug consumption sites11, broad naloxone distribution12,13, and flexible medication-assisted treatments14-16 have demonstrable positive effects on reducing overdose rates and other serious harms. We need a legal framework which enables rapid responses to emerging risks in the illicit market through empowering and mandating health entities to actively facilitate harm reduction measures. We need a systems approach to harm reduction, with a connected programme of interventions available to people who use drugs. |
- Enable responsible regulation of lower-harm substances
| Regulation of substances such as cannabis can succeed in displacing the illicit market and reducing social and criminal harms, under the right settings.17 We recommend a flexible, health-based drug classification system which reflects the harms of different drugs, particularly those that are well known to pose less risk of harm. Responsible regulation must include age restrictions, price and potency controls, warning labels, requirements to provide harm reduction information, bans on product advertising, and restricting the influence of commercial interests in drug policy. |
- Uphold te Tiriti and protecting taonga
| The harms from drug use and its criminalisation experienced by Māori are clearly disproportionate. We need well-resourced kaupapa Māori services to address these harms. Ringfencing part of the increased funding for harm reduction and substance abuse disorder treatment for Māori, will allow Indigenous leadership and the ongoing development and roll out of appropriate interventions. Māori also need to be able to exercise tino rangatiratanga over taonga biodiversity, such as psilocybin-containing mushrooms18, that are currently prohibited under the MoDA. |
What this Briefing adds
- New Zealand’s Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is outdated and ineffective at reducing drug use or harm. Over decades, we have only witnessed drug availability increasing and prices falling.
- Prevalence of drug use, substance use disorder, fatal overdose, stigma in healthcare, and criminal convictions have all increased over time, with Māori disproportionately affected by both health harms and criminal justice responses.
- Research with communities affected by drug harm emphasises the need for reform. People who are at the receiving end of NZ drug policy strongly believe that current laws are not fit for purpose. There is a widespread fear of stigma and punishment that prevents people from seeking help.
- Without changing our current drug laws, we are likely to continue to see increasing acute and chronic health and social harms and widening inequities for Māori in particular.
Implications for policy and practice
- Evidence supports replacing the MoDA with a health-centred framework, in line with the recommendations from the 2011 Law Commission review.
- The key tenets of the new legislation should include decriminalising personal drug possession and use, investing in harm reduction and treatment, facilitating harm reduction at the national policy and practice level, enabling responsible regulation of lower-harm substances, and upholding te Tiriti o Waitangi through equitable, Māori-led solutions.
- We urge our political leaders to adopt a consensus approach to rapidly remove this 50-year-old impediment to progress and adopt drug laws that support the health and justice goals that the majority of New Zealanders are likely to support.
Author details
Dr Jacek Kolodziej, Te Puna Whakaiti Pāmaemae Kai Whakapiri | New Zealand Drug Foundation.
Michelle Judge, Te Puna Whakaiti Pāmaemae Kai Whakapiri | New Zealand Drug Foundation.
Prof Michael Baker, Department of Public Health, Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka, Pōneke | University of Otago, Wellington.
Dr Rose Crossin, Department of Public Health, Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka, Ōtautahi | University of Otago, Christchurch.
Dr Jai Whelan, Department of Public Health, Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka, Ōtautahi | University of Otago, Christchurch.
Author disclosures
Jacek Kolodziej and Michelle Judge were both authors of the Te Puna Whakaiti Pāmamae Kai Whakapiri | New Zealand Drug Foundation report, Safer Drug Laws for Aotearoa: Evidence to inform regulatory change.
Michael Baker and Jai Whelan are Board members of Te Puna Whakaiti Pāmamae Kai Whakapiri | New Zealand Drug Foundation. Jai Whelan is a member of the Harm Reduction Coalition Aotearoa.
Acknowledgements
The report Safer Drug Laws for Aotearoa: Evidence to inform regulatory change was funded by the Michael and Suzanne Borrin Foundation.
Appendix 1. Report details.
The full New Zealand Drug Foundation report is available from: Safer Drug Laws for Aotearoa: Evidence to inform regulatory change.
In the full report, we describe the experiences and aspirations of people at risk of drug harm, and we outline evidence relating to interventions such as:
- Decriminalisation of personal drug use and possession,
- Cannabis regulation,
- Regulating other substances, such as psilocybin, MDMA, especially in therapeutic or quasi-therapeutic contexts,
- Medication-assisted treatments (MAT), including heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) and stimulant substitution treatment (SST),
- Safe supply interventions,
- Provision of safer utensils, including needle and syringe programmes (NSPs),
- Drug consumption sites (DCS),
- Improving naloxone access,
- Drug checking,
- Overdose Good Samaritan laws.
The report concludes with a full suite of detailed recommendations.
