Image: Archi Banal

PoliticsSeptember 25, 2024

The crackdown on nangs, explained

Staff writer

Image: Archi Banal

Nitrous oxide has increasingly been sold, and used, as a recreational drug. The government is tightening regulations, but some argue other substances should be prioritised. Gabi Lardies explains.

“This cannot continue,” said health minister Shane Reti on Sunday, announcing the government’s restrictions on the sale of nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas, nangs, nos or nitrous (depending on your generation). Its sanctioned uses are in “cream chargers” for whipped cream dispensers and as pain relief during medical or dental procedures – but increasingly, people are inhaling the gas as a recreational drug. If you’ve ever seen shiny cylindrical metal cartridges about the size of a cheerio in the gutter or littered in a park, it’s because someone hasn’t cleaned up after their fun.

Drug info site The Level describes the effects of nangs: they make users feel relaxed, euphoric, giggly, dizzy and uncoordinated. Nitrous can also cause hallucinations, and some people describe being trapped in a spiral or time-warp or being separated from their bodies. The effects are usually short-lasting, from 30 seconds to five minutes, and very few people report comedowns. Recreational use is reported to be on the rise not only in New Zealand, but also in Australia and the UK.

Metal cream chargers often come in boxes of 10. (Photo: GreenZeb via Wikimedia Commons).

Sounds fun. So why can’t it continue?

In August, Reti said he had sought advice on whether more regulations were needed to address the recreational use of nitrous oxide. Last week, Medsafe and the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority delivered that advice – when nitrous oxide is sold primarily for the purpose of inducing a psychoactive effect, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 should apply.

Many outlets sell nangs under the guise of a culinary product. But in August, Stuff found a Christchurch vape shop – not somewhere dessert enthusiasts typically frequent for their supplies – selling industrial-sized (3.3 litre) canisters of nitrous oxide. There are numerous online retailers selling 10 packs of 10 cream chargers and promising round-the-clock same-day delivery. The fact they also sell shisha supplies, ice, bottle openers, mixers like coke and sprite and drinking games shows they’re clearly aiming for the party market rather than bakers. Since Sunday’s announcement, at least one is offloading those packs in bulk, offering them for less than half price in a “fire sale”. Nangs are also available in many dairies.

Now, the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority has advised that nitrous be considered a psychoactive substance under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 when being supplied for recreational use, with penalties of up to two years’ jail time and a fine up to $500,000 for selling, and a fine of up to $500 for possessing.

Could shops continue to sell nangs as cream chargers?

The advisory is particularly concerned that trade of nitrous oxide is happening “through retailers with little connection to the catering industry”.

Some retailers have disclaimers that the products are only sold for catering purposes. The advisory says this is not sufficient. Nor is asking the customer to declare that a product is not for inhalation. The retailer will still be liable under the legislation – perhaps even more so, as “Inclusion of a disclaimer could suggest that the retailer is aware the products they sell are likely to be used primarily for inducing a psychoactive effect.”

It’s sending a pretty clear message to retailers, and the rules came into effect immediately. Still, some in the Auckland CBD were unreported to be unaware of the announcement yesterday morning.

Why make nangs hard to get?

While using nitrous oxide recreationally has some negative effects, they are comparatively low. A study ranking the harm of different drugs in New Zealand, published in June 2023, placed it last. The study considered overall harm – harms experienced by those who use the drug and harm experienced by others. The most harmful drug was alcohol, followed by methamphetamine.

Drugs in order of their overall harm scores for the Aotearoa New Zealand population. (Image: The New Zealand drug harms ranking study: A multi-criteria decision analysis)

Still, getting high off nangs can have negative effects that last beyond those few buzzy seconds or minutes. Long-term nitrous oxide use can cause vitamin B12 deficiency, and this can make you feel tired, breathless, confused and depressed, among other symptoms. Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause severe nerve damage and spinal cord damage. A study by Auckland City Hospital found that the sensory nerve damage due to nang use caused some patients to be unable to walk or feel their limbs for many months.

In May, a woman in Auckland lost the movement of her legs after inhaling nitrous oxide. This continues a trend Auckland City Hospital has seen – a sudden increase in patients admitted with severe spinal injury due to abuse of nitrous oxide in the past two years. In 2021 a Christchurch woman woke up paralysed from a nitrous oxide addiction, and called for revised regulations around its supply.

Other long-term effects of nitrous oxide include memory problems, limb weakness and depression – but these effects may also be the result of low vitamin B12.

There is also the possibility of something going wrong on the spot. If a large amount of nitrous oxide is inhaled, or the person has certain pre-existing health conditions or doesn’t get enough oxygen, they can faint, have a heart attack, or die. If it’s not taken properly, nitrous oxide can cause frostbite to the nose, lips and throat (including vocal cords).

Nitrous oxide is used for cream, pain relief and fun (Photo: Daniela Chavez via Unsplash).

What is being said about the changes?

The Drug Foundation’s policy director Jacek Kolodziej told RNZ this week that while some harm is caused by nangs, there are more harmful drugs, like alcohol, which needed attention. On the Drug Foundation website, an article published in 2021 quotes University of Auckland’s Centre for Addiction Research associate director David Newcombe as saying, “Nitrous oxide has way less potential for harm than alcohol… There are some harms that can come with using it, but it has a relatively low potency and the effects dissipate quickly.”

Kolodziej said penalising users was “not very effective and leads to a reduction in people seeking treatment”. The Drug Foundation’s executive director Sarah Helm told Pacific Media Network she was concerned about users ending up with criminal convictions, which can mean “their lives are wrecked”.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy Dunedin’s president Max Phillips said cracking down on nitrous oxide while scraping Smokefree laws was hypocritical. He said the move was an easy way to score political points.

What do other countries do?

In recent years, other countries have also cracked down on nitrous oxide. In March, Western Australia introduced the “toughest” nang laws in the country, to be introduced later this year. Only registered food businesses, some businesses with liquor licences and people approved by the Department of Health will be able to buy nitrous oxide, in small canisters only. Retailers will face fines of up to $30,000 if they don’t follow the laws.

In the US, nitrous oxide is regulated under the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act. Some states, such as Iowa and California, have outlawed sales and recreational use. In Arizona, California and Connecticut, it can only be sold to people over 18, and in New York state to people over 21.

In the UK, nitrous oxide was classified as a Class C drug in 2023. Someone who intends to use it for a psychoactive effect could face fines, visible community punishment, and a caution (which appears on criminal records). Repeat serious offenders could face prison. The prison sentence for production, supply, importation or exportation of nitrous oxide for unlawful purposes was doubled from seven to 14 years. Even legitimate suppliers could be committing an offence if they are reckless as to whether someone is buying their product for recreational use.

‘Help keep The Spinoff funny, smart, tall and handsome – become a member today.’

Gabi Lardies
— Staff writer

Keep going!

a hand going to a ballot box, one takes a straight path and one a wavy path

Image: Archi Banal

PoliticsSeptember 24, 2024

MPs want a four-year term. Should we give it to them? An argument with myself

Toby Manhire

Editor-at-large

Image: Archi Banal

A longer parliamentary term could be on the ballot at the next election, the PM says. Toby Manhire debates the idea’s merits with Toby Manhire.

In its coalition agreement with Act, National agreed to support to select committee a bill for a referendum – and now Christopher Luxon has indicated that it is likely to go to a public vote at the next election.

Hang on, what?

No, not that one. The National-Act coalition deal also included a pledge to “pass the Constitution (Enabling a 4-Year Term) Amendment Bill through first reading in the first 15 months of the term”. The agreement with NZ First had much the same clause.

That means a bill to require a binding referendum on a four-year parliamentary term, likely to be based on David Seymour’s earlier version from the members’ ballot, should pop up in parliament by the end of the year. And while National has made no commitment to support it beyond a select committee, Luxon has previously voiced support for such a change, and on Friday told a Bloomberg audience in Auckland that he expected it “to be ready to take to the New Zealand people at the next election”.

And the New Zealand people will surely see sense and provide governments of the future with a timeframe that best serves policy making and delivery.

Nonsense. The New Zealand people will see sense and – not for the first time – cock their democratic snooks at such a daft proposal.

Come on now. Aren’t we all lamenting the chronic short-termism that afflicts New Zealand politics? Whether it be housing, transport or water – big infrastructure projects of just about every kind – our elected representatives are incentivised to compromise longterm visions for electoral challenges that are always just around the corner. Same goes for climate change. For AI. For enduring taxation changes. And so on.

Conflating short-termism and (relatively) short parliamentary terms is a mistake – good governments can paint a durable vision and get plenty done; to blame it on how quickly elections come around is a cop-out.

A three-year term in practice means a year of getting your feet under the Beehive desk, a year of mad rush to get stuff done, and a year of electioneering. No wonder we have such a mad-dash, slapdash governing approach with rampant, lamentable overuse of urgency.

Thank you for this lazy canard. The reality is that New Zealand voters almost always give governments a second term at least – a basic level of competence will ensure a minimum of six years in power. That’s plenty of time to get stuff done, if you know what you’re doing. Labour, for example, might mew and wail about having stuff like Auckland light rail, water reforms or fair pay agreements jettisoned, but if they’d prioritised those policies and put runs on the board, they’d be much less likely contenders for the bin.

If you’d sit up and look around the world, the message is resounding. A report five years ago by the Victoria University of Wellington Institute for Governance and Policy Studies made a compelling case for a four-year term. Of 190 countries with parliaments, it counted 103 with five-year terms, 74 with four-year terms, and only nine, New Zealand included, that go back to vote every three years. Many of the democracies we most often point to enviously, such as Finland, are four-year cycles.

I can think of one country that is really good at long-term infrastructure planning: China. Why don’t we just go with their approach to elections, and not have them at all.

Come on now.

Anyhow, for all your worldliness, you forget that our closest neighbour, Australia, has three-year terms.

Also snakes, spiders. Sharks that walk around on beaches.

Fundamentally this is a question of democratic principle. Former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer once called New Zealand “the fastest lawmaker in the west”; he says we continue to be an “executive paradise”. Few democracies delegate so much power to a small group of ministers. MPs are tightly whipped; rebels are not tolerated. We have no written constitution. We have no upper house. Our courts are not empowered to strike down laws made by parliament. We make the government accountable at the ballot box once every three years. Is that really asking too much?

Palmer supports a four-year term.

He does, but as part of a wider set of reforms, including increasing the number of MPs, so we have a bigger talent pool for ministers. The reality is that bluntest and most important democratic cudgel in the hands of the people is the power to chuck out a government we don’t like. If anything we should get that opportunity more, not less, often.

Right, but let’s not be forgetting that barely anyone is suggesting that we shift without a popular vote.

“Let’s not be forgetting”? Who says that?

OK sorry. Look, if the majority believe that we should shift to a four-year term, isn’t that democracy in action? The polling suggests that is how we’d vote, too. A 2020 poll suggested 61% backed a switch to four-year terms. A survey last year showed an even greater majority in favour of a four-year term for local government.

I see your polls and raise you two actual real-life referendums. Four-year terms were rejected by 68% of voters in 1967, and by 69% in 1990. That’s not very close. We’ve had our say and we said: no, thank you.

Not the people who are in the belly of the governing beast. In politics, this is that rare example where consensus flourishes – party leaders from across the spectrum are in favour of the change.

True. On the other hand, party leaders from across the spectrum are in favour of the change.

Good point. Can we agree at least that it’s an important subject to ventilate? The Independent Electoral Review, after all, saw arguments on both sides, and concluded that a referendum should be held. After all, do all referendum debates have to be divisive? Can’t they be healthy and illuminating?

Sure. But why not also have votes on, say, extending the number of MPs and changing the voting age.

If a length-of-term debate went well, then those could follow.

OK fine.

Good.

Lovely.

Good.

You hang up.

No you hang up.

‘If you regularly enjoy The Spinoff, and want it to continue, become a member today.’

Toby Manhire
— Editor-at-large