Government of Jersey

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (21/09/2009) regarding: Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 – Proposed classification of substances commonly known as ‘Legal Highs’ as Controlled Drugs.

Decision Reference: MD-HSS-2009-0049
Decision Summary Title :	Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 – Proposed Classification of Substances Commonly Known as ‘Legal Highs’ as Controlled Drugs		Date of Decision Summary:	4th September 2009
Decision Summary Author:	Paul McCabe – Chief Pharmacist		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 – Proposed Classification of Substances Commonly Known as ‘Legal Highs’ as Controlled Drugs		Date of Written Report:	4th September 2009
Written Report Author:	Paul McCabe – Chief Pharmacist		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 – Proposed Classification of Substances Commonly Known as ‘Legal Highs’ as Controlled Drugs
Decision(s): The Minister endorsed the recommendations of the Misuse of Drugs Advisory Council and accordingly determined that an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978, as amended, should be prepared that would classify the substances described in the accompanying report as controlled drugs in the manner described.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Misuse of Drugs Advisory Council has recommended that a range of substances commonly known as ‘Legal Highs’ be brought under the control of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978
Resource Implications: None
Action required: The Law Draftsman to be requested to prepare the necessary amendment on the basis of a drafting brief to be provided by the Chief Pharmacist.
Signature:		Position:
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 – Proposed classification of substances commonly known as ‘Legal Highs’ as Controlled Drugs.

STATES OF JERSEY

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978

Proposed Classification of Substances Commonly Known as Legal Highs as Controlled Drugs

Issue

The Minister is requested to consider bring a range of substances, commonly referred to as ‘Legal Highs’, under the control of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978.

Introduction

The Misuse of Drugs Advisory Council (MDAC) is established in accordance with Article 2 of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 and has a duty to advise the Minister on measures, which in its opinion, should be taken to prevent the misuse of drugs and/or to deal with the social problems connected with drug abuse.

Background

The MDAC has given consideration to a proposal to bring a range of substances, commonly referred to as Legal Highs, under the control of the misuse of drugs legislation. These substances can broadly be classified into 3 groups; Benzylpiperazine (BZP) and related compounds; Synthetic cannabinoids; and substances which mimic the effect of ecstasy.

Piperazine Derivatives

BZP is a synthetic drug which stimulates the central nervous system with similar but less potent properties to amphetamine. BZP is normally manufactured from piperazine, a substance used as an anti-helminthic drug for the treatment of worm infestations. However, BZP itself has no recognised medicinal use. It is a psychoactive drug belonging to the group of piperazine derivatives. It is not indicated for use in humans nor is it formulated in licensed veterinary products in the UK. It is generally marketed as a recreational stimulant and viewed as a legal alternative to amphetamine. Seizures of BZP and related compounds have steadily increased in the UK and Jersey since early 2006 and have been found in combination with illegal drugs such as MDMA – “ecstasy” – and amphetamine. Some piperazines appear to mimic or intensify the effects of MDMA.

There are risks associated with the use of any stimulant substance. Whilst the data are limited, clinical reports suggest that BZP users suffer a range of adverse reactions such as vomiting, headaches, increased blood pressure, palpitations, poor appetite, stomach pains/ nausea, anxiety, insomnia, mood swings, confusion, irritability and tremors. There is also an indicated association with the occurrence of grand mal seizures.

The MDAC recommended that 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP) and a group of substituted piperazines (related compounds) be brought under control of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 as Class C drugs and placed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs (General Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2009, having no recognised medicinal use. By use of a generic definition, the substances set out below would be subsumed and subject to the same level of controls bringing 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP) and related piperazine derivatives under the control of misuse of drugs legislation.

Under the generic definition provided by the MDAC the following substituted piperazines would be brought under control as Class C drugs:

1-Benzylpiperazine (BZP)

1-(3-Chlorophenyl)piperazine (mCPP)

1-(4-Chlorophenyl)piperazine (pCPP)

1-(4-Fluorophenyl)piperazine (pFPP)

1-(3-Trifluoromethylphenyl) piperazine (TFMPP)

1-(3-Methylphenyl) piperazine (mMPP)

1-(4-Methylphenyl) piperazine (pMPP)

1-(4-Methoxyphenyl) piperazine (pMeOPP)

1-(3-Chlorophenyl)-4-(3-chloropropyl)piperazine (CPCPP)

1,4-Dibenzylpiperazine (DBZP)

1-Benzyl-4-methylpiperazine (BZMP)

The proposed generic definition to be used to bring these substances under the control of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 is:

1-benzylpiperazine and any compound structurally derived from 1-benzylpiperazine or 1-phenylpiperazine by modification in any of the following ways, that is to say,

i) by substitution at the second nitrogen atom of the piperazine ring with alkyl, benzyl, haloalkyl or phenyl substituents

ii) by substitution in the aromatic ring to any extent with alkyl, alkoxy, alkylenedioxy, halide or haloalkyl substituents

Synthetic Cannabinoids

For the purposes of this report the term synthetic cannabinoid is used although many of the substances named below are not, in the strictest chemical-structure sense, cannabinoids. However, the term is widely used to refer to these chemically unrelated structures as they are cannabinoid like in their activity.

The synthetic cannabinoids considered in this report mimic the effect of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active principle in cannabis. Developed by the pharmaceutical industry and academic laboratories over the past 40 years they were investigated as potential pharmaceutical agents, often for the treatment of pain, but it proved impossible to separate the desired activity from unwanted psychoactive effects.

‘Spice’ is an example of a brand name for a mixture of herbs which are commonly sold over the internet also in ‘head-shops’ as a herbal smoking blend or as an incense or room odouriser. The substance is usually smoked in the belief that it will deliver ‘cannabis-like effects’. The drug is also known as ‘Spice Silver’, ‘Spice Gold’, ‘Spice Diamond’, ‘Spice Arctic Synergy’, and ‘Spice Yukatan Fire’.

Forensic analysis of a number of such herbal mixes recently revealed the presence of synthetic cannabinoids1. It would appear that these synthetic cannabinoids had been sprayed onto the plant-based mix (that does not contain tobacco or cannabis) for the purposes of achieving intoxication from smoking.

Evidence concerning the harms of these synthetic cannabinoids is not well understood nor well published because of their recent appearance on the market. However, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) recently published a briefing paper that sets out the key issues and identifies potential harms2.

The specific risks users take with synthetic cannabinoids are, in part, unknown as neither their metabolism nor their toxicology has been extensively studied. Considering the harms of the synthetic cannabinoids analogous to those of THC may underestimate their potential harms. What the clinical outcomes of overdose would be can, at present, only be speculated, but are likely to include significant alterations in mental state with paranoia and perceptual disruptions such as are produced by high THC exposure

The MDAC has consequently recommended that the synthetic cannabinoids be brought under control of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 as Class B drugs and placed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs (General Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2009, having no recognised medicinal use. These controls are the same as the current controls for cannabis and cannabis resin.

The MDAC recommended that generic control would be appropriate rather than attempting to list a large number of compounds by their systematic names. The proposed generic definitions to be used to bring these substances under the control of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 are:

Naphthoylindoles and naphthylmethylindoles

“Any compound structurally derived from 3-(1-naphthoyl)indole or 1H-indol-3-

yl-(1-naphthyl)methane by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring

by alkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl

whether or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent , whether or

not substituted in the naphthyl ring to any extent.”

Naphthoylpyrroles

“Any compound structurally derived from 3-(1-naphthoyl)pyrrole by

substitution at the nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring by alkyl, alkenyl,

cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl, whether or not

further substituted in the pyrrole ring to any extent ,whether or not substituted

in the naphthyl ring to any extent..”

Naphthylmethylindenes

“Any compound structurally derived from 1-(1-naphthylmethyl)indene by

substitution at the 3-position of the indene ring by alkyl, alkenyl,

cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl whether or not further substituted in the indene ring to any extent, whether or not substituted

in the naphthyl ring to any extent.”

Phenylacetylindoles

“Any compound structurally derived from 3-phenylacetylindole by substitution

at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring with alkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl,

cycloalkylethyl or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl, whether or not further substituted in

the indole ring to any extent, whether or not substituted in the phenyl ring to

any extent.”

Cyclohexylphenols

“Any compound structurally derived from 2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol by

substitution at the 5-position of the phenolic ring by alkyl, alkenyl,

cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl, whether or not

substituted in the cyclohexyl ring to any extent .”

Ecstasy Mimics

There are a number of substances emerging as alternatives to ecstasy (MDMA) with similar stimulant effects. Only little is known about the harmfulness of these substances. However, because of the similarities between these substances and MDMA, risks common to MDMA cannot be excluded.

The MDAC has consequently recommended that 3,4-methylenedioxymethcathinone (Methylone), *-keto-3,4-methylbenzodioxylbutanamine (Butylone) and 4-methylmethcathinone (Mephedrone) be brought under control of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 as Class C drugs and placed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs (General Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2009, having no recognised medicinal use.

Recommendation

The Minister is requested to approve the recommendations of the Misuse of Drugs Advisory Council to bring the substances described above under the control of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978 in the manner described and to direct the Chief Pharmacist to prepare a brief for consideration by the Law Draftsman.

Paul McCabe

Chief Pharmacist

4th September 2009

1. http://www.ltg.uk.net/admin/files/spice.pdf

2. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/drug-situation/new-drugs