English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper considers the recent global concern of psychoactive substance use alongside New Zealand’s corresponding endeavour to regulate such substances under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013. It establishes that psychoactive substances pose a risk of harm to individual consumers and to society in general. In light of this risk, it considers whether such harm justifies state intervention, whereby the autonomy of individuals would be limited for the safety of those individuals and the benefit of society. The theories of legal and political philosophers, including Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, are considered to determine the philosophical basis for such regulation. This paper finds that such state paternalism, as found in the Psychoactive Substances Act, is justified. Having concluded that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 was insufficient to minimise the risk of harm caused by such substances, it argues in favour of the regulatory scheme established under the Psychoactive Substances Act. It concludes that the Psychoactive Substances Act is a revolutionary and innovative measure that will successfully minimise the harm caused, to individuals and society in general, by such substances.

The law on psychoactive substances in New Zealand: The end of the regulatory game of cat and mouse