The much-lauded so-called ''legal high'' legislation was expected to make a significant difference to the scourge of psychoactive substances and ease the concerns of worried families dealing with their frightening effects on often-young users.
But almost a year after the Psychoactive Substances Act became law, there is increasing anger and criticism from some that the legislation has failed to deliver and protect vulnerable users, their families and communities.
Street protests were held in at least 20 centres nationwide on Saturday, with renewed calls for the Government to ban the products altogether.
The legislation was fast-tracked through Parliament because of widespread concerns on the issue and became law last July, with almost unanimous support.
Its purpose was to ''regulate the availability of psychoactive substances'' in the interest of minimising harm, and applied to the ''importation, manufacture, sale, supply, or possession'' of such substances.
It required all those selling the products to be licensed, and established a raft of restrictions - around age (18-plus), place of sale, display, advertising, labelling, and packaging - and introduced powers of enforcement, fines and imprisonment options for licence breaches.
The Act also allowed (but did not require) territorial authorities to create their own ''local approved products policy'' relating to the location of premises selling approved legal-high products in their districts, thereby allowing for considerations around proximity to the likes of child-care and educational institutions, places of worship and community facilities.
An outright ban of specific products is tricky as manufacturers have consistently developed new formulas to circumvent bans. The Act instead puts the onus on manufacturers to ''prove'' their products are safe through a rigorous and expensive testing regime. Under the Act, the regulatory authority can recall products that turn out to cause harm not detected in clinical trials.
This newspaper has much sympathy for those negatively affected by legal highs. Few can fail to be horrified or concerned by some of the stories. Of course, personal choice and responsibility play a part in the use of any product, but the simple fact is young people in particular are likely to experiment and take risks with their health and safety - and therefore availability of what appear to be often-risky products becomes an issue.
But are the accusations on various sides fair?
There was a big push from local authorities, including those in the South, for the Government to act on the issue. It did, and through the legislation gave significant power to those authorities.
The onus from the time of enactment has been on local authorities to use those powers to create exclusion zones, which, depending on the selected size, could effectively eliminate the problem.
But councils are understandably wary. Hamilton City Council's local policy, among the first to be created under the Act, has faced legal challenges, some of which are awaiting the outcome of a judicial review.
The situation is no different with any other local policy. The DCC's local alcohol plan, for instance, was delayed while the council watched what happened with various legal challenges in other jurisdictions on that issue.
In principle, the Act empowers councils. In reality, until a precedent has been clearly established, the extent of that power is uncertain.
But the DCC this week said it would begin to consider a draft policy around the location of legal-high retailers, and the draft alcohol plan is also back on track for consideration.
The pace of change regarding legal highs may not have been as swift as some of those affected would have hoped, but it must be noted significant and meaningful process has been made.
The legislation is internationally ground-breaking. It has reportedly removed thousands of retail outlets nationwide (in Dunedin the number has reduced from about 20 to 8) and hundreds of products. Dairies can no longer sell the products, and there is potential to stub out the problem further, if not fully, depending on the results in Hamilton.
Patience is urged as local authorities work within the new law to make the changes. Vigilante action such as that in Invercargill (in which a molotov cocktail was thrown through the window of a legal high retailer's premises) is unacceptable.
Two wrongs do not make a right, however emotive the issue.
