iSAYSO
OPEN LETTER TO THE MINISTER OF POLICE
OPEN LETTER TO THE MINISTER OF POLICE
BY NIGEL GRAY 1 JUNE 2026
PLEASE SHARE!
Re: Your Use of a Manufacturer’s Internal Assurances as “Safety Evidence” for the Securetec DrugWipe Device
Mark Mitchell
Minister of Police,
You have presented a statement from Securetec’s own “Head of Quality Management” as if it were credible scientific evidence that the DrugWipe device is safe for public use.
It is not evidence.
It is not science.
It is not independent.
It is not acceptable.
It is not science.
It is not independent.
It is not acceptable.
And the fact that you are treating it as if it were a legitimate safety assessment is, frankly, indefensible.
Let me put the issue in terms so clear they cannot be spun:
If I handed you a letter from the Head of Quality Management of a cocaine manufacturer assuring you that cocaine is safe, would you accept that as proof of safety?
If your answer is “yes,” then you are unfit to be making public safety decisions.
If your answer is “no,” then explain why you are applying a lower standard to a device that physically contacts the mucous membranes of New Zealanders during law‑enforcement operations.
If your answer is “no,” then explain why you are applying a lower standard to a device that physically contacts the mucous membranes of New Zealanders during law‑enforcement operations.
I am trained in detoxification. I understand chemical exposure, toxicity, and physiological risk. I can tell you with certainty that cocaine is not safe. But even my professional assurance would not — and should not — be accepted as evidence. You would demand independent toxicology, independent analysis, independent verification.
So again:
Why is the Securetec device exempt from the standards you would apply to a Class A drug?
Why is the Securetec device exempt from the standards you would apply to a Class A drug?
Your Ministry has accepted:
Instead, you have relied on a decade of recycled manufacturer comfort letters — each one a variation of “to the best of our knowledge.”
Minister, “to the best of our knowledge” is not a safety standard.
It is an admission that no one has actually done the work.
It is an admission that no one has actually done the work.
You are asking the public to trust a device that has never undergone independent safety testing, while simultaneously claiming that the manufacturer’s internal assurances are sufficient.
They are not.
This is not a grey area.
This is not a technicality.
This is a fundamental failure of due diligence.
This is not a technicality.
This is a fundamental failure of due diligence.
So I am putting the questions to you without euphemism:
Why has no independent safety testing been commissioned?
Why is the Government relying solely on the manufacturer’s assurances?
And who, precisely, made the decision that independent scientific evaluation was unnecessary?
Why is the Government relying solely on the manufacturer’s assurances?
And who, precisely, made the decision that independent scientific evaluation was unnecessary?
New Zealanders deserve answers — not PR lines, not deflection, not another manufacturer letter.
I look forward to your explanation.
Nigel Gray
Trained Detoxification Specialist
New Zealand
Trained Detoxification Specialist
New Zealand
