Elsevier

International Journal of Drug Policy

Volume 40, February 2017, Pages 117-122
International Journal of Drug Policy

Research paper
New psychoactive substances: Are there any good options for regulating new psychoactive substances?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.10.020Get rights and content

Abstract

Advances in chemistry, technology, and globalization have contributed to the rapid development and diffusion of NPS (new psychoactive substances), creating perhaps the most serious challenge to the century-old international drug control system and to national systems. Very little is known about the effects of these substances which fall outside of national and international controls. The predominant response to the flood of NPS has been the development of more expeditious methods of prohibiting a new chemical entity. This article explores alternative mechanisms that have been considered: foodstuffs, alcohol and tobacco and medicines. None seems promising in terms of avoiding the problems of prohibition without permitting unsafe substances on the market. The article then considers whether there is a bias in the existing system toward excessive prohibition. In public discussion, no attention is given to the pleasures that users obtain from any NPS, to the possibility of substitution for a more dangerous legal or illegal drug or to the consequences of illegal markets for prohibited NPS. On the other hand, it may well be impossible to obtain meaningful assessments on any of these matters at the time when decisions are made. These complexities have led a number of countries, most recently Australia and the UK, to impose total bans, the effects of which are impossible to predict.

Introduction

It is easy to think of the drug problem as defined by a few substances that have troubled societies for decades, if not centuries. Heroin, cocaine and cannabis still comprise the largest share in terms of volume of drugs sold and used in the illicit drug market. However at the edges of the problem, there have emerged new psychoactive substances, not covered by the existing system of drug-specific regulations and prohibitions. Most NPS to date fall into just two categories (cannabimimetics and cathinones) (Evans-Brown et al., 2015). Many of these substances are the creation of entrepreneurial chemists in China and India (Griffiths et al., 2013, Griffiths et al., 2010). They have no claim to therapeutic purpose but are developed principally for recreational use, in contrast to the drugs (apart from cannabis) that dominate the illegal market A wide range of terms have been used to describe such substances. These include legal highs, synthetics, research chemicals, designer drugs and party drugs. In many instances, these substances are sold with the label “not for human consumption” in an attempt to skirt existing narcotics and consumer safety laws.

The problem is not a new one. Rapid advances in modern chemistry, technology, communications and globalization, as well as growing wealth and declining adherence to traditional values with respect to intoxication, have put pressures on existing national and international drug control mechanisms. Of note, late 20th century chemistry was advanced enough to produce a rapid flow of new psychoactive drugs that found their niches in recreational markets (e.g. ketamine and GHB). The late Alexander Shulgin, a prominent chemist in the development of new psychedelics in the United States, documenting the growth of such drugs, noted that there were only two such substances in 1900 (marijuana, mescaline), 20 by 1950 and over 200 by 2000 (Kau, 2008).

Governments have struggled throughout the last century with how to respond to these new entities about whose effects they were poorly informed, generally prohibiting them for precautionary reasons. The number of drugs on the list banned by international conventions has risen sharply, very much as Shulgin sketched for psychedelics. When the Single Convention passed in 1961 there were 85 controlled drugs, whereas by 2013 there were 235 under international control. In comparison, NPS have been detected with greater frequency. Approximately 16 NPS were reported in 2005. Since then approximately 560—more than double the number of substances controlled internationally—have been detected (EMCDDA, 2016).

This paper is intended to provide the basis for a discussion of policy options in dealing with NPS that show signs of popularity or harmfulness. Most states have used some form of emergency, analog, or generic controls, effectively prohibiting NPS distribution (Reuter & Pardo, 2016). Are there options beyond prohibition that effectively control the risk of widespread use of potentially dangerous substances without incurring the possible dangers of prohibition and accompanying black markets?

Though foods and medications regulatory frameworks, described below, seem attractive given their agility to control new substances, we conclude that these options are unworkable in the long term, either because they seem likely to increase the risk that a dangerous drug will be readily available, with apparent government approval (foods or related legislation) or to depend on an unsustainable artifice (medicines regulation). The negative consequences to decision makers of permitting on the market, in any way, a drug that later turns out to be dangerous are very high.1 The negative consequences to decision makers of keeping off the market a drug that is in fact harmless, even if the resulting prohibition worsens the problems related to that drug, are minimal. Permissive regulatory schemes do not have much promise of cutting this Gordian knot, unless the public can be persuaded to view the pleasures or other benefits from these substances as potential gains to society, which itself may be considered a questionable goal.

Section snippets

Size and scope of the market

What is striking is just how modest and localized the NPS problem has been so far. Though the EMCDDA notes that the number of substances on the early warning list, for which assessments are required, has risen in recent years from 24 in 2009 to 100 in 2015 (EMCDDA, 2016), most of those substances turn out to have gained little acceptance among drug users at the time that they enter the list. NPS account for a small share of total drug-related harms in the UK (Home Office, 2014, Office for

Learning from other regulatory frameworks

As noted in the Introduction, there are quite different models of regulation that might be considered appropriate for making decisions about these new drugs. Four main frameworks are used to regulate the use and availability of substances that may be consumed by humans. These are, in ascending order of restrictedness:

  • 1.

    Foodstuffs and consumer protection regulations

  • 2.

    Regulations relating to specific commodities, such as tobacco and alcohol, but also substances with other uses, such as solvents.

  • 3.

Concluding comments

Among the few analysts that have written seriously on this issue of regulating new psychoactive drugs intended for recreational use, there is considerable unease with the existing system for making decisions about newly emerging psychoactive substance (Bücheler et al., 2005, Griffin et al., 2008, Nutt et al., 2007, Nutt, 2009, Sumnall et al., 2011, Winstock and Ramsey, 2010). Many countries require that each substance be subject to its own extensive review, which is cumbersome when the flow of

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References (40)

  • D. Nutt et al.

    Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse

    The Lancet

    (2007)
  • A. Stevens et al.

    Legally flawed, scientifically problematic, potentially harmful: The UK Psychoactive Substance Bill

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2015)
  • D. Abrams

    Promise and peril of e-cigarettes can disruptive technology make cigarettes obsolete?

    JAMA

    (2014)
  • ACMD

    ACMD letter to the Home Secretary: Psychoactive Substances Bill [Internet]

    (2015)
  • ACMD

    ACMD letter to the Home Secretary: Psychoactive Substances Bill [Internet]

    (2015)
  • ACMD

    ACMD report on definitions for the Psychoactive Substances Bill [Internet]

    (2015)
  • J. Aldridge et al.

    Hidden wholesale: The drug diffusing capacity of online drug cryptomarkets

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2016)
  • I. Aleksander

    Molly: Pure, but not so simple

    (2013, June)
  • R. Bücheler et al.

    Use of nonprohibited hallucinogenic plants: increasing relevance for public health? A case report and literature review on the consumption of Salvia divinorum (Diviner's Sage)

    Pharmacopsychiatry

    (2005)
  • J. Caulkins et al.

    Considering marijuana legalization [Internet]

    (2015)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

    Hepatic toxicity possibly associated with kava-containing products—United States, Germany, and Switzerland, 1999–2002

    MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

    (2002)
  • C. Coulson et al.

    Scheduling of newly emerging drugs: A critical review of decisions over 40 years

    Addiction (Abingdon, England)

    (2012)
  • EMCDDA

    EU drug markets report [Internet]

    (2016)
  • European Court of Justice

    Joined cases C-358/13 and C 181/14 [Internet]

    (2014)
  • M. Evans-Brown et al.

    New psychoactive substances in Europe an update from the EU Early Warning System, March 2015

    (2015)
  • O.H. Griffin et al.

    Legally high? Legal considerations of Salvia divinorum

    Journal of Psychoactive Drugs

    (2008)
  • P. Griffiths et al.

    Getting up to speed with the public health and regulatory challenges posed by new psychoactive substances in the information age

    Addiction

    (2013)
  • P. Griffiths et al.

    How globalization and market innovation challenge how we think about and respond to drug use: “Spice” a case study

    Addiction (Abingdon, England)

    (2010)
  • Home Office

    New psychoactive substances review: Report of the expert panel [Internet]

    (2014, October)
  • B. Hughes et al.

    Legal responses to new psychoactive substances in Europe [Internet]

    (2009, February)
  • Cited by (42)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text