Search

Background and aims: The United Kingdom (UK) Psychoactive Substances Act (PSA), implemented on the 26th May 2016, made the production, supply and sale of all non‐exempted psychoactive substances illegal. The aim of this study was to measure trends in hospital presentations for severe toxicity following analytically confirmed synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist (SCRA) exposure before and after implementation of the PSA. Design: Observational study. Setting: Thirty‐four hospitals across the UK participating in the Identification of Novel Psychoactive Substances (IONA) study. Participants: A total of 627 (79.9% male) consenting individuals who presented to participating hospitals between July 2015 and December 2019 with severe acute toxicity and suspected novel psychoactive substances exposure. Measurements Toxicological analyses of patient samples were conducted using liquid‐chromatography tandem mass‐spectrometry. Time‐series analysis was conducted on the monthly number of patients with and without analytically confirmed SCRA exposure using Poisson segmented regression. Findings SCRAs were detected in 35.7% (n = 224) of patients. After adjusting for seasonality and the number of active sites, models showed no clear evidence of an upward or downward trend in the number of SCRA exposure cases in the period before (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.12; 95% CI, 0.99–1.26; P = 0.068) or after (IRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94–1.01; P = 0.202) the implementation of the PSA. There was also no clear evidence of an upward or downward trend in non‐SCRA exposure cases before (IRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.98–1.27; P = 0.105) or after (IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.98–1.04; P = 0.478) implementation of the PSA. Conclusions: There is no clear evidence of an upward or downward trend in the number of patients presenting to UK hospitals with severe acute toxicity following analytically confirmed synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist exposure since the implementation of the Psychoactive Substances Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers excerpts from relevant research and studies on addiction on topics including the banning of synthetic cannabinoids in Great Britain, a referendum on Cannabis legalization in New Zealand, and plans to fund alcohol and smoking cessation services in England.

Background and aims: The short‐lived regulated legal market for new psychoactive substances (NPS) in New Zealand marked a radical departure from the traditional prohibition‐based approach to drugs. This paper aimed to enhance understanding of this policy change using Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET). Methods: The analysis draws on 3 years of evaluative research, including interviews with key stakeholders, analysis of legislation and policy documents and academic and grey literature. Results: The reframing of the NPS issue from one of drug control to the need for stricter market regulation was achieved by the efforts of strategic policy entrepreneurs, including the legal high industry, drug law reform advocates, influential politicians and an independent legal advisory institution. This reframing was aided by the perceived saliency of the NPS problem and ineffectiveness of previous prohibition‐based responses. In the absence of any political opposition to the regulatory approach, the Psychoactive Substances Act rapidly progressed through the Parliament. However, once the interim legal market was established, portrayal of the issues shifted away from experts and lobbyists to critique from local communities, local government, animal rights activists and the media, who viewed the new regime as a source of social and health problems. The mobilization of criticism ('Schattschneider mobilization') drew on ideas of animal welfare and community safety. With a looming national election, the government responded by ending the interim market with the urgent passage of amendment legislation. Conclusions: Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) helps explain how New Zealand's Psychoactive Substances Act (PSA) policy first emerged on the political agenda and how the initial positive tone of expert support for reform shifted to a tide of popular criticism during the interim regime. However, with its emphasis on explaining agenda‐setting, PET does not account for the legislative design shortcomings of the PSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The regulation of new psychoactive substances (NPS) has confounded governments throughout the western world. In 2014 the UK government convened an NPS Review Expert Panel to consider a range of approaches. Ultimately the Panel recommended that the government ban all new psychoactive drugs and allow only psychoactive substances specifically exempted, such as alcohol, tobacco and those allowed as medicines. The government introduced the Psychoactive Substances Bill (PSB) in response to that recommendation. Passed in 2016, the Bill has attracted a torrent of criticism from scientists and experts. The Bill could be improved with revision, but the problems of the total ban, as envisioned by the PSB, with respect to the NPS, may be inherent: (1) defining psychoactivity is conceptually fraught, with great consequence for the scope of the prohibition; (2) operationalizing psychoactivity as a usable concept for legal control purposes is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible; and (3) the detachment of penalties for violating a total ban from establishing the harmfulness of a substance is normatively troubling. Given the uncertainties about the effects of a total ban, it is appropriate at this time for other governments to assess more fully the nature of the NPS problem, and the potential control approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents an editorial in which the authors comment on the legal aspects of cannabis use in Europe. They discuss the inconsistencies associated with punishments related to the use of cannabis as well as other psychoactive substances, citing data from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

The article presents drug and pharmaceutical industry news briefs as of August 2016. Great Britain has introduced uniform packaging regulations for tobacco products. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released regulations on vaping products and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). The European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Abuse (EMCDDA) released its "European Drug Report" which found a rise in ectasy and synthetic cannabis use in European Union member states.

This section offers news briefs on relating to addiction as of June 2016. It announces the implementation of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules 2014 in India. It reports the prescription drug monitoring to be introduced in Victoria to prevent overdoses, as well as the ruling by the Texas Supreme Court upholding a state Supreme Court decision to impose a special tax on cigarette makers.

Background New Zealand has recently attempted to address the underlying drivers of the escalating new psychoactive substances ( NPS) ('legal highs') problem by establishing the world's first pre-market approval regulatory regime for NPS. NPS products which can be shown with clinical trial data to pose a 'low risk' of harm will be approved for legal manufacture and sale. Aims and method This paper critically assesses the new regime, drawing on experience of the pharmaceutical sector and legal BZP market. Findings A number of characteristics of the recreational use of NPS may not be well addressed by standard medical clinical trials, including binge use, polydrug use, use by vulnerable groups and high-risk modes of administration. The overt advertising and covert promotion of approved NPS products on the internet may make them fairly visible to young people. The black market for unapproved NPS may be difficult to suppress given that unapproved NPS will be physically identical to approved NPS. If the legal market for NPS encourages the use of NPS, alcohol and other drugs there may be an increase in drug-related harm. Alternatively, if the legal NPS market reduces the use of more harmful drugs, there may be a considerable public health benefit. Conclusions The clinical trials required for NPS products should address the characteristics of recreational NPS use. Enforcement resources and technical solutions are required to clearly distinguish legal NPS products. The impact the new NPS regime has on other drug use is a key issue and demands further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Commentary to: Can new psychoactive substances be regulated effectively? An assessment of the British Psychoactive Substances Bill [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Aims The rapid emergence of myriad substances openly marketed as 'legal highs' is straining traditional drug control systems which require time and basic scientific data on harms to react, presenting governments with the dilemma of no response or a disproportionate response. Some countries have side-stepped this using novel policy and legislative approaches. Should other countries consider them? Methods We review the different laws invoked to stop the open sale of new psychoactive substances, focusing on the European Union (EU). Results Some countries have designed new catch-all control systems, or faster systems to classify substances as drugs. Others have enforced consumer safety or medicines legislation to stop the open sale of these products. The latter originate from harmonization of the internal market of the EU. Rigorous, objective evaluation is required, but first results suggest that these have been effective, while avoiding criminalization of users. Conclusions Every EU country should have existing laws for protecting public health that can be applied swiftly yet proportionately to new drugs appearing on the open market with minimum political involvement. It seems the key is the speed, not the weight, of response. Given support for their enforcement mechanisms, these systems might be as effective and more efficient than the old ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Commentary to: Can new psychoactive substances be regulated effectively? An assessment of the British Psychoactive Substances Bill [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Commentary to: Can new psychoactive substances be regulated effectively? An assessment of the British Psychoactive Substances Bill [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented which addresses the 31 psychoactive plants that have been exempted from New Zealand's Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, and it mentions a list compiled by the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority and the need to clarify the legal status of some plants.

Commentary to: Can new psychoactive substances be regulated effectively? An assessment of the British Psychoactive Substances Bill [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented which addresses the prolonged mental health effects of the synthetic substance ethylphenidate (Ching) after a person has stopped using the drug, and it mentions paranoia, delusional behavior, and the British Psychoactive Substances Act.

The article discusses the law, legislation, and ban of psychiatric drug testing on animals in New Zealand. The author comments on animal rights, the materials used in drug testing, and clinical drug trials. Other topics mentioned include public protest movements against the harming of animals and public health in New Zealand.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "A critical first assessment of the new pre-market approval regime for new psychoactive substances (NPS) in New Zealand," by C. Wilkins in the 2014 issue.

The author comments on the commentary by Wilkins on the way in which policy options for new psychoactive substances (NPS) are evaluated in the absence of data. She explores the issue surrounding the use of a medical regime designed for drug (medication) registration. She says that Wilkins side-stepped what she viewed as the fundamental problem associated with a medically oriented regulatory regime.

The authors comment on an article by Hughes & Winstock which discusses controlling the availability of new psychoactive drugs. The authors state that Hughes & Winstock have concluded that novel uses of existing non- drugs legislation might be just as effective at protecting public health. In the authors’ opinion, the new legislation in New Zealand which proposes to rectify anomalies surrounding its drug analogue provisions, is based on the rationale by Hughes & Winstock.

The author comments on an article by Hughes & Winstock which deals with criminalization while dealing with problems posed by psychoactive drugs. He states that Hughes & Winstock have correctly pointed out that the question is how to control the market without excessive use of penal sanctions, especially if they are directed against users. The author opines that the idea to use medicine or consumer protection laws rather than drug control laws should make it possible to solve the real problem.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Controlling new drugs under marketing regulations," by Hughes and Winstock in the November 2011 issue.

A response is presented by the authors of the article "Controlling new drugs under marketing regulations," in the November 2011 issue.