Amsterdam Institute for Addiction Research, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J Psychopharmacol. 2013 Mar;27(3):317-24. doi: 10.1177/0269881112474525. Epub 2013 Jan 23.
New psychoactive drugs (NPDs, new psychoactive substances) enter the market all the time. However, it takes several months to ban these NPDs and immediate action is generally not possible. Several European countries and drug enforcement officers insist on a faster procedure to ban NPDs. Introduction of generic legislation, in which clusters of psychotropic drugs are banned in advance, has been mentioned as a possible solution. Here we discuss the pros and cons of such an approach. First, generic legislation could unintentionally increase the expenditures of enforcement, black market practices, administrative burden and health risks for users. Second, it may have a negative impact on research and the development of new treatments. Third, due to the complexity of generic legislation, problems in the enforcement are anticipated due to lack of knowledge about the chemical nomenclature. Finally, various legal options are already available to ban the use, sale and trade of NPDs. We therefore conclude that the currently used scientific benefit-risk evaluation should be continued to limit the adverse health effects of NPDs. Only in emergency cases, where fatal incidents (may) occur, should this approach be overruled.
新精神活性物质(NPDs,新精神活性物质)不断进入市场。然而,要禁止这些 NPDs 需要几个月的时间,通常不可能立即采取行动。一些欧洲国家和缉毒官员坚持要求更快的程序来禁止 NPDs。有人提到,引入通用立法,即预先禁止一组精神药物,可能是一种解决办法。在这里,我们讨论了这种方法的利弊。首先,通用立法可能会无意中增加执法、黑市活动、行政负担和使用者的健康风险。其次,它可能会对研究和新治疗方法的发展产生负面影响。第三,由于通用立法的复杂性,预计由于缺乏对化学命名法的了解,在执法方面会出现问题。最后,已经有各种法律选择可以禁止使用、销售和交易 NPDs。因此,我们的结论是,应该继续使用目前使用的科学效益-风险评估来限制 NPDs 的不良健康影响。只有在发生致命事件(可能)的紧急情况下,才应推翻这种方法。