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.
ACMD (2011) UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). Consideration of the novel psychoactive substances (‘legal highs’). London. Available at: http://www.drugsforum.nl/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=32504 (accessed 6 January 2013).
Anonymous (2010) Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Guidance on policing new psychoactive substances (formerly legal highs). London (accessed 7 January 2013)
4.
BielemanBBeelenARNRde BieE (2007) Aantallen coffeeshops en gemeentelijk beleid 1999-2007. Coffeeshops in Nederland 2007. WODC/St. INTRAVAL. Available at: www.wodc.nl/images/1581_volledige_tekst_tcm44-148902.pdf (accessed 6 January 2013).
5.
CAM (2012) Coordination point Assessment en Monitoring new drugs (CAM). Quick Scan report of 4-methylamphetamine (4-MA). Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Available at www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/digitaaldepot/CAMQuickScan4MA.pdf (accessed 8 December 2012).
6.
Carhart-HarrisRLKingLANuttDJ (2011) A web-based survey on mephedrone. Drug Alcohol Depend118: 19–22.
7.
CorazzaODemetrovicsZvan den BrinkW. (2012) ‘Legal highs’ an inappropriate term for ‘Novel Psychoactive Drugs’ in drug prevention and scientific debate. Int J Drug Policy. 24: 82–83.
8.
EC (2011a) European Commission (EC). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Towards a stronger European response to drugs, Brussels, 25October2011, COM (2011) 689/2. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0689:en:NOT (accessed 8 December 2012).
9.
EC (2011b) European Commission (EC). The European Commission seeks stronger EU response to fight dangerous new synthetic drugs. Press release25October2011. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1236_en.htm (accessed 6 January 2013).
EMCDDA (2011a) European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). Annual Report 2011: The state of the drugs problem in Europe. Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/online/annual-report/2011 (accessed 6 January 2013).
12.
EMCDDA (2011b) European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). Report on the risk assessment of mephedrone in the framework of the Council Decision on new psychoactive substances. Lisbon. Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index116639EN.html (accessed 8 December 2012).
EMCDDA (2012) European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). EMCDDA–Europol 2011 Annual Report on the implementation of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA. Lisbon. Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/implementation-reports/2011 (accessed 8 December 2012).
15.
EP (2000) European Parliament (EP). Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European Communities L 109/29, 6May2000. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000109:0029:0042:EN:PDF (accessed 8 December 2012).
16.
EP (2001) European Parliament (EP). Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, Art.2(b) (accessed 6 January 2013).
17.
EU (2002) European Union. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (accessed 7 November 2012).
HughesBLasnicB (2012) Romania passes law to curb distribution of new psychoactive substances. Drugnet Eur77: 5.
23.
HughesBWinstockAR (2012) Controlling new drugs under marketing regulations. Addiction107: 1894–1899.
24.
IuvoneTEspositoGDe FilippisD. (2009) Cannabidiol: A promising drug for neurodegenerative disorders?CNS Neurosci Ther15: 65–75.
25.
KauG (2008) Flashback to the Federal Analog Act of 1986: Mixing rules and standards in the Cauldron. Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev156: 1077–1115.
26.
KelleherCChristieRLalorK. (2011) An overview of new psychoactive substances and the outlets supplying them. National Advisory Committee on Drugs 2011. Available at: www.nacd.ie (accessed 6 January 2013).
27.
MeashamFMooreKNewcombeR. (2010) Tweaking, bombing, dabbing and stockpiling: The emergence of mephedrone and the perversity of prohibition. Drugs Alcohol Today10: 14–21.
28.
MeashamFWoodDDarganP. (2011) The rise in legal highs: Prevalence and patterns in the use of illegal drugs and first and second generation ‘legal highs’ in south London gay dance clubs. J Subst Use16: 263–272.
MorenoFAWiegandCBTaitanoEK. (2006) Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of psilocybin in 9 patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry67: 1735–1740.
31.
MorganCJAFreemanTPSchaferGL. (2010) Cannabidiol attenuates the appetitive effects of Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol in humans smoking their chosen cannabis. Neuropsychopharmacology35: 1879–1885.
32.
NuttDJ (2011) Perverse effects of the precautionary principle: how banning mephedrone has unexpected implications for pharmaceutical discovery. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol1: 35–36.
33.
PaulRSchaaffNPadbergF. (2009) Comparison of racemic ketamine and S-ketamine in treatment-resistant major depression: Report of two cases. World J Biol Psychiatry10: 241–244.
RajeshMMukhopadhyayPBatkaiS. (2010) Cannabidiol attenuates cardiac dysfunction, oxidative stress, fibrosis, and inflammatory and cell death signaling pathways in diabetic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol56: 2115–2125 (accessed 6 March 2012).
RossS (2012) Serotonergic hallucinogens and emerging targets for addiction pharmacotherapies. Psychiatr Clin North Am35: 357–374.
38.
SarosiP (2012) Is banning legal highs effective? Learning from the Hungarian experience. Available at: http://drogriporter.hu/en/legalhighshu (accessed 6 January 2013).
39.
SchierARdMRibeiroNPdOde Oliveira e SilvaAC. (2012) Cannabidiol, a Cannabis sativa constituent, as an anxiolytic drug. Rev Bras Psiquiatr34 (Suppl. 1): S104-S110.
40.
van DijkPNiesinkR (2011) Interim report DIMS. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Trimbox Institute.
41.
XiongWCuiTChengK. (2012) Cannabinoids suppress inflammatory and neuropathic pain by targeting alpha3 glycine receptors. J Exp Med209: 1121–1134.
42.
ZackMPoulosCX (2009) Effects of the atypical stimulant modafinil on a brief gambling episode in pathological gamblers with high vs. low impulsivity. J Psychopharmacol23: 660–671.
43.
ZuardiAWZuardiAWCrippaJA. (2012) A critical review of the antipsychotic effects of Cannabidiol: 30 years of a translational investigation. Curr Pharm Des18: 5131–5140.
