References 1. Caulkins J., Reuter P., Coulson C. Basing drug scheduling decisions on scientific ranking of harmfulness: false promise from false premises. Addiction 2011; Epub ahead of print. Blakemore C. Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. Lancet 2007; 369: 1047-53. 6. Nutt D. J., King L. A., Phillips L. D. Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis. Lancet 2010; 376: 1558-65. 7. van Amsterdam J., Opperhuizen A., Koeter M., van den Brink W. Ranking the harm of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs for the individual and the population. Eur Addict Res 2010; 16: 202-7. 8. Storvoll E. E., Rossow I., Rise J. Alkoholpolitikken og opin-ionen. Endringer i befolkningens holdninger til alkoholpoli-tikken og oppfatninger om effekten av ulike virkemidler i perioden 2005-2009 [Alcohol policy and public opinion. Changes in attitudes to alcohol policy and perceptions of effectiveness of various policy measures over the period

The process for determining the legal status of new psychoactive substances appears to function reasonably well, within the framework of international treaty obligations. Most criticisms relate to one or a few substances (e.g. 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) and/or complaints that the decisions discount benefits that are not recognized by the treaties (e.g. recreational or religious use).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract