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

Coulson, Carolyn C.; Caulkins, Jonathan P.

doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03697.x

Cited by 39 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, the limited available data suggests that general population use of these substances remains relatively low (European Commission, 2014;Measham & Newcombe, 2016;Sumnall, Brown & McVeigh 2013 Ward, Danis, Glynn, Waters & Fitzerald, 2015). Furthermore, Coulson & Caulkins (2011) failed to find significant violent markets associated with NPS.…”

Section: New Drugs: New Policiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New drugs, new directions? Research priorities for new psychoactive substances and human enhancement drugs

Chatwin

Measham

O’Brien

et al. 2017

International Journal of Drug Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additional information:Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Kent Academic RepositoryFull text document (pdf) Copyright & reuseContent in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of researchThe version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. EnquiriesFor any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: researchsupport@kent.ac.ukIf you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html (EMCDDA & Europol, 2015) and the rate at which they are emerging, suggests that the problem is escalating at an exponential rate. Danis, Glynn, Waters & Fitzerald, 2015). Furthermore, Coulson & Caulkins (2011) failed to find significant violent markets associated with NPS. Citation for published versionNevertheless, NPS are being used as a catalyst for the rapid development of new policy responses (Chatwin, 2014; EMCDDA, 2016b;Measham & Newcombe, 2016;Stevens and Measham, 2014). NPS tend to emerge rapidly, and sometimes in tandem with each other, making it difficult for existing reactive systems of drug control to keep pace with them. Under systems that modify or adapt existing laws and processes, once legislation is passed to prohibit a named substance or group of substances (generic control), compounds can be easily moderated to create others not covered by Finally, Dunn, in his critical review of DMAA research evidence, demonstrates that issues around policy implementation and associated unintended consequences and/or harms for this HED are similar to those posed by the increase in range and availability of NPS and new drugs more widely.For example: there is a very limited existing evidence base on which to draw; the potential for harm is demonstrated but there is very little understanding of the nature of these harms; and scheduling of DMAA in many countries will now impede the ability of future research to provide a stronger evidence base. This special issue therefore offers tentative evidence of the merit of studying NPS and HED, not in isolatio...

show abstract

Section: New Drugs: New Policiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Danis, Glynn, Waters & Fitzerald, 2015). Furthermore, Coulson & Caulkins (2011) failed to find significant violent markets associated with NPS. …”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

New drugs, new directions? Research priorities for new psychoactive substances and human enhancement drugs

Chatwin

Measham

O’Brien

et al. 2017

International Journal of Drug Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We would like to preface our response by recognizing the specifically British context within which we write, and therefore some of the peculiarities of the ratchet to British new psychoactive substances (NPS) policy. As MacCoun notes, the United States is a very different drug policy environment with different patterns of availability and use, combined with cannabis decriminalization and, more recently, legalization in some states, alongside control of emerging substances through a Federal Analogue Act (the 1986 Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act) rather than generic legislation [3]. There are, however, some important similarities, including a political desire for legislation to keep pace with the rapid increase in the number of psychoactive substances that are appearing on the market.…”

Section: Widening the Debate On The Drug Policy Ratchet: Response To mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As with the first eight such 'rules' [3], this was offered in a tongue-in-cheek rhetorical style that allowed me to shirk from the hard work of actually providing supporting evidence. We should all be grateful that Stevens & Measham took their task more seriously, assembling relevant UK evidence in support of their thesis that there is a 'drug policy ratchet', such that 'substances labelled as drugs are likely to face tighter rather than looser control'.…”

Section: New Evidence On the Tenuous State Of Evidence-based Drug Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

New evidence on the tenuous state of evidence‐based drug policy

MacCoun

2014

Addiction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…I have thought about these issues from the perspective of Type I/Type II errors [2,3]. Policy could err by banning a substance that should be allowed or by allowing one that, in retrospect, we wish had been banned.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Vice ratchets

Caulkins

2014

Addiction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

] argue that a one-way ratchet distorts scheduling of new psychoactive substances (NPS) in the United Kingdom, easily cranking up stringency but rarely easing off. Based on their experience within policy circles, they attribute the ratchet to three associations.I am unsure how to test the power of their three associations versus other explanations. I have thought about these issues from the perspective of Type I/Type II errors [2,3]. Policy could err by banning a substance that should be allowed or by allowing one that, in retrospect, we wish had been banned. The latter would create more tangible evidence of error, so policy might naturally shy away from making that type of error.Also, the international conventions underpinning the scheduling apparatus do not recognize any value from drug use that is not medicinal. Therefore, a substance without recognized medical value should-by the treaties' logic-be banned if it poses any risk at all, even if it were a fount of great joy and happiness from 'recreational use'. That could look like a ratchet, but if the real complaint is with the treaties we should temper criticism of bureaucrats' faithful implementation of treaty obligations.I will focus, however, on how big the ratchet is, not why it exists, and distinguish (i) initial scheduling from (ii) subsequent adjustments.Stevens' & Measham's Table 1 lists changes to drug classification in the United Kingdom. They cite eight adjustments, five in the direction of tighter control and three loosening. Five-to-three is not parity, but when flipping eight fair coins there is a 36.3% of getting five or more heads, and a P-value of 0.363 does not reject a null hypothesis of no ratchet.Rather, the asymmetry in Table 1 pertains primarily to whether a substance, or category of substances, has been scheduled at all. Twelve have been added versus just one removed, and one is very unlikely (P = 0.002) to see 12 or 13 heads when tossing a fair coin 13 times.That is not the right test, however. As Stevens & Measham note, there has been a 'profusion' of new substances, and Table 1 omits NPS that were not scheduled. If 12 were scheduled but 120 were not, there would be no evidence of an indiscriminate reflex towards scheduling, so before drawing conclusions we need to understand how many substances were not scheduled, and it would be useful to contrast parallel analyses for other countries that have different regulatory processes and organizational structures.Nor would such a reflex necessarily be bad if it were practical to de-schedule later. Drug use and markets have 'tipping points' and other forms of history dependence [4-6] that make them resemble Pandora's Box. If a new substance arose that could create substantial harm if companies were allowed to distribute it for recreational use, then it would be easier to prevent that market from becoming established than to ban it after there were a pool of dependent users and an industry lobby befriending politicians.The real question concerns how many substances that were placed on the sc...

show abstract

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

Cited by 39 publications

References 20 publications

New drugs, new directions? Research priorities for new psychoactive substances and human enhancement drugs

New drugs, new directions? Research priorities for new psychoactive substances and human enhancement drugs

New evidence on the tenuous state of evidence‐based drug policy

Vice ratchets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About