Taking the cat-and-mouse game to the next level: different perspectives on the introduction of the German New Psychoactive Substances Act

Abstract

Background To counteract the spread of new psychoactive substances (NPS) and to prevent the emergence of novel substances, specifically designed as a response to the legal control of individual substances, a new law was introduced in Germany in 2016: the New Psychoactive Substances Act (NpSG). The NpSG combines a generic approach with the waiver of criminal liability for the acquisition and possession of NPS for personal use, which is a novelty in German narcotics law. The present study aimed at exploring the impact of the introduction of the NpSG from three different perspectives—NPS users, staff of addiction care facilities, and members of law enforcement authorities—to better understand the dynamics surrounding such a change in legislation and to contribute to the body of international experience in dealing with NPS. Methods Semi-structured narrative interviews were conducted with a total of 193 representatives of the three different groups affected by the law. These interviews included questions on perceived changes associated with the introduction of the NpSG as well as questions on opinions regarding legal and criminal policy issues. The analysis was carried out using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Results Most interviewees welcomed the non-criminalisation approach of the NpSG but also noticed that, in practice, not much has changed for users. Nevertheless, the changes in legislation have had an impact on the market. For example, novel substances have emerged circumventing the new legislation. According to users, this has led some to reduce NPS use and others to adopt more hazardous consumption patterns. Overall, most respondents did not expect the introduction of the NpSG to bring any significant changes. Conclusions Although the idea of non-criminalisation inherent to the NpSG is appreciated and the generic approach has been well implemented in the law, thus covering a wide range of substances, the introduction of the law—perhaps for that very reason—has also had unintended and negative consequences, taking the cat-and-mouse game to the next level. To end the game, or at least to defuse the game situation, a combination of different strategies will be necessary, with legislation always playing a key role.

Legal Approaches to New Psychoactive Substances: First Empirical Findings

“…In Germany, two surveys among 9,204 (in 2015) and 9,267 (in 2018) adults aged 18–64 showed stable rates of NPS use at 0.9% and, thus, no effect of the NpSG [56].…”

“…For NPS controlled under the BtMG, possession-related offences increased between 2018–2021 from 2,609 to 2,925 and trafficking offences increased from 293 to 726. Notably, the number of NpSG violations increased from 361 in 2018 to 771 in 2021 [56, 60].…”

“…The IFT evaluation found that while street dealers were a minor source of NPS in 2016, accounting for 15% of sales, by 2017 they had become the main source of NPS with 56% of sales, which rose to 72% in 2019 [55]. German NPS users reported that the introduction of the NpSG was accompanied by a reduction in the quality of NPS [55,56], which may have contributed to an increasingly negative image of NPS use [55]. This reduction in quality encouraged German users to reduce their use of (certain) NPS, Generic Drug Legislation Eur Addict Res 2023;29:363-372 DOI: 10.1159/000531503 switch to other (potentially more dangerous) NPS, return to traditional drugs, and/or change their supply channel (mostly to the online and street markets).…”

“…The NpSG did have an impact on NPS users’ behaviour. For example, novel substances have emerged circumventing the NpSG, which – according to users – has led some users to reduce NPS use and others to adopt more hazardous consumption patterns [56]. When German NPS users were asked what impact the introduction of the NpSG would have on their future consumer behaviour, 78% expected that the rate of traditional drug use would remain the same and 5% thought it would decrease.…”