To schedule or not to schedule: How well do we decide?

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 1-20

  Caulkins, Jonathan P ^a   Coulson, Carolyn ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

3,4 METHYLENEDIOXYMETHAMPHETAMINE; ALFENTANIL; AMINOREX; AMPHETAMINE; BENZODIAZEPINE DERIVATIVE; CANNABIS; COCAINE; DERMATOLOGICAL AGENT; DEXTROPROPOXYPHENE; DIAMORPHINE; DIFENOXIN; DROTEBANOL; FENETYLLINE; FENFLURAMINE; FENTANYL; KETAMINE; LAXATIVE; LYSERGIDE; MECLOQUALONE; METHAMPHETAMINE; OXYCODONE; PERFORMANCE ENHANCING SUBSTANCE; PROPIRAM; PROPRANOLOL; PSEUDOEPHEDRINE; STEROID; SUFENTANIL; TILIDINE;

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DRUG CONTROL; DRUG DEPENDENCE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; LAW ENFORCEMENT; POLICY; STANDARD; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84855583148     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19344708     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Clemen RT. Making Hard Decisions. Boston: PWS-Kent; 1997.
2. Griffin OH, Miller BL, Khey DN. Legally High? Legal Considerations of Salvia Divinorum. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2008; 40: 183-191.
3. Winstock AR, Ramsey JD. Legal highs and the challenges for policy makers. Addiction. 2010; 105: 1685-7.
4. Eurpoean Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). [Internet] Legal responses to new synthetic drugs 2000-2004. [updated 2004; cited 2010 Oct 15]. Available from: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu//html.cfm//index9941EN.html?
5. Griffiths, P., Sedefov, R., Gallegos, A., Lopez, D. How globalization and market innovation challenge how we think about and respond to drug use: 'Spice' a case study. Addiction 2011; 105, 951-3.
6. Sumnall, H.R., Evans-Brown, M., McVeigh, J. Social, policy, and public health perspectives on new psychoactive substances. Drug Test. Analysis 2011; 3, 515-23.
7. Wohlfarth A, Weinmann W. 2010. Bioanalysis of new designer drugs. Bioanalysis. 2010; 2: 965-79.
8. Gay, M. Synthetic Marijuana Spurs State Bans. N.Y. Times. 2010 July 10. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/us/11k2.html (accessed 15 September 2010). Archived at: http://www.webcitation.org/5ymOFK9x0 on 18 May 2011.
9. Nutt D, Kind LA, Saulsbury W, Blackemore C. Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. Lancet. 2007; 369: 1047-53.
10. Randerson J. Take decisions on drug classification out of politicians' hands, say advisers. Guardian. 2008 Nov 12. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/nov/25/illegal-drugs-classification
11. Nutt D. Estimating drug harms: a risky business? Centre for Crime and Justice Statistics. Eve Saville Lecture. 2009 Oct. Available from http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf.
12. New Zealand Press Association. National MP falls victim to water hoax. 2007 Sept 13. Available from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/38005.
13. Griffiths P, Vingoe L, Hunt N, Mounteney J, Hartnoll R. 2000. Drug Information Systems, Early Warning, and New Drug Trends: Can Drug Monitoring Systems Become More Sensitive to Emerging Trends in Drug Consumption? Subst Use and Misuse. 2000; 35: 811-44.
14. Mounteney J. Methods for providing an earlier warning of emerging drug trends [dissertation]. University of Bergen; 2009.
15. Mounteney J, Fry C, McKeganey N, Haugland S. Challenges of Reliability and Validity in the Identification and Monitoring of Emerging Drug Trends. Subst Use and Misuse. 2010; 45: 266-87.
16. Mounteney J, Leirvåg S. Providing an Earlier Warning of Emerging Drug Trends: the Føre Var System. Drugs Educ Prev Pol. 2004; 11: 449-71.
17. World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines for the WHO review of dependence-producing psychoactive substances for international control; 2000. Report No.: EB105/2000/REC/1. Available from: http://www.cpdd.vcu.edu/Pages/Index/Index_PDFs/GuidelinesForTheWhoReviewOf DependenceProducingPsychoactiveSubstancesForInternationalControl.pdf.
18. Lande A. Commentary on the Convention of Psychotropic Substances. New York: United Nations; 1976.
19. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 as amended by the 1972 Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. United Nations; 1972.
20. Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971. United Nations; 1971.
21. Rosenqvist P. National Variations in Classifications. Addiction. 2010; 105: 1153-4.
22. Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. Sect. 811; 1971.
23. Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, Pub. L. 2001 No. 3998; 2002 Feb 1.
24. Scheduling and Policy Frameworks for Medicines and Chemicals, National Coordinating Committee on Therapeutic Goods; 2010 Jul 1.
25. Hughes B, Blidaru T. Legal Responses to New Psychoactive Substances in Europe. EMCDDA; 2009. Available from: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drugnet/online/2009/65/article12.
26. Whelan J. In Quest for 'Legal High,' Chemists Outfox Law. Wall Street Journal. 2010 Oct 30. Available from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704763904575550200845267526.html.
27. Nichols D. Legal highs: the dark side of medicinal chemistry. Nature. 2011; 469. Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110105/full/469007a.html?s=news_rss.
28. Kau G. Flashback to the Federal Analog Act of 1986: Mixing Rules and Standards in the Cauldron. U Penn Law Rev. 2008; 156: 1077-115.
29. Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. Sect. 813; 1988.
30. Legislation to Amend the Controlled Substances Act (Anabolic Steroids): Hearings on H.R. 3216 Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the House of Representatives Comm. on the Judiciary, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. (July 27, 1988).
31. U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Diversion and Control [Internet] Scheduling Actions: Alphabetical Order. [updated 2010 Sept 15; cited 2011 Jan 5]. Available from: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/orangebook/a_sched_alpha.pdf.
32. Griffiths P, Lopez D, Sedefov R, Gallegos A, Hughes B, Noor A, Royuela L. Khat use and monitoring drug use in Europe: The current situation and issues for the future. J Ethnopharmacology. 2010; 132: 578-83.
33. Coulson C, Caulkins JP. Scheduling of Newly Emerging Drugs: A Critical Review of Decisions over 40 Years. Addiction. Forthcoming 2011.
34. Raiffa H. Decision analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. MA: Addison-Wesley; 1968.
35. Caulkins JP, Reuter P. How Drug Enforcement Affects Drug Prices. In Crime and Justice -A Review of Research, vol. 39, ed. Michael Tonry. University of Chicago Press; 2010. 213-272.
36. Slomaka J. Playing with Propranolol. Hastings Cen Rep. 1992; 22: 13-17.
37. Elman MJ, Sugar J, Fiscella R, Deutsch TA, Noth J, Nyberg M, Packo K, Anderson RJ. The Effect of Propranolol Versus Placebo on Resident Surgical Performance. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1998; 96: 283-294.
38. Oransky I. [Internet] Why would an Olympics shooter take propranolol? Scientific American. [updated 2008 Aug 15; cited 2010 Sept 30]. Available from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=olympics-shooter-doping-propranolol.
39. Chaterjee A. The Promise and Predicament of Cosmetic Neurology. J of Med Ethics, 2006; 32: 110-3.
40. Kleiman MAR, Caulkins JP, Hawken A. Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press. Forthcoming.
41. Bouso JC, Doblin R, Farré M, Alcázar MA, Gómez-Jarabo G. MDMA-Assisted Psychotherapy Using Low Doses in a Small Sample of Women with Chronic Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2008; 40: 225-236.
42. Greer G, Tolbert R. 1986. Subjective reports of the effects of MDMA in a clinical setting. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1986; 18: 319-327.
43. American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994. H.R. 4230, 103 D Congress, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington: 1994 Congressional Record 3. 1994.
44. Ray R, Dhawan A. Drug Scheduling-Science and Cultural Perspective. Addiction. 2010; 105: 1151-53.
45. Trigeorgis L. Real Options: Managerial Flexibility and Strategy in Resource Allocation. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 1996.
46. Keeney R. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Harvard University Press; 1992.
47. Transform. [Internet]. Piperazines - how to regulate an emerging recreational drug not covered by existing legislation. Drug Policy Briefing. [updated 2006; cited 2010 Dec 4]. Available from: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_General_Piperazines.htm.
48. Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Pub. L. 1975 No. 116; 1975 Oct 10.
49. Sheridan J, Butler R, Wilkins C, Russell B. Legal piperazine-containing party pills-a new trend in substance misuse. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2007: 26; 335-43.
50. Bowden M. [Internet] Call for BZP ban misses the point. STANZ. [updated 2005; cited 2011 May 10]. Available from: http://replay.web.archive.org/20081123061019/http://www.stanz.org.nz/Call%20for%20BZP%20ban%20misses%20the%20point.pdf.
51. Wilkins C, Girling M, Sweetsur P, Huckle T, Huakau J. Legal party pill use in New Zealand: Prevalence of use, availability, health harms and 'gateway effect' of benzylpiperazine (BZP) and triflouromethylphenylpiperazine (TFMPP). Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation (SHORE) and Te Ropu Whariki, Massey University: Aukland; 2006.
52. Theron L, Jansen K, Miles J. Benzylpiperizine-based party pills' impact on the Auckland City Hospital Emergency Department Overdose Database (2002-2004) compared with ecstasy (MDMA or methylene dioxymethamphetamine), gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), amphetamines, cocaine, and alcohol. N Z Med J. 2007; 120: U2416.
53. Sheridan J, Butler R.'They're legal so they're safe, right?' What did the legal status of BZP-party pills mean to young people in New Zealand? Int J of Drug Policy, 2010; 21: 77-81.
54. March JG, Simon HA. Organizations. New York: John Wiley; 1958.
55. Wilson JQ. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. Basic Books; 1989.
56. Pentney AR. An exploration of the history and controversies surrounding MDMA and MDA. J Psychoactive Drugs, 2001; 33(3): 213-221.
57. th Congress (CIS NO: 00-H271-49). (March 11, 1999)