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

Addiction

Volumn 107, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 766-773

  Coulson, Carolyn ^a   Caulkins, Jonathan P ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Designer drugs; Drug markets; Drug policy; Drug schedules; Emerging substances; Prohibition.

Indexed keywords

DESIGNER DRUG;

ARTICLE; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG CONTROL; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; LEGAL ASPECT; PUBLISHING; STATISTICS;

DATA COLLECTION; DESIGNER DRUGS; DRUG AND NARCOTIC CONTROL; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PUBLISHING;

EID: 84857515776     PISSN: 09652140     EISSN: 13600443     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03697.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Nutt D. J., King L. A., Saulsbury W., Blakemore C. Developing a rational scale for assessing the risks of drugs of potential misuse. Lancet 2007; 369: 1047-53.
2. Nutt D. Estimating Drug Harms: A Risky Business? Eve Saville Lecture; 2009 October 10; London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies; 2009. Available at: (accessed 5 November 2010). Archived at: on 15 May 2011.
3. Randerson J. Take decisions on drug classification out of politicians' hands, say advisers. Guardian 2008. Available at: (accessed 22 July 2010). Archived at: on 24 August 2009.
4. Bücheler R., Gleiter C. H., Schwoerer P., Gaertner I. Use of nonprohibited hallucinogenic plants: increasing relevance for public health? A case report and literature review on the consumption of Salvia divinorum. Pharmacopsychiatry 2005; 38: 1-5.
5. Griffiths P., Lopez D., Sedefov R., Gallegos A., Hughes B., Noor A. etal. Khat use and monitoring drug use in Europe: the current situation and issues for the future. J Ethnopharmacol 2010; 132: 578-83.
6. 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.
7. Sumnall H. R., Evans-Brown M., McVeigh J. Social, policy, and public health perspectives on new psychoactive substances. Drug Test Anal 2011; 3: 515-23.
8. Griffin O. H., Miller B. L., Khey D. N. Legally high? Legal considerations of Salvia divinorum. J Psychoact Drugs 2008; 40: 183-91.
9. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). Legal responses to new synthetic drugs 2000-2004. Contribution to the evaluation of the EU action plan on drugs (2000-2004). Lisbon: EMCDDA; 2004.
10. Winstock A. R., Ramsey J. D. Legal highs and the challenges for policy makers. Addiction 2010; 105: 1685-7.
11. Gay M. Synthetic Marijuana Spurs State Bans. New York Times. 2010 July 10. Available at: (accessed 15 September 2010). Archived at: on 18 May 2011.
12. New Zealand Press Association. National MP Falls Victim to Water Hoax. Stuff.co.nz. 2007. Available at: (accessed 30 August 2010). Archived at: on 20 December 2010.
13. Griffiths P., Vingoe L., Hunt N., Mounteney J., Hartnoll R. Drug information systems, early warning, and new drug trends: can drug monitoring systems become more sensitive to emerging trends in drug consumption? Subst Use Misuse 2000; 35: 811-44.
14. Mounteney J. Methods for providing an earlier warning of emerging drug trends [Dissertation]. University of Bergen; 2009. Available at: (accessed 25 November 2010; archived by Webcite at ).
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 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 at: (accessed 15 October 2010). Archived at: on 18 May 2011.
18. Lande A. Commentary on the convention of psychotropic substances, presented in Vienna on 21 February 1971. United Nations: New York; 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. Hughes B., Blidaru T. Legal responses to new psychoactive substances in Europe. Lisbon: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA); 2009.
22. Kau G. Flashback to the Federal Analog Act of 1986: mixing rules and standards in the cauldron. Univ. PA Law Rev 2008; 156: 1077-115.
23. Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. Sect. 813. 1988.
24. Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. Sect. 811. 1971.
25. Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, Pub. L. 2001 No. 3998. 1 February 2002.
26. Scheduling and policy frameworks for medicines and chemicals. National Coordinating Committee on Therapeutic Goods; 1 July 2010.
27. US Department of Justice: Office of Diversion and Control. Scheduling Actions: Alphabetical Order 2011. Available at: (accessed 5 January 2011). Archived at: on 18 May 2011.
28. Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Pub. L. 1975 No. 116. 10 October 1975.
29. Golub A., Johnson B. D. The crack epidemic: empirical findings support a hypothesized diffusion of innovation process. Socioecon Plann Sci 1996; 30: 221-31.
30. Caulkins J. P., Reuter P. How drug enforcement affects drug prices. In: Tonry M., editor. Crime and Justice-A Review of Research, vol. 39. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago; 2010, p. 213-72.
31. Couper F. J., Logan, B. K. Drugs and Human Performance Fact Sheets: Gamma Hydroxybutyrate 2004. Available at: (accessed 15 September 2010). Archived at: on 15 May 2011.
32. 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. 99. 27 July 1988.
33. Joshi G. P. Propiram shire. IDrugs 2002; 5: 281-5.
34. Goa K. L., Brogden R. N. Propiram. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and clinical use as an analgesic. Drugs 1993; 46: 428-45.
35. Pentney A. R. An exploration of the history and controversies surrounding MDMA and MDA. J Psychoact Drugs 2001; 33: 213-21.
36. Sherwell P. Salvia: More Powerful than LSD, and Legal. Telegraph. 6 April, 2009. Available at: (accessed 31 August 2010). Archived at: on 18 May 2011.
37. Babu K., Boyer E. W., Hernon C., Brush E. Emerging drugs of abuse. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med 2006; 6: 81-4.
38. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). Understanding the 'Spice' phenomenon. Report no.: ISSN 1725-5767. Luxembourg: EMCDDA Thematic Papers. 2009.
39. Bovett R. How to kill the meth monster. New York Times, Op-Ed, published 16 November 2010. 2010.
40. Morgan C. J. A., Curran H. V., the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD). Ketamine use: a review. Addiction 2012; 107: 27-38.
41. American Association of Poison Control Centers. NPDS Annual Reports Available at (accessed 4 October 2011). Archived at: on 4 October 2011.
42. Transform. Piperazines-how to regulate an emerging recreational drug not covered by existing legislation. Drug Policy Briefing. 2006.
43. 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.
44. Wilkins C., Sweetsur P. Differences in harm from legal BZP/TFMPP party pills between North Island and South Island users in New Zealand: a case of effective industry self-regulation? Int J Drug Policy 2010; 21: 86-90.
45. Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. Sect. 812. 1971.
46. Reuter P. Options for Regulating New Psychoactive Drugs: A Review of Recent Experiences. UK Drug Policy Commission, 2011. Available at: (accessed 15 May 2011). Archived at: on 18 May 2011.