Banning naphyrone will get us nowhere

There is a worrying sense of deja vu about the ACMD's recommendation to ban the legal high naphyrone


o David Nutt
o guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 July 2010 13.30 BST


The recommendation to ban naphyrone by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) raises again important questions about the role of science in policymaking. This drug, unheard of until recently, is being sold as a legal alternative to mephedrone and other related and now-illegal highs.

The sole evidence of its UK availability and use is a survey of 10 purchases of supposed naphyrone, sold as NRG-1/energy. Remarkably, only one of these contained naphyrone, though most contained mephedrone or similar illegal substances – a point acknowledged by the ACMD.

So why did the ACMD even review naphyrone? Maybe because of claims of high sales reported by the Scottish police, though none of these have been verified as being naphyrone.

There is a worrying sense of deja vu here. In the runup to the mephedrone ban, it was wrongly assumed to be behind the deaths of two teenagers in Scunthorpe.

If there is so little evidence, why do the ACMD wish to ban naphyrone? There is no evidence of social harm. The ACMD report also presents no evidence of human harm from naphyrone nor evidence of toxicity in animals either.

Its decision appears to have been made on the grounds that it has a (weak) chemical similarity to mephedrone and other now-illegal cathinones and is 10 times more potent than some of these. Yet, greater potency only results in more toxicity if drugs are taken in equal doses.

Suppliers of naphyrone understand this. The unit dose sold is proportionately lower than that for mephedrone for this reason.

A major problem with the ACMD report is that it lacks a critical appraisal of the science of naphyrone. The pharmacology on which the ban is recommended is that naphyrone binds to reuptake sites for the neurotransmitters noradrenaline, 5HT (serotonin) and dopamine. Such actions are more usually a feature of antidepressant rather than stimulant pharmacology. Based on the ACMD logic, potential new multi-amine reuptake blocking antidepressants such as NS2359, as well as established ones such as bupropion and venlafaxine might be in line to be banned. These drugs do not have abuse liability. As yet, we have no idea if naphyrone has either.

Another important consideration that was ignored in the mephedrone ban, and which is relevant here, is that the discovery and synthesis of naphyrone was driven by a desire to find new treatments for addiction. Such research will inevitably suffer once the compounds are outlawed – another perverse consequence of making drugs illegal. The mephedrone ban has probably stopped any new antidepressant in that chemical family from being developed and we may commit a similar "own goal" by banning naphyrone. MDMA (ecstasy) was originally developed as adjunctive treatment in psychiatric therapy. This research stopped when it was made illegal in the 1970s and has only just been resumed – with major benefits emerging.

Once naphyrone is banned what will happen? The head shops and internet sites will rebadge the current stuff by another name so no benefit there. Will another legal high will take its place? Many chemists will already have molecules in mind. Will these new compounds be banned without any testing of pharmacology or any knowledge of harms? The ACMD could find itself spending the rest of its life writing scientifically unsatisfactory reports on new drugs that might be being sold and that might be harmful; hardly a good use of their abilities or taxpayers' money.

What is needed is the development of an intellectual base for deciding on the appropriate measures of harms and the threshold of these that should lead to a drug being considered for control. Proper scientific data acquisition and analysis of sales samples to determine which drugs are being used and where is also desperately needed. These are important scientific and social challenges, which I and my colleagues on the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs are starting to take forward.

Banning naphyrone will get us nowhere | David Nutt | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

What seems to have happened is that adventurous organic chemists are concocting new possibly psychotropic substances faster than regulators can collect data on their effects - and, if evidence suggests it - ban them.

Attention might better move to considering the idiots who ingest this stuff.

I am generally averse to right wing solutions, but I think here that the thing to do is to set up compounds with music, alcohol or whatever turns them on for people who take this stuff. Those who survive without debility can simply go home; those who suffer severe trauma to their metabolism may be picked up if they have relatives who care to do so. The rest, and those who die, should be buried in unmarked graves using climate-friendly cardboard coffins.

This would be far cheaper than promoting the existing drug law enforcement regime and the huge cost of incarcerating offenders in prisons.

Originally Posted by roadkill

The rest, and those who die, should be buried in unmarked graves using climate-friendly cardboard coffins. [emphasis added]

You want to bury some that have not died? That is a VERY right-wing solution!

Decriminalizing should be done, but I think more broadly and humanely that the sceneario you suggest....

__________________
"Neither man nor nation can exist without a sublime idea."
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 1821 - 1881
QOTD

My BLOG: Things Have Changed

The problem is state interference in a natural selection process.

I don't think banning them is the answer, but certainly more research needs to be done into these new drugs. I have seen the effects of mephedrone on people and it is some fucked up stuff. I think one of the reasons that these new drugs are coming about is because mdma has pretty much disappeared off the market, so people are looking for alternatives... and this stuff is cheap as chips and readily available in large quantities.

Quote:

You want to bury some that have not died? That is a VERY right-wing solution!

Not at all. To make it fair, we'll put a refurbished iPhone with a freshly charged battery in the coffin with them. If they call, we'll dig them up again. If they don't, it might be because they prefer to be where they are, insulated from the ugly cut and thrust of life in a recession-dominated economy.

Legal high 'NRG1' to be made Class B drug

Monday, 12 July 2010


The legal high naphyrone will be made a Class B drug and banned, the Government said today.

Marketed as NRG 1, naphyrone is similar to party drug mephedrone which was banned after being associated with a host of young revellers' deaths.

The move follows a recommendation by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to outlaw the drug last week.

The Home Office said legislation, including a generic description of the drug, would follow at the earliest opportunity.

The new laws will be worded to prevent manufacturers altering the chemical structure of the drug to escape prosecution.

Crime prevention minister James Brokenshire said: "I am deeply concerned about the use of this potentially dangerous 'legal high' and I want to make it illegal as soon as possible.

"We have already taken action to ban its import into the UK and we will continue to target those unscrupulous dealers who try to bring these substances on to our streets.

"I also want to send a clear message to anyone considering buying a 'legal high' - just because they are advertised as 'legal' does not mean that they are safe and they may not be legal. You are putting your health at risk and could be committing a criminal offence."

Naphyrone and similar drugs are a white powder sold for up to £15 a gram labelled as "100% legal" or as "plant food".

But experts found that due to its potency naphyrone has considerable potential for misuse and accidental overdose.

The likely harm includes adverse effects on the heart and blood vessels, hypothermia, dependence and psychiatric effects.

Legal high 'NRG1' to be made Class B drug - Crime, UK - The Independent

Quote:

The likely harm includes adverse effects on the heart and blood vessels, hypothermia, dependence and psychiatric effects.

Could it be almost as dangerous as alcohol?

Originally Posted by roadkill

Not at all. To make it fair, we'll put a refurbished iPhone with a freshly charged battery in the coffin with them. If they call, we'll dig them up again. If they don't, it might be because they prefer to be where they are, insulated from the ugly cut and thrust of life in a recession-dominated economy.

with or without the optional $30 antenna?.......

__________________
....attached to sanity by a bungee cord.....

We would provide a length of number 8 fencing wire that reaches from their cell phone antenna to the surface. It will all be in conformity with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We anticipate that the Treaty will be updated as we propose to accommodate iPhones, although we are less sure how effective this measure will be if relatives decide to have the body cremated.

How much time does a still living person have to call up and complain as he or she is slid into the furnace?