In order to counter the spread of new psychoactive substances (NPS) and prevent the emergence of new substances specifically designed in response to the legal control of individual substances, a new law was introduced in Germany in 2016: the New Psychoactivist Act (NpSG). The NpSG combines a generic approach with the exemption from criminal liability for the acquisition and possession of NPS for personal use, which is a novelty in German drug law. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the introduction of the NPSG from three different perspectives – NPS users, addiction support staff, and law enforcement – in order to better understand the dynamics of such a legislative change and to contribute to the international experience in NPS treatment. In the case of an order from abroad, one is always liable to prosecution, because then the offence of importation or introduction is given. In this case, however, criminal liability does not arise directly from the NpSG, but from the Tax Code. There, section 372 regulates what is known as breaking the ban. Article 372(1) of the Tax Code provides: `Anyone who imports, exports or produces objects contrary to a prohibition is committed`. According to § 3, paragraph 1 NpSG, new psychoactive substances are prohibited items that cannot be imported. It does not matter whether the dealer claims that the substance is legal – only the German legal situation applies. I would understand the first sentence to mean that “import and transit” for placing on the market would be illegal. The illegality of an order from abroad for personal use, and not “for placing on the market”, also follows from this sentence, or is this case dealt with elsewhere? A total of 33 employees from substance abuse treatment facilities were interviewed, most of them in addiction counselling settings, followed by low-threshold treatment facilities and inpatient treatment facilities.
The institutions were mainly specialized in illicit substances and sometimes offered counselling to young people in addition to advice to parents and relatives. Some respondents also participated in active prevention projects on the holiday scene. “With the new law, I think the most harmless substances have completely disappeared from the scene; Now there is only such hardcore and very high stuff. It is sold freely, which I do not approve of at all. With one substance – an opioid, bromadol – when I read that you should wear a full body suit and a respirator, because if you have a crumb on your skin or inhale it, you die because it`s so powerful, that`s when the fun stops for me. And it`s only now, after the law was enacted, that it got worse, I think. Because now there are so many substances that are so powerful, and there are probably so many people who have no idea about it and think, “yes, it`s like something illegal, the classic stuff you know,” and then they overdose and die. (NPS User) Semi-structured narrative interviews were conducted with a total of 193 representatives from the three different groups affected by the Act.
These interviews included questions about perceived changes related to the introduction of NpSG as well as questions about opinions on legal and criminal law issues. The analysis was conducted through a qualitative analysis of the content, according to Mayring. As the name suggests, stimulants have a stimulating and invigorating effect on the brain and body. Established illicit stimulants include cocaine, speed and crystal meth. Stimulants in the NPS category include synthetic cathinones. Their effects are similar to those of amphetamines, such as speed. These drugs increase concentration, alertness and responsiveness. They also give people a sense of self-confidence or even euphoria. They also reduce inhibitions. There are many reasons why young people may fall behind in their school work, become aggressive, or exhibit other worrisome behaviours. If parents suspect that they are legally consuming highs, they should not be afraid to seek help on their behalf.
To explicitly address NPS, several countries have introduced specific legislation for NPS to complement traditional control mechanisms, with Ireland leading the way with the introduction of the Psychoactive Substances Act in 2010 [17, 19]. In this context, Ireland and other countries – most recently Australia (2015) and the United Kingdom (2016) – have adopted effects-based definitions that refer to a substance`s ability to influence a user`s mind, mood, brain or behaviour [20]. Kavanagh and Power (2014), for example, found that changes to Irish NPS legislation specifically targeting suppliers and sellers led them to change the content of their products from now-controlled to non-controlled substances [19]. Smyth et al. (2017, 2019), however, found that this legislation was also associated with a decrease in NPS use disorders and drug-related psychiatric admissions [21, 22]. Stevens et al. (2015) and many others have been highly critical of the UK`s draft Psychoactive Substances Act [23]. Thus, Reuter and Pardo (2016) summarized that the problems of total prohibition, as proposed by the law with respect to NPS, may be inherent because the definition of psychoactivity is conceptually problematic. The operationalization of psychoactivity as a useful concept for legal control purposes is extremely difficult, if not impossible, and the decoupling of sanctions for violation of a total prohibition on determining the harmfulness of a substance is normatively questionable [24]. Recorded deaths due to legal highs are rare but increasing. According to statistics, 98 people died in 2016 as a result of NPS consumption, an increase of more than 50% compared to the previous year.
This shows that the game of cat and mouse continues, but it becomes increasingly complex as the players involved take greater action at each point. In addition, the rules of the game are getting smaller and smaller. In addition to the extensions of the law concerning the cannabinoid group, there were also extensions concerning the phenethylamine group. In addition, five new groups of substances were added to the Act: benzodiazepines, tryptamines (e.g., LSD derivatives), N-(2-aminocyclohexyl)amides (synthetic opioids such as U-49900), arylcyclohexylamine and benzimidazoles. However, these additions to NpSG have also been accompanied by the emergence of some new substances, for example derivatives of LSD (“legal LSD”) such as 1V-LSD. Nevertheless, seizure data strongly suggest that the number of NPS on the market that are not subject to the legislation is decreasing [43]. Conversely, crimes committed under NPS are increasing, both consumer offences (BtMG: 2609 in 2018 and 2925 in 2021) and human trafficking offences (BtMG: 293 in 2018 and 726 in 2021; NpSG: 495 in 2017 and 771 in 2021) [44]. Although the other two groups rather regretted this in the context of the generally prohibitive orientation of German drug policy, law enforcement officials welcomed the existence of an additional legal instrument, in particular to eliminate legal uncertainties related to the treatment of NPS and the possibility of preventive seizures. However, in this context, NPS users sometimes pointed out that the distinction between personal consumption and human trafficking did not always seem clear, although most even considered it appropriate to continue NPS trafficking. Legal highs or new psychoactive substances (NPS) are synthetically produced synthetic drugs that typically mimic the effects of known controlled substances.
In this context and in the current debate on the legalization of cannabis in Germany, the question arises as to whether the decriminalization of cannabis users would also lead to a reduction in the prevalence of synthetic cannabinoids [34]. A recent study examining the association between exposure to synthetic cannabinoids reported to U.S. poison control centers and the state of cannabis legalization in states shows that passing permissive cannabis legislation was associated with a significant reduction in reported exposure to synthetic cannabinoids [51]. However, in order to assess the impact of a possible legalisation of cannabis in Germany, further research will be needed in due course. This last point, however, is totally misleading, because “legal highs” are anything but legal, but punishable, even if they are not mentioned in the Narcotic Control Act (BtMG). A separate law was passed for them in 2016: the new Psychoactive Substances Act (NpSG). Legal highs, i.e. new psychoactive substances (NPS), are often based on research chemicals.
These are products that were originally developed as part of pharmacological research. These synthetic substances often have a much stronger effect than the natural substances on which they are based – as the example of cannabis and cannabinoids shows. As a result, NPS consumption is also associated with an increased risk of overdose and serious health consequences. Interviews with NPS users were preceded by a short questionnaire on consumption patterns and demographics. Scientific staff have been trained in the application of the thematic guidelines adapted to the respective groups of people. These each consisted of different thematic complexes, to which open questions were subordinated. Interviews focused on the groups` specific experiences with NpSG and included questions on perceived changes related to the introduction of NpSG as well as questions on opinions on legal and criminal law issues. Interviews with NPS users averaged 30 minutes, and interviews with addictions support staff and law enforcement officials averaged 45 minutes.
