Advertisement

The Growing Problem of New Psychoactive Substances (NPS)

  • Bertha K. Madras
Part of the Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences book series (CTBN, volume 32)

Abstract

The term “new psychoactive substances” (NPS) can be defined as individual drugs in pure form or in complex preparations that are not scheduled under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) or the Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971). NPS may be categorized by chemical structure, by psychoactive properties, by biological targets, or by source (plant, synthetic, or combined). The emergence of hundreds of NPS in the past decade is challenging for public health and drug policies globally. The novelty of NPS, their ambiguous legal status, ability to evade toxicological tests, swift adaptation to legal restrictions, global Internet marketing, and scant public knowledge of their adverse effects are among the key drivers of this twenty-first century phenomenon. Multi-disciplinary research in areas of biology, epidemiology, prevention, and web analytics are needed to develop effective responses in a domain capable of overwhelming current international conventions and national drug control policies. Ultimately, research-guided prevention education will fortify societies against this tidal wave.

Keywords

Cathinones New psychoactive substances Synthetic cannabinoids 

References

  1. 1.
    Nichols DE, Fantegrossi WE (2013) Emerging designer drugs. In: Madras B, Kuhar M (eds) The effects of drug abuse on the human nervous system. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 575–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Papaseit E, Farré M, Schifano F, Torrens M (2014) Emerging drugs in Europe. Curr Opin Psychiatry 27:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deluca P, Davey Z, Corazza O et al (2012) Identifying emerging trends in recreational drug use; outcomes from the Psychonaut Web Mapping Project. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 39:221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brandt SD, King LA, Evans-Brown M (2014) The new drug phenomenon. Drug Test Anal 6:587–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonar EE, Ashrafioun L, Ilgen MA (2014) Synthetic cannabinoid use among patients in residential substance use disorder treatment: prevalence, motives, and correlates. Drug Alcohol Depend 143:268–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Madras BK, Fahey MA, Goulet M et al (2006) Dopamine transporter (DAT) inhibitors alleviate specific parkinsonian deficits in monkeys: association with DAT occupancy in vivo. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 319:570–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meltzer PC, Butler D, Deschamps JR, Madras BK (2006) 1-(4-Methylphenyl)-2-pyrrolidin-1-yl-pentan-1-one (Pyrovalerone) analogues: a promising class of monoamine uptake inhibitors. J Med Chem 49:1420–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    DEA (2014) Special report: synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones reported in NFLIS, 2010–2013. http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/nflis/spec_rpt_CathCan_2013.pdf
  12. 12.
    Wood DM, Greene SL, Dargan PI (2013) Emergency department presentations in determining the effectiveness of drug control in the United Kingdom: mephedrone (4-methylmethcathinone) control appears to be effective using this model. Emerg Med J 30:70–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EMCDDA (2015) New psychoactive substances in Europe: an update from the EU Early Warning System March 2015. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index44847EN.html
  14. 14.
    EMCDDA (2015) European Drug Report 2015: trends and developments. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_239505_EN_TDAT15001ENN.pdf
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    EMCDDA EU Early Warning System (2015) New psychoactive substances in Europe: an update from the EU early warning system March 2015. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_235958_EN_TD0415135ENN.pdf
  17. 17.
    UNODC: United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (2015) World Drug Report 2015. http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr2015/World_Drug_Report_2015.pdf
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Miech RA et al (2016) Monitoring the future national results on adolescent drug use: overview of key findings, 2015. Institute for Social Research, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trecki J, Gerona RR, Schwartz MD (2015) Synthetic cannabinoid-related illnesses and deaths. N Engl J Med 373:103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Langston JW, Ballard P, Tetrud JW, Irwin I (1983) Chronic Parkinsonism in humans due to a product of meperidine-analog synthesis. Science 219:979–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bonnet C, Rusz J, Megrelishvili M et al (2014) Eye movements in ephedrone-induced parkinsonism. PLoS One 9, e104784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schneir A, Ly BT, Casagrande K et al (2014) Comprehensive analysis of “bath salts” purchased from California stores and the internet. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 52:651–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seely KA, Patton AL, Moran CL et al (2013) Forensic investigation of K2, Spice, and “bath salt” commercial preparations: a three-year study of new designer drug products containing synthetic cannabinoid, stimulant, and hallucinogenic compounds. Forensic Sci Int 233:416–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carhart-Harris RL, King LA, Nutt DJ (2011) A web-based survey on mephedrone. Drug Alcohol Depend 118:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Corazza O, Assi S, Simonato P et al (2013) Promoting innovation and excellence to face the rapid diffusion of novel psychoactive substances in the EU: the outcomes of the ReDNet project. Hum Psychopharmacol 28:317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baumann MH, Solis E Jr, Watterson LR et al (2014) Baths salts, spice, and related designer drugs: the science behind the headlines. J Neurosci 34:15150–15158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fass JA, Fass AD, Garcia AS (2012) Synthetic cathinones (bath salts): legal status and patterns of abuse. Ann Pharmacother 46:436–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Prosser JM, Nelson LS (2012) The toxicology of bath salts: a review of synthetic cathinones. J Med Toxicol 8:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Castaneto MS, Gorelick DA, Desrosiers NA et al (2014) Synthetic cannabinoids: epidemiology, pharmacodynamics, and clinical implications. Drug Alcohol Depend 144:12–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gunderson EW, Haughey HM, Ait-Daoud N et al (2012) “Spice” and “K2” herbal highs: a case series and systematic review of the clinical effects and biopsychosocial implications of synthetic cannabinoid use in humans. Am J Addict 21:320–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Seely KA, Lapoint J, Moran JH, Fattore L (2012) Spice drugs are more than harmless herbal blends: a review of the pharmacology and toxicology of synthetic cannabinoids. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 39:234–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hermanns-Clausen M, Kithinji J, Spehl M et al (2016) Adverse effects after the use of JWH-210 - a case series from the EU Spice II plus project. Drug Test Anal 2016 [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tait RJ, Caldicott D, Mountain D et al (2016) A systematic review of adverse events arising from the use of synthetic cannabinoids and their associated treatment. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 54:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zawilska JB, Andrzejczak D (2015) Next generation of novel psychoactive substances on the horizon - A complex problem to face. Drug Alcohol Depend 157:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Coviello L, Sohn Y, Kramer AD et al (2014) Detecting emotional contagion in massive social networks. PLoS One 12;9(3):e90315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kim DA, Hwong AR, Stafford D, Hughes et al (2015) Social network targeting to maximise population behaviour change: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shakya HB, Christakis NA, Fowler JH (2012) Parental influence on substance use in adolescent social networks. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 166:1132–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
    King LA, Ujváry I, Brandt SD (2014) Drug laws and the ‘derivative’ problem. Drug Test Anal 7–8:879–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jensen NH, Roth BL (2008) Massively parallel screening of the receptorome. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 11:420–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sheffler DJ, Roth BL (2003) Salvinorin A: the “magic mint” hallucinogen finds a molecular target in the kappa opioid receptor. Trends Pharmacol Sci 24:107–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Setola V, Roth BL (2005) Screening the receptorome reveals molecular targets responsible for drug-induced side effects: focus on ‘fen-phen’. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 1:377–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Medical School, Department of PsychiatryBostonUSA
  2. 2.Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, McLean HospitalBelmontUSA

Personalised recommendations