1. A look into the Expert Panels Review By Leigh Westmore @lostleigh

2.  NPS In context  Substances recap  Home Office Review  Nature and Challenge Of NPS  UK Response to date  Options to restrict  Wider implications  Conclusions  Questions Leigh Westmore

5.  Ecstasy/Cocaine replacement.  Mephedrone, MPDV, Benzo Fury, MDAI, ethylphenidate, methiopropamine, 3'- fluorophenmetrazine Prices vary from £9 for 0.5gm - £30 for 1gm Leigh Westmore

6.  ; NBOH-series. Methoxetamine (MXE) Diphenidine, methoxphenidine, AMT, aladin, LSZ Leigh Westmore

7.  Originally “spice” Online shops sell many Varieties. 1 shop recently selling 100 herbal incense products, ranging from £8 - £40 ) Leigh Westmore

10.  Panel assembled in December 2013 to look at the issue of NPS, wide range of areas such as law enforcement, medical, academia and Social Science.  The Panel defined NPS as: ‘ Psychoactive drugs, newly available in the UK, which are not prohibited by the United Nations Drug Convention but which may pose a public health threat comparable to that posed by substances listed in these conventions’ Leigh Westmore

13.  NPS are a global issue, fast adapting market  UNDOC identified 70 countries reporting NPS emerging in their drug markets ◦ Role of the internet creating a Global Market Place ◦ The Dark web  EMCDDA’s Early Warning System (EWS) was set up to ID new substances; o 81 novel NPS detected in 2013, an increase from 74 in 2012, 49 in 2011 and 41 in 2010 (96 already this year)  Largest group are the Synthetic Cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRAs) Leigh Westmore

15.  UK set up its own Forensic Early Warning System (FEWS)  Since 2011 31 Novel NPS been seen. 10 SCRAs  Samples analysed contain mixture of substances  Analysis of NPS samples collected by FEWS found 9 out of 10 contained either two (61%) or three (30) active compounds  2013/2014 3% of internet and 4.3% of headshop samples contained Controlled NPS.  88.15 festival samples contained controlled NPS  Harmful or ineffective NPS removed from circulation by self regulatory market.  Of the 81 NPS reported in 2013 41 were only found in one EU state. #96 substances this year 2014 Leigh Westmore

16.  Studies have shown that there are three primary sources of NPS purchasing. ◦ Internet, High street retailers, Non retail vendors/family friends, street dealers ◦ Only 6% bought NPS online form a study of 500 16-24 year olds in 2014. Most Common Source is from Friends  It is unclear how much the internet plays in NPS distribution. ◦ EU 651 online stores 150 “clearnet” in UK  Stores adhere to regulation (remove illicit or dangerous compounds) ◦ UK has 250+ headshops and other outlets ◦ Bulk Purchases distributed down from China and India Leigh Westmore

17.  Motivations for use. - Similar to illicit  Influenced by price, purity, availability, effects and legality.  Lack Purity of illicit substances  Sub Groups of users ◦ Gay men ◦ Professionals/Military ◦ Prisoners/those in touch with Criminal justice ◦ Psychonaughts ◦ Under 18’s ◦ Rural communities Leigh Westmore

19.  Early Detection – FEWS 2011 ◦ Forensic Support to Law enforcement, via testing seizures and samples etc  Data Collection and sharing – Drugs Early Warning System (DEWS) 2012 ◦ Collects and shares data at local national and international levels.  Legislation – MDA 1971 banned families of drugs. ◦ Controlled 550 substances since 2009 ◦ Stopped future modifications to an extent  Alternative Legislation – Intoxicating substances act ◦ GPSRs  Awareness Campaigns – Talk to Frank etc.. Leigh Westmore

21.  Five Approaches explored by expert panel. ◦ Analogue Approach ◦ Neurochemical approach ◦ Full regulatory approach ◦ Restricted Availability approach ◦ General prohibition on distribution  Positives and negatives looked at from angles Supply Demand Harm Enforcement Forensic science Legal services Costs communications Leigh Westmore

22. Concept Controls substances based on their chemical similarity to already controlled substances.  Pros ◦ Deterrent effect on producers and suppliers ◦ Successful legal prosecutions ◦ Reduce harms ◦ Prohibits huge range of substances  Cons ◦ Development of new drugs ◦ Increase crime through under ground networks displace to online sales – will people stop using? ◦ Very costly to enforce legally ◦ New drugs new harms and risk to users  Conclusion ◦ Would require significant investment ◦ Would not reduce overall prevalence of NPS Leigh Westmore

23. Principle Control drugs based on their effect on the brain, not just structure. Primary method for controlling SCRAs.  Pros ◦ Products removed from the shelves ◦ Legislation will catch up and over take SCRA synthesis and design ◦ Successful in USA/lux prosecutions introduced in 2012 ◦ People using herbal Cannabis less harmful!  Cons ◦ Very scientific (endocannabinoids) ◦ Costly in setting up ◦ Displacement to other NPS ◦ development of other novel NPS ◦ Not repeated everywhere buy online (Europe) ◦ Impact on legitimate pharmaceutical research  Conclusion ◦ Offers more certain legalities of control ◦ Needs careful Pragmatic introduction alongside analogue approach. Leigh Westmore

24. Concept Restricts NPS products and only allows those deemed ‘low risk’. Manufacturers have to fund testing to prove safety. Pros  Responsible retailing, moves away from harmful NPS. Information can be given freely.  Financial – taxation  Users of illicit and alcohol switch to “safe” NPS Cons  Potential black market NPS  Development of more NPS  Who and how do we define Low risk?  Confusing message that drug use safe? Conclusion  Could work well  Initially 47 licences granted all removed in April 2014 until full testing is completed. Leigh Westmore

25. Concept Open sale of all non-controlled NPS; labelling, no advertising and amounts rigorously controlled. Only sold in sex or betting shops with special licence’s. Class D drugs. (BZP) 2005 Pros  Restricted supply, reduced burden on law enforcement, harm reduction advice given at sale, Finances itself through licences and tax Cons  Profile of NPS on high streets would remain  People think they are still safe?  Compliance issues, local authorities would have to enforce Licences Conclusion  General public may not approve?  Political opposition  NPS would continue to develop Leigh Westmore

26. Concept Legislation prohibits supply, importation of an NPS not currently controlled regardless if its “not for human consumption” Can exclude simple possession or peer supply. Targets particular groups of non-criminal users. Does not have to cause harm. Pros  Headshop trade will disappear NPS notoriety diminish  Development of NPS will decrease  Reduction in use of those buying due to law  Cost effective cheap to do in comparison Cons  Underground trade, criminal gangs  Return to illicit drugs and prescription medication  No honest harm reduction  Difficult to prosecute unknown compounds  Increased pressure on Legal system to prosecute  Loss of tax Conclusions  Recommended, stops the evolution of NPS, reduces availability  Banning all sales could be seen as a disproportionate response as some substances have little or no risk  Careful definitions and exemptions need to be explored Leigh Westmore

34. The report concluded  There is no “silver bullet approach”  NPS situation cannot be resolved but its nature can be changed  The Main Residual challenge will be to continue to manage the criminal market  Recommendations should be developed along side systems and knowledge already in place for illicit substances not in isolation. Leigh Westmore

35.  Full Report https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ response-to-expert-panel-report-on-the- new-psychoactive-substances-review  http://www.strangemolecules.org.uk/ http://www.strangemolecules.org.uk/  https://www.erowid.org/ https://www.erowid.org/ Leigh Westmore

36.  lwestmore@gmail.com lwestmore@gmail.com  @lostleigh  With Thanks – Rick Bradley Kent Young Person Services Leigh Westmore