ArticleHarm reduction journal2022
Taking the cat-and-mouse game to the next level: different perspectives on the introduction of the German New Psychoactive Substances Act.
Article in Harm reduction journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outsmarting generic legislation: 4 years into the cat-and-mouse game of the synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist market since the Chinese ban in 2021.Archives of toxicology · 2025Review
- Legislating novel psychoactive substances: lessons from 15 years of UK mortality data (2007-2022).Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo counteract the spread of new psychoactive substances (NPS) and to prevent the emergence of novel substances, specifically designed as a response to the legal control of individual substances, a new law was introduced in Germany in 2016: the New Psychoactive Substances Act (NpSG). The NpSG combines a generic approach with the waiver of criminal liability for the acquisition and possession of NPS for personal use, which is a novelty in German narcotics law. The present study aimed at exploring the impact of the introduction of the NpSG from three different perspectives-NPS users, staff of addiction care facilities, and members of law enforcement authorities-to better understand the dynamics surrounding such a change in legislation and to contribute to the body of international experience in dealing with NPS.
methodsSemi-structured narrative interviews were conducted with a total of 193 representatives of the three different groups affected by the law. These interviews included questions on perceived changes associated with the introduction of the NpSG as well as questions on opinions regarding legal and criminal policy issues. The analysis was carried out using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring.
resultsMost interviewees welcomed the non-criminalisation approach of the NpSG but also noticed that, in practice, not much has changed for users. Nevertheless, the changes in legislation have had an impact on the market. For example, novel substances have emerged circumventing the new legislation. According to users, this has led some to reduce NPS use and others to adopt more hazardous consumption patterns. Overall, most respondents did not expect the introduction of the NpSG to bring any significant changes.
conclusionsAlthough the idea of non-criminalisation inherent to the NpSG is appreciated and the generic approach has been well implemented in the law, thus covering a wide range of substances, the introduction of the law-perhaps for that very reason-has also had unintended and negative consequences, taking the cat-and-mouse game to the next level. To end the game, or at least to defuse the game situation, a combination of different strategies will be necessary, with legislation always playing a key role.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.