No abstract

In the early 2000s, increasing prevalence of psycho-stimulant (e.g., crack/cocaine, methamphetamine) use and related harms, including severe adverse health outcomes, was observed among - mostly marginalized - populations of persons using illicit drugs in North America, underscoring an urgent need for interventions options towards improved prevention and treatment. By about 2010, however, the ‘opioid crisis’, featuring unprecedented use and public health burden, had accelerated into full force in North America, largely muting attention to the psycho-stimulant issue until recently. Recent surveillance data on drug use and related mortality/morbidity from the present decade has documented a marked resurgence of psycho-stimulant use and harms especially in at-risk populations, commonly in direct combination with opioids, across North America, resulting in a ‘twin epidemic’ comprised of opioids and psycho-stimulants We briefly review select epidemiological data indicators for these developments from the United States and Canada; in the latter jurisdiction, related evidence has been less prevalent and systematic but corroborating the same trends. Evidently, the (widely ongoing) focus on the ‘opioid epidemic’ as a ‘mono-type’ drug problem has become an anachronism that requires urgent and appropriate correction. We then briefly consider existing, evidence-based options for – prevention and treatment – interventions targeting psycho-stimulant use and harms, which are substantially more limited and/or less efficacious than those available for problematic opioid use, while presenting major gaps and challenges. The observed resurgence of psycho-stimulants may, indirectly, relate to recent efforts towards curtailing (medical) opioid availability, thereby accelerating demand and supply for both illicit opioids and psycho-stimulants. The presently unfolding ‘twin epidemic’ of opioids and psycho-stimulants, combined with limited intervention resources, presents an acute challenge for public health and may crucially undermine actively extensive efforts to reduce opioid-related health harms in North America.

Cannabis control policies in a few countries have recently shifted from criminal prohibition-based regimes to legalization of use and supply. While cannabis’ newly emerging status of legality may suggest a coming “end” for criminology-based interest in the drug, these fundamental changes rather open a window to a new set of criminological research issues and questions, mostly focusing on cannabis use and related behaviors, and their relation to crime and justice. Based on a joint, personal record of several decades of criminological research on cannabis, we briefly review the rationale for five fundamental topics and issues of cannabis-related research associated with legalization. These include: 1) the deterrent effect of prohibition; 2) illicit production, markets and supply in a legalization regime; 3) use enforcement; 4) cannabis-impaired driving; 5) cannabis and crime. This constitutes an—albeit subjectively selective—“post-legalization” research agenda for a cannabis-focused criminology. Other possible areas of research focus or interest within fundamentally different paradigms of criminology (e.g., “critical criminology”) are identified and encouraged for development. Overall, the proposed research agenda for a post-legalization cannabis criminology should both contribute discipline-specific knowledge to improved cannabis-related public health and safety as well as allow for important debate and development in this evolving and important research field while entering a new (“post-legalization”) era.

Issues Non‐medical cannabis policies are changing, including towards legalisation‐with‐regulation frameworks. New Zealand will hold a public referendum on cannabis legalisation in 2020. We reviewed data on cannabis use and health/social harms; policy reform options; experiences with and outcomes of reforms elsewhere; and other relevant considerations towards informing policy choices in the upcoming referendum. Approach Relevant epidemiological, health, social, criminal justice and policy studies and data were identified and comprehensively reviewed. Key Findings Cannabis use is common (including in New Zealand) and associated with risks for health and social harms, mainly concentrated in young users; key harms are attributable to criminalisation. ‘Decriminalisation’ reforms have produced ambivalent results. Existing cannabis legalisation frameworks vary considerably in main parameters. Legalisation offers some distinct advantages, for example regulated use, products and user education, yet outcomes depend on essential regulation parameters, including commercialisation, and policy ecologies. While major changes in use are not observed, legalisation experiences are inconclusive to date, including mixed health and social outcomes, with select harms increasing and resilient illegal markets. It is unclear whether legalisation reduces cannabis exposure or social harms (e.g. from enforcement) for youth. Implications/Conclusions No conclusive overall evidence on the outcomes of legalisation elsewhere exists, nor is evidence easily transferable to other settings. Legalisation offers direct social justice benefits for adults, yet overall public health impacts are uncertain. Legalisation may not categorically improve health or social outcomes for youth. Legalisation remains a well‐intended, while experimental policy option towards more measured and sensible cannabis control and overall greater policy coherence, requiring close monitoring and possible adjustments depending on setting‐specific outcomes.

Background: Controversy surrounds psychedelics and their potential to boost creativity. To date, psychedelic studies lack a uniform conceptualization of creativity and methodologically rigorous designs. Aims: This study aimed at addressing previous issues by examining the effects of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) on creativity using multimodal tasks and multidimensional approaches. Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, 24 healthy volunteers received 50 μg of LSD or inactive placebo. Near drug peak, a creativity task battery was applied, including pattern meaning task (PMT), alternate uses task (AUT), picture concept task (PCT), creative metaphors task (MET) and figural creativity task (FIG). Creativity was assessed by scoring creativity criteria (novelty, utility, surprise), calculating divergent thinking (fluency, originality, flexibility, elaboration) and convergent thinking, computing semantic distances (semantic spread, semantic steps) and searching for data-driven special features. Results: LSD, compared to placebo, changed several creativity measurements pointing to three overall LSD-induced phenomena: (1) ‘pattern break’, reflected by increased novelty, surprise, originality and semantic distances; (2) decreased ‘organization’, reflected by decreased utility, convergent thinking and, marginally, elaboration; and (3) ‘meaning’, reflected by increased symbolic thinking and ambiguity in the data-driven results. Conclusion: LSD changed creativity across modalities and measurement approaches. Three phenomena of pattern break, disorganization and meaning seemed to fundamentally influence creative cognition and behaviour pointing to a shift of cognitive resources ‘away from normal’ and ‘towards the new’. LSD-induced symbolic thinking might provide a tool to support treatment efficiency in psychedelic-assisted therapy.

No abstract

Background Global opioid consumption increased multifold post-2000, disproportionately in high-income countries, with severe mortality/morbidity consequences. Latin America features comparatively low opioid availability; Brazil, the region’s most populous country, makes an interesting case study concerning opioid use/harms. In this comprehensive overview, we aimed to identify and summarize medical and non-medical data and indicators of opioid availability and use, regulation/control, and harm outcomes in Brazil since 2000. Methods We searched multiple scientific databases to identify relevant publications and conducted additional ‘grey’ literature searches to identify other pertinent information. Results Despite some essential indicators, opioid-related data are limited for Brazil. Data indicate that population-level availability of prescription opioids represents only a small fraction of use in comparison to high-income countries. However, within Latin America, Brazil ranks mid-level for opioid consumption, indicating relatively moderate consumption compared to neighboring jurisdictions. Brazil has implemented restrictive regulations to opioid prescribing and is considered ‘highly restricted’ for opioid access. Codeine remains the major opioid analgesic utilized, but stronger opioids such as oxycodone are becoming more common. Professional knowledge regarding medical opioid use and effects appears limited. National surveys indicate increases in non-medical use of prescription opioids, albeit lower than observed in North America, while illicit opioids (e.g., heroin) are highly uncommon. Conclusions Overall population-level opioid availability and corresponding levels of opioid-related harms in Brazil remain substantially lower than rates reported for North America. However, the available surveillance and analytical data on opioid use, policy/practice, and harms in Brazil are limited and insufficient. Since existing and acute (e.g., pain-related) needs for improved opioid utilization and practice appear to be substantiated, improved indicators for and understanding of opioid use, practice, and harms in Brazil are required.

No abstract