Commentary: Evidence-Informed Recommendation to Achieve Approximate Parity in the Allowed Number of Doses for Common Psychedelics.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Journal of psychoactive drugs Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-16 DOI:10.1080/02791072.2023.2201244
Kelan L Thomas, Robert Jesse, Nicky J Mehtani, Jennifer M Mitchell, Brian T Anderson
{"title":"Commentary: Evidence-Informed Recommendation to Achieve Approximate Parity in the Allowed Number of Doses for Common Psychedelics.","authors":"Kelan L Thomas, Robert Jesse, Nicky J Mehtani, Jennifer M Mitchell, Brian T Anderson","doi":"10.1080/02791072.2023.2201244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In recent years, policymakers have proposed and implemented regulatory changes promoting the deprioritization, decriminalization, or state-level legalization of one or more psychedelic substances, usually referencing data from clinical trials as reasons to support liberalizing drug control policies. As psychedelic policies continue to be drafted, personal possession limits may be considered for inclusion in those regulations. If \"allowable amount\" limits are to be written into law to set personal possession limits, then such amounts should be more consistently related to psychedelic doses found to be safe and efficacious in clinical trials, existing data on moderate-high doses commonly used in various naturalistic settings, and the few studies that estimate psychedelic dose equivalence based on the intensity of subjective effects. In this commentary, we provide an evidence-informed table of typical moderate-high doses for seven commonly used psychedelic substances. These estimates of comparable moderate-high doses can be used to inform \"allowable amount\" values for psychedelic substances. When such limits are written into legislation, the adoption of evidence-informed comparable limits akin to those presented here would be an important first step toward ensuring greater parity and consistency in drug policy, relative to limits that have little or no scientific basis.</p>","PeriodicalId":16902,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychoactive drugs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychoactive drugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2023.2201244","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, policymakers have proposed and implemented regulatory changes promoting the deprioritization, decriminalization, or state-level legalization of one or more psychedelic substances, usually referencing data from clinical trials as reasons to support liberalizing drug control policies. As psychedelic policies continue to be drafted, personal possession limits may be considered for inclusion in those regulations. If "allowable amount" limits are to be written into law to set personal possession limits, then such amounts should be more consistently related to psychedelic doses found to be safe and efficacious in clinical trials, existing data on moderate-high doses commonly used in various naturalistic settings, and the few studies that estimate psychedelic dose equivalence based on the intensity of subjective effects. In this commentary, we provide an evidence-informed table of typical moderate-high doses for seven commonly used psychedelic substances. These estimates of comparable moderate-high doses can be used to inform "allowable amount" values for psychedelic substances. When such limits are written into legislation, the adoption of evidence-informed comparable limits akin to those presented here would be an important first step toward ensuring greater parity and consistency in drug policy, relative to limits that have little or no scientific basis.

评论:有据可依的建议:实现常见迷幻药允许剂量的近似均等。
近年来,政策制定者提出并实施了法规改革,促进一种或多种迷幻剂的去优先化、非刑罪化或州一级的合法化,通常会引用临床试验的数据作为支持放宽药物管制政策的理由。随着迷幻药政策的不断起草,个人持有量的限制可能会被考虑纳入这些法规中。如果要将 "允许量 "限制写入法律以设定个人持有量限制,那么这种量应该与临床试验中发现的安全有效的迷幻剂剂量、各种自然环境中常用的中等高剂量的现有数据以及根据主观效果强度估算迷幻剂剂量当量的少数研究更加一致。在这篇评论中,我们提供了一份以证据为依据的表格,列出了七种常用迷幻剂的典型中等-高剂量。这些可比中等-高剂量的估计值可用于为迷幻物质的 "允许量 "值提供信息。当这些限制被写入法律时,采用类似于这里提出的有证据依据的可比限制将是重要的第一步,相对于那些几乎没有或根本没有科学依据的限制,它可以确保毒品政策更加平等和一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
62
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信