Developing a new national MDMA policy: Results of a multi-decision multi-criterion decision analysis

Author:

van Amsterdam Jan1ORCID,Peters Gjalt-Jorn Ygram2ORCID,Pennings Ed3,Blickman Tom4,Hollemans Kaj5,Breeksema Joost J Jacobus6ORCID,Ramaekers Johannes G7,Maris Cees8,van Bakkum Floor9,Nabben Ton10,Scholten Willem11,Reitsma Tjibbe12,Noijen Judith9ORCID,Koning Raoul9ORCID,van den Brink Wim1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

2. Faculty of Psychology, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, Netherlands

3. The Maastricht Forensic Institute, Maastricht, The Netherlands

4. TNI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

5. KH Legal Advice, Den Haag, The Netherlands

6. Department of Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; University Centre of Psychiatry, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

7. Department of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Neuroscience and Psychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

8. Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

9. Jellinek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

10. Department of Urban Management, Faculty Society and Law, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

11. Willem Scholten Consultancy, Lopik, The Netherlands

12. Stichting Drugsbeleid, Haarlem, The Netherlands

Abstract

Background: Ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)) has a relatively low harm and low dependence liability but is scheduled on List I of the Dutch Opium Act (‘hard drugs’). Concerns surrounding increasing MDMA-related criminality coupled with the possibly inappropriate scheduling of MDMA initiated a debate to revise the current Dutch ecstasy policy. Methods: An interdisciplinary group of 18 experts on health, social harms and drug criminality and law enforcement reformulated the science-based Dutch MDMA policy using multi-decision multi-criterion decision analysis (MD-MCDA). The experts collectively formulated policy instruments and rated their effects on 25 outcome criteria, including health, criminality, law enforcement and financial issues, thematically grouped in six clusters. Results: The experts scored the effect of 22 policy instruments, each with between two and seven different mutually exclusive options, on 25 outcome criteria. The optimal policy model was defined by the set of 22 policy instrument options which gave the highest overall score on the 25 outcome criteria. Implementation of the optimal policy model, including regulated MDMA sales, decreases health harms, MDMA-related organised crime and environmental damage, as well as increases state revenues and quality of MDMA products and user information. This model was slightly modified to increase its political feasibility. Sensitivity analyses showed that the outcomes of the current MD-MCDA are robust and independent of variability in weight values. Conclusion: The present results provide a feasible and realistic set of policy instrument options to revise the legislation towards a rational MDMA policy that is likely to reduce both adverse (public) health risks and MDMA-related criminal burden.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Pharmacology (medical),Psychiatry and Mental health,Pharmacology

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3