Differences between users’ and addiction medicine experts’ harm and benefit assessments of licit and illicit psychoactive drugs

Input for psychoeducation and legalization/restriction debates

Bibliographic Data

ID15516918
AuthorsUdo Bonnet (0000-0002-2592-8337, Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie, corresponding author), Michael Specka (0000-0001-5194-7876, University of Duisburg-Essen), Ann-Kristin Kanti (University of Duisburg-Essen), Norbert Scherbaum (0000-0003-1759-6990, University of Duisburg-Essen)
Year2022
Volume13
Pages1041762-1041762
Publication date2022-11-16
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1664-0640 • E-ISSN: 1664-0640
PublisherFrontiers Media (PUBLISHER • CH)
DOI10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1041762
PMID36465301
OpenAlexW4309307634
LanguageEN
References cited32

This study addressed current trends of psychoactive substance abuse (e.g., synthetic cannabinoids, prescription drugs) and provides from both perspectives (that of the user and that of the addiction medicine experts) robust harm/benefit evaluations at least of a core group of psychoactive substances (traditional illicit psychoactive substances, cannabis, methadone, alcohol and nicotine). The results of this study can be valuable to the psychoeducation of substance-addicted individuals and to current restriction/legalization debates, especially in the Western-EU

Addiction · Addiction medicine · Buprenorphine · Cannabinoid · Cannabis · Drug · Environmental health · Harm · Harm reduction · Heroin · Medical prescription · Methadone · Modafinil · Opioid · Population · Psychiatry · Public health · Synthetic cannabinoids · Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis · Medicine · Opioid Use Disorder Treatment · Psychedelics and Drug Studies · Psychology · Pharmacology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access