[Comparative Harm/Benefit Analysis of Various Psychotropic Substances from the Perspective of German Drug Users and Addiction Medicine Experts - A Contribution to Psychoeducation of Substance-Addicted Individuals and Restriction/Legalization Debates]. / Vergleichende Risiko/Nutzen-Analyse verschiedener psychotroper Substanzen aus der Perspektive deutscher Drogenkonsumenten und Suchtmediziner ­ Ein Beitrag für die Psychoedukationsarbeit mit Abhängigkeitserkrankten und Restriktions-/Legalisierungsdebatten.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To date, we cannot find any current international comparative study on the assessment of a benefit/harm profile of various licit and illicit psychoactive substances conducted by adult drug users and addiction experts as well. Particularly, there is no study from the German-speaking area of Western Europe. METHODS: In addition to the data already published by 101 German addiction medicine experts (published in this journal, [1]), we carried out interviews using a structured questionnaire with 100 German substance dependent users, residing in acute and rehabilitation clinical setting, to evaluate 34 psychoactive substances regarding their health and social harm potential for users and others as well as their potential benefit. RESULTS: Both, users and experts estimated traditional illicit drugs, such as heroin, crack/cocaine and methamphetamine, to be particularly harmful. Synthetic cannabinoids, alcohol and benzodiazepines were in the upper midfield, cannabis and psychotropic mushrooms in the lower midfield, and gabapentinoids at the bottom of the harm rankings of both, users and experts. In comparison with the experts, the users estimated methadone and benzodiazepines to be significantly more harmful. In the benefit analysis, users rated traditional illicit drugs including cannabis and psychotropic mushrooms as well as nicotine as significantly more useful than the experts. In contrast to the experts (traditional illicit drugs), the users did not assess any substance as very harmful and very useless at the same time. Only a few users reported to have experiences with opioid analgesics which, however, did not differ between the users´ and experts´ harm/benefit-assessments. Neither users nor experts predicted cannabis-legalization to change the overall risk potential of cannabis. Specific cognitive valuation biases seemed to be prominent in both groups. CONCLUSION: This study presents first harm/benefit assessments of psychotropic substances from the perspective of German addiction medicine experts and drug users. The results can be valuable to the psychoeducation of substance-addicted individuals and to current restriction or legalization debates.