6.1 Legal status

An analysis of the legal status of MBDB in the 15 Member States shows that the drug is
controlled in eight of them: Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and
the UK. In the Netherlands, it was decided not to prohibit MBDB, after the National Assessment
Working Party advised against intervention, but recommended direct monitoring and the
evaluation of this decision in due course, or in case of new facts emerging. In some
countries, the control on MBDB was adopted through the generic definition of substances
within the legislation. In others, MBDB was put under control by analogy of the substance to
MDMA.

6.2 Possible consequences of prohibition

The meeting agreed that a discussion on the effects of prohibition should take account of the
consequences:

1. to the users of the substance;
2. to the distributors and manufacturers of the substance;
3. to the perceptions and social representations (images) of the substance and its use;
4. to public health issues;
5. to law-enforcement agencies and public security issues;
6. to drug prevention (demand-reduction issues).

For each of these aspects there exist positive as well as negative consequences of
prohibition and at the same time the very indecisive data on the substance, its use and its
effects were pointed out, so that the discussion of possible consequences is to a certain
extent based on speculation. Generally it can be said that there are two obvious scenarios: to
prohibit or not to prohibit MBDB; and a third scenario of looking at other possible options of
control besides prohibition together with a close monitoring of any adverse effects of not
prohibiting, and to have the possibility of rapid action as soon as any negative developments
occur.

The first scenario would be that the prohibition of this new drug would be a public health
preventive measure because of the similarity of MBDB to MDMA. As underlined in the
Opinion of the French Commission des Stupéfiants on MBDB, the lack of systematic
research of this substance in biological or other samples may possibly create an
underestimation of public health problems which could eventually be caused by the new
drug. MBDB is not generally recognised as having any therapeutic value and is not only
produced industrially.

The prevention of trafficking risks might be another argument to consider, taking into
account the essential chemical, pharmacological and toxicological similarity of MBDB to
MDMA which is already subject to control, and the hypothesis that the introduction of
MBDB in the market was an attempt to substitute MDMA and other substances already
placed under control. Different forms of legal status in different Member States could
hinder effective international co-operation between law-enforcement agencies. One
Member State reported a steep decrease in MBDB seizures after prohibition.

The second scenario would be to advise against prohibition. The reasons include the
relatively low prevalence of MBDB use and supply; evidence suggesting that MBDB is less
attractive to users than MDMA; the low involvement of organised crime; as well as
expected adverse effects of prohibition like the appearance of new variants. Prohibition
was also expected to be an element of criminalisation and marginalisation of – up to now –
socially integrated users. This opinion would recommend active monitoring of the market
for MBDB and also of the involvement of organised crime, as well as regular evaluation.
This scenario includes advice for users and giving information about substances on the
market. One Member State reported a significant decrease in MBDB consumption after
such a strategy was put into operation.

Another complementary point of view would be to consider that, due to the current lack of
evidence of a significant presence of MBDB on the market, the publicity suddenly given to
this drug by putting it on a European Union control list might produce an adverse effect.
Media focus on a ‘new synthetic drug’, which had almost ‘disappeared’ from the market,
might provoke moral panic and/ or interest among new users in trying it and might even
boost the supply of the drug.

Prohibition was also expected by some experts to hinder or bias research or possible
medical uses of the substance, whereas other experts did not expect such a result. It
was suggested that another potential effect of prohibition might be to increase the illicit
demand for precursors and, hence, to raise the price of those chemicals, with possible
consequences on the licit trade and industry.

Other options would include consideration of a range of measures for control and
prevention that fall between full prohibition and non-prohibition. These could be based on a
catalogue of measures of control and prevention based on the best practices in this field
in Member States. This may be expected to minimise the possible risks associated with the
consumption of MBDB, as it is sold as an ‘ecstasy-like’ dance drug. These options would
also envisage a better monitoring of the effects and the trends and patterns of use of
these synthetic drugs. In connection with this third approach, the need for further
sociological and toxicological research on MBDB was considered necessary.