It's misguided to ask whether more stringent measures should be taken to prohibit the spread of "legal highs" because the category includes compounds that vary dramatically in the degree of risk they pose to public health. For instance, the peak of mephedrone's legal popularity in the UK coincided with a dramatic decrease in cocaine overdose deaths, strongly implying users were substituting it for the more risky illegal alternative. In contrast, user reports have indica ted compounds with brand names like "NRG-3" have led to health crises without displacing the use of other risky substances. From a public health outcomes perspective policies regarding each compound should arguably be considered in terms of relative risk. A truly progressive legal highs public health policy would not leave it to black market forces to develop novel recreational drugs, but would rather invest in professional research efforts to develop safer recreational alternatives.
