Synthetic Cathinones—Prevalence and Motivations for Use

This book chapter reviews the prevalence and motivations for use of synthetic cathinones with respect to their availability, legal status, numbers and seized amounts

Drug checking to detect fentanyl and new psychoactive substances

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Drug checking services invite drug consumers to anonymously submit drug samples for chemical analysis and provide feedback of results. Drugs are tested for strength/dose and/or presence of adulterants. Drug checking appears to be more common in recent years in response to increases in fentanyl-related deaths and the proliferation of new psychoactive substances (NPS). We aim to provide information regarding the current state of drug checking in relation to analysis methods, adulteration rates, and behavioral responses to results. RECENT FINDINGS: Various technologies are being used to detect the presence of fentanyl, its analogs, and other NPS in drug samples. Proxy drug checking, which we define as biospecimen testing for drug exposure postconsumption, is also becoming common. However, there appears to a dichotomy between research focusing on populations at high risk for fentanyl exposure and to exposure to NPS such as synthetic cathinones. SUMMARY: Drug checking research and services largely focus on opioid consumers and nightclub and dance festival attendees, but more focus may be needed on the general population. Drug checking results can inform surveillance efforts, and more research is needed to overcome barriers to drug checking and to focus on whether test results indeed affect behavior change

Adulterants and altruism: A qualitative investigation of “drug checkers” in North America

Background: “Drug checking” has become a common harm reduction method used to test illicit substances, such as ecstasy, for purity and/or the presence of adulterants. Formal drug-checking services have been operating for decades, and the use of personal reagent test kits appears to be relatively common; however, little attention has been devoted to understanding the role and broader experiences of ‘drug-checkers’ (i.e., people who test their own and/or other people's substances). As such, it remains unknown who is engaging in this practice, their motivations for drug-checking, and what barriers they may experience. We addressed this research gap by interviewing people who check drugs about their experiences, with a goal of better understanding drug checking practices. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 32 adults in North America who reported testing drugs. Coding was conducted in an inductive manner and thematic analysis was used to identify relevant themes. Results: Over half (56.2%) of our sample was affiliated with a drug checking organization. Among non-affiliated checkers (43.8%), the majority (57.1%) tested for friends, 21.4% tested only for themselves, and 21.4% were people who sold drugs and tested for their clients. Motivations were driven largely by altruism, described by checkers as wanting to protect their peers from exposure to adulterants. People interviewed who sold drugs were altruistic in the same manner. Barriers to checking—particularly at nightclubs and festivals—included perceived illegality of test kits and denied approval to test drugs at venues, although many checkers circumvented this barrier by checking drugs without such approval. Conclusions: Drug checkers in North America seek to educate people who use drugs about the risk of exposure to unexpected substance types, but they face various barriers. Policy change could help ensure that these potentially life-saving services can be provided without fear of fines and/or criminal prosecution

Moving on From Representativeness: Testing the Utility of the Global Drug Survey

A decline in response rates in traditional household surveys, combined with increased internet coverage and decreased research budgets, has resulted in increased attractiveness of web survey research designs based on purposive and voluntary opt-in sampling strategies. In the study of hidden or stigmatised behaviours, such as cannabis use, web survey methods are increasingly common. However, opt-in web surveys are often heavily criticised due to their lack of sampling frame and unknown representativeness. In this article, we outline the current state of the debate about the relevance of pursuing representativeness, the state of probability sampling methods, and the utility of non-probability, web survey methods especially for accessing hidden or minority populations. Our article has two aims: (1) to present a comprehensive description of the methodology we use at Global Drug Survey (GDS), an annual cross-sectional web survey and (2) to compare the age and sex distributions of cannabis users who voluntarily completed (a) a household survey or (b) a large web-based purposive survey (GDS), across three countries: Australia, the United States, and Switzerland. We find that within each set of country comparisons, the demographic distributions among recent cannabis users are broadly similar, demonstrating that the age and sex distributions of those who volunteer to be surveyed are not vastly different between these non-probability and probability methods. We conclude that opt-in web surveys of hard-to-reach populations are an efficient way of gaining in-depth understanding of stigmatised behaviours and are appropriate, as long as they are not used to estimate drug use prevalence of the general population