Chesai makes some good points in her post, which I see as a reasonable summary of previously voiced concerns in regards to this matter.
I assume and trust the results of the tests are correct regarding 'what you tested'. That said, who's to say he doesn't sub with different stuff as per availablility of supply? Nobody really, since its not regulated.
So really, there goes the validity of the study? - cos the product more than likely, changes. Sucks really. As HR goes - if you're trying to take care of what you may ingest its good to know it was the same this time as it was last time and vice verca. (I know, shit spelling all round....) So that batch that was tested, I have full faith in. After and before, who knows?
From consumer comments, in all probability, substitution has occured. Our intent was to discover what we could with what was available. If it had been possible to regularly check batches, say over six months or longer, I'm sure there would have been a willingness on the part of the investigators. However, there are enormous hurdles to overcome with such an approach, not least the lab/man time involved.
So the aim was to identify, via samples received at that point in time, a range of products which were popular with users. The variables involved in this method are numerous and certainly from an analyst's POV, it's far from optimum. However, in regards to possible substitutes, it must be said that while other compounds are likely at the disposal of the producers, it's also likely these will follow the example shown with many of these compounds, where legal analogues of cathinones have been exploited commerically. The neorg products likely stemmed from legal loopholes as did Hagigat, a product containing ~ 200mg cathinone. Hagigat was reported to have been labeled
“Natural stimulant and aphrodisiac for men and women, contains no chemicals; drink fluids liberally.” (1). It was sold freely in Israel until it was banned. iirc, Hagigat first surfaced as a substitute to Khat around the time it was banned.
There's good reason to suspect additional variations to the parent compound are yet to be seen - which may or may not escape future legislation. I guess, the direction of a company like neorg will depend upon how broad the upcoming, anticipated Israeli legislation will be.
I assume / trust the tests are correct and valid. I assume Doran is freaking out cos he's had a spotlight shone on him and now has to do damage control.
I agree - lets move on to the next lot. But in the interests of HR, we're back in the same place really.... no knowledge of chemicals, no knowledge of the interactions and no ability to notify anyone (of medical significance) if it all turns shit faced - since we can't be sure what was in it.
Which brings us right back to... now that its about to become 'illegal' and replaced by handy dandy new ones, what happens when/if it goes pear shaped??? (I know, there's probably no answer to that)
I can't comment on what the company rep is thinking, but I have noted some inconsistencies in his various communications which I've been forwarded, or have seen posted here.
From a Harm Reduction perspective, knowing the ingredients or speculating on possible variations in formulations can allow for a better informed choice, based upon:
- Outcomes of the chemical analyses
- Survey report (results up soon)
- Personal experiences, BL user, and friends' reports
- What has been learned from literature
- Legal risks
- Work related implications such as performance- safety and drug testing as it relates to any detectable drug with a long metabolic half life.
- Driving etc- as above
- Possible health risks associated with the identified, previously known chemicals
- Adverse effects as noted by users
- Postulated pharmacology of the unknown or unresearched chemicals, arrived at by studying structurally similar substances, and includes addiction potential, possible predisposing factors such as illness or hereditory conditions and substance interactions (i.e. the combinations of drugs within the products, prescribed medications, illicit drugs etc), .
I appreciated the analysis done because it shed light on it. It just seems a shame (and goes hand in hand with analysis) that once you know, it's probaby going to correlate with a slap on the head and a kick up the ass, withdrawal of the product and a new round of 'who knows what...'
It's a double edged sword, but necessary for harm reduction to stay afloat in a world that often views the concept as either at best ineffective, or worst, as encouraging drug use. Perseverance has required great diligence on behalf of HR advocates in order to thwart the determined efforts by some politicians who wish to see HR banned altogether. Unfortunately as this continues, there's also bound to be compromises required and some less than ideal outcomes along the way. For HR to evolve into what it was always intended to be, we need to be both prudent and daring, for we have little to work with in terms of resources. So, IMHO, if HR is to have hope for developing further, we need to work with, and alongside all parties and groups involved with drugs: consumers, manufacturers, policy makers, the medical fraternity, sociologists, forensics, researchers and yes, police.
HR groups need private as well as government funding, and to achieve that, HR must be clearly defined by a morally indisputable role, where the aim is to save lives and improve the health and wellbeing of users. Ultimately, this also equates to reducing the demand for drugs through the dissemination of accurate, but properly presented information. We hear alot of talk regarding semantics. By some definitions, harm prevention is the ultimate aim of any harm reduction or harm minimisation group. It's how we define what's
acceptable within those paradigms that distinguishes each from the others. One of the biggest problems confronting us HR advocates is how we can formulate a protocol that is flexible enough to survive changes in political ideology, while raising our credibility to a degree that we attain and maintain a functional role in legislative reform.
As an initial step, is hoped that by integrating HR more strongly with other departments, a respected voice will stem which will not only be considered in the policy making process but will be reinforced by facilitating others to come out of their 'academic closets'. Many of our best academics who believe drug reform is overdue are currently 'bound to silence', often because of the present stance by government - their overseeing body and funding source. As many including myself have learned, bite the hand that feeds you and you'll only get less (and be given less of a voice)..... Yet within the system many of us believe there's room for change.
Many of the HR advocates who are calling for reform also have a damn good record at predicting future trends. And little wonder. Front line workers, researchers, doctors etc often see things before the more 'closed door departments'. As is demonstrated by the outcomes of this project, it will become more than apparent that the best way forward will be to incorporate such findings and recommendations when policy change is on the drawing board.
Yes, there will be a constant onslaught of new recreational substances, and yes, more and more will likely be scheduled. However, the future of recreational drugs will be diverse and novel, and I believe LE will be constantly behind the eightball, even more so in the future. Introducing respective legislation for any and all new compounds as they emerge will be all but impossible and would severely compromise legit industry and research, which the analogues legislation already does to quite a degree.
I believe that the term 'recreational' will (again) be formally recognised and accepted, perhaps because I also believe we'll ultimately see safer recreational drugs being legitimately available (particularly partial agonists or metabolically directed/limited drugs). But between now and then, there needs to be much work done to keep up with identifying new, and emerging products. This extends to working towards establishing a NATA accredited analytical laboratory ( requiring massive funding) and most importantly, providing incentives and funding for the clinical evaluation of new drugs.
As HR advocates, with the future we face, we need to be incredibly resourceful, and that means working with all relative departments and authorities, even those once deemed enemies of the cause. It's not a sell out, it's progression, it's survival, and at present, its the only position HR in this country can effectively operate from. Afterall, ultimately, we all want to see less harm from drug use. Because HR is sort of out on a limb atm, it will require advocates continually show their just cause in the face of changing views or proposed amendments to legislation. It has become and will continue to be a constant challenge.
Ref:
Bentur Y, Bloom-Krasik A, Raikhlin-Eisenkraft B. “Hagigat” – A New Illicit Form of Khat (Cathinone), Israel Poison Information Center, Rambam Health Care Campus, Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Haifa, Israel.
Hah! "Khat out of the bag" I love it, nodger!!!! With your permission, I will use that in a title of one of our papers... Yep, I've written to the Ministry of Internal Security to try to get the tox details of their products most recently banned, including a dimethylcathinone. I have no idea what the others are...
