Possible negative consequences of a system that identifies new drugs on the market

Hi all,

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I am an academic in the field of substance use at an Australian University. Despite this forum providing me with an abundance of useful information, I have not before contributed to the discussion as I have not wanted to draw attention to myself. Further, I think there is a fine line between my public and personal life, and I do not want my personal life to become public, so I am not sure as to whether or not I will continue to post on this forum, and if I do, what the content would pertain to.

Having not received a reply from my e-mail to p_d that outlined my concerns with possible ramifications pertaining to the current project, I have found that the answers that I requested have been posted here (I understand that you are a busy guy, and am in no way disappointed at not getting a reply). However, I would like an opportunity to present a retort to what has been said thus far.

The paradigm from within which I work is called social constructionism, and involves deconstructing the ways in which institutions have vested interests in maintaining certain perceptions of drug use. As such, one of my biggest concerns with this project was the possibility of media involvement. In particular, the media can only work within the conceptual frameworks of the dominant institutions within a society, which is why we always see drug use portrayed in certain ways (e.g., vilification of certain substances while normalising others). In doing so, true harm reduction is ultimately precluded. My concern is that media involvement with regard to the current situation will only lead to further vilification of recreational substance use.

I understand that what p_d has done here is in very good faith, however, we come from quite different paradigms in terms of the way in which we conceptualise drug use and harm reduction, which is reflected in the way in which he and I go about our business. Without being antagonistic, I would suggest that unwittingly, p_d has a vested interest in perpetuating the role of the medical institution in understanding drug use, whereby doctors become the all holy enforcement agency of how our bodies are writ. They have the authority to say who should and should not use what substances, and indeed which of these substances are ‘evil’. In turn, the legal institution has a dialectical relationship with the medical institution that self-perpetuates the status quo since certain drugs are illegal because they are ‘bad for us’, and certain drugs are bad for use ‘because they are illegal’.

Now that I have been transparent in providing my position, I have to ask the question: “Is the possible legal ramifications of using these neo products following the attention that has brought upon the products worse than the toxicological effects of the substances?” This is an age old question, but I believe that despite p_d and I being so similar in what we wish to achieve, the differences in the way in which we go about this are reflected in subtle paradigmatic discrepancies. I personally have a moral objection to perpetuating the dominant structural entities that preclude conversions of moderation through the vilification of substances and the removal of personal freedom through law enforcement.

decontructionist said:

My concern is that media involvement with regard to the current situation will only lead to further vilification of recreational substance use.

Click to expand...

That's my main concern.

One thing is to promote harm-min, but what i fear is how the media will to jump on it and this so called 'harm-min' just turns into pure negative-ness...

sinbad said:

I know you clarify this statement but, no, the role of a sensible medical practitioner is to provide me, and others, with the information I need to make safe choices. I dislike that word "keep", awfully close to "enforce".

Click to expand...

Just to clarify this- technically my role as an emergency doctor is to resuscitate those who can't 'keep' themselves safe. My job is not not to provide anyone with information. I happen to choose to try and do this. It is clear to most of us that despite providing the community with the information that they need to make safe choices, many are incapable of processing that information. How do I know? Because I keep having to resuscitate them.

As to deconstructionist...

deconstructionist said:

....Without being antagonistic, I would suggest that unwittingly, p_d has a vested interest in perpetuating the role of the medical institution in understanding drug use, whereby doctors become the all holy enforcement agency of how our bodies are writ. They have the authority to say who should and should not use what substances, and indeed which of these substances are ‘evil’. In turn, the legal institution has a dialectical relationship with the medical institution that self-perpetuates the status quo since certain drugs are illegal because they are ‘bad for us’, and certain drugs are bad for use ‘because they are illegal’....

Click to expand...

I am at a loss as to what p_d's 'vested interest' is- perhaps he might know. But the sociological post-modernist babble of the 1990's doesn't really cut it with the latest generation of medical doctors, and it's been a while since I've heard anyone either under the age of 50, or not a politician use the term evil to describe any disease. Do you need to update your textbooks, or maybe read some articles outside your field? There's always been professional antagonism towards the medical profession in this arena, maybe because we are seen to be encroaching on turf that your ilk cope reasonably well with. But while you and yours stayed silent on Pill testing (with the exception of Cameron Duff), we were being threatened with arrest and the end of our careers. While we spoke up against Bishop's ludicrous "Winnable War on Drugs" report, the Addiction Sciences in Australia(with the exception of Wodak and tronica) skulked around, afraid to speak against those they seem to be working for. I know- I am an expert for the Australian Science Media Centre, and their director could not get a comment from any of the large research agencies, because it was 'too controversial'. So update your reading buddy- PM me if you need any literature published this century. And welcome to Bluelight!

drplatypus said:

...It is clear to most of us that despite providing the community with the information that they need to make safe choices, many are incapable of processing that information. How do I know? Because I keep having to resuscitate them.

.....

Click to expand...

I'm a little lost by your antagonism, this thread seems to be heading towards a fiery death.

It's patently obvious that the information needed to make safe choices is not being provided. Even more importantly, we're not being provided with safe alternatives.

I have children in all levels of school and I'm painfully aware of how little trustworthy material is being provided to them. That job is left to me based on personal experience, dodgy research published on the net, erowid, and bluelight. But for the vast majority of our population drug knowledge is based on rather dubious government leaflets, their mates, their dealers, the media, and the people they meet when they go out.

At least sex education has improved!

And what is your solution to those who can't process this information? Sorry Dr, but your statement sounds like you're suggesting that the safest option is to lock the dangerous stuff away, tell people that it's in their best interests, and that they should just say no. (btw- I'm sure that is *not* what you mean)

Point taken. We're all a little bit raw at the moment, with all the paranoia and suspicion about our motivation, which far from being a pay-for-service exercise using medicine for law enforcement (as some seem to be suggesting), is instead an investigation of a totally new paradigm to identify whether novel compounds are hurting people or not. A LOT of time, energy and persuasion has gone into this, and I guess the characters involved are peeved at being called narcs...
I feel no antagonism towards individuals who make informed decisions about their substance use- none whatsoever. But you can appreciate what we might feel, when our EDs are working at 105-110%, about the individuals who believe they have a right to 5 or 6 ambulance rides a year in pursuit of their pleasure. With rights come responsibilities, and if people can't use their drugs in a way that doesn't become a burden on society, well then yes, I do question their 'right' to use those drugs... To people have a 'right' to drive drunk? In my opinion I don't believe so.
As to what model I would like to see in society, I am a strong advocate of Marsha Rosenbaum's 'Safety First' program (see www.safety1st.org). As a parent I commend it to you. Sorry for verging off topic a bit, Mods, but these are interesting topics and times


Fixed link; p_d

You have done little to provide any useful information in response to my post other then employing the logical fallacy of ad hominem abusive, which is understandable given that you are feeling a bit raw at the moment. To be quite honest, I have a lot of respect for you guys in your struggle for the implementation of pill testing. Where was I when all of this was going on? Probably struggling through as an undergraduate student or resolving some of my own substance-related issues. As for ‘post-modernist’ babble (although I would not call myself a post-modernist by any means), a great deal of very useful recent research has been published from this line of inquiry. I wonder how people like David Moore would feel about their research being described as ‘babble’?

The reference I made to p_d regarding the vested interest is not personal, but needs to be considered within the macro-context within which the post was framed. Indeed, your reference to ‘the term evil [being used] to describe any disease’ implies that your conceptualisation of substance use is situated within a medical discursive framework. Within such a framework, substances are analogous to pathogens to which exposure might lead to various diseases. As stated in my previous post, this discourse is intricately woven into the other discourses that perpetuate normative perceptions. Consider the way in which you guys are often portrayed in the media, which is a reflection of this normative process (and is the reason why I would stay well away from any journalist).

If you guys are truly concerned about the welfare of the people, then wouldn’t the focus at this point in time be on those 24,000 dying each year from the use of licit substances. Surely in your ED you would see a whole lot more people coming in from the use of these substances than any ODs from an obscure range of substances such as the neos? Yes, it is useful to know what is in these obscure products, but how can this be achieved in a way that allows people to make rationale choices about their drug use without personal freedom being removed? And honestly, does instrument with which data is being garnished from users have any psychometric validity?

It is this situating within the medical model that creates the differences in the way that we conceptualise harm reduction and the way in which we posit that this be achieved. At the end of the day, however, we both want the same outcomes. If you would like some further information on this perspective, I would be happy to PM you the most recent in press paper that I have from xxxxxxxx

I'm surprised you think I'm being abusive, deconstructionist- I thought was being quite tame... Medical debate is far more belligerent than the rarefied niceties of philosophical theory !

With regards to providing you with information, the only question that you seem to have asked in however many hundred words you wrote is:

“Is the possible legal ramifications of using these neo products following the attention that has brought upon the products worse than the toxicological effects of the substances?”

Not withstanding the grammar, is your knowledge of police intelligence work such that you believe that our little project will serve to bring Neodoves to the attention of law enforcement? Your rhetoric and the fact that your research is published in 'Addiction Research and Theory', a journal which has a slightly elusive impact factor, (and has sadly slipped below the top 10 or so addiction journals that I regularly read) suggests that your are more of a theoretician than an experienced field worker. State police intelligence and federal police intelligence already monitor Bluelight, daily. So do members of the press. To answer your question, we don't know, do we? We are trying to find out if there are any significant toxicological effects of these products- that is the purpose of the survey. If they appear to free of toxicological problems, we shall say as much. I contend that consumers also have the right to know whether the substance that they are consuming are legal or not. The fact that they can't be sure will offer no defence in the event of a police seizure. To my knowledge, no one in Australia has ever successfully defended themselves in a court of law, for possession of drugs, by saying "but I didn't know that the contents were illegal"... Surely it is better for consumers to know if they are receiving illicit substances in the post that may render them susceptible to prosecution? Or do you believe that the purity of ignorance will somehow save their mortal souls? (even I don't think that you think consumers not knowing what they're ingesting is a good idea...)

I would agree that the medical paradigm is only one way to discuss the issue of drugs- I welcome your efforts to engage the Bluelight community into the delights of Foucault and Derrida and how they can apply that to the practical issues of contemporary drug use.

Goodness me, alcohol and tobacco- we forgot them, you say... Look a liitle deeper and you'll see that we we're debating these issues with the federal undersecretary for health on the ABC, 3 years ago. You haven't provided us with an example of how the survey is going to encroach on anyones personal freedom. Should we stop all epidemiological research for fear of that?

Practical harm reduction- not ideological theory- start with knowledge. And we are about to provide knowledge to the Bluelight community about a new substance that they would otherwise never have a chance of getting. What sort of ratio of readers do you suspect would prefer to stumble on in the dark, because of theoretical apprehensions?

As to your other issues, I haven't described David Moore's research as babble; I have collaborated with him and his use of theory has pragmatic applications. The utility of your position in achieving societal outcomes is somewhat less clear.

The questions used, although rephrased, are fairly standard, and the same as those used by interviewers from NDARC and the EMCDDA in their fieldwork, and REITOX and DAWN in their ED work, once again suggesting a degree of innocence on your part when it comes to this sort of research.

Feel free to send me your paper to read- you are to be congratulated for publishing, and your choice of journal no doubt reflects a highly specialised interest. I encourage you to seek practical applications that can engage the average Australian consumer- I wonder if your approach, though stimulating, is somewhat rarefied for some readers...

Hi Dr,

Well I have done my usual thing and shot before thinking. I have managed to remove the message that was the tell all underpinning the rhetoric of the previous posts. In realising the mistake of making this post, I think I would like to remove myself from the forum, perhaps to return one day with a guise of some kind, in addition to a genuine membership. I need to seperate my personal life from my professional life. However, I can not figure out how to remove myself from the site. Any help??

I would appreciate it if p_d could delete the e-mail that I sent as it contained my real name and position. I trust that this will not be an issue for you guys, but I think I would like to go and crawl back under the rock from which I had emerged from.

Deconstructionist-
I think you are being too harsh on yourself. The List, the group of concerned individuals that I am proud to be associated with, loves open honest debate on drugs policy. You raised some great points, weren't intimidated, and stuck to your guns. I would encourage you to stay involved with Bluelight and continue to challenge common assumptions. If I as a researcher can't robustly defend my research against the very valid positions you have put, I have no right foist my opinions on the innocents of Bluelight! "Nothing is ever achieved by reasonable men". PM me if you'd prefer to debate the issues privately; personally, I believe the socratic approach we've taken is informative to a larger audience...

drplatypus said:

Deconstructionist-
I think you are being too harsh on yourself. The List, the group of concerned individuals that I am proud to be associated with, loves open honest debate on drugs policy. You raised some great points, weren't intimidated, and stuck to your guns. I would encourage you to stay involved with Bluelight and continue to challenge common assumptions. If I as a researcher can't robustly defend my research against the very valid positions you have put, I have no right foist my opinions on the innocents of Bluelight! "Nothing is ever achieved by reasonable men". PM me if you'd prefer to debate the issues privately; personally, I believe the socratic approach we've taken is informative to a larger audience...

Click to expand...

Thank you for the words of encouragement. They mean a lot coming from you. I think you can take two things from this. First, I am passionate about this area. I live and breath my work. I love going to work each day to learn something new, being able to disseminate information to students, and being able to challenge people’s preconceived ideas concerning drugs. Second, such passion is dangerous when combined with some impulsivity. I have not yet gotten myself into trouble nor put my university, or indeed the area, in disrepute; however, once again I think I have been lucky.

I hope that you get a copy of the PM I sent to p_d with the removed post in it so you can fully understand the context of these posts. Regardless of this, what we have witnessed with the neo experiment is the consequence of a war on drugs. It encourages people to ingest unknown substances to circumvent the legal implications of using certain better studied, albeit illicit, substances. The problem is that the law can often be more harmful than the substances themselves, which could lead some individuals to engage in using substances that are (potentially) more harmful. All the while, it is fine to kill yourself with tobacco and alcohol. My passion for this area does at times wax and wane as I cynically consider the possibility of any possible change - let alone that in which people have the personal freedom to choose which substances they ingest whilst simultaneously making these choices as rationale beings with all the information available to them. Given this legal context, I think you are right in that this is a burgeoning area with much financial profit to be made, thus encouraging further production of similar drugs as the neos. Indeed, a search of the net provides a dearth of psychoactive substances that are neatly packaged and presented as being legal, yet with unknown contents. Yet, numerous people are willing to take these products, amking a rationale choice to ingest something with unkown effects in an endeavour to avoid using anything that could be incriminating. This highlights both the desire of the people to use psychoactive substances and yet another failure of prohibition. The question I have been asking myself for the past 6 months or so is, “where is all this going and where are we going to end up?”

I will sleep on it, and wait to hear back from p_d, but I think that I have managed to pull back quick enough to avoid any negative consequences, so hope to stick around.

I think that we are breaking into an entirely new thread here, albeit closely related to this one. Something along the lines of "Has anyone considered the possible negative consequences of having a system that specifically identifies new drugs as they come on the market?" I don't know if we can split this thread- perhaps one of the moderators might have some opinions...?
To try to get back on thread, thanks to all who have completed the survey- I want to release the Chemistry with Phase Dancer's commentary ASAP, so anyone's still undecided please please PLEASE give it a crack- I promise you, the results will surprise you! PM me with any queries...

Well, I think that I am able to continue here and feel that I have not publicly provided enough personal information to allow for identification, and confidentiality will be retained with regard to the privately posted identifying information. Nonetheless, I continue my walk of shame in that I have mixed up p_d’s and drplatypus’s identity throughout this ordeal. I hope that if I do every cross your paths through my work that I am able to display my long held respect without too much embarrassment.

I think that the title this thread is slightly misleading in terms of where I was going. Basically, the way I see it with all the BZP bans coming into force at the moment, there have been two consequences. First, the world market has been flooded with cheap BZP products. Second, there are many incentives for the companies that had been producing these products, who were multi-million dollar legitimate businesses, to manufacture new and less tested products. That people are willing to ingest the products without knowledge of the effects indicates that for some the consequences of the law are seen to be greater than the consequences of possible bad reactions to these new substances. The legal high thread on this board is testimony to the availability and variety of products available (and truth be told, only represents a small sample of products that are being used worldwide).

However, in keeping with this thread title, it would seem that by analysing and naming these new compounds as they are released (which is very helpful for allowing the public to make more informed decisions), companies will simply create new further unknown substances to sell. In all, it seems to me that the future will involve a cat and mouse chase between legal high manufactures and the authorities.

Drug manufactures will continue to make new product whether they are named here, Micro-gram report or in legistation. Drug companies are trying to find a cure for every illness/disease out there so they can make $$ and keep shareholders happy. Along the way they will discover/create other substances.

This has happened throughout history and won't change because of our little corner off the internet.

Teddles said:

Drug manufactures will continue to make new product whether they are named here, Micro-gram report or in legistation. Drug companies are trying to find a cure for every illness/disease out there so they can make $$ and keep shareholders happy. Along the way they will discover/create other substances.

Click to expand...

Unlike the operator of a clandestine laboratory producing illicit products, there is more competition creating a demand for research and development within a ‘legitimate’ economic market (i.e., if you can get good money for meth, why try and make something new?). The legal high industry is subject to the competition that is inherent to a ‘legitimate’ economic market. Hence, there is the demand within these industries for R&D. It is this that is leading to what I believe is a change in milieu. Sure, pharmaceutical companies have invested huge amounts of money into R&D, but any products that could have ‘fun’ potential, with this being their sole application, would not make it through the FDA process. The difference between these companies and legal high companies is that the latter are not subject to the FDA process, and hence, do not need to disclose the contents of their products (nor seek patents - although it would appear that some companies give consumers the idea that they are trying to get a patent - no names, just D.O.M.S.). Hence, unlike pharmaceutical companies it is the legal high companies that will change/re-develop their product following the disclosure of the contents, thus leading to consumers using more new and unknown substances.

Teddles said:

This has happened throughout history and won't change because of our little corner off the internet.

Click to expand...

There is no our little corner of the internet - the internet is worldwide and public. By disclosing information on the internet, you are effectively publishing it in every library in the world, where the catalogue is called google.

You seem to be close to paralysing yourself with your argument. Either we analyse the substances as they come onto the market, allow consumers to make informed decisions about them, and repeat ad infinitum, or we down tools altogether and let consumers play with the traffic. Neither is optimal. But in my professional career, I am used to making decisions where I am forced to choose between two evils, and where a failure to choose is not an option.
Between the options presented I choose knowing.

drplatypus said:

You seem to be close to paralysing yourself with your argument. Either we analyse the substances as they come onto the market, allow consumers to make informed decisions about them, and repeat ad infinitum, or we down tools altogether and let consumers play with the traffic. Neither is optimal. But in my professional career, I am used to making decisions where I am forced to choose between two evils, and where a failure to choose is not an option.
Between the options presented I choose knowing.

Click to expand...

I agree entirely. This is certainly about the best option of two suboptimal options. Either we continue to test products and make the results publicly available leading to a cat and mouse game between producers and people such as yourself, or we throw down the tools and pretend to be ignorant of what is going on. I realise that you would suggest that the former is the best of the two worst options, since the latter is simply failure to action. However, given either scenario, it would seem to me that the end result is the same - consumers continue ingesting unknown substances with unknown effects.

Perhaps a third option. What about legislation whereby such products can be sold in a similar fashion to other legal substances (i.e., alcohol and tobacco) and whereby producers patent their product and are forced to disclose the contents in order to sell their products in this regulated market? I know, there is a slippery slope here. For example, what becomes deemed as a legal high and what becomes just another illicit product? Who makes these decisions? How do we determine why one substance should be regulated while another perhaps less harmful product (e.g., MDxx) is deemed illict? Indeed, I am off in a fantasy world where unicorns are hand feed by little elves; however, I think before everybody threw their arms in the air, the NZ system had a lot of potential.

What an interesting thread. Welcome deconstructionist - it's nice to have another researcher posting here.

Your main question really hits at the heart of the dilemmas that I face in my growing career as a drugs researcher. Who benefits from research? How do we work out when something should be researched? What are the potential negative consequences?

On the one hand, doing research - being part of a research organisation - means you are part of the machinery of governance, ultimately, you are a part of the process that perpetuates the status quo around drugs (and everything else). You can try to make the process more transparent, to have more input from drug users themselves, for example. But your role remains that of 'the researcher' and is bound up in your institution and its ultimate dependence on funding from the government to survive (though that is a matter of degree!).

On the other hand, we could be independent researchers with no university affiliations. Then people wouldn't take you seriously, certainly not in the first half of your career. Let alone the lack of a salary!

As the Dr. has said, it's a two-choice dilemma - neither choice being optimal. I've chosen to stick within the system, for all its faults, and try to work reflexively within it.

deconstructionist, I am very interested in your work and think we may have a lot we can discuss about our situations! I also love David Moore's work, although I'm no anthropologist--- he has my respect.

Has anyone considered the possible negative consequences of having a system that specifically identifies new drugs as they come on the market?

Click to expand...

Unless the current climate is changed, the biggest negative effect in my opinion is that those products will be regulated more harshly, and potentially more harmful drugs will be used instead. We saw this with GHB - and analogues that were arguably more dangerous came back in its place. While demand for drugs remains, the demand will be filled.

The dangers of *not* monitoring new trends in drugs used is that drugs with particularly bad side effects (eg. PMA) may come onto the market and harm people. Without a decent monitoring system, more people will come to harm before any action can be taken - whether that is police intervention to supply, or provision of better information to consumers of the new drug.

Ideally, criminal penalties would not exist in this realm and we could treat it as a given in society that many people want to enjoy altering their experiences of the world. Then we could better address these issues... my 2 cents!

PS. Dr. C - I feel honoured to be placed in the same sentence as Alex Wodak

Heyyyy Tron!
I just KNEW you'd be onto this soon enough! Welcome aboard!
I smell an article in this dialogue. If deconstructionist can get over his shyness, I think that we have the basis of a "devil's-advocate-position" type position, with a title along the lines of "Why do we bother?". How is a researcher to conduct themselves where political imperatives determine their destiny? What knowledge is dangerous? Does avoidance of advocacy for consumers extend to shirking advocacy for the larger causes of public health, and honest research?
Any takers?

Apologies for my lack of contribution. I'll add something to this when I've got time to spare, probably this weekend.

Tronica:
Thank you for your warm welcome and it was nice to have your input here. Some more food for thought. I think you have been fortunate in that the research you have been involved in, despite being part of the mechanistic institutions, has been extremely important in making changes that I hope will be long lasting in WA. Nonetheless, the funding has to come from somewhere and I think you guys were lucky to have been able to proceed in this endeavour with such success. I recall Lenton saying that in the first attempt, despite being blocked, a Liberal or National minister came up to him and said something along the lines of, “I think that what you are saying makes complete sense, however, I voted against it as it goes against our party policy”. I think that microcosmic event reflect the macrocosm that we are all working in.

I too have stuck with the system - at least for now. And like you hope that the reflexivity I have employed might help to make my research more transparent, including addressing the questions of why we are researching what we are? We all know that science is not politically neutral in this respect. For me it is about the stigma that I see in society towards users of certain substances that drives my work.

I am not sure that I have met you before, but do know that there is only 1 degree of separation between us (many times over), and that my name now appears next to yours on a particular manuscript

Dr:
It is for the above reason that I am a shy little fellow. I really need to sort out how I deal with my public academic life and my private personal life. I would love to be able to find out from others how they have achieved this, where it has been problematic, although such dialogue immediate creates a problem with such boundaries. I just want my work to be viewed for what it is and not judged be my own personal situation. For example, I have a criminal record pertaining to minor drug charges that I am now so close to being able to get spent. I recall an individual who I respect in this field saying that she was portrayed in the media as being a druggie for her own history at a large political event, and I only hope that I don’t have the same happen to me. I am only now at a stage where I am able to speak openly and honestly about this with my closest colleagues, for fear of being judged by others in my department and beyond.

I really like how you can cut all of my esoteric and verbose rhetoric into simply succinct questions. In a few words you have highlighted the main dilemmas here in what has taken me a narrative You are very true in that I have taken the role of devil's advocate in all this, and what I find interesting is what is ultimately driving this. How can a person be a researcher and a participant at the same time? Surely that is my bias.

p_d:
Unlike me, who does not have much of a 'life' at the moment, it seems like you do!! I was told a few years ago that it is important to write something, anything, each day so as to keep this skill up. I find using forums like this meets that criteria, and provides me with the much necessary procrastination from what I really should be doing