Mixmag Drugs Survey 2012 - recruiting global sample!

Better done survey than most. Shows that it's not from the US though - oxy is barely mentioned, while it's a pretty big deal over here.
 
Just completed the survey, it took me about 45 minutes. It was very thorough and unbiased, so overall it was a good survey. I'm looking forward to seeing the results in April :)
 
Tronica said:
Thanks for this comment. I agree with you to an extent. I think it depends on what kind of study we are talking about. In the case of a study where the underlying model is the measurement of latent constructs and the aim is to relate them to each other, such studies should indeed begin with a theoretical framework and set hypotheses. However, in the case of the MixMag Survey, the researchers are doing something different - they are taking a convenience sample of drug users from year to year and describing their use patterns and harms. There will likely be some planned analyses where questions are repeated year to year, but also some additional questions specific to this sample that will simply be exploratory/descriptive.
Click to expand...
If all they're doing is describing a trend, then I understand your subsequent points. I will be watching for a secondary analysis that performs a cross-sectional regression.
3-suspicious.gif

Tronica said:
One of the concerns with large surveys using convenience sampling is that people will be wowed by the numbers without considering the sample frame is still convenience. Still, year to year, we can get a general sense of trends, and for this application, it is good enough in my opinion. You also have to ask what other option do researchers have?
Click to expand...
Agreed. I just haven't figured out if the methodological compromises (that potentially doom it to to an unsubstantiated headline in the print media) mean that it is a worthwhile exercise.

Part of me wishes researchers avoided the low-hanging fruit like this. Telling us whether the consumption of drugs that the majority of the public have never heard of, might be going up or down (possibly with inappropriate CIs?), based on a sample of people who are either self-selecting or incapable of filling in a bloated form, doesn't really move the debate forward.

Or does it?
 
tambourine-man said:
If all they're doing is describing a trend, then I understand your subsequent points. I will be watching for a secondary analysis that performs a cross-sectional regression.
3-suspicious.gif
Click to expand...

Yeah I see your point. And it will probably happen too... I have this argument with my colleagues in this field, around when it is and is not appropriate to use statistical inference. Can you believe there are very senior people in this field who tell me there are very legitimate uses of statistical inference with non probability samples? Unfortunately it's an ongoing tension which I cannot resolve.

tambourine-man said:
Part of me wishes researchers avoided the low-hanging fruit like this. Telling us whether the consumption of drugs that the majority of the public have never heard of, might be going up or down (possibly with inappropriate CIs?), based on a sample of people who are either self-selecting or incapable of filling in a bloated form, doesn't really move the debate forward.

Or does it?
Click to expand...

Low hanging fruit... yeah I see that. I mean, I've just launched a study on synthetic cannabinoids in Australia - could be seen the same way, in that it's an emerging drug in Australia, so it's low hanging fruit... but the other way of seeing it is that we know little about it, so it's worth finding out something. In my study we focus on how people interpret the law and law changes, how they might be associated with changes in behaviour, etc. I hope to use the data to comment on the way governments respond to emerging substances.

I know the Global Drug Survey team have lots of questions and will write/publish many papers. Will that help the debate along? Good question. Not sure we can answer that until the papers are out and we know where the debate is at that moment.

I take your point though. Just doing research for the sake of it shouldn't be the point. Just doing it for the publication record (so we continue to be employed) also shouldn't be the be-all-end-all of a research study. Ultimately, how will the results affect the debate and move things forward regarding drug law reform? I try to ask myself this question of all the studies I am part of - it is a litmus test of whether I am on the right track.
 
Wow, that was a long one. 20 minutes my eye, more like 1.5 hours. As a non-clubber type who has experimented with a vast array of research chemicals with a milligram scale and extensive research beforehand, I don't think I fit too well into their target. Seems to be the case with a lot of surveys.

Most surveys target the group who buy their drugs in person via traditional black market methods and don't use scales or a high level of moderation. I'd like to see a survey that targets people who use research chemicals carefully or use psychedelics therapeutically.
 
I concur with PepperSocks' sentiment! When I did the Mixmax survey, I first thought "finally a good and comprehensive survey", but was later disappointed that perhaps only 25-30% of the substances I have used were represented in the study. I think a good basis for which drugs to include in a research chemical study would be the substances mentioned in PD's The Psychedelic Index: it is quite comprehensive, yet does not include all the super obscure or theoretical substances. (perhaps other criteria would need to apply for other RC drug classes)
 
That was quite the exhaustive survey. I hope it obtains a large enough sample for the parts toward the end, there seem to be an inordinate number of people here with ADD.

Heh heh.
 
Tronica said:
It's something we could make happen too :)
Click to expand...

Now that's an idea. I hadn't even thought of a 'Bluelight-produced' survey. I suppose if magazines can host surveys and publish the results, there's not much reason a harm reduction forum couldn't either. :)

Xorkoth, the former PD senior mod who built the massive index, had a survey in the works. He even showed us draft versions of it. It was going to be a pretty long and comprehensive survey. I'll get back in touch with him one of these days. He's left the site for the time being.
 
PepperSocks said:
Now that's an idea. I hadn't even thought of a 'Bluelight-produced' survey. I suppose if magazines can host surveys and publish the results, there's not much reason a harm reduction forum couldn't either. :)
Click to expand...

Especially if Bluelight partnered with university-based researchers - then it would be more 'official' and publishable (could go through university ethics committee, etc.).
 
done. only thing i didn't like was how they specified "amphetamine (powder)"...i am prescribed Adderall...so technically that's amp powder, but its not illicit...hope my contribution does something positive for the research
 
Thanks for your contribution, 2oclockbeanfiend.2

Usually they have a categories called 'prescription amphetamines' which is where Adderal/Ritalin is categorised. Powdered amphetamine is more like 'speed', methamphetamine more like 'crystal'. But these distinctions are quite different across the world - as there are different kinds of amphetamine products and markets. Tricky to capture in a global survey!
 
^ they definitely differentiated between amphetamine/speed (powder), amphetamine/speed (base) and methamphetamine...its not a regional slang issue, IMO, they just apparently disregarded that amphetamines (non-meth) are more common pharmacuetically (i'd have to believe in most of the world) than street speed, which made it seem like i'm a dirty speed addict who buys his stuff from drug dealers (no offense to anyone that actually does that, i just took offense to the fact that they disregarded the more plausible alternative)
 
^ Well to those who don't have ADD (thus a prescription) and enjoy a bit of amphetamine once in a while or use it for studying, illicit amphetamine still does the same things its pharmaceutical counterparts do. Purity is a major variable though. With how global everything is now, illicit, regular (non-meth)amphetamine is becoming more common in places where it has previously been non-existent. The advantages are of course lower toxicity and abuse potential. Purity can be improved with simple methods, pure amphetamine isn't solely the product of pharmaceutical companies.

As with you I found the dosages listed for amphetamine to be completely off the chart if one were using pure material. I recall 50mg being the lowest option. If purity is 10% it makes sense, but if one has pure material; pharmaceutical or otherwise, it is far too high to be the lowest option. The survey should really have more options or text boxes to type in actual numbers and estimated or known purity.

That aside, they are obviously looking at recreational use of illicit, highly impure amphetamine with 'eye-balled' dose approximations.
 
Last edited:
Much better to include a separate category for prescription amphetamines - this is what I did for my PhD thesis, as we have a lot of prescription amphetamine use in Australia and people do differentiate between dexamphetamine pills and 'speed' and 'meth'.

All these comments will go back to the study researchers so I'm sure they will take note and include more prescription drug categories for next year.
 
^ Nice. That's good to know. Yeah, I've actually never once even heard anyone mention street (non-meth) amphetamine in the US before. Having said that, doctors hand out Adderall/Dexedrine/Vyvanse like its candy in this country. I'm not gonna say I don't need it, but let's just say it didn't take any convincing (I know that sounds malicious, but that's really the best way I can put it right now) to get Dexedrine and Adderall prescriptions here. And I was first prescribed when I was around 22. Not the typical "Ritalin kid" scenario. I'll say this, because my doctor who first prescribed me amphetamines (Dexedrine), was completely fine with me telling him it, "I've never been prescribed before, but I've tried my friend's before and it really helped with school and work." Their response was basically, "A lot of students do that. That doesn't bother me at all." Now, it wasn't just like that and I had my prescription, they had their FDA checklist or whatever they had to go through (questions about certain scenarios, etc.), but I've had 3 different doctors that have basically taken my word on it. Once you get that first prescription, you're basically good to go. Just bring in your prescription bottles to your new doctor and that's really all they need to see/know. Only thing you may have to worry about is them trying to switch you to Vyvanse (which I would not be happy about if that was the only option.) Its possible that Barr is up to something (possibly no more Adderall and only Vyvanse), because I live in one of the biggest cities in the country and Adderall is SCARCE at all pharmacies. And not mom-and-pop pharmacies, the big chains. So, I wouldn't be surprised if a change is in the making. ANYWAY, I think I've said enough. Lol. (I'm currently medicated ;) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top