This article is available only by subscription but abstract is free to view.
Forensic Science International
Underground pill testing, down under
Authors: Andrew M. Camilleri, David Caldicott, Rob Beattie
Available online 1 September 2004 - In Press
Abstract:
At a recent South Australian rave, results reported to users from on-site pill-testing, using pill-testing kits, were compared with GCMS analysis of a scraping from the same pill. The presence of an ecstasy-like substance or methylamphetamine was correctly reported to users in 100% of pills that contained those substances. However only 11% of pills with combinations of illicit substances had both substances correctly identified. Ketamine was particularly problematic with identification occurring in only 18% of pills and in some instances, the colorimetric response obtained from ketamine was confused with the response from methylamphetamine. This study also allowed a comparison between pill design and composition encountered at the rave with those submitted to the forensic laboratory over a 6-month period including the month the rave was held. MDMA was present in 68% of pills at the rave and 89% of pills submitted by the police. Ketamine was present in 27 and 26% of pills, respectively and was often combined with other substances. The combinations of illicit substances were identical apart from one police-pill seizure that contained MDMA combined with PMA. This combination has not been previously encountered in South Australia. The pill designs observed at the rave differed significantly from the designs on pills submitted for testing by police. These differences limit the use of pill comparison charts as an alternative identification tool to colorimetric pill testing in South Australia.
Link
My comments:
I believe this is the first published journal article (of Australian experience definitely) that compares colour reagent testing accuracy to GCMS analysis. Being aware of the limitations of reagent testing, it was hardly surprising to see some differences in indications, especially with ketamine mistaken for methamphetamine. This still says, to me, that reagent testing is better than no testing at all, but I think the second part of this study - with the results of how the test results affected people's intentions to consume their pill - will add more weight to this! [I believe this is coming out soon]
The part of this article that I really like is the comparison between the range of pills tested at this SA rave versus those seized by the SA Police at the same time period. They are very different, which shows again the value of this kind of operation above and beyond testing the drugs police are able to detect.
This finding is intuitive - law enforcement only end up with a very small portion of the variety of drugs out there. However many research strategies and ideas are based on the purity or contents of these seizures. For example, I have read countless publications which refer to 'ecstasy users' in Australia as not having any clue what is in their pills, and that say that this is why ecstasy users call them "pills" (this nickname is apparently signifying that they could be any type of pill), and that since police seized pills sold as ecstasy more often than not contain methamphetamine - 'ecstasy' should really be referred to as simply 'methamphetamine pills'.
*sigh*
All of this conjecture is based on the assumption that police seized ecstasy correlates with the ecstasy sold and bought in Australian drug markets.
I'm interested in people's comments on the above (and on the article) - feel free to email me at [email protected] for the fulltext pdf
Forensic Science International
Underground pill testing, down under
Authors: Andrew M. Camilleri, David Caldicott, Rob Beattie
Available online 1 September 2004 - In Press
Abstract:
At a recent South Australian rave, results reported to users from on-site pill-testing, using pill-testing kits, were compared with GCMS analysis of a scraping from the same pill. The presence of an ecstasy-like substance or methylamphetamine was correctly reported to users in 100% of pills that contained those substances. However only 11% of pills with combinations of illicit substances had both substances correctly identified. Ketamine was particularly problematic with identification occurring in only 18% of pills and in some instances, the colorimetric response obtained from ketamine was confused with the response from methylamphetamine. This study also allowed a comparison between pill design and composition encountered at the rave with those submitted to the forensic laboratory over a 6-month period including the month the rave was held. MDMA was present in 68% of pills at the rave and 89% of pills submitted by the police. Ketamine was present in 27 and 26% of pills, respectively and was often combined with other substances. The combinations of illicit substances were identical apart from one police-pill seizure that contained MDMA combined with PMA. This combination has not been previously encountered in South Australia. The pill designs observed at the rave differed significantly from the designs on pills submitted for testing by police. These differences limit the use of pill comparison charts as an alternative identification tool to colorimetric pill testing in South Australia.
Link
My comments:
I believe this is the first published journal article (of Australian experience definitely) that compares colour reagent testing accuracy to GCMS analysis. Being aware of the limitations of reagent testing, it was hardly surprising to see some differences in indications, especially with ketamine mistaken for methamphetamine. This still says, to me, that reagent testing is better than no testing at all, but I think the second part of this study - with the results of how the test results affected people's intentions to consume their pill - will add more weight to this! [I believe this is coming out soon]
The part of this article that I really like is the comparison between the range of pills tested at this SA rave versus those seized by the SA Police at the same time period. They are very different, which shows again the value of this kind of operation above and beyond testing the drugs police are able to detect.
This finding is intuitive - law enforcement only end up with a very small portion of the variety of drugs out there. However many research strategies and ideas are based on the purity or contents of these seizures. For example, I have read countless publications which refer to 'ecstasy users' in Australia as not having any clue what is in their pills, and that say that this is why ecstasy users call them "pills" (this nickname is apparently signifying that they could be any type of pill), and that since police seized pills sold as ecstasy more often than not contain methamphetamine - 'ecstasy' should really be referred to as simply 'methamphetamine pills'.
*sigh*
All of this conjecture is based on the assumption that police seized ecstasy correlates with the ecstasy sold and bought in Australian drug markets.
I'm interested in people's comments on the above (and on the article) - feel free to email me at [email protected] for the fulltext pdf
Rather interesting but not suprising.
