Vic Govt conclusions about 'party drug' use

Media Release: Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee, 5 May 2004

Inquiry into amphetamine and ‘party drug’ use in Victoria

“Taking ‘Party Drugs’ is like playing Russian Roulette": that is the message to young people throughout the comprehensive report, tabled in Parliament today by the Parliamentary Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee.

Committee Chair, Carolyn Hirsh, said the report was the result of an extensive inquiry referred to the Committee by the State Government.

“Following extensive community hearings across Victoria, the committee has made 89 major recommendations to tackle the use of so-called ‘party drugs’,” Ms Hirsh said.

“The Inquiry found amphetamine-type substances are the most widely used of illicit drugs after cannabis.

“People using ‘party drugs’ rarely know what substances they are actually taking, but the drugs can have long term physical, psychological and social consequences.

“However, the Committee found there is no one size fits all in response to the complex problem of amphetamine and ‘party drug’ use.

“As a result the Committee has made wide-ranging recommendations that encompass law enforcement, education, harm reduction, the media, treatment and service delivery.”

Ms Hirsh said the report also contained a detailed analysis of the dangers flowing from the use of the newer ‘party drugs’ such as GHB and Ketamine.

“The use of these extremely harmful drugs by certain groups in the community has prompted the Committee to propose that its final recommendations be implemented.

Recommendations include:

- Encourage the media to report amphetamine and ‘party drug’ use sensitively and avoid glamorising drugs by the use of the term ‘party drugs’;

- Appropriate legislation be enacted to require photographic identification to be produced to pharmacists or pharmacy staff for the purchase of two or more packets of non prescription pseudoephedrine based medications or products (single ingredient or combination product). In all other cases current Pharmacy Industry guidelines and Codes of Practice should be strictly observed and enforced.

- Consideration be given to the creation of a new offence of ‘drink spiking’ with a sufficient level of penalty to reflect the gravity of this crime;

- Drug testing kits should not be made available publicly as they are a potentially dangerous and inaccurate tool to measure the content of pills;

- Sufficient and appropriate ongoing training be given to medical, nursing and ancillary staff with regard to amphetamines and ‘party drugs’ and;

- A regulatory framework for dance and club venues and indoor and outdoor ‘raves’ should be established that mandates the appropriate management of these facilities and locations.

- All licensees of venues should include a reference to and strategies for managing illicit drugs in their ‘accords’.

The Report also makes a number of recommendations with regard to remedying the arguably ‘Melbourne-centric’ nature of drug policy in this state. These cover the gamut of supply, demand and harm reduction strategies. These include recommendations with regard to access and availability of drug services, treatment and programmes and recommendations addressing the lack of research and data with regard to patterns of amphetamine and ‘party drug’ use in rural Victoria.

Media inquiries: Committee chair, Carolyn Hirsh.

Pager 9625 1938

specifically note the 4th recommendation condemning pill testing kits...

The report can be downloaded from http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/dcpc/ - though it is quite large.

Having only read the exec summary (this report is 500 pages +) - there are some sensible ideas, and some not so sensible... will be interesting to see what is acted upon and what is not...

Yes, let's encourage the media not to use the term "party drugs" by using it EIGHT TIMES in our article of recommendations.

Hopefully what they are suggesting about pill testers being made available publicly refers to the government supporting pill testing and NOT to them being banned. That would suck and I would have to get shouty. They won't like me when I'm shouty.

All in all this is very disappointing but whatever, the government could provide quantitative drug testing so we don't have to play "russian roulette" but instead, they'll just tell us we're naughty. Thanks Mom! I don't remember voting for you, though...

This has massive ramifications and is a backwards step, especially when you consider what the rest of the world is doing. If you ban the sale of chemical reagents with nothing to replace it with (ie. no publicly accessible lab testing) then adulterated pills will increase and so will the danger!

They won't just increase. They'll become dominant.
Don't tell me you wouldn't be tempted to throw out 2,000,000 bunk pills with that old rusting pill presser your great grandpa bought back with him after WW1.....
*angry face*

Please make sure that any press coverage of this is noted here at BL so I can respond to the media outlets.

Here is the Pill Testing section of the report, so you don't have to wade thru all 790 pages.

This conclusion I find most interesting:

The jury may still be out, but the jury is also obviously divided. Drug testing, particularly that which is given the imprimatur of the state, is clearly contentious. Its advocates cite the number of lives saved through alerting users to adulterated drugs, particularly those containing PMA. It is viewed by some as a particularly useful service to users at festivals such as Earthcore where many attendees, who will in any case use ‘party drugs’, can have some level of assurance that their pills may not be adulterated According to Gowing et al., a further benefit is that such programmes have ‘the opportunity to monitor trends in supply and rapidly respond to changes in the market’ (2001, p.38). Its detractors view such schemes as simply a back-door method of decriminalising such drugs. Those critics who are not so concerned with the use of the drugs per se, may nonetheless have deep concerns about the accuracy or otherwise of the test results. Notwithstanding these somewhat polarised views, it would seem that testing can never of itself be seen as an adequate harm minimisation strategy. Gowing et al. state that if testing is used it should always ‘be accompanied by secondary preventive education’ (2001, p.38).

On balance the Committee believes that although there are some valid and
sincerely held beliefs with regard to the efficacy of pill testing stations or
sophisticated pill testing laboratories they would be prohibitively expensive to establish and maintain. They also risk sending the ‘wrong message’ to users and potential users that taking ‘party drugs’ can be ‘risk free’. As for self-testing kits, the evidence indicates that such instruments are inaccurate and possibly dangerous. At this stage the Committee can not support either of these measures.

Instead the Committee makes the following recommendations:
Recommendations

58. The Committee recommends that the provision of accurate information in relation to the contents of pills submitted for testing be available to medical support staff, through a system of ‘alerts’ provided by Victoria Police Forensic Science Laboratories.

59. The Committee recommends that pill testing kits should not be available to the public as they are potentially a dangerous and inaccurate tool to measure the content of particular pills.

Click to expand...

I'll be tearing this apart tomorrow when I have more time. Read my reply here, or hopefully in some major media outlet.

I thought the "strong" recommendation for retractable needles and syringes was a particularly bizarre outcome from this report.

The pill testing recommendation is a very concerning. I agree that it may well have very serious implications.

Their endorsement of Ravesafe and the recommendation for increased funding was one good part.

I'm still getting through the report, but I have to say I was really shocked at how big it is!

Blind to the truth.

Drugs are going to be used regardless of "recomendations"

Yeah, lets sweep all valuable information that could be made public under the carpet and all our problems will disappear.

This may cost me some time - somewhat short atm - but after reading JB's link to the section on pill testing, I feel I should comment on some points used in the argument against testing.

Gripes come from both comments made by the Police, and their main authors of reference -Ramsey et al (2001) - who I disagreed strongly with at the time. There seems IMO to be far too many speculative assumptions in his paper, many which often seemed to reflect a poor understanding of the science that was commented on.

The other area concerns the police statements regarding testing. While some of the health related points are valid, many are based upon present inadequacies which can be improved upon.

Despite the more broadly based arguments against it, I'd like to firstly restate:

From a health and safety perspective, I believe any testing program designed at seriously minimising harm to users should be quantitative i.e. it should give at least an approximate figure of the amount of MDMA or other known substances present. No Dr or pharmacist could argue against this. First and foremost is to regulate the dose of any drug taken. In this case first and foremost is to identify the substance/s, but amounts in milligrams run a close second IMHO.

Whether or not the intent, in essence this is supported in this statement made by police regarding kits and the issue of purity, as even in this context; MDMA vs other toxins, dosage is an important factor. Ratios are not good enough if percentages of active ingredients are used to describe contents and related levels of impurities.

- drug levels and toxicity are not addressed at all by this testing
method – drug level (purity) and toxicity are critical issues in drug
use and harm minimisation;

Click to expand...

In not addressing the legal issues (again) I'd like to focus on statements which seem founded on discrediting kits, and other forms of testing - the next step in any logical progression - which could be implemented along side of, or in replace of currently available kits.

Where persons establish drug testing stations at venues to test the purity of drugs before others use them, a number of issues are raised. The process of testing tablets may be perceived as giving a seal of approval to certain drugs, based on test results. As there is an element of potential harm in all drugs, this type of testing could send out the message that those drugs are safe to use, particularly when a so-called positive result is obtained.

Click to expand...

This argument has been covered a million times. The point being; these people have already decided to take something of which they know nothing. If one of these people rejects a pill because of a result, Harm Reduction has been achieved. When a testing group provides information on a test result, is also accompanied with a message regarding the dangers of the drug, including drugs like MDMA. A note explaining the limitations of the kits is also usually included. Harm reduction/ minimisation through drug awareness/ education is again achieved.

Producers and distributors of the ecstasy testing kit in Australia and overseas promote the kits as a harm minimisation approach claiming the harm associated with using ecstasy is reduced if users are able to determine if tablets/powder they intend to use is shown to contain ecstasy like substances such as MDMA, MDEA and MDA.

It is important to note that adverse reactions, including death, have occurred when MDMA appears to have been the only drug used. Knowledge that MDMA is contained in the drug consumed is not enough to protect the user from adverse effects.

Click to expand...

In respect to comments I've made concerning knowing what it is and how much you are taking of it, this is completely true. What testing advocates are NOT saying, is that by testing you remove any doubt or danger. MDMA, whether as dangerous as some claim or not,

is NEVER regarded as either

1. A safe or benign substance
2. Guaranteed pure from a test kit result
   [/list=1]
   
   Perhaps it is thought this information is not conveyed well enough to users who use the services of Enlighten or similar groups, but I would doubt this is so from seeing the literature on their site and being aware of any such organisation's need to maintain a high level of group integrity.
   
   

   Those supporting testing suggest that law enforcement agencies could benefit from the information obtained by the regular analysis of new pills as they appear on the market; that is, as a means of profiling (fingerprinting) the chemical composition of a pill in a similar fashion to the forensic work of amphetamine profiling in the 1980s (Jonson & Stromberg, 1993; Rashed, Anderson & King, 2000). Such information is clearly useful, but we feel that it could be equally attainable by a more rigorous routine analysis of confiscated pills or those deposited in an amnesty bin’ (Winstock, Wolff &
   Ramsey 2001, p.1146).

   Click to expand...

   
   I would have thought informing the police that pill -x had ketamine and amphetamine would be good enough info on its own. Modern HPLC could do this in most cases, although to be fair, it is hardly a thorough analysis. But if an optimum onsite setup was permitted, even without GC/MS it could still function as a highly efficient means of determining content.
   
   A doubtful conclusion would be considered to be a more effective a deterrent than the result of a kit which may be thought of as being less reliable. An odd result is that - an odd result. It should be noted that HPLC technology has progressed considerably since 2000.
   
   

   • Based on available scientific evidence, drug testing kits currently on the market:
   
   - are not able to provide clear identification of a particular drug;
   
   - at best and when used under optimum conditions they provide an
   indication of a compound/drug class, which may be present;
   
   - no information is provided on the non drug components which
   may be present in a sample;
   
   - where drug mixtures are concerned (a common occurrence in
   street drugs) the results become misleading;
   
   - drug levels and toxicity are not addressed at all by this testing
   method – drug level (purity) and toxicity are critical issues in drug
   use and harm minimisation;
   
   - interpretation of the results is extremely subjective, and the
   variation inherent in this testing regime is a significant limitation;
   
   - a false sense of security is bestowed upon the user which may in fact
   increase the risk of drug taking; and
   
   - the kits themselves contain hazardous chemicals (concentrated
   acids) that would cause irritation, injury and damage upon contact
   with person (skin) or other surfaces.
   
   • Given that the various testing kits available on the market match
   different colours to the chemical reaction which takes place when the
   reagent is applied to the substance, there is even more potential for the
   user to misinterpret the result. The user may rely on familiarity with a
   particular test, not realising that colour readings differ between the
   various kits and thus mis-interpret the results if using a new kit for the
   first time.865

   Click to expand...

   
   All these points have elements of validity and truth. But together I hardly see how they are justification for banning kits. Banning kits hinders the development of better kits, and seriously opens the door for adulteration as Cowboy Mac outlined.
   
   As for the contents being toxic, that is true. But in most instances these substances are no more dangerous than items found in the shed or laundry. If you have a scale buildup from Ca or Mg salts in your water supply, you may use sulphuric acid (black acid) to remove it or dissolve sludge that is alkali resistant. The amount of nitroprusside in Simons reagent is of little concern as it would be unlikely to be a lethal amount in one bottle.
   Sodium Vanadate is moderately toxic, as are many of the metal complexes used in paint and glazing pigments and other applications.
   
   So for me this argument carries little weight, but it may be seen as an indication that better packaging and labeling could be needed with some products.
   
   
   Finally I'll just make mention of the criticism drawn towards HPLC and other mobile onsite testing. Without quoting details, in summary Ramsey indicates the limitations imposed by
   
   
   • Practicality
   • Resolution of HPLC
   • Affordability
   • Time Restrictions
   
   I see logistics involved with HPLC to be less at present than a year ago. Newer machines offer unprecedented performance, and all components could be easily transported and assembled onsite.
   
   Resolution is also much improved through changes in standardisation procedures which incorporte database access; allowing referencing and standardising eluent mixtures to be done via online access. This avoids the need to carry restricted the chemicals traditionally required for referencing a suspected drug by its retention time. It's now all done online, enabling a fast and accurate setup and library checks.
   
   Cost is perhaps an issue, but considering how much would be saved from both police and community spent resources, I think this has to be carefully considered. HPLC and MS are becoming less expensive, but there would still require that large funding be available for any pilot project to be effective.
   
   Time restrictions naturally relate to costs. They also relate to procedure, and HPLC takes approximately 15-20 mins per run. That's after the sample has been prepared. Auto sampling lessens handling time considerably, but several machines would be required if an effective alternative to current pill testing methods was to involve HPLC as the primary resolving tool.
   
   Something also got me a bit ruffled with Ramseys comments which I should address specifically
   

   Thirdly, colour tests gives no information regarding the strength of a pill and cannot differentiate between optical isomers and unless chiral chromatography is available, neither can HPLC or GC-MS. Precise isomeric composition of pills reflects the availability of the precursors and remains largely unknown.

   Click to expand...

   
   I'd be surprised to see any court reports containing details about optical isomers. While the information would be handy and chem nerds like me would view results looking for the unexpected, for most purposes such info would likely prove very un-interesting, as 99.9 percent of MDMA would be expected to be racemic i.e. be a 50:50 mixture of the 2 isomers.
   
   This is because enantiomeric selective reactions are not normally done to produce a simple amine like MDMA, and it's just so much extra work to separate using a pure chiral isomer like the tartrate ion. I'm sure the underworld wouldn't be bothered although a few smaller producers might. It's also possible that some smart producers may be making their product via a specialised optically selective process, but that would likely mean a very big setup, possibly involving a pharmaceutical plant.
   
   
   The rest of the argument against seems to lean heavily on the old tune of "all drugs are bad - including MDMA" While it's important to attempt to give a balanced objective when commenting on these issues, it's also important to temporarily remove - for the sake of attainable objectives - other areas which may be seen to be clash with such proposals or suggestions, whether that involves legislating against kits - or for them, or taking it to the next level where more accurate and dependable assessments can be made. When a strategy is developed, then re-introduce the arguments against and debate them.
   
   If this subject is not addressed in this fashion, there is serious threat of not only increases in the rates of substitutes sold as MDMA, but there also of the risk the move will be seen as authorities stamping on another aspect of rave culture. Testing has become an integral part of drug culture, where communication is often learned in regards to acknowledging and discussing drug use around a particular pill form. The implications of banning kits should be therefore seen as a dangerous step which could affect future demographic studies, not to mention the reliability placed in the current less speculative reasoning of Pill report forums, for which many users turn to and rely upon. One thing's for certain in the advent of prohibiting the sale of kits; testing kits will not go away, but their present consistency and reliability that comes from legit production probably will.

The whole testing kit part really seems like it started from a "I dont like it" starting point, from which they felt the need to make up some excuses as to why they didnt like it. Now all it looks like a whole list of beuracratic wanking coz they dont want to be misinterpreted in any way as to be seen as somehow allowing drug use.

One thing I do wholeheartedly agree on however is the aspect of making drink spiking an offence. Infact I'm rather shocked that it isnt already one.

stace.

I'm actually quite surprised at the quite naive comments regarding testing organizations such as enlighten. It would appear to me that the people who conducted whatever research in preparation of the paper didn't bother to fully investigate testing methods and prodedures. Considering they where apparently at such events as Earthcore where we conduct a good number of tests 100+ in, which I can vouch that for each and every one of those tests it was very clearly pointed out that:

It does not mean the pill is 'pure'

It does not mean the pill is 'safe'

it does not tell you how much is in the pill

Along with this being said to each person it also appears as prominent signage at the stand. Organizations such as enlighten take the job they do very seriously and each and all understand that its important that the right messages are sent, this includes not being a channel for drug advocation but a means by which someone who has already made a decision to consume a drug can minimise any potential harm.

From reading the report I felt like people who offer substance testing services where being considered as being in the same boat as the guy who imports a million pills.

The way the inquiry has treated the issue of pill testing and retractable needles is pretty misinformed IMO. However, I was impressed with how the Two Tribes / GHB incident seems to have affected the report, even though it happened two months ago (this is a government inquiry, normally not so responsive!)

It is a shame that, for whatever reason, the inquiry didn't properly represent Enlighten.. maybe if they had looked at it more carefully, they would have noted the way info is given out as outlined by Airwalk.. that is, drugs are not glamourised and by no means is a tested drug 'safe'.

dont be extremly worried about baned pill testing kits. I have used testing reagents that have been made up using forumlae in forensic reports. (And they worked quite well) If this does go ahead people may resort to this and the conisiderable danger of handling some of the ingredients of the reagents....

Who knows they may end up as illegal as pills and just as prollific on the black market.... people willing to possess an illegal substance probably would not think twice about possessing another illegal substance, especialy when/if it was taken up in court it could be proven to be a form of harm reduction...?

OK I'm going to be interviewed on 3aw at 8.30 this morning (10/5) so if anyone is awake at this godforsaken time of the morning listen in.

UPDATE: Here's an mp3 of the interview. I'll be putting up the call ins later if I can be bothered. Frankly it's the usual 3AW mix of 2 people supporting what I had to say, 2 outraged grannies and 1 very confusing drug user.

http://www.ftr6.org/Audio/3aw1.mp3

Great interview John,
Is it just me or is Neil Mitchell a total tool. I generally can't stand him and don't listen to 3AW because his views are generally mega conservative and he often just cant understand or come to terms with any concept that challenges traditional views. Is he genuinely as dumb as narrow minded as he comes accross in the interview or does he simply ask the questions and conduct the interview that is going to be most acceptable to his target audience.
Anyway good stuff John, I did chuckle a little when he Neil seemed to struggle to come to terms with the concept that enlighten is self funded and you provide pill testing at parrties for free. He didn't seem to understand the concept of helping others and caring for the well being of those around you.


Beech out

Good stuff JB.

Just as well that ridiculous but inevitable question was asked or who knows what he would of thought your real motives were

It was great to hear the last sentence about you being upfront etc, although he certainly sounded like a hard egg to crack. Well done!

I think that if all drugs were legalised and regulated then we would have less crime and social problems with drugs.

It would be just the same as alcohol only it will probably make the world a better place. Think of how many avoidable problems have happened due to alcohol. Car crashes, lost relationships, lost jobs...If I had any say in it I would even get rid of alcohol and put the other drugs in because of the loss of control over anyone who drinks it!

With the matter at hand, anti-drug policy has gone from "don't take drugs" to "don't take drugs but heres some information on the dangers of drugs if you do take them"....what will be next in 15years? (still illegal supply) "drugs are bad for you and here are the guidelines if you are going to take the following drugs" like what bluelight does.

*shakes head* someone up high is taking a long time for a message to be drilled into his/her head with drug use trends.

Nice interview JB. That guy was pretty painful. It's clear he's coming from a totally different place, he seems to have no reference point for most of what you had to say so he struggled with the basics.

Or perhaps he was just doing his job.