Update on "Spice"

These are some interesting stats about the drug called "Spice" or K2. As I've been posting in our chemical dependency counselor catagory about different drug news, spice is rising to "fame" in the drug community. Alongside with other synthetic drugs, Spice is growing more and more dangerous, according to addiction physiology. Heres more on this...

"The recent meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence featured a very well attended session on the emerging recreational drugs that are best described generically as synthetic cannabis. Popularly these are frequently referred to as K2 or Spice as these seem to be the best known of the initial market branding. One of the first identified and most frequently observed active compounds in these products was JWH-018, so you may see this term as well.

The past year or two has seen an explosion in the use and supply of synthetic cannabinoid "incense" products in the US and worldwide. The basic nature of the product is well established- Small packets (typically 3g in the US) of dried plant material marketed as "incense" and marked "not for human consumption" that are priced well above what you might expect. In the range of $60 at my local fine inhalation glassware establishments, last I checked. Upon analysis, these products are typically found to have a variety of plant materials, but also to be adulturated with a host of drug compounds that have agonist effects at the CB1 receptor.

As you are aware the most-active psychotropic compound to be found in cannabis, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) confers the majority of its effects through partial agonist activity at CB1 receptors.

In short, these "incense" products are a constructed, synthetic mimic of cannabis. Since the active ingredients are, in many cases, full agonists this means that the maximum CB1 activation can potentially be higher than you could achieve with any dose of the partial agonist THC.

As my readers are aware, these products are capable of producing dependence with a profile, including withdrawal effects, that are typical of cannabis dependence.

The symposium was organized and chaired by a rising star in drug abuse research, William Fantegrossi, and a legend of cannabinoid behavioral pharmacology, Jenny Wiley. The latter had been involved with much of the characterization of the JWH- compounds when they were originally created.

The DEA reported continued surveillance of products and their scheduling action that placed 5 of the more-common cannabimimetic compunds on Schedule I in early 2011. Interesting tidbit was that the delay from the intended scheduling in late Dec 2010 (30 days after their initial notice of intent to schedule) was entirely due to putting out brushfire lawsuits from convenience store / head shop interests that were making serious bank from these products. He reported that a consortium of just four shops were reporting profits (might have been sales) in the neighborhood of $5M.

One of the more interesting parts of the symposium was the participation of three members of a four institution/agency consortium or task force that has been established in the state of Arkansas. It includes people from the state's forensic crime laboratory, the poison control service, the University of Arkansas Medical Sciences campus and the state Children's Health service (or Children's Hospital, I'm not remembering precisely). It seems like an ideal response to an emerging health situation of this nature- involve the two areas of front line interface (poison control and law enforcement forensics) with scientists who have experience with the health condition in question.

What I learned that was of interest to me:

-Phone calls to all US poison hotlines for marijuana or cannabis amount to about 1,000 per year. Calls for synthetic cannabinoids were 2,800-2,900 in the past two years. Given that all available epidemiology suggests that marijuana use dwarfs use of synthetic products, we can tentatively infer a greater risk.

-40 of 48 calls to the Arkansas Poison Control Hotline were from/regarding individuals already in contact with Emergency Departments / Emergency Medical Services. (1 of 48 calls was from an individual calling to report the effects were just what he wanted and to tell the agency to stop denigrating these fine products.)

-Behavioral effects of the active compounds are opposed by CB1 antagonists, in general, so there is ongoing confirmation that this is indeed the most important pharmacological activity for a range of these compounds.

-While these compounds are more potent than THC (smaller amount leads to similar effect), there is some variability across those that have been studied in animal models. And for some of the compounds, such as JWH-073, there is some indication that it may actually be a partial agonist (like THC) rather than a full agonist.

-Certain cannabimimetic combinations are frequent. One lab reports never finding JWH-073 without JWH-018. Similarly, JWH-250 and JWH-081 were frequently found together. Samples are diverse enough that it suggests an intentional recipe being followed, rather than an accidental association.

UPDATE:
In response to a query from Prof-like substance, the DEA guy mentioned that they were finding and rolling up domestic production labs. The compounds are being imported, the plant material locally sourced and the finished product being made and packaged.

The forensic scientist pointed out that since the method is to dissolve the compound in acetone and use a spray bottle to spritz the plant material the drug distribution should be uneven. And their analysis of packages shows what they call "hot spots" with some parts of it having up to 2X the drug content. So potency varies between and even within product units.

There was a distinct impression from both the DEA and the forensic side of things that there are/were many labs pumping out product, consistent with the highly diverse drug content, source material, branding/packaging, etc.

After the DEA scheduling action, apparently the packaging started using terms like "compliant" or "Does not include JWH-018, JWH-073....etc". At least one sample that was so marked was analyzed and found to include JWH-018."

June 23, 2011 

Source: http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2...tm_medium=link

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!

 

I didn't think it was that bad!

So I've been posting about Synthetic drugs in our chemical dependency counseling archives for a while now, but I didn't think it was THIS bad! Addiction physiology shows that these synthetic drugs are now offsetting the global use of cocaine and heroin. More on this...

"Gains made in tackling global use of cocaine and heroin are being offset by rising consumption of synthetic and prescription drugs, the UN says. 

In its annual report, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said that in Europe, seizures of new psychoactive drugs had been growing. 

A number of new synthetic compounds have emerged, the agency said.

These were commonly marketed as "legal" substitutes for drugs like cocaine or ecstasy, it said.

"Every year new products, not under control, are manufactured to supply an increasingly diversified demand for psychoactive substances," the report says.

These include synthetic drugs, as well as drugs based on cannabis, cocaine and opiates.

The drugs are often designed to evade regulations or law enforcement, or to replace drugs that are being supplied in lesser quantities, the UN said.

Some contain unregulated substances and are known as "legal highs".

In addition, the non-medical use of prescription drugs was reported to be spreading in developed and developing countries, the UN said.

Creating a legal high

•Small structural changes to an illegal chemical can create a new legal compound

•Legal-high dealers scour scientific literature for substances similar to recreational drugs

In Europe, which the UN described as among the most "innovative" regions for new drugs, 40 new substances were notified in the European early-warning system in 2010, compared to 24 in 2009.

The seized drugs included piperazines, cathinones, synthetic cannabinoids, tryptamines and phenethylamines.

Piperazine was developed for the treatment of parasitic worms and as an anti-depressant. Derivatives of piperazine are often sold as ecstasy.

Other examples of "new drugs" are mephedrone, often touted as a legal alternative to amphetamine or cocaine, and "spice", a synthetic product that emulates the effect of cannabis.

Other developments identified in the UN report for 2010 include:

•a "significant" fall in potential cocaine manufacture, due to a fall in cocaine production in Colombia that offset increases in Peru and Bolivia

•a small increase in global opium poppy cultivation from 2009-2010, driven by rising cultivation in Burma. Opium poppy production fell, due to a disease in opium poppy plants in Afghanistan

•seizures of cocaine and cannabis resin were shifting away from the main consumer markets to source regions

Overall, the UN estimates that between 149 and 272 million people around the world used illicit substances in 2009.

In recent years, stable downward trends in heroin and cocaine use have contrasted with an increase in the use of ATS (amphetamine-type stimulants), the UN says."

BBC News 23 rd June 2011

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13881690

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!

 

A Bigger problem than Illegal Drugs

This "worrying trend", The Home Office describes, has been a menacing problem for chemical dependency counseling, addiction physiology, and the world. Young people are not taking head to these legal highs as much as they should, just because some is "legal" does NOT mean it is safe. More on the story...

"Legal highs are becoming a bigger problem than illegal drugs, with many young people wrongly believing they are safe, a drugs worker claims. 

Alan Andrews, an ex-heroin addict who runs a Llanelli-based drug intervention centre, said some legal drugs were stronger than illegal counterparts.

He told BBC Wales' Week In Week Out that legal did not mean safe.

The UK government plans to bring in temporary banning orders for legal highs to be tested.

The programme has investigated the issue of legal highs, more than a year after the drug mephedrone, or meow meow, was banned.

Legal highs are substances that are manufactured in a laboratory which do not fall under the current legislation of banned substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act, according to Dr Mohan Da Silva, lead clinician for charity Kaleidoscope Wales.

Undercover recording has found shops breaking the law by selling some of these drugs for human consumption. 

Mr Andrews, managing director of Chooselife, said: "It's becoming a bigger problem than illegal drugs because... the message 'legal' means safe, which it's not.

He said some of the legal high drugs "are stronger, more potent than the illegal drugs and it's quite scary". 

"There's a generation of young people who are being sold a lie that legal means safe."

Secretly recorded Week In Week Out footage shows a 17-year-old girl being sold a drug called salvia.

She is also sold equipment and shown how to use it to smoke the drug. 

Unprecedented pace 

Salvia, derived from a Mexican plant, is legal to possess but it is against the law to sell it for human consumption. 

John Ramsey, a toxicologist and member of a working group to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, said the drugs laws needed to be reviewed. 

Mr Ramsey said salvia had not been banned because the fact it was so potent meant very few people took it more than once. 

"There has been a lot of talk about whether things are appropriately classified and I think the development of these new compounds at the rate they're being developed probably warrants a second look at how we control all drugs," he said.

Legal highs are not new but there are more of them and there are concerns they are getting more potent. 

Last month the monitoring centre which records drug use across Europe said new highs were appearing at an "unprecedented" pace. 

Some 41 new substances emerged in 2010, 16 of which were first reported in the UK. 

'Worrying trend' 

The most high profile has been mephedrone, which has been linked to a number of young people's deaths. 

It was banned in April last year but the programme has found it is still being used in Wales, where there have been 100 arrests since the ban. 

The UK government is planning to bring in temporary banning orders, to allow time for legal highs to be tested. 

The Home Office said: "So-called legal highs can be extremely dangerous and anyone taking them is playing Russian roulette with their health. 

"We are building one of the most robust systems in the world to tackle this worrying trend."

BBC News 21st June 2011

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13846006

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!

Krokodil Epidemic

Recently there has been an explosion of articles, in the chemical dependency counseling community, on this epidemic in Russia called "Krokodil". TIME wrote an article on this and people are worried about the effect it could have if it spreads to America. Heres an article from a chemical dependency counselor forum on this drug...

"If you do a quick Google search you’ll learn it means crocodile in Russian, it used to be the name of a 20th century Soviet magazine, and you might come across one TIME magazine article and a disturbing video of how it’s also a very dangerous drug growing into an epidemic in Russia.

The name krokodil comes from its trademark side effect: scaly green skin like a crocodile around the injection site. TIME calls it “the dirty cousin of morphine,” because it’s three times cheaper than heroin and very easy to make, being that its main ingredient is codeine, a behind-the-counter drug that has sent many of America’s famous rap community to prison.

The medical name of krokodil is desomorphine. A quick search for that will bring up graphic images of people with swollen faces, exposed bones and muscles and skin rotting off on any given body part.

The reason the drug is so anatomically destructive is due to its mix-ins. Users stir in ingredients “including gasoline, paint thiner, hydrochloric acid, iodine and red phosphorus which they scrape from the striking pads on matchboxes,” reports TIME.

The drug isn’t filtered before consumption, meaning the high amounts of industrial chemicals enter the body, each chemical destroying a different area: the endocrine system, bone tissue, the nervous system and the liver and kidneys. Circulation is disrupted so severely it often leads to the death of a person’s limbs which inevitably have to be amputated. “Non-healing ulcers appear on the body and a person literally rots alive,” notes one blog site, Shroomery.

While you most likely haven’t heard of it and it doesn’t seem to be spreading around the States yet, krokodil is not new. It was originally concocted in America in the 1930s, but didn’t seem to really find its way into Siberia and Russia until 2002, where, by 2009, it has spread substantially.

It seems to have caught on in particular regions in Russia that are remote, regions where winter lasts eight months out of the year and where “the young people are in a constant state of boredom,” says TIME. The youth drinks a lot and barely works—this sounding reminiscent of the conditions and high amount of alcoholism among Alaska’s population, a place Sarah Palin calls Russia’s next-door neighbor. Could it also be the bridge that brings krokodil over?

What would happen if krokodil use grew in our society like it has in Russia, a country whose government plays almost no part in the rehabilitation system? It would enter our debate at a turbulent time for drug policy. States from Connecticut to California are considering sanctioning marijuana, and the Global Commission on Drug Policy advocated that all drugs be decriminalized worldwide, asserting the global war on drugs has failed.

Meanwhile the Federal Government isn’t budging, insisting they’ll go over states’ heads to continue criminally prosecuting drug use.

But would legalizing drugs really be enough?

Depending on the price and potency, it seems inevitable that the youth in Russia who are already addicted to krokodil’s 30-minute high wouldn’t likely turn to drugs sold in stores in favor of their cheap, home-grown mixture, and likely neither would Americans.

According to Reuters there are over 250 million illegal drug users, less than 10% of whom are addicted. For 90% of users legalizing would be a boon. But even though the Global Drug Policy’s recommendation to decriminalize includes replacing prison with rehabilitation for addicts, it seems inevitable that a certain number, like those mixing their own krokodil, would get marginalized out of the care system.

If a seedy drug like krokodil does enter our society, it could be assumed that this level of addiction—whereby a person willfully injects paint thiner and iodine into their body—would go under the radar of the Global Commission on Drugs despite their attention to addicts.

Addiction will never be addressed legislatively until governments can address the root of what causes it, in a medical—rather than criminal—capacity. Given that we’re nowhere close to even providing basic universal healthcare in this country, say nothing of rehab, we can only hope that the Russians addicted to krokodil can help themselves before hurting us. "

By Colleen Stufflebeem
June 21, 2011
Source: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/1073...oison-america/

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!

 

Exit Strategy

Exit strategies are starting to be talked about in chemical dependency counseling and addiction physiology. This has been America's longest war and now it might be coming to an end...

"40 years ago this week, President Richard Nixon declared illicit drugs "public enemy #1." The ensuing war on drugs has been fought in fits and starts by every ensuing administration and is arguably the most disastrous public policy in American history since chattel slavery and its Jim Crow progeny. This ignominious anniversary provides an opportunity to reflect, to ask ourselves and our leaders some very hard questions, and to demand a new direction in U.S. drug policy once and for all.

Initiated by President Nixon and escalated under Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, the war on drugs was said to be fought to keep Americans, particularly children, safe from harmful psychoactive substances. After four decades and at least $1 trillion, illicit drugs are actually cheaper, more potent, and widely available to Americans of all ages. Addiction remains persistent among a relatively small percentage of drug users, yet the overwhelming majority of people who want to access drug treatment don't, most often because they simply can't afford it. What's more, overdose deaths as well as HIV and hepatitis C transmissions have all skyrocketed despite recognized, low-cost public health interventions. That's because the drug war focuses on criminal justice -- rather than health-centered -- solutions to problems caused by drugs.

In fact, the acceleration of drug-related prosecutions is the largest contributor to the six-fold ballooning of this country's prison population since 1970. Of the 2.3 million Americans behind bars, half a million are there for drug offenses, the vast majority for possession of small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use. For context, the United States incarcerates more people just for drug crimes than Western Europe -- with 100 million more people -- incarcerates for all crimes combined. Here in California, we imprison 8,500 each year for drug possession, at an annual cost of nearly half a billion dollars.

Our over-reliance on a criminal justice approach to drugs is made even uglier by easily-documented racial disparities that reveal system-wide selective enforcement of our drug laws. Despite what we're used to seeing in the mainstream media, people of all races and ethnicities consume and distribute drugs in roughly equal proportion. That means white Americans take and sell the vast majority of illicit drugs. Yet, African Americans and Latinos represent a startling two thirds of all people arrested for drug crimes. The impact of a permanent drug arrest record, let alone a felony conviction, has well-documented lifelong consequences. The mass criminalization of people of color, particularly young African American men, has become as profound a system of racial control as the Jim Crow laws were in this country until the mid-1960s.

Far from keeping us safer and healthier, the war on drugs has been a war on families, on communities of color, and on American public health. Today a vibrant national movement voices that message as more and more people speak out against this historic policy catastrophe. At least 50 events around the country this weekend, seven of them in California, will commemorate the 40th anniversary of the drug war and advocate alternative approaches, many of which have been in place around the world for decades. And just two weeks ago, the Global Commission on Drug Policy called for a major paradigm shift in how our society deals with drugs, including decriminalization and legal regulation. The high-profile commission is comprised of international dignitaries such as former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, entrepreneur Richard Branson, and the former Presidents of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Switzerland. Their report understandably sent a jolt around the world, generating thousands of international media stories.

Now the time has now come for all of us to forge an exit strategy from this nation's longest war. It's time to replace our punitive drug laws, and their race-based enforcement, with policies grounded in science, compassion, health, and human rights."

Stephen Gutwillig
Alternet
June 15, 2011

Stephen Gutwillig is California Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, the nation’s leading organization promoting alternatives to the failed war on drugs.

Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/151300/

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!

 

Poppies in Afghan

This has been a slight controversial subject within in the chemical dependency counselor community. Chemical dependency counseling wants to provide help to addicts, but there is a fine line between legalization for medical purposes and legalization for personal uses. Here's an article on the "pro-legalize" side for Poppies in Afghan...

"If Afghans could grow poppy for medicinal opiates, it would strip the Taliban of funding and stop farmers being hit by both sides

One of the aims of Isaf, the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, is to "facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development." Sadly, however, actions often contradict aims and no clearer example of this could be given than UN policy towards Afghanistan's opium poppy crop.

With the date of withdrawal set for 2014, the international community has to ask itself how it can leave Afghanistan with the best chance possible to create a civil society. Economic growth is a key component to that transition. The Afghan government needs to be able to contribute to the costs of its security forces and to the development of public infrastructure. Yet rather than cultivate one of Afghanistan's few national assets, its poppy crop is routinely burned.

Opium is a valuable resource. It is the key component of both morphine and codeine, two of our most effective and widely used painkillers. There is a global shortage of these painkillers. One has to ask then why the UNODC states its ambition is to make Afghanistan "become poppy-free in the near future". This aim is short-sighted and contradicts Isaf's mission statement.

At present opium production is illegal in Afghanistan, yet in 2007 the UNODC estimated that the trade there was worth 53% of the country's licit GDP. It was not Afghanistan that received this huge boost to its economy, however. The Taliban are directly responsible for smuggling the opium into Russia, Pakistan and Iran and so all that money went directly into funding and sustaining the insurgency, not in reducing its capacity and will to fight. Even with the UNODC claiming a 33-40% reduction in the size of the opium crop, this still puts billions of dollars into the insurgents' hands.

UN policy towards the opium crop damages the relationship between the security forces and Afghanistan's farmers, who are believed to make up 70% of the population. The price of opium is estimated at 17 times the price of wheat, which is the alternative crop that farmers are encouraged to grow. Wheat is also more vulnerable to disease and requires more water. For the farmers, when they see their government deny them a valuable source of income and see Isaf burn their hard labour, they resent it. It is hardly surprising that they choose to trade with the insurgents.

Outlawing the poppy crop denies the Afghan government a huge source of revenue and strips the Afghan people of a potential source of socio-economic development. Were the UN to legitimise cultivation of the opium poppy in Afghanistan, the trade would become open and taxable. The ability to raise tax through exports is a significant cash source for the Afghan government and the potential growth in the economy would be a considerable step towards self-sufficiency.

The people hurt by the UN's policy are not the Taliban but innocent farmers. If they grow the poppies their fields are burned. If they grow wheat, their fields are also burned – by the Taliban. Isaf's response to this has been to pay local warlords and militias to protect wheat and convoys.

Surely it makes more sense to encourage the production of opium poppies while providing a secure method of exporting it for morphine and codeine production. This would strip the Taliban of funding and stop the farmers being savaged by both sides.

Legitimising the opium poppy crop is an opportunity to bring Afghanistan together as a nation. If the people are to see centralisation and nationhood as beneficial then they need to see projects carried out by their own government without western involvement. Legalising Afghan opium production is a step on the road to achieving this.

Were the UN to allow the poppy crop it would benefit the international community's relationship with the Afghan people. Rather than condemning the farmers for supplying heroin to drug addicts abroad, we could congratulate them on supplying other vulnerable people with a drug that can relieve their pain and contribute to their treatment. This simple change in attitude would be an easy step to transcend tribalism and isolation in a country that is in desperate need of hope.

Making the trade illegal means that almost all of the poppies will go to producing heroin. Policing the trade is almost impossible and production will not be eradicated, since even in developed countries people grow illegal substances without the authorities knowing.

If the poppies were purchased legitimately, however, these drugs would go into producing painkillers rather than people-killers. The policy of the UNODC at present is destructive and confrontational. Legalising the poppy crop would not mean more heroin on the market than there is today and many suffering people around the world would stand to benefit.

The policy is a shambles and it needs to be changed. From the ashes of this war will rise a phoenix or a fiend and we need to make sure that it is the former not that latter that greets us in 10 years' time. Let Afghanistan rise to be a tall poppy and grow above the violence of its past."

Jack Watling
guardian.co.uk,
Monday 13 June 2011

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-opiates-poppy

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!

 

Doctors Over-prescribing?

This is nothing new to chemical dependency counseling or addiction physiology in general, but doctors might be over-prescribing people. Doctors are begining to be to quick to grab for their prescription pads...more on this...

"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - U.S. doctors are too quick to reach for their prescription pads, according to a new report urging them to think more about side effects and non-drug alternatives.

"Instead of the latest and greatest, we want fewer and more time-tested drugs," said Dr. Gordon Schiff, associate director of the Center for Patient Safety Research and Practice at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, a non-profit organization that studies ways to improve safe practices in healthcare.

Yet many doctors are quick to prescribe a drug, partly because they have limited time to deal with individual patients or because they and their patients have been bombarded with ads from the pharmaceutical industry.

As for prevention and non-drug alternatives, Schiff said, "there are no drug reps coming to my office pushing that."

In an editorial in the same journal, researchers describe how opioid painkillers like Vicodin and Percocet have become increasingly common without good evidence that they help patients in the long run.

The evidence of harm, on the other hand, is clear, write Dr. Deborah Grady of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues.

 

In 2007 alone, for instance, there were nearly 11,500 deaths related to prescription opioids -- "a number greater than that of the combination of deaths from heroin and cocaine," according to the researchers."

SOURCE: http://www.nw32.com/health/sns-rt-us-hold-those-drugstre75c5k7-20110613,0,257...

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!

 

Support a Student

This post was taken from the "Drugs-Forum" and I think it's an excellent project to support! Not only will this research project be helping out a chemical dependency counseling student, but also addiction physiology in general. I think the results will be interesting. Take a look, whether your a chemical dependency counselor or not, you answers will help...

"Hi all. Please spare a few minutes of your time to help out a student with their research project by completing the following survey:

Quality of Life and Recreational Drug Use Online Survey 2011

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Elena, primary researcher on this project The aim of the study is to test whether quality of life is affected by recreational drug use, for better or worse. If, for example, as a pleasurable activity, using drugs recreationally enhances mood, this may also enhance quality of life. On the other hand, it seems clear that very heavy drug use (to the point of addiction) is associated with decreased quality of life. The aim is to clarify this, especially given that recreational users by far make up the majority of users of (illegal) drugs. I cannot offer you compensation beyond my undying gratitude, but after the study is concluded I will share the results with the forum. By participating you are helping to build a body of knowledge that could one day provide us with sensible, evidence-based drug policy. Please, can you spare five minutes to tell us about your life?

I am told that no traceable personal information (e.g. IP address) is retained during the survey so answers are anonymous. The intention is for the survey to run until mid-August so if you can find a few minutes sometime in the next couple of months to help out then that'd be fantastic.

If you have any specific questions regarding any of the questions in the survey then please direct these directly to Elena at the contact e-mail address provided on the first page of the survey.

Read more: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=162165#ixzz1PHqHySE4"

 

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!

 

Millions Driving while on Drugs

The numbers are a little bit shocking in the chemical dependency counseling community when you break them down. This isn't as big of a problem in the U.S at the moment, but with the way the war on drugs is going, who knows when the numbers could start to increase. A chemical dependency counselor would analyze this poll in Britain and I'm sure they be shocked...here more on the story...

"Millions of Britons are driving cars while high on illegal drugs, a report has said.

Some 2.8 million people have driven while under the influence of drugs, with four in 10 of these doing so within the past 12 months, a survey showed.
But one in three drug drivers still thought they were "very safe" or "quite safe" with just one in five admitting they were a danger on the road.

The poll of more than 2,000 people showed one in 10 drug drivers thought they would get away with it.

One in 20 admitted breaking the speed limit while high on drugs, with the same proportion admitting being involved in accidents.

The survey, carried out by Opinium for Direct Line car insurance, found 7% of the UK's 49.1 million adults admitted to driving having taken drugs. Of these, 41% - 1.1 million people - have done so in the past year.

In the last 12 months, one in three drug drivers had used cannabis, one in seven had taken cocaine and one in 10 ecstasy before taking to the roads.

Andy Goldby, director of motor underwriting at Direct Line, said: "Drug driving is as irresponsible as drink driving. The dangers of drug drivers on our roads are becoming increasingly apparent, with thousands admitting they have been involved in an accident while high or stoned.

"The effects of drugs can often leave people feeling overly confident or extremely relaxed, both of which are known to lead to dangerous driving behaviours. We strongly support the Department for Transport's (DfT) decision to clamp down on drug driving and would welcome further investment in effective roadside drug tests to screen drivers the police suspect are under the influence of illegal or strong prescription drugs."

Opinium Research carried out an online poll of 2,030 UK adults aged 18 or over on behalf of Direct Line on May 4-6."

Press association release 10th June 2011

Source: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/millions-dr...230302827.html

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!

 

War on Drugs- Yes, it exists

There is no doubt that a drug war does indeed exist, but what should you think of it? People in chemical dependency counseling and addiction physiology will have mixed feelings about this. What are your views on the drug war? 

"John Rentoul's column in the Independent on Sunday this week was uncharacteristically unpersuasive. His text was Mencken's aphorism that "There is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong" and Mr Rentoul suggested the Cardoso Commission's report on drug legalisation is an example of this approach. Well, perhaps. But I think "neat, plausible, and wrong" actually better characterises the Drug Warriors mania for prohibition. To which one might add "ineffective" too.

Most advocates* of decriminalisation or legalisation (as Rentoul says, two different approaches) concede that these alternatives will not eradicate all of the problems associated with drug use but argue instead that they will make it easier to deal with the consequences of drug use. (Of course there's a philosophical objection to prohibition too and to the criminalisation of often-victimless behaviour but that's a different argument again.)

Credit to JR, however, for admitting in a subsequent blogpost that his assertion that "For all the vogue for "experiments" with decriminalisation, it is notable that nowhere in the world has conducted such an experiment successfully" is incorrect. Portugal relaxed its drug laws and, lo, does not appear to have become a land of drug-crazed zombies.

However, he then says that these "are limited decriminalisations rather than the legalisation that is widely canvassed as the solution to a “war on drugs” that no one is actually fighting." Or, as he put it in his column:

Of course, the rhetoric of the "war on drugs" is simple, and not very helpful. Terrible things have happened in Colombia in its name. But it is not, and has not been for some time, the policy of either the British government or the Obama administration. In a pooled interview in 2009, President Obama, when asked directly, " Are we still engaged in a war on drugs?" answered indirectly, "My attitude is we do have to treat this as a public health problem and we have to have significant enforcement."

Oh really? President Obama may have said this but his Justice Department is still fighting a War on Drugs. So is his Drug Enforcement Administration. So is the FBI. So are police forces across the United States. And so are the Mexican drug cartels that are building heir own armoured trucks. The 35,000 people killed in the Mexican drug wars in recent years might also say there really is a drug war.

Meanwhile, there were 800,000 thousand marijuana arrests in the United States last year and President Obama's forces continue to raid medical marijuana establishments even in states where the medicinal use of the plant has been approved by voters. More than half a million Americans are currently incarcerated because of the War on Drugs. For a war that no-one's fighting there sure seem to be an awful lot of casualties.

The British situation is neither as grotesque nor as shameful as the American approach but there's a Drug War here as well. In 2004/5 there were 85,000 drug arrests in England and Wales and there's been a sharp increase in the number of drug arrests since 1995. Granted, this represents a tiny percentage of drug users but it's not a tiny number either. In 2004 drug users represented 6.4% of arrests in England and Wales, 10.3% of those sentenced and a whopping 16.2% of the prison population. One third of the nearly 8,000 people incarcerated on drug offences in 2004 were jailed simply for possessing illegal drugs. In total, the cost of enforcing the Misuse of Drugs Act was estimated to cost £24bn in 2004/5. That's quite a lot of money.

That being so the question isn't "Is there a War on Drugs?" but "Can we afford it?". Morally, I'd say we can't but there are other, more practical concerns too. The Drug War has been fought for 40 years and in that time has had little impact on the supply, price or appeal of drugs. Perhaps an alternative approach would not work either but I think we can say with some certainty that there is a Drug War and that it is neat, plausible and wrong. In every respect."

*Or at least most of those I know.

Alex Massie 
Spectator
June 7, 2011

Source:http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/7007174
/

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!

 

Dangers of Injecting

Heres a man who wanted someone to share his story and the dangers of injection. I want to just re-kindle this awareness in the chemical dependency counseling and addiction physiology community because we often forget to make these dangers noticed. Injection is a big problem and is not something to be taken lightly...

"Someone wanted to make this post to warn others of the dangers of injecting drugs. 

Almost a year ago now he had his first experience with Heroin. Within a month of it's use he became addicted, since it was very accessible. 

When attempting to kick the addiction he let himself inject other drugs. In hindsight he developed a needle fixation. He injected everything from cocaine to methylone, back through 2c-e all the way to Ketamine. 

It was this last drug that he believes is responsible for the apparently permanent phlebitis he now has in one leg. The vein he used has hardened. 8 months ago he noticed this, and it worried him for a bit. Since then, another vein has appeared, running parallel to the hardened one. He believes this second one carries enough blood to adequately remove it from the foot. He thinks it's fine, all in all. 

Please be very, very advised that this ROA is not one to take on lightly. Taking a drug by IV dramatically changes the nature of the experience, not just in brevity of onset and effects. It's true, IV Methylphenidate managed to pass as IV cocaine, in cocaine addicts. See (Chait, 1994; Volkow et al, 2001b) for more info. 

Again, please proceed with caution if embarking down this path. Since then ^ he has not experimented any further, and has no intention of doing so. He managed to kick Heroin after 2 months of using it, with the help of a couple dedicated friends, and his keen understanding of the way it changed him, which he did not expect. He's happy he decided to do so when he did, for he feels that if given a few more months of using it, he might have never been able to quit."

Source: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=161685#ixzz1Oigx4TmZ

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!

 

CADDAC Approved.

Eric Holder speaks before the U.S Sentencing Commission

In addiction physiology and chemical dependency counseling it's always good to hear different views on one subject. Here is Eric Holder in front of the U.S Sentencing commission on sentencing policies.

"Madam Chair and members of the Sentencing Commission:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Along with my colleagues, United States Attorney Stephanie Rose and Acting Bureau of Prisons Director Tom Kane, I am here to discuss our shared goals – and this Administration’s ongoing efforts – to ensure the firm and fair administration of justice in our nation’s sentencing policies.

Thanks to the extraordinary work of this Commission – and the contributions of policymakers and prosecutors, advocates and researchers, law enforcement officers and Administration officials, as well as Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle – in recent months, significant, long-overdue progress has been made to improve the strength and integrity of our federal sentencing system.

As we can all agree, our sentencing policies must be tough, predictable and aimed at: enhancing public safety; reducing crime; reducing recidivism; eliminating unwarranted disparities; minimizing the negative, often devastating effects of illegal drugs; and inspiring trust and confidence in the fairness of our criminal justice system.

Last August marked an historic step forward in achieving each of these goals – when President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law. This new law not only reduced the inappropriate 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses – a disparity that this Commission itself found to be unjustifiable and repeatedly recommended should be amended – it also strengthens the hand of law enforcement and includes tough new criminal penalties to mitigate the risks posed by our nation’s most serious, and most destructive, drug traffickers and violent offenders. Because of the Fair Sentencing Act, our nation is now closer to fulfilling its fundamental, and founding, promise of equal treatment under law.

But I am here today because I believe – and the Administration’s viewpoint is that - we have more to do. Although the Fair Sentencing Act is being successfully implemented nationwide, achieving its central goals of promoting public safety and public trust – and ensuring a fair and effective criminal justice system – requires the retroactive application of its guideline amendment.

Of course, in considering retroactive application of this amendment, protecting the American people is – and will remain – the Administration’s top priority. President Obama and I, along with leaders across the Administration, understand how illegal drugs – including crack – ravage communities. Crack offenders – especially violent ones – should be punished. And the Justice Department will make every effort to prosecute them. However, as years of experience and study have shown, there is simply no just or logical reason why their punishments should be dramatically more severe than those of other cocaine offenders – a position that Congress overwhelmingly supported with the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act.

The Commission’s Sentencing Guidelines already make clear that retroactivity of the guideline amendment is inappropriate when its application poses a significant risk to public safety – and the Administration agrees. In fact, we believe certain dangerous offenders – including those who have possessed or used weapons in committing their crimes and those who have significant criminal histories – should be categorically prohibited from receiving the benefits of retroactivity, a step beyond current Commission policy.

The Administration’s suggested approach to retroactivity of the amendment recognizes Congressional intent in the Fair Sentencing Act to differentiate dangerous and violent drug offenders and ensure that their sentences are no less than those originally set. However, we believe that the imprisonment terms of those sentenced pursuant to the old statutory disparity – who are not considered dangerous drug offenders – should be alleviated to the extent possible to reflect the new law.

As a federal prosecutor and as Attorney General – and as a former judge, United States Attorney, and Deputy Attorney General – this issue is deeply personal to me. While serving on the bench, here in Washington, D.C., in the late ‘80’s and early ‘90’s, I saw the devastating effects of illegal drugs on families, communities, and individual lives. I know what it is like to sentence young offenders to long prison terms, and I did so to protect the public from those who were serious threats and who had engaged in violence. However, throughout my tenure as this city’s U.S. Attorney, I also saw that our federal crack sentencing laws did not achieve that result. Our drug laws were not perceived as fair and our law enforcement efforts suffered as a result. That is why it was a special privilege for me to stand with President Obama when he signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law. And that is why I feel compelled to be here in person today, to join my colleagues in calling for the retroactive application of the guideline amendment.

I recognize that some disagree with this approach. We have heard this before. In 2008, after the Commission decided to apply retroactively an amendment that reduced the base offense level for crack by two levels – known as the “crack minus two” amendment – some, including several within the Justice Department, predicted that such a move would cause a dramatic rise in crime rates. However, as a study released by the Commission just yesterday shows, those whose sentences were reduced after that amendment was applied retroactively actually had a slightly lower rate of recidivism than the study’s control group.

Three years ago, the Bureau of Prisons, Marshals Service, federal prosecutors, judges, probation officers, and others stepped up and did the necessary work to ensure the successful and effective retroactive application of the “crack minus two” amendment. Today – despite growing demands and limited budgets – my colleagues across the Department of Justice and the criminal justice community stand ready to do that which is necessary to make our sentencing system fairer and more effective. And, once again, we are relying on the Commission to lead the way.

Recently, some have suggested that – since the Fair Sentencing Act contains no specific provision regarding retroactivity – it is beyond the role of the Sentencing Commission to make the guideline amendment retroactive without direction from the Legislative Branch. We disagree with this position. Based on the Commission’s authorizing statute, we believe that the Commission would be well within its authority to make the Fair Sentencing Act amendment retroactive along the lines that we suggest.

Madam Chair, and distinguished members of the Commission, it is time to honor, not only the letter of this law, but also the spirit of its intent. Our nation’s ability to do so rests in your hands.

Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I look forward to continuing to work with each of you – and with leaders across Congress and the Administration – to strengthen federal sentencing policy, and to ensure that our nation’s criminal justice system serves as a model of effectiveness and fairness.

I’m now pleased to turn this over to my colleagues, U.S. Attorney Rose and Acting Director Kane. They will elaborate further on the Administration’s position and also will be available to answer questions.

Thank you."

Source:http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/National_News/ATTORNEY_GENERAL_ERIC_HOLDER_SPEAKS_BEFORE_THE_US_SENTENCING_COMMISSION/46165

 

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!

 

New Florida Drug Testing

In this heated debate from Fox News, you can see both sides of the fence on these new Florida Welfare Drug Tests. A chemical dependency counselor might agree more with the pro-testing side because in chemical dependency counseling, we believe that these tests help play an important role in the "Drug War". If people aren't on drugs then why is the testing so bad? Will it cost taxpayers any more? More on the story...

http://video.foxnews.com/v/971428137001/drug-testing-for-welfare-recipients/

I couldnt get the video to work in this post, but follow that link above :) 

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!

 

More floods of "weGrow"

I wrote an article a few months ago about weGrow getting ready to spread around the U.S and look now it is! You can find the article on the chemical dependency counseling or chemical dependency counselor website. Heres more on this story of weGrow spreading, now to Arizona!...

"This newest big-box store is devoted to selling marijuana-growing equipment.

Its biggest outlet yet is to open Wednesday in Phoenix, where Arizona voters approved medical cannabis last fall.

The weGrow Store will be the first outside California, where medical weed has long been legalized. None of the chain's three stores sell the drug. Instead, they unabashedly promote medical marijuana by offering "everything -- from supplies to services -- that cultivators need to grow it," the company says.

What sets weGrow apart from the mom-and-pop stores selling the growing supplies is that weGrow openly states its hydroponic equipment is intended for pot, a spokeswoman said.

The smaller stores often claim the hydroponic equipment is used for growing indoor tomatoes and often kick out a customer if they broach the subject of medical cannabis, said weGrow spokeswoman Melissa DiGianfilippo.

While 16 states and the District of Columbia now allow for some sort of medical marijuana, there remains ambiguity about whether U.S. authorities would ever enforce federal laws against marijuana distribution, though 90% of hydroponics revenue is from cannabis growers, DiGianfilippo said.

In fact, the state of Arizona filed a federal lawsuit last week asking the courts to determine whether the voter-approved initiative legalizing medical marijuana is, indeed, legal.

Calling itself "the nation's only hydroponics franchise that openly talks about medical marijuana," the Oakland, California-based weGrow sees a boom in Arizona and projects 100,000 Arizonans acquiring state medical cannabis cards, DiGianfilippo said.

So far, about 4,000 Arizonans became state-authorized marijuana users after the state began issuing the cards on April 15, DiGianfilippo said.

WeGrow chose Wednesday to open its superstore because that was supposed to be the day the state was scheduled to begin accepting applications to run a marijuana dispensary.

But Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and Attorney General Tom Horne filed a federal lawsuit Friday seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the legality of Proposition 203. Voters approved the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act last November and Brewer signed it into law in December.

Nonetheless, the federal government considers marijuana a controlled substance. In a May 2, 2011, letter, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke of Arizona warned state officials that "growing, distributing and possessing marijuana, in any capacity, other than as a federally authorized research program, is a violation of federal law regardless of state laws that purport to permit such activities," according to Brewer.

Burke declared that his office would "vigorously prosecute individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing, distribution and marketing activity involving marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law," according to Brewer's office.

"The State of Arizona has worked to follow the wishes of voters," Brewer said in a statement. "But I won't stand aside while state employees and average Arizonans acting in good faith are unwittingly put at risk. In light of the explicit warnings on this issue offered by Arizona's U.S. Attorney, as well as many other federal prosecutors, clarity and judicial direction are in order."

Brewer has directed that the Arizona Department of Health Services put on hold its process for licensing marijuana dispensaries, pending court action on this issue, Brewer's spokesman, Matthew Benson, told CNN on Tuesday.

"The agency will continue providing registration cards for individuals who receive a doctor's recommendation to use medical marijuana," Benson said in an e-mail.

WeGrow founder Dhar Mann, a 27-year-old entrepreneur who opened his first store in Oakland after a small hydroponics store ejected him for asking about medical marijuana cultivation, said his firm still sees an opportunity in Arizona, where he estimates medical pot to be a billion-dollar industry. He has plans for similar superstores in other states with legal marijuana.

The Phoenix store, located in an industrial area so as not to upset any homeowners, will be 21,000 square feet.

Wednesday's grand opening in Phoenix will feature indoor growing demonstrations with nonmarijuana plants, experts on how to build professional grow rooms, a physician for patient evaluations and classes on how to safely and responsibly cultivate medical marijuana, weGrow officials said.

The first weGrow store was a 15,000-square-foot facility that opened in Oakland last year, and in February, a 10,000-square-foot store opened in Sacramento, California, a spokeswoman said.

Mann said the Arizona law allows for up to 124 dispensaries, and he took exception with the governor's lawsuit.

"Delaying the process that a majority of the Arizona voters have asked for prevents qualified cannabis patients from receiving medicine they need and causes unfair financial hardship to businesspeople who have invested tens of thousands of dollars in reliance on the process set up by the state," Mann said in a statement.

 

"Medical marijuana cultivating, dispensing, and consuming will exist with or without governmental approval," Mann said. "It's time to tax and regulate this industry so legitimate business people and patients are not criminalized.""

 

If you are interested in getting your counselor degree extremely fast to become a chemical dependency counselor, then feel FREE to visit CentaurUniversity.com!