Reply
Fri 14 Mar, 2014 11:17 am
Context:
Deaths from “legal highs”: a problem of definitions
Leslie A King a, David J Nutt b, on behalf of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs
Commenting on a report1 from the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths, BBC's Tulip Mazumdar recently reported2 that the number of UK deaths linked to so-called legal highs has risen to at least 68 in 2012. However, almost all of those substances are controlled drugs in the UK. The term “legal highs” is misleading; they are more precisely known as new psychoactive substances.
Of those 68 deaths, 17 were linked to p-methoxyamphetamine (PMA) and three with p-methoxymethylamphetamine (PMMA). But PMA and PMMA have been controlled drugs in the UK since 1977. Furthermore, PMA was added to the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances in 1986, while PMMA is widely controlled in European countries. Therefore, it seems no more logical to say PMA and PMMA are new psychoactive substances than it is to regard 3,4-methylenedioxy-methylamphetamine (MDMA) in that way.
The National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths' report also includes deaths linked to khat, anabolic steroids, and 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP), but khat is not a new psychoactive substance, whereas anabolic steroids and DNP are not even psychoactive.
The National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths' report lists five deaths linked to phenazepam. This drug is an anxiolytic benzodiazepine that might be new in the UK, but it has been a prescription medicine in Russia for years. Its mentioning here reflects a current dispute between the UK Government and the European Commission concerning new psychoactive substances with commercial value. Among the hundreds of substances reported in Europe in recent years is a large group of medicinal products including phenazepam. European Council Decision 2005/387/JHA allows reporting of the misuse of medicinal products, but they are arguably not new psychoactive substances.
The report3 from the Office for National Statistics on deaths related to drug poisoning in England and Wales in 2012 noted that there were 52 deaths associated with new psychoactive substances. Following a Freedom of Information request (FOI 1881), 13 of these deaths were found to be associated with γ-hydroxybutyrate (GHB): a substance added to the Misuse of Drugs Act in 2003, in Schedule II of the 1971 UN Convention, and not a new psychoactive substance.
There is thus no simple answer to how many deaths were associated, let alone caused, by new psychoactive substances or even “legal highs” in any given period. If we are to develop a sensible drugs policy, such failings of data collection and presentation need to be rectified immediately.
pretty much, with the caveats the author talks about, i.e. they weren't illegal as such but were mostly controlled substances or ones that were new and hadn't been legislated about one way or the other.
@MontereyJack,
Not exactly.
The "high" doesn't refer to the drug. It refers to the affect of taking the drug... that is the "altered state". A "legal high" is a way to reach an altered mental state, similar to one you would get from an illegal drug,
It seems the article is using the term to refer to "substances", but you could get a "legal high" from an activity such as sniffing glue, or being choked (both dangerous activities that are done to reach an altered mental state).
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Not exactly.
The "high" doesn't refer to the drug. It refers to the affect of taking the drug...
Nope. Legal intoxicants, also known as legal highs, are intoxicating drugs.
@oristarA,
This is quite a big deal in the UK, apparently legislation exists in America to stop it happening. Scientists look at an existing drug like cocaine, amphetamine, ecstasy or heroin. Then they tweak the chemical structure to produce another chemical with similar effects. It's then marketed as plant food or something like that, although people don't buy it for that.
As the chemical is not covered by legislation it can be sold legally, until legislation catches up. Miaow miaow is a case in point.
Quote:Mephedrone, also known as 4-methylmethcathinone (4-MMC) or 4-methylephedrone, is a synthetic stimulant drug of the amphetamine and cathinone classes. Slang names include drone, MCAT, and Meow Meow. It is chemically similar to the cathinone compounds found in the khat plant of eastern Africa. It comes in the form of tablets or a powder, which users can swallow, snort or inject, producing similar effects to MDMA, amphetamines and cocaine.
In addition to its stimulant effects, mephedrone produces side effects, of which teeth grinding is the most common. The metabolism of mephedrone has been studied in rats and humans and the metabolites can be detected in urine after usage. Despite similarities to known neurotoxins such as methamphetamine and cathinone derivatives, mephedrone does not appear to produce neurotoxic effects in the dopamine system.
Mephedrone was first synthesised in 1929, but did not become widely known until it was rediscovered in 2003. By 2007, mephedrone was reported to be available for sale on the internet, by 2008 law enforcement agencies had become aware of the compound, and by 2010, it had been reported in most of Europe, becoming particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom. Mephedrone was first made illegal in Israel in 2008, followed by Sweden later that year. In 2010, it was made illegal in many European countries and in December 2010, the EU ruled it illegal. In Australia, New Zealand and the USA, it is considered an analog of other illegal drugs and can be controlled by laws similar to the Federal Analog Act. In September 2011, the USA temporarily classified mephedrone as illegal, in effect from October 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone
One thing that makes legal highs so dangerous is that treatment and effects are still unknown, unlike heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and amphetamine. So when someone overdoses or has an allergic reaction medical staff don't always know what treatment to follow. And some young people think legal means safe.
@contrex,
The "choking game" which is a troubling practice that reached the news recently. The participants (often pre-teens) achieve a high by starving their brains of oxygen by strangulation.
Don't you think that this is an example of a "legal high"?
@maxdancona,
Not in the terms of the article, and would not be considered such in UK parlance. I remember as a kid spinning round and round to make myself dizzy. I also heard tale of teenagers trying a nicotine high by sticking on 4 or 5 nicotine patches and smoking a Capstan full strength.
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
The "choking game" ... Don't you think that this is an example of a "legal high"?
Given the original context, which is a UK periodical, I would stick with the UK meaning, which is a not-yet illegal intoxicating drug.
The term is actually explained in the quoted text.
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace