Purchasing "legal highs" on the internet - studies
Imaginarium
Regular
Ran into on mindhacks, decided to share, enjoi.
Purchasing 'legal highs' on the Internet--is there consistency in what you get?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20413562
Buying 'legal' recreational drugs does not mean that you are not breaking the law.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20675395
"Legal highs" on the net-Evaluation of UK-based Websites, products and product information.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20650576
Now, the studies really aren't of much interest in and of themselves, they say much of what we already know: the drug scene has many inherent risks and is not for your average dumb-fuck consumer. What is interesting, though, is that there is likely going to be more & more government & establishment based interest in legal highs...'n considering the primary source of this, both information & actual drug material wise, is the internet...I'll let my speculation end here.
Purchasing 'legal highs' on the Internet--is there consistency in what you get?
BACKGROUND: The supply of recreational drugs has changed and users increasingly buy 'legal highs' over the Internet. Use of these is common and there is a potential for significant toxicity associated with their use. AIM: To determine the content of legal highs available for purchase in the UK and whether the content of these remains consistent. METHODS: Twenty-six legal highs were purchased monthly from five different Internet sites over 6 months. These were analysed to determine the drugs in the products and whether there were any changes in their content over this time period. RESULTS: All products were supplied initially, but there was a decline in supply of products month by month. The following drug classes were detected: piperazines, cathinones, caffeine/ephedrine or products in which no psychoactive drugs were detected. Of the products supplied on more than one occasion, 15 (75%) contained the same compounds on each occasion. In three products there was a change in the piperazine detected, with 1-benzylpiperazine being substituted for 1-methyl-4-benzylpiperazine or vice versa. In two other products there was a cathinone [4-fluorophenylpiperazine (pFPP) or 3-fluromethcathinone (3FMC)] detected in products purchased in Month 1 that was not present in the products purchased in subsequent months. CONCLUSION: Whilst there was no variation in the composition of most legal highs supplied over 6 month, there was significant variation in the piperazine or cathinone content of one quarter of the products. This variation could be of clinical significance as the cathinone and piperazine products can be associated with significant toxicity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20413562
Buying 'legal' recreational drugs does not mean that you are not breaking the law.
BACKGROUND: Recreational drug use in the UK is common; sources of recreational drugs are changing, with increasing purchase of legal highs from the Internet. Previous studies have shown that there is not consistency of active ingredient(s) in legal highs purchased from the Internet. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the 16 April 2010 change to the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) on the content of 'legal highs' purchased over the Internet and supplied within the UK. METHODS: Legal highs were purchased from a number of different Internet suppliers and the active ingredients determined by analysis undertaken within a Home Office approved and licensed laboratory set in a UK academic institution. The active ingredient(s) detected on screening were then compared to the UK legislation in force at the time of purchase to determine whether each individual 'legal' high was in fact legal or not. RESULTS: All 18 products purchased prior to the change in the UK legislation contained active ingredients that were legal under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) in force at that time. Six products were purchased and analysed after the changes to the UK Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) on the 16 April 2010. Five of the products contained information, either on the Internet site or the packaging, stating that the product contained legal substances; the final product did not specify the active ingredient and so purchasers would be unable to determine if this was truly a legal product. Five of the six products contained an active ingredient that is a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971); the other product contained an unlicensed medicine not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971). CONCLUSION: We have shown in this study that some drugs sold as 'legal' highs contain drugs that are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971). Under current UK legislation, individuals purchasing legal highs that contained controlled drugs would be subject to the same penalties as if they had knowingly purchased a controlled drug. Dissemination of information on the harm associated with the use of legal highs should also inform individuals that they may be purchasing controlled substances and the potential legal consequences of this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20675395
"Legal highs" on the net-Evaluation of UK-based Websites, products and product information.
BACKGROUND: A vast array of substances are marketed as "legal highs" in the UK. These products are mainly marketed online and are packaged and produced to mimic illicit drugs. Little is known about the full range of products available at present and no studies have evaluated the product information provided to consumers. AIMS & HYPOTHESIS: To describe the available legal high products marketed by UK-based Internet retailers and evaluate the product information provided to consumers. METHODS: Websites were identified using the terms "buy legal highs+UK" and two search engines. The first 100 hits and a random sample of 5% of the remaining results were screened. Websites based in the UK were included and all products were entered on a database. Information on product name, list price, claimed effects, side effects, contraindications and interactions was extracted. A descriptive analysis was conducted using SPSS v14. RESULTS: 115 Websites met the inclusion criteria but due to duplicate listings this was reduced to 39 unique Websites. 1308 products were found and evaluated. The average product price was 9.69 British pounds. Products took the form of pills (46.6%), smoking material (29.7%) and single plant material/extract (18.1%). Most products claimed to be stimulants (41.7%), sedatives (32.3%), or hallucinogens (12.9%). 40.1% of products failed to list ingredients, 91.9% failed to list side effects, 81.9% failed to list contraindications and 86.3% failed to list drug interactions. Top 5 products (with active ingredients in brackets) by frequency were Salvia divinorum (Salivinorin A), Kratom (Mitragynine), Hawaiian Baby Woodrose Seeds (Lysergic Acid Amide), Fly Agaric (Ibotenic Acid, Muscimol) and Genie (JWH018, CP47497). CONCLUSIONS: Products marketed as "legal highs" are easily available from UK-based Internet retailers and are reasonably affordable. Safety information provided to consumers is poor. Uninformed users risk serious adverse effects. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20650576
Now, the studies really aren't of much interest in and of themselves, they say much of what we already know: the drug scene has many inherent risks and is not for your average dumb-fuck consumer. What is interesting, though, is that there is likely going to be more & more government & establishment based interest in legal highs...'n considering the primary source of this, both information & actual drug material wise, is the internet...I'll let my speculation end here.
Comments
________________________
Legal Highs
You're much better off smoking real weed though, much better for your system. (I assume that spice has a bunch of weird shit in it).
They have a small amount of one of several JWH compounds, often JWH-018, and a variety of herbs that do nothing.
Synthetic cannabinoid.
Try it and find out!!
But seriously, don't. The shit is bad. I tried some K2 and it was really intense. I smoked way too much, though. It's hard to know how much to do as there's no way of knowing where the jwh is at on the herbs. I mean there might be uneven coverage, so you smoke some one day and it does nothing, then the next little bit you do might be coated and you get way too high.
Overall it's bad news.
I loved it. The first time sucked because I similarly smoked way to much. I noticed after smoking it daily for awhile I started getting headaches though it was weird. It probably isn't smart to smoke something that's had absolutely no study's done on it. Still I really enjoyed the high.