Alcohol self-assessment - Are you drinking too much?

If you're not really sure about the amount you are drinking take this short test.

It'll help you to assess the effects of your drinking and if it suggests you're drinking too much you'll get advice on how to cut down or seek further help.

QUESTIONS

1.How often do you have a drink containing alcohol?

a) Never (0 points)

b) Once a month or less (1 points)

c) 2 to 4 times a month (2 points)

d) 2 to 3 times a week (3 points)

e) 4 or more times a week (4 points)

2.How many units of alcohol do you have on a typical day when you are drinking?

1-2 (0 points)

3-4 (1 point)

 5-6 (2 points)

7-9 (3 points)

10 + (4 points)

What is a unit?

You can't just count each drink as a unit of alcohol. The number of units depends on the different strength and size of each drink, so it can vary a lot.

Here's some examples:

• Pint of beer, 4%, is 2.3 units
• 500ml can of strong lager, 6%, 3 units
• 250ml glass of wine, 11%, 2.8 units
• 330ml can of cider, 5%, 1.7 units
• Single (25ml) measure of spirits (e.g. vodka or gin), 1 unit

3.How often do you have six or more units on one occasion?

a) Never (0 points)

b) Less than monthly (1 points)

c) Monthly (2 points)

d) Weekly (3 points)

e) Daily or almost daily (4 points)

What’s binge drinking?

Binge drinking usually refers to drinking lots of alcohol in a short space of time or drinking to get drunk. 

There is no consistently agreed measure of binge drinking but drinking more than eight units on any day for men, and more than six units for women, is the measure normally used.

The vital thing is to avoid drinking heavily in one session or drinking to intoxication.

Binge drinking is a major factor in accidents, violence and anti-social behaviour.

4. How often during the last year have you failed to do what was normally expected from you because of your drinking?

a) Never (0 points)

b) Less than monthly (1 points)

c) Monthly (2 points)

d) Weekly (3 points)

e) Daily or almost daily (4 points)

5.How often during the last year have you found that you were not able to stop drinking once you had started?

a) Never (0 points)

b) Less than monthly (1 points)

c) Monthly (2 points)

d) Weekly (3 points)

e) Daily or almost daily (4 points)

6. How often during the last year have you needed an alcoholic drink in the morning to get yourself going after a heavy drinking session?

a) Never (0 points)

b) Less than monthly (1 point)

c) Monthly (2 points)

d) Weekly (3 points)

e) Daily or almost daily (4 points)

7.How often during the last year have you had a feeling of guilt or remorse after drinking?

a) Never (0 points)

b) Less than monthly (1 points)

c) Monthly (2 points)

d) Weekly (3 points)

e) Daily or almost daily (4 points)

8.How often during the last year have you been unable to remember what happened the night before because you had been drinking?

a) Never (0 points)

b) Occasionally (1 point)

c) Monthly (2 points)

d) Weekly (3 points)

e) Daily (4 points)

9.Have you or somebody else been injured as a result of your drinking?

a) No, this has never happened (0 points)

b) Yes, but not in the past year (2 points)

c) Yes, during the past year (4 points)

10.Has a relative, friend, doctor or health worker been concerned about your drinking or suggested you cut down?

a) No, never (0 points)

b) Yes, but not in the past year (2 points)

c) Yes, during the past year (4 points)

RESULTS

0-8 points

Based on your answers today you're drinking in a way that is sociable and is unlikely to harm your health.

As long as your drinking does remain within recommended levels, there is only a low risk that the way you drink will contribute to future health problems.

The NHS recommends that women should not regularly drink more than 2-3 units a day and men should not regularly drink more than 3-4 units a day.

Remember, there can be risks from one-off episodes of heavy drinking too.

8-20 points

Based on your answers today your drinking does appear to be putting you at increased risk of developing health problems, so you might want to think about cutting down.

The following can help you cut down:

• Work out a daily limit and stick to it.
• Do more activities that don't involve drinking.
• Eat before and while you're drinking.
• Don't let anyone top up your drinks.
• Tell your friends you're cutting down.
• Count your units.

The NHS recommends that women should not regularly drink more than 2-3 units a day and men should not regularly drink more than 3-4 units a day.

20-100 points

Based on your answers today your drinking is already causing you problems.

The NHS recommends that women should not regularly drink more than 2-3 units a day and men should not regularly drink more than 3-4 units a day.

For more information please visit our website Drug Test Australia.com.au call us on our hotline 1300 660 636 or send an email enquiry

Posted by Drug Test Australia Original at http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Documents/Alcohol%20self%20assessment.htm

Drug testing set to increase among office workers

Posted by Drug Test Australia

Pre-employment testing is being brought back into public discussion after it was announced that Australian resources and construction companies may soon extend drug testing to their office based staff as employers move towards more egalitarian style workplaces.

Employers often use behavioural testing and other selection procedures to screen applicants for hire, and the types of tests and selection procedures vary, and can include cognitive tests, personality tests, skills tests, medical examinations, credit checks, and background checks.

Depending on the type of test, employment testing can be conducted either online or in the employer's office, with pre-employment screening services aimed at determining which applicants are legitimately qualified and fit for the advertised role from those who are not up to task.

Pre-employment checks are often used by employers as a means of objectively evaluating a job candidate's qualifications, character, fitness, and to identify potential hiring risks for safety and security reasons. As such, risk minimisation is one of the most common reasons for organisations to begin drug and alcohol testing.

Different companies will have different requirements for their employee drug testing program. Options can include pre-employment drug testing, random drug testing, for cause drug testing, post-incident drug testing, target drug testing, annual physical drug testing, pre-promotion drug testing, treatment follow up drug testing and return to work drug testing. However, should it be conducted on office workers?

Managing Director of Employment Office, Tudor Marsden- Huggins, said there was a growing trend towards employers moving to a ‘one size fits all’ approach to ensure all staff were treated equally. “Many employers are questioning whether it’s fair to have one rule for some staff and a different one for others,” Mr Marsden-Huggins said.

“What this means is that everyone from miners and construction workers in high risk areas right through to secretaries and finance staff in generally safer roles at some organisations may have to undergo random drug testing,” he said.

Mr Marsden-Huggins said the issue was causing headaches for human resources staff as they balanced their employee’s right to privacy with the desire to create an equal workplace.

“Whilst drug testing in high risk roles is accepted as necessary for health and safety reasons, I expect some office workers may question if it is justified for their particular position such as those working behind a computer all day,” Mr Marsden-Huggins said.

“Unfortunately drug use is a problem in Australia and HR departments must tread carefully to balance the right to privacy with creating healthy, happy and productive workforces,” Mr Marsden- Huggins said.

Ultimately though, pre-employment testing such as drug testing will increase the likelihood of you securing supreme quality, skills-matched candidates that are going to be an idyllic culture fit and enduring assets – saving you time and money long term.

Peter Orthmann Hansen

Original http://www.employmentoffice.com.au/recruitment-news/17/07/12/drug-testing-set-increase-among-office-workers

Bath Salts Laws: Officials Struggle To Regulate New Recipes For Synthetic Drugs: US

Posted by Drug Test Australia

Original http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/bath-salts-laws_n_1701339.html

By MATTHEW PERRONE 07/25/12 02:17 PM ET

WASHINGTON — People are inventing so many new ways to get high that lawmakers can't seem to keep up.

Over the past two years, the U.S. has seen a surge in the use of synthetic drugs made of legal chemicals that mimic the dangerous effects of cocaine, amphetamines and other illegal stimulants.

The drugs are often sold at small, independent stores in misleading packaging that suggests common household items like bath salts, incense and plant food. But the substances inside are powerful, mind-altering drugs that have been linked to bizarre and violent behaviour across the country. Law enforcement officials refer to the drugs collectively as "bath salts," though they have nothing in common with the fragrant toiletries used to moisturise skin.

President Barack Obama signed a bill into law earlier this month that bans the sale, production and possession of more than two dozen of the most common bath salt drugs. But health professionals say lawmakers cannot keep pace with bath salt producers, who constantly adjust their chemical formulations to come up with new synthetic drugs that aren't covered by new laws. Experts who have studied the problem estimate there are more than 100 different bath salt chemicals in circulation.

"The moment you start to regulate one of them, they'll come out with a variant that sometimes is even more potent," said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

There are no back alleys or crack houses in America's latest drug epidemic. The problem involves potent substances that amateur chemists make, package and sell in stores under brands like "Ivory Wave," "Vanilla Sky" and "Bliss" for as little as $15. Emergencies related to the drugs have surged: The American Association of Poison Control Centres received more than 6,100 calls about bath salt drugs in 2011 – up from just 304 the year before – and more than 1,700 calls in the first half of 2012.

The problem for lawmakers is that it's difficult to crack down on the drugs. U.S. laws prohibit the sale or possession of all substances that mimic illegal drugs, but only if federal prosecutors can show that they are intended for human use. People who make bath salts and similar drugs work around this by printing "not for human consumption" on virtually every packet.

Barbara Carreno, a spokeswoman for the Drug Enforcement Agency, said the intended use for bath salts is clear.

"Everyone knows these are drugs to get high, including the sellers," she said.

Many states have banned some of the most common bath salts, which are typically sold by small businesses like convenience stores, tobacco shops and adult book stores. For instance, West Virginia legislators banned the bath salt drug MDPV last year, making it a misdemeanor to sell, buy or possess the synthetic drug. Conviction means up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Stephanie Mitchell, assistant manager of The Den, a tobacco and paraphernalia shop in Morgantown, W.Va., said the store hasn't sold bath salts in the six months that she's worked there. But strung-out users still come in and ask for them.

"They're pretty ... cracked out, I guess would be a good word," said Mitchell, 21, a student at West Virginia University. "They're just kind of not all there. They're kind of sketchy people."

Mitchell says she wouldn't sell bath salts even if she had them, "because it's horrible, and I could get in trouble for it."

Despite the bans, bath salts producers are constantly tweaking their recipes to come up with new drugs that aren't covered by local laws. In fact, Mark Ryan, director of the Louisiana Poison Center, says there are so many different drugs out there that it's almost impossible to know what people have ingested, or how long the effects will last.

"Cocaine is cocaine and meth is meth. We know what these things do," he said. "But with these new drugs, every time the chemist alters the chemical structure, all bets are off."

THE SPREAD

The most common bath salt drugs, like MDPV and mephedrone, were first developed in pharmaceutical research laboratories, though they were never approved for medical use. During the last decade they became popular as party drugs at European raves and dance clubs. As law enforcement began cracking down on the problem there, the drugs spread across the Atlantic Ocean.

Poison control centers in the U.S. began tracking use of the drugs in 2010. The majority of the early reports of drug use were clustered in Southern states like Louisiana, Tennessee and Kentucky. But the problem soon spread across the country.

The financial lure for small-time drugmakers is enticing. The drugs can be cheaply imported from China or India, and then easily packaged under local brands. For example, bath salts sold in Louisiana carry regional names like Hurricane Charlie or Bayou.

The widespread availability of the drugs in stores is equally alluring for drug users: they can get a cheap high similar to that of illegal drugs by walking to a corner store.

The most dangerous synthetic drugs are stimulants that affect levels of both dopamine and serotonin, brain chemicals that affect mood and perception. Users, who typically smoke or snort the powder-based drugs, may experience a surge in energy, fever and delusions of invincibility.

Use of these drugs has spread across the country with reports stretching from Maine to California. There are no official federal estimates on deaths connected with the drugs, many of which do not show up on typical drug tests. But police reports have implicated the drugs in several cases.

Packets of "Lady Bubbles" bath salts, for instance, were found on Sgt. David Franklyn Stewart last April after the solider shot and killed his wife and himself during a car chase with law enforcement near Olympia, Wash.

The chase began when Stewart sped past a police patrol car at 6 a.m. The police trooper pursued for 10 miles and reported seeing the driver raise a hand to his head, then heard a shot and saw the driver slump over. The next day police found the couple's 5-year-old son dead in their home; he had been suffocated with a plastic bag at least 24 hours earlier.

Another death involving bath salts played out in Covington, La. Police reported that Dickie Sanders, 21, shot himself in the head Nov. 11, 2010 while his parents were asleep.

His father, Dr. Richard Sanders, said his son had snorted "Cloud 9" bath salts and endured three days of intermittent delirium, at one point attempting to cut his own throat. As he continued to have visions, his physician father tried to calm him. But the elder Sanders said that as he slept, his son went into another room and shot himself.

WHAT'S AHEAD

Hospital emergency rooms, doctors and law enforcement agencies across the country have struggled to control bath salt drug users who often are feverish and paranoid that they are being attacked. Doctors say users often turn up naked because bath salts raise their body temperature so much that they strip off their clothing.

Cookeville Regional Medical Center in Tennessee has treated 160 people suspected of taking bath salts since 2010. Dr. Sullivan Smith, who works there, said people on the drugs become combative, and it can take four or five health professionals to subdue them. In some cases, he said, doctors have to use prescription sedatives that are typically reserved for surgery.

Smith recalls one man who had been running for more than 24 hours because he believed the devil was chasing him with an ax. By the time police brought him to the hospital, he was dehydrated and covered in blood from running through thorny underbrush.

"We're seeing extreme agitation, hallucinations that are very vivid, paranoia and some really violent behaviour  so it's a real crisis for us," Smith said. "We sedate the living daylights out of them. And we're talking doses on the order of 10 or 20 times what you would give for a painful procedure."

To control the spread of the problem, the Drug Enforcement Agency issued a temporary ban in October on three of the most common drugs – mephedrone, methylone and MDPV. That ban became permanent under the bill signed by Obama on July 10.

Under the law, anyone convicted of selling, making or possessing 28 synthetic drugs, including bath salts, will face penalties similar to those for dealing traditional drugs like cocaine and heroin.

Those on the front lines say the legislation is a good start. But they don't expect new laws to dramatically curb use of bath salts in the near term.

"The problem is these drugs are changing and I'm sure they're going to find some that are a little bit different chemically so they don't fall under the law," said Dr. Smith, the Tennessee doctor. "Is it adequate to name five or 10 or even 20? The answer is no, they're changing too fast."

Drug testing pits privacy against safety

Posted by Drug Test Australia

Drug testing pits privacy against safety; 

Judges to hear Suncor arguments

Original By Amanda Stephenson, Calgary Herald November 24, 2012 http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Drug+testing+pits+privacy+against+safety/7605165/story.html#ixzz2DOosEK6t

A lab technician tests samples for drugs.

A three-judge Alberta Court of Appeal panel will next week hear from Suncor Energy Inc. as the oilsands giant argues against an injunction blocking its proposed random employee drug testing program.

Next month, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case of Irving Pulp and Paper, a New Brunswick company whose plan to have its employees submit to mandatory breathalyzer tests has been fought tooth and nail by the same union that represents Suncor workers.

Both cases will be watched closely by employers, safety companies and privacy experts, as the courts try to find a balance between safety on the job and an individual's right to privacy.

Unlike the United States, where workplace drug tests are relatively common, Canada has had little experience with randomly administered on-the-job tests. But that could be about to change.

"Employers have to take action. They're responsible for maintaining a safe work environment," says Pat Atkins, administrator of Alberta's Drug and Alcohol Risk Reduction Pilot Project (DARRPP). "There are problems in the oilsands related to alcohol and drugs ... and we think it would be irresponsible for organizations not to take action, given the concerns they're seeing."
Those concerns range from drug paraphernalia found on work sites to workplace accidents caused by drunk or stoned employees.

Suncor has stated three of the seven deaths that have occurred at its Fort McMurray oilsands operation since 2000 involved workers under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
"Every day that passes, the risk increases," Suncor lawyer Tom Wakeling told the Alberta Court of Appeal last month. "The Suncor workplace is inherently a dangerous space.

The consequences of mistakes in this hazardous environment may include catastrophes."
Most oilsands companies already have some form of drug-testing policy in place - in most cases, testing occurs after an accident takes place, or if an employee exhibits behaviour that provides "just cause." In some cases, employees must pass a drug test before being hired for a certain position or before being contracted to work on a certain job site.

DARRPP is different. The two-year pilot project, led by a working group of oilsands industry employers and labour providers, aims to introduce completely random drug testing in "safety sensitive" positions at participating workplaces.

Organizers of the project point to U.S. data that indicates random testing is more likely to catch workplace drug and alcohol problems than incident-driven testing.

One of the first companies to get on board with DARRPP was Suncor, which announced in June its plan to implement mandatory random drug tests for safety sensitive employees at its oilsands facilities. However, before Suncor could implement its proposal, a grievance was filed by the Communications, Energy, and Paperworkers Union. The union, which represents 3,400 workers at the Suncor site, argued random drug testing violates its members' right to privacy.
"This is about the right to preserve their bodily integrity, quite frankly. Their privacy, their dignity," union lawyer Ritu Khullar told the appeals court last month.

Days earlier, a Court of Queen's Bench Judge issued an injunction, ruling Suncor cannot move ahead with its program until the union's grievance can be reviewed by a labour arbitration board. Suncor appealed, and that appeal is set to be heard on Wednesday.

The same union is also fighting Irving Pulp and Paper, the New Brunswick company that introduced a workplace safety policy in 2006 that included random alcohol testing for employees. That case will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in December.
Atkins said DARRPP is confident it is well within its legal rights.
"We believe we have designed the project in such a way to respect privacy and human rights," Atkins said.

Ed Secondiak, president of ECS Services - which has designed drug testing programs for large and small corporations for 18 years - says there are ways to ensure employees' rights are respected while still reducing the risk of on-the-job substance abuse.

Secondiak said when he designs a program, all drug test results are reviewed by a medical review officer. If a test comes back positive, the medical review officer will speak privately to the employee in question, and if he or she can provide a medical reason for why they might have a drug in their system, they are given an all-clear without their employer ever being informed of the original test results.

Test results are kept under lock and key with limited access, and are never shared with outside agencies without the employee's permission.

Secondiak says in most cases, when a person fails a test, he or she is sent for a substance abuse assessment. An addictions counsellor will decide whether the individual can come back to work, or needs more treatment. He said in many cases, being flagged by a workplace test is exactly the push some addicts need to get treatment and turn their lives around.
"I would say there's a high success rate when you're dealing with alcohol and marijuana in terms of being able to bring people back (to the job)," he says.

Dr. Charl Els, an addictions psychiatrist with the University of Alberta, agrees substance abuse in the workplace is a serious issue. Using U.S. statistics as a base - because there are no reliable Canadian statistics - he estimates that 8.3 per cent of full-time workers use illicit drugs.
"We likely are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of the visible cases of substance use and abuse," Els says. "It's well accepted that we underestimate the prevalence and the actual impact."

Els also believes the nature of the oilsands industry means workers there are more likely to use drugs.

"It's typically a young, male population, there's a lot of excess time when they don't work, there's a lot of disposable income and cash in the pocket. They're typically not with their families, they're isolated. So there's a number of factors that make people more prone to use," he says.

However, Els says random drug testing is the wrong approach. He says a typical urine test only detects the presence of a substance in a person's system - it can't detect whether the person is impaired. That means it cannot differentiate between a person who smoked marijuana 20 minutes earlier and is stoned on the job versus a person who smoked a joint at a weekend party three days ago.

"The vast majority of people who use cannabis instead of having a beer on Friday evening may well test positive on Monday morning, and without it remotely having any impact on workplace impairment or occupational risk," Els says. "What they will detect is a whole lot of normal, recreational users with no risk to the workplace. And that I view as an invasion of privacy."

Els adds there are a lot of workers and professionals other than oil sands employees who can be considered to be doing "safety specific" work, and they aren't being subjected to random drug tests.

"You can imagine the uproar if I suggested tomorrow we need to start testing all physicians for cannabis," he said. "By this logic, any individual operating a vehicle for work should not be able to do so unless they can test negative."

Els says he has no problem with post-accident or just cause workplace drug testing, it's the random testing he opposes. He says there simply isn't enough solid evidence that random drug testing reduces the rates of workplace accidents, adding he too will be watching the Suncor case and the Irving Pulp and Paper case with interest.

"I would be surprised if random testing will actually be cleared as acceptable and not in violation," he says.

Contact us;
Website; www.drugtestaustralia.com.au
Email; Sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au
Phone; 1300 660 636

Synthetic Drugs; Australian Crime Commission

Posted by Drug Test Australia

Original; http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/illicit-drug-data-reports/2010-11/index/other-drugs#analogues

Main Forms

Drug analogues and other synthetic drugs have been present in Australia and overseas since at least the mid-2000s. Analogues available within the illicit drug market are variants of a parent compound which is usually a prohibited or scheduled drug. These substances are typically marketed as ‘legal highs’¹⁴ and used as substitutes for illicit drugs such as methylamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA). In recent years, an analogue drug market has been established as users have increasingly sought out specific analogues rather than using them as substitutes.

A wide range of analogue and other synthetic drugs are available to users. Many of these substances are sourced from online ‘legal high’ stores, legitimate fine chemical suppliers and sites selling ‘research chemicals’. In some countries illicit cannabimimetics are marketed as ‘herbal smoking blends’; herbal incense and as ‘plant foods’ (TGA 2011).

A review of overseas online legal high stores identified up to 500 different analogue drugs being advertised. Analogues are frequently marketed as being natural and legal and are perceived by many users to be less harmful than illicit drugs. As many of these substances are novel, there is limited research or knowledge about the short or long-term health consequences of use, the risk of dependence, possible adverse effects of use in combination with other drugs, or potential fatal dosage levels.

In an attempt to circumvent legislative and regulatory measures, many of these substances are marketed under the guise of other products not intended for human consumption, such as bath salts, plant food, incense and room deodorisers. Further, to avoid detection, packaging may not accurately reflect the ingredients leaving users unaware of the true ingredients within. Even when ingredients are correctly listed, users may remain unaware of the related implications and effects of use.

Two groups of analogues and other synthetic drugs that have received considerable public attention during 2010–11 are cannabimimetics (which mimic cannabinoids) and cathinones, in particular 4-methylmethcathinone. This section covers these two groups in more detail.

Cannabimimetics

Cannabimimetics, also referred to as synthetic cannabinoids¹⁵, are synthetic chemicals which mimic the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the principal psychoactive component of the illicit drug cannabis. Analysis in a number of European countries identified a large number of chemicals which could be classed as cannabimimetics. While some cannabimimetics share a chemical structure similar to THC, the vast majority of identified to date have no structural relationship to THC (EMCDDA 2011d). With the exception of a small number of substances which have very limited legitimate uses, the vast majority of identified substances have no legitimate industrial, scientific or medicinal uses.

Cannabimimeticsthat have been used for medicinal purposes and are scheduled within the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Poisons (SUSMP) are:

• Rimonabant (currently in Schedule 4): A selective CB1 receptor antagonist historically used to treat obesity, but was withdrawn from the market due to severe side effects
• Nabilone (currently in Schedule 8): A synthetic cannabinoid used for treatment of anorexia and for its antiemetic effects; its chemical structure is closely related to THC
• Dronabinol (currently in Schedule 8 for therapeutic use): Synthetically produced pure THC used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and pain patients (TGA 2011).

Illicit cannabimimetics, commonly known as synthetic cannabis, consist of a combination of neutral plant materials, similar in appearance to cannabis, which have been sprayed with one or more synthetic cannabinoids. Synthetic cannabis is best known by the brand names ‘Kronic’, ‘Northern Lights’, ‘Spice’, ‘Kaos’, ‘Voodoo’ and ‘Mango’ (NSW Health 2011b; ACT Health 2011).

As packaging of synthetic cannabisrarely identifies the ingredients from which the substance is formulated (in particular the synthetic cannabinoid component), people dealing in synthetic cannabispreparations may be hindered in their ability to determine the legal status of the product. This potentially causes legal issues for importers, distributors, retailers and consumers (TGA 2011).

Synthetic cannabis, like natural cannabis, can cause memory and thinking impairment in small doses. Short-term effects from consuming synthetic cannabis can include fatigue, headaches, disorientation, hallucinations, high blood pressure, tachycardia, paranoia, agitation, restlessness, panic attacks, anxiety and depression (WADAA 2011). Heavy and regular use may cause hallucinations, confusion, anxiety, depression, paranoia, psychosis and heart palpitations (ACT Health 2011).

As synthetic cannabisis a manufactured substance, there can be considerable variety and quantity of substances present, resulting in unpredictability in the effects of use (NSW Health 2011b).

4-MMC (4-Methylmethcathinone)

An analogue which has received significant media and law enforcement attention is 4-methylmethcathinone (also known as 4-MMC or mephedrone). 4-MMC is a synthetic stimulant and an analogue of the drug methcathinone. It is known to produce central nervous system stimulation, psychoactivity and hallucinations (DEA 2011a). In Australia, there are no legal uses for 4-MMC and it is listed as a prohibited import under Schedule 4 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 and is a Border Controlled Drug under Section 314.4 (2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995.

Other common names for 4-MMC include; meph, meow, miaow-miaow, m-cat, plant food, drone, bubbles and kitty cat. The most common form is an off-white or yellowish powder and it is also available in tablet or capsule form. The powder can be snorted or swallowed in bombs (wraps of paper). There has been limited reporting of injection as a form of administration of the drug (Sindicich & Burns 2011; ADF 2011d).

Users report that 4-MMC produces a similar experience to drugs such as amphetamines, ecstasy or cocaine. Reported effects include euphoria, increased energy and alertness, loss of appetite, dilated pupils, tremors or convulsions, insomnia, anxiety and paranoia. The long-term effects of 4-MMC are difficult to identify due to limited research in this area (ADF 2011d).

International Trends

In 2011, products containing new psychoactive substances became available in many parts of the world, including the Americas, the Middle East, Oceania and parts of Asia. Many countries are now facing the challenge of identifying an ever‑increasing range of substances in a rapidly changing market (EMCDDA 2011a).

In 2010, the US Drug Enforcement Agency reported that an estimated 2 977 samples of synthetic cannabinoids were submitted to State and local forensic laboratories in the US. This was a considerable increase from the estimated 15 synthetic cannabinoid samples identified during 2009. In 2010, nearly two-thirds of these samples were identified as JWH-018¹⁶ (63 per cent) and about one-quarter as either JWH-250¹⁷ (14 per cent) or JWH-073¹⁸ (9 per cent) (DEA 2011d).

Europe continues to see an increase in new synthetic substances with a total of 41 new synthetic psychoactive substances reported to the European Early Warning System in 2010 (Europol 2011). Of the 41 new psychoactive substances identified in 2010, 15 were synthetic cathinones and 11 were synthetic cannabinoids(EMCDDA 2011a; Europol 2011)

The 2010–11 British Crime Survey of UK residents reported that respondents aged 16–24 years of age had the highest rates of synthetic cannabinoids use. Among 16–59 year olds, the proportion of respondents reporting 4-MMC use was equal to the proportion reporting ecstasy use (1.4 per cent) and in the 16–24 years age group, the proportion was equal to powder cocaine use (4.4 per cent) (Smith & Flatley 2011). An online survey targeting club-goers in the UK found that 4-MMC was the fourth most commonly used drug (after cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine) among the 2 295 respondents (EMCDDA 2010).

In 2010–11, the increasing variety and expanding market in analogues saw many countries—including Australia—take steps to prohibit their importation, sale and use. In some countries, including the US and New Zealand, synthetic cannabinoids have been temporarily categorised as controlled substances as these governments seek to appropriately amend legislation to ensure that all current and emerging cannabimimetics are captured.

As of December 2010, the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) banned five synthetic cannabinoids by placing them in Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act, which is for substances considered to have a high potential for abuse and no known medical benefits. This ban will continue for a year, making it illegal to possess or sell products that contain synthetic cannabinoids and allowing the DEA time to gather information regarding these five synthetic cannabinoids (DEA 2011b).

In 2011, the New Zealand Government approved amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, creating a new mechanism to place a temporary ban on unregulated substances of concern. This new mechanism enabled the New Zealand Minister for Health to place a 12-month ban on any current or emerging synthetic cannabinoids. The New Zealand Government intends to implement recommendations from the New Zealand Law Commission that reverse the onus of proof, requiring industry to prove its products are safe (NZ Government 2011).

In response to potential health concerns, Austria, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Poland, Lithuania, Sweden and Estonia have taken legal action to ban or otherwise control synthetic cannabis products and related compounds. In December 2010, while mephedrone was banned in the countries of the EU it is still available in illicit drug markets (UNODC 2011a).

Domestic Market Indicators

In 2011, the Australian Government announced the addition of eight synthetic cannabis compounds to Schedule 9 of the SUSMP. The eight synthetic cannabis compounds were scheduled on the basis that they are used for the purpose of obtaining a psychoactive effect, may be dependence producing, have no legitimate therapeutic uses and have documented harmful effects which may be significant in some individuals (TGA 2011). Several synthetic cannabis compounds were added to state and territory legislation during 2010–11 (see State and territory legislative amendments and initiatives chapter).

4–MMC is a prohibited import under the Schedule 4 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations Act 1956 and is a Border Controlled Drug under the Commonwelth Criminal Code Act 1995. On 9 April 2011, 4–MMC became a prescribed substance under the Criminal Code Regulations Act 2002.

The extent of synthetic cannabis use among the general population in Australia is currently unknown.

According to a 2010 study of regular ecstasy users, 16 per cent of respondents reported recent use (in the last 6 months) of 4MMC, while 18 per cent reported in lifetime use. Recent 4–MMC use was reported primarily in Tasmania and Victoria. Snorting, followed by swallowing, was the most common method of administration, with minimal reporting of smoking and injecting 4MMC (Sindicich & Burns 2011). Early findings from the 2011 study indicate a small decline in recent use, with only13 per cent reporting recent use of 4-MMC (NDARC 2011d).

Price

Law enforcement price data for synthetic cannabis and 4-MMC is limited. In Tasmania in 2010–11, a cap of 4-MMC ranged between $15 and $50. The price of one gram of synthetic cannabis leaf in Queensland ranged between $20 and $30.

Contact us;
Website; www.drugtestaustralia.com.au
Email; Sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au
Phone; 1300 660 636

Call for drug tests to catch patient's dealing their medication

Posted by Drug Test Australia

Original; Call for drug tests to trap patient dealersSave

By Julia Medew

Nov. 18, 2012, 3 a.m.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1128078/call-for-drug-tests-to-trap-patient-dealers

PATIENTS being given powerful painkillers should be routinely drug tested to make sure they are not selling their drugs on the booming black market, doctors say.

While addicts ''doctor shopping'' for prescriptions is well known, the head of pain management at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, Penny Briscoe, said there was now evidence of ''fossil pharming'' in Australia where elderly people sell their medication to supplement their pensions.Leading pain and addiction medicine experts say there is increasing evidence of doctors being scammed for large doses of prescription drugs, particularly addictive opioids such as OxyContin.

Dr Briscoe said an elderly palliative care patient recently admitted to selling his drugs to boost his income, raising the prospect that more patients were doing the same without their doctors knowing.

''I think we should be screening a lot more patients than we are and if you're going to do it, you have to do it to everybody and tell patients about it. You can't discriminate on age, sex or the number of tattoos,'' she said.

The head of clinical services at Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Matthew Frei, said that while most people abusing prescription opioids were getting them from doctors for themselves, some were getting them from elderly relatives who were either selling them or passing them on.

''I certainly have seen people who say their source for the drug was an elderly relative,'' he said. ''I don't think it's extraordinarily common but it's possible we're not hearing about it.''

Another addiction medicine specialist, Philip Crowley, said urine testing patients on opioids should be standard treatment.

''There's a strong economic incentive to sell these drugs. You can sell one Kapanol [morphine] tablet for up to $80 so if you get a pack of 20, you can certainly make enough to pay your rent and power bill.''

It comes as doctors are increasingly falling prey to sophisticated scams to get large amounts of prescription drugs.

State health departments have advised doctors about various scams this year including fraudulent prescriptions and fake letters from doctors to get hundreds of OxyContin tablets from dozens of doctors.

Some people stole pages from GPs' prescription pads while they weren't looking.

Others created fake prescriptions using images on the internet, or posed as doctors.

In one extraordinary case, a Victorian man got prescriptions for anabolic steroids by calling a GP and successfully pretending to be a hospital specialist who was referring a patient (himself) to the GP to obtain the prescriptions.

''The same offender obtained more than 800 anabolic steroid injections by presenting forged prescriptions, and obtained enough testosterone to treat 87,000 sheep by convincing a veterinary practitioner that he was a sheep farmer,'' a Victorian health department document says.

Health authorities say prescription opioids are increasingly becoming a drug of choice on the streets because of their purity and low cost. Sydney's medically supervised injecting centre recently reported that two thirds of its 225 daily clients were now injecting prescription opiates, especially OxyContin.Another patient has been using a fraudulent letter from an interstate medical clinic that has a number on it that connects to his female accomplice.

The dangerous trend appears to be causing more deaths. An analysis by researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of NSW found 500 Australians aged 15 to 54 died of an opiate overdose in 2008, up from 360 in 2007.

Only one third were from heroin. Preliminary figures suggest there were 612 such deaths in 2009, a 22 per cent increase from 2008, and 705 in 2010, a 15 per cent increase from the year before.

Contact us at Drug Test Australia
Website; www.drugtestaustralia.com.au
Email; Sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au
Phone; 1300 660 636