Monday, 10 December 2012

Kronic Test: Available from Drug Test Australia

Drug Test Australia now stocks testing kits for Synthetic Marijuana (Kronic).

This drug is widely used now in Australia by employees from all industries and sectors, with reports of growing popularity in the mining and fabrication sectors.

Employees use this drug in place of marijuana because it is widely believed to be 'non-detectable' in drug tests. Urine or Saliva.

This was true, until now.

Introducing the K2 Spice Test, a single dip cassette test, for use in urine testing that will detect synthetic Cannabinoids in human urine. These tests can be used on their own, or in conjunction with conventional urine test to effectively screen your workforce!

For more information, please contact us;
Website: www.drugtestaustralia.com.au
Phone: 1300 660 636
Email: sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au

K2-Spice dip test image

Synthetic Pot (Kronic) Sends Thousands to Hospital : US Report

Posted By Drug Test Australia

The Drug Abuse Warning Network says drugs like Spice and K2, marketed as legal, fake pot and labelled as herbal incense, are sending teenagers and young adults to emergency rooms around the country.

In 59% of the cases, doctors found no other substance, differing from most emergency department visits involving illicit drugs.

Synthetic Pot Sends Thousands to Hospital

K2, Spice and other synthetic drugs that mimic a marijuana high sent 11,406 people -- mostly teenagers and young adults -- to the emergency room in 2010, according to the first report on the substances from the federal government's Drug Abuse Warning Network.



The report, the first to analyse the impact of the popular herbal incense, found that children ages 12 to 17 accounted for a third of the emergency room visits. Young adults ages 18 to 24 accounted for an additional 35%.

In 59% of the cases involving patients ages 12 to 29, doctors found no other substance, differing from most emergency department visits involving illicit drugs and painkiller abuse.
Marijuana, the most popular illicit drug with 18 million regular users, sent 461,028 people to the emergency room in 2010.

"This report confirms that synthetic drugs cause substantial damage to public health and safety," Office of National Drug Control Policy Director Gil Kerlikowske said.
Spice and K2, marketed as legal, fake pot and labelled as herbal incense, emerged in 2009 as popular drugs among teens and college students, who could buy the substances online and in convenience stores.

Problems quickly emerged. Doctors reported teenagers arriving in the emergency room with high fevers and strange behaviour.


Police in Nebraska in 2010 arrested a teenage boy who had smoked Wicked X, herbal incense coated with synthetic Cannabinoids  The teen careened his truck into the side of a house and then continued driving.

At least 18 states outlawed the substances and the Drug Enforcement Administration instituted an emergency ban. In July, Congress banned sales of K2, Spice and other synthetic drugs under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act.


 
December 8, 2012 8:52AM 

Original http://www.cio-today.com/news/Synthetic-Pot-Sickens-Thousands/story.xhtml?story_id=020002GO886G&full_skip=1

For more information, please contact Drug Test Australia
Phone. 1300 660 636
Email. sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au


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 AP
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.
Bath Salts
"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."

Wednesday, 5 December 2012

'Faking It' Products being used to 'pass' drug tests

With drug testing and pre-employment medical screening becoming more commonplace in workplaces in Australia, especially within heavy industry as well as by police on roadside stops, a cottage industry has sprung up around products which assist users to 'pass' drug tests.

With names like 'Pass It', 'Ultimate Detox' and the like, products that are now being manufactured and sold online and in shops locally, with the express purpose to help consumers 'pass' drug tests.

How did this become a phenomenon? What is in these products? Do they actually work? We at Drug Test Australia took a closer look at the situation....

Products

The most common of these types of products found were 'Detox Drinks', not to be confused with health food stores' fruit-based products, these drinks are purported to 'cleanse' and 'remove unwanted substances from the urine', with some claiming to work in just one hour.

                                                              Quick Fix

The other main type of masking agents are 'Synthetic Urine', which is touted as 'premixed laboratory urine' which is purported to 'contain all the ingredients normally found in urine and is balanced for pH, specific gravity, creatinine, and several other urine characteristics.' These products are meant to be used in place of urine in urine tests.

Detox drinks main aim is to 'clean out' the system, with a goal of 'flushing out' drug metabolites from the system before they can be detected in a urine drug test.

The other type of these drinks aims to 'hold drug metabolites' in the body, allowing urine to pass through to testing without these metabolites present in the sample.

Absolute De-Tox

Synthetic urine products are meant to be carried by the user on their person before a drug test, so that they can pretend to urinate, while filling the test with synthetic urine. These are used with 'heat pads' to bring the sample up to body temperature, a key indicator in all effective urine drug test kits. The pads are meant to be worn under the clothes, to heat the bottle of synthetic urine.

Heat Pads
While the above products aim to mask drug use in urine tests, interestingly, there are also now products available which claim to help the user pass a saliva drug test. These products come in the form of a mouth wash, which claims to leave 'no traces of unwanted residues' in the saliva. It claims to be effective for removing residue of Marijuana, Cocaine, Opiates, Methamphetamine, Amphetamines and prescription drugs.

Ultra Klean Mouth Wash

Two other items worthy of note are shampoo's available, that tout being effective in 'passing' hair follicle drug tests, and urine additives.

          Urine Luck Additive                                                 Get Clean Shampoo
Hair follicle testing being a new and not very widely used technology in drug testing in Australia, takes a sample hair follicle for the test. This testing has been shown to detect drugs in the system up to 90 days.

Urine additives are purported to 'destroy drug metabolites in urine', the product claims to 'change the molecular structure' of the compound, and is poured straight into a urine sample, to 'fool' GC/MS (Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, the instrument used to test samples in a laboratory, as with confirmation samples following a positive test result).

Availability

These products are available from online stores in Australia, as well as retail locations around the country. Their disclaimer is usually "not intended for use on lawfully administered drug tests and is to be used in accordance with all federal and state laws."

Detox drinks retails for around AUD $50-$60, synthetic urine at $70-$80, with the mouthwash at around $50.


Effectiveness

By looking at a wide variety of the types of products on the market, we can examine which would most effective.

Saliva testing

Saliva testing aims to pick up residue of drugs in the oral fluid. Commonly a mouth swab is inserted, and oral fluid collected from the inside of the mouth, cheeks and tongue. The approximate detection time for oral fluid varies with drug classes, but is typically a 6-12 hour window (if drugs were consumed in this period the test will show). Tests with positive results are to be sent fro confirmation testing using GC-MS.

The product intended to remove and 'mask' drug residue in the mouth, a mouth wash, if used correctly and if containing a high alcohol solution, could in theory 'pass' a drug test.

The problem is; that when an individual is selected for a random test, usually there is no time to swill and rinse with mouth wash, which would be quite obvious to all involved, rendering this product ineffective.

Urine Testing

Urine testing is based on based on immunoassay rapid test methods, and also relies on GC-MS fro confirmation of positive samples. The detection period varies between drug classes, and can be up to 30 days for THC in heavy users.

Synthetic Urine is effective in passing a drug test, provided that adulterants are not detected by the device (many have built in) and the temperature is correct. So if a subject is willing to place a large bottle of fake urine and a heating element down their pants, heat the urine to body temp, and pour it into the test without being detected by the drug tester, then they may pass this time.

Current Situation

Currently in Australia there are employees using these products to attempt to 'pass' drug tests. These products are easily available for purchase from retailers locally or for home delivery from online stores.

Drug testing training courses now include sections on identifying and preventing adulteration of tests by  test subjects. Also, any tester that is drug testing regularly, and keenly observes their surrounds should be able to catch these cheaters.

Even if an individual passes the test once, they will be caught the second or third time they attempt to use these methods. These are not by any means fool-proof methods, and the consequences for employees faking a test can be severe.

Random selection testing (drug testing a random sample of the employee body) as well as reasonable suspicion testing (drug testing after reasonable suspicion that an employee is impaired by drugs) will eventually 'catch' these employees, who will then have to face discipline within the organisation, or in the case of pre-employment tests, will never be offered a position in the company again.

We should be aware of these products on the market, and take appropriate measures to ensure they do not affect test results.

For more information on this or related issues, or to find out about our Australian Standard testing equipment contact us at Drug Test Australia;

Email; sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au
Website; drugtestaustralia.com.au
Phone; 1300 660 636


Wednesday, 28 November 2012

Abuse vs. Addiction


Interview with Paul Karras – Hunterlink Recovery Services

Last week I caught up with Paul Karras, from Hunterlink Recovery Services. I met with Paul to get a better understanding of drugs and addiction, substance abuse and their effect on people in Australia, and we discussed many topics, chief among them substance abuse and addiction.

Paul Karras has 10 years experience with The Salvation Army as a senior counsellor in Dual Diagnosis, with emphasis on Addiction and Mental Health. With a wealth of experience and information on Drug use, addiction, patterns and recovery, who better to talk to about Substance Abuse and addiction?

Why do people use drugs?

A frequently asked question; in Paul’s breadth of experience the most common answer is ‘it makes me feel good’.

Drugs; be they alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, methamphetamine, depressants, stimulants or psychoactive; all have a common effect on users…….The effect of a ‘numbing’ anaesthesia.

This means the user is 'numbed’ to the world around them. This means they don’t have to deal with their problems……. they are numb to them. They don’t have to experience the emotion, the depth or breadth of issues that a person may feel, as the drug numbs them to the outside world, reality, and all the harsh things in it.


Abuse vs. Addiction

One of the key themes that were present in my talk with Paul was Abuse vs. addiction, and how this plays out in people’s lives. The two are not mutually exclusive, but there is a clear distinction.

Within abuse of substances, there are great variations in patterns of use, frequency, amount etc.

Using Marijuana as an example, we can say that within the spectrum of people that use this drug, some are; very frequent (everyday); some less frequent and some perhaps only on few occasions per year, and then everything in between. This makes for a very broad spectrum of users of this drug.

Within this spectrum lie many different types of users with different reasons for their use. Some could be considered a more social user, one that consumes only when in an ‘appropriate’ situation, or with peers. Another on the other ends of the scale; may use the drug frequently when alone and not in social situations.
Using alcohol as an example, we could say that a social user is someone that seldom drinks, and then only on occasions when friends/colleagues are also enjoying a few. On the other end of the spectrum, someone that is abusing the substance may do so when not in a socially accepted situation, or at home alone, and in high quantity or frequency.


When we come to discuss addiction, we can say that abusers can be addicts, but that not all abusers are addicts. Drug addiction or substance dependence is a complex issue. There are many factors at play;
·         It can be agreed that addiction is a compulsive behaviour that originates in the unconscious mind.
·         Addiction can be inherited, through genetics and family background.

·         Many people with addictions may have other psychiatric disorders, which complicates matters.
·         Addiction can be classified as with physiological dependence, or without.

Addiction is a progressive illness, it is not static. An addict of a certain substance will use an amount, and when this amount no longer has the desired effect, they will up the amount. This has the effect of leading to an increased tolerance to the drug, and an escalation of need.

There are also a whole host of other issues including; cultural factors, peer pressure, social norms and psychological issues. These will not be discussed here in detail, but enough to acknowledge that these and other factors all combine to make this a complex issue.


Drug Dependence

Drug dependence means that a person needs a drug to function normally. Abruptly stopping the drug leads to withdrawal symptoms. Drug addiction is the compulsive use of a substance, despite its negative or dangerous effects.

There is much contention over whether cannabis is addictive or not. In Paul’s years of experience, it very much is.

Reliance on substances is a mental reliance. It is a coping mechanism, a living process that leaves users with a lack of coping skills, beyond reaching for their ‘crutch’.

When a person with dependence does not consume the drug, the effect is called detox. Heroin, Methamphetamine and certain other drugs, when not consumed, will result in a period of withdrawal, or detox.

According to Paul, the detox period for heavy users of opiates (heroin etc.), amphetamines etc. varies, but should be no longer than 5 days. For marijuana, though the period can be significantly longer. A  physiological dependence may not be present, but a mental dependence is. Detoxification for users of higher amounts of drugs is always worse; more prolonged, more traumatic.

From my conversations with Paul, he was able to give me some very good information on drugs of abuse and substance addiction, changing some of my preconceived notions about abuse and addiction, and giving me a real insight into addiction and substance abuse.

Hunterlink logo

Hunterlink Recovery Services provide a vital link in support, recovery and welfare services available to the community and for workers and their families nationwide; they help with recovery of people with Substance abuse and other issues such as problem gambling, anxiety and depression. They work in conjunction with employers with established Employee Assistance Program (EAP) as well as members of the community. A link to their website can be found here http://hunterlink.org.au/

Original Article by Drug Test Australia
For more information please contact us;
Phone: 1300 660 636
Email: sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au


Monday, 26 November 2012

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

Drug testing pits privacy against safety
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

Sunday, 25 November 2012

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