Genie in a blotter: A comparative study of LSD and LSD analogues' effects and user profile.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe self-reported patterns of use and effects of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) analogues (AL-LAD, 1P-LSD, and ETH-LAD) and the characteristics of those who use them. METHODS: An anonymous self-selected online survey of people who use drugs (Global Drug Survey 2016; N = 96,894), which measured perceived drug effects of LSD and its analogues. RESULTS: Most LSD analogue users (91%) had also tried LSD. The proportion of U.K. and U.S. respondents reporting LSD analogue use in the last 12 months was higher than for LSD only. LSD analogue users described the effects as psychedelic (93%), over half (55%) obtained it online, and almost all (99%) reported an oral route of administration. The modal duration (8 hr) and time to peak (2 hr) of LSD analogues were not significantly different from LSD. Ratings for pleasurable high, strength of effect, comedown, urge to use more drugs, value for money, and risk of harm following use were significantly lower for LSD analogues compared with LSD. CONCLUSIONS: LSD analogues were reported as similar in time to peak and duration as LSD but weaker in strength, pleasurable high, and comedown. Future studies should seek to replicate these findings with chemical confirmation and dose measurement.

The relationship between cryptomarket drug purchase, social networks and adverse drug events: A cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Drug use and trading are typically social activities; however, supply through cryptomarkets can occur without any in-person social contact. People who use drugs alone may be at higher risk of experiencing harms, for example, due to lack of others who may call for emergency assistance. Alternatively, cryptomarkets may be a source of harm reduction information and drugs with better-known content and dose, potentially reducing the risk of adverse events. This study examines relationships between cryptomarket use, drug-using social networks and adverse drug events for MDMA, cocaine and LSD. METHOD: A subsample of 23,053 respondents from over 70 countries was collected in the 2018 Global Drug Survey. People who reported using MDMA, cocaine or LSD were asked about using cryptomarkets to purchase these drugs; any adverse drug events requiring medical treatment (combining seeking treatment and should have sought treatment but did not); and social networks who they had used the specific drug with. All measures referred to the last 12 months, hereon referred to as 'recent'. Binary logistic regressions examined relationships between cryptomarket use, drug-using social networks, and adverse drug events, controlling for age, gender, and frequency of drug use. RESULTS: Adverse events from any drug type were low (5.2%) and for each drug; MDMA (3.5%); cocaine (3.3%); and LSD (3.5%). After controlling for covariates, recent cryptomarket use was associated with increased likelihood of having no drug-using network for each drug type. People who recently used cryptomarkets were more likely to report adverse cocaine (AOR = 1.70 (1.22-2.37)) and LSD (AOR = 1.58 (1.12-2.09)) events. For those reporting a network size >1, network characteristics did not differ with recent cryptomarket use; however, those reporting recent cryptomarket use were more likely to report adverse LSD events (AOR = 1.86 (0.99-3.51)). CONCLUSION: People who reported purchasing drugs from cryptomarkets more commonly reported having no drug-using network, and cryptomarket purchase was associated with reported adverse events. Our results support the notion that cryptomarket use increases drug-related harm, but further disentanglement of multiple complex mechanisms is needed in future research.

Comparison of strength and adulteration between illicit drugs obtained from cryptomarkets versus off-line.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Drugs sold on cryptomarkets are thought to have lower levels of adulteration and higher strength compared with those sourced off-line. The present study aimed to determine whether cryptomarket and off-line-sourced 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methamphetamine (MDMA), cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) differed in adulteration and strength. DESIGN AND SETTING: A between-groups design was used to compare cryptomarket versus off-line-sourced drugs. Regression analyses controlling for year and service were conducted. Drug-checking services were conducted in Spain (Energy Control) and the Netherlands (Drugs Information and Monitoring System). CASES: The cases comprised drug samples that underwent drug checking between 2016 and 2021 and were expected to contain MDMA (tablets; n = 36 065; powder: n = 6179), cocaine (n = 11 419), amphetamine (n = 6823), methamphetamine (n = 293) and LSD (n = 1817). MEASUREMENTS: Drugs were measured for (1) matching the advertised substance (i.e. containing any amount of the expected substance); (2) strength; (3) presence of adulteration; and (4) number of adulterants. FINDINGS: The expected drug was more likely to be identified when sourced from cryptomarkets versus off-line for MDMA tablets [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.28-3.43], MDMA powder (AOR = 2.64, CI = 1.55-4.51), cocaine (AOR = 3.65, CI = 1.98-6.71) and LSD (AOR = 1.75, CI = 1.13-2.72). Cryptomarket-sourced MDMA powder (ß = 0.03, P = 0.012), cocaine (ß = 0.08, P < 0.001) and methamphetamine (ß = 0.15, P = 0.028) were statistically significantly higher in strength than substances from off-line sources. Conversely, MDMA tablets (ß = -0.01, P = 0.043) and amphetamine (ß = -0.07, P < 0.001) from cryptomarkets were statistically significantly lower in strength than from off-line sources. MDMA powder (AOR = 0.53, CI = 0.33-0.86) and cocaine (AOR = 0.66, CI = 0.55-0.79) were statistically significantly less likely to be adulterated if sourced from cryptomarkets. However, amphetamine (AOR = 1.54, CI = 1.25-1.90) and LSD (AOR = 1.31, CI = 1.00-1.71) were found to be more likely to be adulterated when purchased from cryptomarkets. Cocaine from cryptomarkets exhibited fewer adulterants (incidence rate ratio = 0.71, CI = 0.60-0.85). CONCLUSION: The relationship between on-line drug market-places and substance quality varies depending on both the specific substance and the dynamics of the cryptomarket.

Synthetic Cannabinoid Use Among High School Seniors.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we examined the prevalence and correlates of current synthetic cannabinoid (SC) use among high school seniors in the United States. METHODS: Monitoring the Future, an annual nationally representative survey of high school seniors, began querying current (30-day) SC use in 2014. Data were examined from the 2 most recent cohorts (2014-2015; N = 7805). Prevalence of self-reported use was examined and differences in demographics and recency and frequency of other drug use was compared between current marijuana-only users and current SC (plus marijuana) users using χ2 and generalized linear model using Poisson. RESULTS: We found that 2.9% of students reported current SC use; 1.4% of students (49.7% of users) reported using SCs on ≥3 days in the past month. SC users were more likely to report more recent (and often more frequent) use of lysergic acid diethylamide, cocaine, heroin, and/or nonmedical use of opioids compared with marijuana-only users. Compared with current marijuana-only users, SC users were more likely to report lower parent education (P < .05) and current use of a higher number of illegal drugs other than marijuana (Ps < .001). Students using SCs ≥10 times in the past month were more likely to be boys, frequent marijuana users (Ps < .01), African American, and users of multiple other illegal drugs (Ps < .001). CONCLUSIONS: SC use is typically part of a repertoire of polydrug use, and polydrug use is less prevalent among marijuana-only users. Current SC users are at risk for poisoning from use of the newest generation of SCs and from concurrent drug use.