Support, don't punish: Drug decriminalization is harm reduction.

Despite large investments in and policy support for harm reduction including naloxone, syringes, and medications for opioid use disorder, people who use drugs continue to experience unprecedented rates of mortality from overdose and morbidity from infectious diseases. The criminalization of drug use has disproportionately exacerbated these drug-related harms and imposed short- and long-term burdens on already marginalized and vulnerable populations. Pharmacy professionals and students are not immune to the effects of drug criminalization, where one conviction can lead to the loss of their license, employment, or educational progress. Communities become less healthy and stagnate in punitive criminalization systems, further reducing opportunities for growth. Decriminalization of drug use and possession is an urgently needed and effective approach to drug use that shifts resources from punishment to public health, thereby reducing the negative impacts of drug use and keeping communities safe and healthy. Pharmacists play essential roles in the prevention and management of drug misuse and use disorders. As policy makers consider and implement drug decriminalization, pharmacists must actively advocate for these policies and educate community and organizational partners on the individual, professional, and community benefits of this harm reduction strategy.

Stimulant safe supply: a potential opportunity to respond to the overdose epidemic.

BACKGROUND: Occurring against the backdrop of an overdose crisis, stimulant use and stimulant-involved deaths in North America are increasing at an alarming rate. Many of these deaths are being attributed to fentanyl and related analogs, which have been increasingly found within street-level stimulant supplies. Within this, people experiencing socio-economic marginalization are at the greatest risk of overdose and other harms from adulterated stimulants. Current treatments for stimulant use disorder have limited effectiveness, and even less applicability to the lived realities of marginalized stimulant users. Emerging technologies, such as drug checking, are being implemented to support safer stimulant use, but the accessibility and utility of these technologies to stimulant users are framed by experiences of vulnerability that render them largely ineffective. STIMULANT SAFE SUPPLY: Solutions that provide a legal and safe supply of non-adulterated stimulants of known quality, and within a health care framework, are needed to directly address the risk of an increasingly adulterated stimulant supply. Similar innovative opioid-focused interventions are being piloted with medications that have a similar pharmacological effect as their illicit counterparts. While there are currently no approved pharmacotherapies for stimulant use, research has demonstrated a number of stimulant medications that are promising substitutes for cocaine and methamphetamine use. Much like with opioid-focused pharmacotherapies, having a consistent and safe supply of stimulants can lead to improved health outcomes and will drastically reduce overdose risk. However, for a stimulant safe supply intervention to be a success, it must provide the high and performance-enhancing effects that people seek from the illicit market, which requires doses and user agency that trials to date have not provided. CONCLUSION: Efforts are needed to investigate the feasibility of pharmacological stimulant-based interventions that address safe supply needs. The promise of similar opioid-focused approaches in addressing both overdose-related risks and experiences related to vulnerability underscores the need to advance safe supply approaches targeted towards people who use stimulants. Given the current overdose crisis and rising stimulant use across North America, the implementation and evaluation of such novel stimulant-focused interventions should be a public health priority.

Perceptions of prospective pharmaceutical stimulant substitution treatments among people who use illicit stimulants in Vancouver, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Stimulant-involved overdose deaths are increasing, driven by polysubstance use and adulteration of the illicit drug supply. While emerging evidence for prescription stimulant substitution is promising, there are no approved treatment options for stimulant use disorder that address the realities of an unpredictable drug supply. This study explores treatment experiences of people who use illicit stimulants (PWUS) to identify gaps and perceptions of prospective pharmaceutical stimulant substitution treatments (SST). METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 86 PWUS in Vancouver, Canada. Thematic analysis focused on experiences of available treatment options for stimulant use and perceptions of prospective SST. RESULTS: Participants identified how primarily behavioral treatment approaches do not meet the unique needs of PWUS, in contrast with the range of medical treatments available for opioid use disorder. Participants anticipated health and social benefits if they were able to access SST, including avoiding the toxic illicit stimulant supply, reduced engagement in criminalized activities, and greater economic security. Perceptions of prospective SST were informed by knowledge of existing opioid treatments. This led some participants to be unsupportive of SST, citing concerns around agency and highly regulated operational contexts that do not align with the lived realities of stimulant use. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate the need for SST pilot programs in real-world settings and underscore the health and social advantages SST may offer; although drawing on existing opioid treatment models to implement SST pilots may limit success. Thus, any novel treatments for stimulant use must centre the lived realities of PWUS.

"He's used drugs - he's biased! He's not a drug user - what would he know!": A cross-sectional, online study of drug researchers' experiential knowledge of drug use and disclosure.

Introduction: Despite the recognized value of experiential knowledge, drug use and disclosure of drug use within the drug research community is rarely discussed or studied. Methods: We distributed a cross-sectional online survey using targeted recruitment. Researchers provided information on drug use, disclosure of use (or abstinence) professionally, and their impact via write-in text boxes. We used the general inductive approach to analyze the data. Results: Of the sample (n=669, 43 countries), 52 % were cisgender women, 89 % had post-graduate education, and 79 % worked in academia. Most (86 %) reported lifetime drug use and 47 % past 3-month use. Among 557 researchers who used drugs, 59 % disclosed their use to institutional colleagues, 59 % to colleagues outside their institution, 25 % to research participants, and 11 % in their research/scholarship. Themes included frequency; context; meaning of drug use disclosure personally, professionally, and socially; and how drug use experience and disclosure informs research. Respondents connected their concerns about disclosure in research with issues of social identity, professional risk, and the role of stigma related to lived experience. Some respondents felt that such concerns reinforce a vacuum, noting that the inability to disclose drug use limits research questions and the knowledge base overall. Discussion: Our findings support the dichotomy of thought surrounding the lived experience of drug use: "[They've] used drugs- [they're] biased!" and "[They're] not a drug user-what would [they] know!" Our findings provide an opportunity to reflect upon our positionality and the impact researchers' own drug use may have on the field.

How the war on drugs impacts social determinants of health beyond the criminal legal system.

There is a growing recognition in the fields of public health and medicine that social determinants of health (SDOH) play a key role in driving health inequities and disparities among various groups, such that a focus upon individual-level medical interventions will have limited effects without the consideration of the macro-level factors that dictate how effectively individuals can manage their health. While the health impacts of mass incarceration have been explored, less attention has been paid to how the "war on drugs" in the United States exacerbates many of the factors that negatively impact health and wellbeing, disproportionately impacting low-income communities and people of colour who already experience structural challenges including discrimination, disinvestment, and racism. The U.S. war on drugs has subjected millions to criminalisation, incarceration, and lifelong criminal records, disrupting or altogether eliminating their access to adequate resources and supports to live healthy lives. This paper examines the ways that "drug war logic" has become embedded in key SDOH and systems, such as employment, education, housing, public benefits, family regulation (commonly referred to as the child welfare system), the drug treatment system, and the healthcare system. Rather than supporting the health and wellbeing of individuals, families, and communities, the U.S. drug war has exacerbated harm in these systems through practices such as drug testing, mandatory reporting, zero-tolerance policies, and coerced treatment. We argue that, because the drug war has become embedded in these systems, medical practitioners can play a significant role in promoting individual and community health by reducing the impact of criminalisation upon healthcare service provision and by becoming engaged in policy reform efforts. KEY MESSAGESA drug war logic that prioritises and justifies drug prohibition, criminalisation, and punishment has fuelled the expansion of drug surveillance and control mechanisms in numerous facets of everyday life in the United States negatively impacting key social determinants of health, including housing, education, income, and employment.The U.S. drug war's frontline enforcers are no longer police alone but now include physicians, nurses, teachers, neighbours, social workers, employers, landlords, and others.Physicians and healthcare providers can play a significant role in promoting individual and community health by reducing the impact of criminalisation upon healthcare service provision and engaging in policy reform.

Characterizing stimulant overdose: A qualitative study on perceptions and experiences of "overamping".

BACKGROUND: The dominant focus of North America's current overdose crisis has been opioids, resulting in considerable research and harm reduction efforts to address opioid-related overdose risks. Less attention has been paid to people who use stimulants (PWUS) despite recent increases in stimulant use and stimulant-involved overdoses (i.e., "overamping"). Stimulant users' definitions, risk factors and experiences of, and responses to, overamping are poorly understood, thereby putting PWUS at heightened risk of adverse health outcomes. This study explores how PWUS understand, experience, and respond to overamping. METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 61 PWUS in Vancouver, Canada's Downtown Eastside neighbourhood. Thematic analysis of interviews focused on contextualizing stimulant overdoses, including how PWUS understand, define, experience, and respond to overamping. RESULTS: Participants associated overamping experiences with commonly identified signs and symptoms, such as rapid onset, elevated heart rate, incontinence, and audiovisua hallucinations, but also reported more serious indicators of overamping, such as unconsciousness, cardiac arrests and seizures. Our findings demonstrate that, among PWUS, there was no unified understanding of overamping such as with opioid overdose and individual experiences had substantial variation in severity and presentation. This impacted the ability to adequately respond to stimulant overdoses, which were primarily self-managed through methods including stabilizing breathing, polysubstance use, and cold showers. CONCLUSION: Given the growing role of stimulants in North America's overdose crisis, there is an urgent need to improve the identification of stimulant overdoses in real world settings. Our findings identify a gap in current understandings of stimulant overdose, and demonstrate the need for public health and harm reduction interventions to better address overamp risk among PWUS, including harm reduction campaigns to disseminate information regarding identifying signs of, and proper responses to, overamping.

Sexual Violence in the Context of Drug Use Among Young Adult Opioid Users in New York City.

Drug and alcohol use have been associated with increased risk for sexual violence, but there is little research on sexual violence within the context of drug use among young adult opioid users. The current mixed-methods study explores young adult opioid users' sexual experiences in the context of their drug use. Forty-six New York City young adults (ages 18-32) who reported lifetime nonmedical use of prescription opioids (POs) completed in-depth, semistructured interviews, and 164 (ages 18-29) who reported heroin and/or nonmedical PO use in the past 30 days completed structured assessments that inquired about their drug use and sexual behavior and included questions specific to sexual violence. Participants reported frequent incidents of sexual violence experienced both personally and by their opioid using peers. Participants described sexual violence, including sexual assault, as occurring within a context characterized by victimization of users who were unconscious as a result of substance use, implicit and explicit exchanges of sex for drugs and/or money that increased risk for sexual violence, negative sexual perceptions ascribed to drug users, and participants' own internalized stigma. Recommendations to reduce sexual violence among young adult opioid users include education for users and service providers on the risk of involvement in sexual violence within drug using contexts and efforts to challenge perceptions of acceptability regarding sexual violence.