No abstract

In the article [1] published in the April 2017 issue of Addition, an error slipped into following sentence of the abstract: "There were no large differences in drug purity, yet small but statistically significant differences were found for 4-FA (on-line 59% versus off-line 52% purity for 4-FA on average, P = 0.001), MDMA powders (45 versus 61% purity for MDMA, P = 0.02), 2C-B tablets (21 versus 10 mg 2C-B/tablet dosage, P = 0.49) and ecstasy tablets (131 versus 121 mg MDMA/ tablet dosage, P = 0.05)." P = 0.49 (in 2C-B tablets) should be P = 0.049. The authors wish to apologize for this error. Reference 1. van der Gouwe D., Brunt T. M., van Laar M., van der Pol P. Purity, adulteration and price of drugs bought on-line versus off-line in the Netherlands. Addiction 2017; 112: 640-8.

Background and Aims Although European‐wide data on the new psychoactive substances (NPS) drug market are available, country‐specific data are limited. We studied recent NPS trend data relative to all recreational drugs on the Dutch drug market. Design National observational study. Setting The Netherlands. Data sources Three national indicators were used between 2013 and 2017: (1) forensic drug samples offered to the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI); (2) drug samples submitted by consumers to the Drugs Information and Monitoring System (DIMS); and (3) exposures in which the Dutch Poisons Information Center (DPIC) was consulted. Measurements Overall NPS incidence rate was the primary outcome. Numbers and specific categories of NPS were also studied. Changes in NPS incidence rates over time were analyzed using Poisson regression analyses [year effect expressed as incidence rate ratios (IRR)]. Findings From 2013 to 2017, NPS were involved in 1892 forensic samples, 6316 consumer samples and 481 poisons center exposures. In 2013, NPS incidence rates were 2.5, 7 and 4% versus 3, 11 and 11% in 2017, respectively, in the NFI, DIMS and DPIC samples/exposures. NPS incidence rates increased significantly in consumer samples between 2013 and 2016 [IRR = 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.18, 1.29] and in poisons center exposures between 2013 and 2017 (IRR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.06, 1.35), while the trend in forensic samples appeared more stable. Phenethylamines were the largest class and were detected in 58, 80 and 63% of NFI, DIMS and DPIC samples/exposures, respectively. Detected phenethylamines mainly involved 4‐fluoroamphetamine and 2C‐x derivatives. The second largest class were cathinones, which were detected in 21, 11 and 16% of NFI, DIMS and DPIC samples/exposures, respectively. Conclusions Analysis of forensic drug samples, consumer drug samples and exposures reported to poison centers from 2013 to 2017 shows the constant presence of new psychoactive substances on the Dutch drug market and its use by the Dutch population. The two largest classes present in the Netherlands were phenethylamines and cathinones.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present some of the continued resistance and challenges faced by drug checking services (DCS) and review how the existing literature and the contributions to the special issue address them, with a view to making recommendations. Design/methodology/approach The existing literature and the contributions to the special issue are reviewed. Findings Drug checking cannot be equated with quality control. With the appropriate equipment and chemistry staff, DCS can provide quantitative analysis and reliable results. When the product does not match expectations, service users discard the tested substance of concern. To more easily compare the results of different studies and better evaluate drug checking, standardisation of measures is desirable. Uptake of drug checking, notably in festivals, is low and depends in part on the capacity of DCS. Drug checking has added value in monitoring drug markets and is complementary with chemical (forensic) analysis. Originality/value This paper interrogates in a relatively comprehensive way the continued resistance to drug checking in light of theoretical and empirical research to derive recommendations that are specific to drug checking and that are addressed to health professionals, researchers and also to policymakers.

No abstract

<b><i>Background:</i></b> In this article, we present an evaluation of online psychoactive substance trade via Telegram, a free encrypted social media messenger service. The evaluation took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed us to monitor the effects of the spring 2020 lockdown in the Netherlands on substance trade via Telegram. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> The objective of this study was to evaluate whether changes in psychoactive substance trade on Telegram markets in the Netherlands can be observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Between December 2, 2019, and June 29, 2020, a total of 70,226 posts appeared in two analyzed Telegram groups. A total of 5,643 posts were psychoactive substance related. Based on the analyzed posts, Telegram is mostly a ‘“sellers” market as only a minority of the posts (6.3%) could be identified as a request for a substance. The proportion of posts related to specific substances varied between the periods before, during, and after the lockdown. The proportion of posts on the stimulants ecstasy, cocaine, and amphetamine was lower during the lockdown than before and after. For psychedelics – ketamine, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine (2C-B) – and other substances, there was a relative increase in the number of posts during the lockdown, which was maintained after the lockdown. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Telegram analysis shows that in the Netherlands, online psychoactive substance trade may have been affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. The direction of this effect was different for different classes of substances.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R ® is a registered trademark.

No abstract