Or at least that’s how the media will inevitably simplify it for all you plebs out there, who couldn’t possibly need to know, let alone understand, the exact wording of the law. On the 13th of September, everyone’s favourite council of advisors, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) released their report on Desoxypipradrol (2-DPMP), including advice for another broad analogue ban similar to the bans of the cathinones & cannabinoids in the not too distant past.

Here’s the first part of the report, formatted and presented in lovely HTML (Annex 2 will be posted up soon.):

Consideration of Desoxypipradrol (2-DPMP) and related pipradrol compounds

Letter To The Home Secretary From The ACMD

1. Background

In October 2010 the ACMD recommended to the Government that, 2– diphenylmethyl-piperidine (2-DPMP, here referred to as desoxypipradrol), which was being marketed at that time as “Ivory Wave”, should be subject to an immediate ban under the Open General Import Licence (OGIL). This advice was accepted by the Government and a ban was implemented on 4 November 2011

Published data on the effects of 2-DPMP are limited, although research on derivatives of desoxypipradrol show that they exhibit a cocaine-like binding profile (Schmitt et al., 2008).

Currently, there is no known medicinal use for this compound, although it was originally developed by Ciba-Geigy (Novartis) in 1953 to be used to wake patients following anaesthesia (Belucci, 1955).

This compound is related to pipradrol, a previously-licensed medicine for treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), obesity and narcolepsy. Pipradrol is classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act as a Class C substance. Pipradrol still used is some countries, but its use is limited due to its abuse potential; it is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor.

Pipradrol and its desoxy form have structurally related pyrrolidine analogues (see below) such as diphenylprolinol (diphenyl-2-pyrrolidinylmethanol, D2PM), for which there have been a number of recorded cases of cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric toxicity associated with recreational use (Lidder et al., 2008, Wood et al., 2008, Wood et al., 2011), and 2-diphenylmethyl-pyrrolidine, currently marketed, along with D2PM and various analogues, as chemical reagents for use as chiral catalysts in organic synthesis (Bertelsen et al., 2005, Sigma-Aldrich, 2007).

The two pairs of materials differ only by the size of the nitrogen-containing ring. Diphenylprolinol and its desoxy form have a five-membered (pyrrolidine) ring, while pipradrol and its desoxy form have a six-membered (piperidine) ring. It seems that the two desoxy forms have particularly long-lasting effects as their structures are resistant to metabolism, meaning that they have longer half-lives in the body. A common feature of these compounds is that they are structurally related to ß-phenylmethylamphetamine, which is also a potent stimulant with a long half life. However, these compounds differ from ß-phenylmethylamphetamine in that the nitrogen atom is linked to the a– methyl group by two or three carbon atoms to form a ring.

Various analogues of these compounds have been investigated and found to have stimulant properties (Isbell, 1970 and US Patents). Simple modifications, for example, addition of halogen, alkyl or alkoxy groups on one or both of the phenyl rings or addition of alkyl, alkenyl, haloalkyl and hydroxyalkyl groups on the nitrogen atom have been reported to produce compounds having a stimulant effect on the CNS, which could lead to a range of “designer” forms.

Other modifications that have been reported in the literature include replacing the piperidine ring with an azepane ring (7-membered ring), a morpholine ring or a pyridine ring (Winthrop, 1961; Enyedy, 2003). The piperidine ring has also been modified by substitution in the ring with an hydroxy group (Nodine, 1960), fusion of the piperidine ring with a benzene ring (Winthrop, 1961) and by substitution at the nitrogen atom with an ethano bridge to form a bicyclic ring system (Wikipedia, 2011).

Almost all of the analogues investigated are structurally related to the 2-isomer of desoxypipradrol, with 2 carbon atoms between the phenyl rings and the nitrogen atom. The only exceptions being the N–haloalkyl derivatives of desoxypipradrol and the pyridine analogue in which the 2-, 3– and 4– isomers were all reported to be active. No examples were found of compounds related to 1-diphenylmethylpiperidine (N–diphenylmethyl– piperidine).

Whilst, it should be possible to distinguish between pipradrol isomers using techniques such as NMR, in the long term it would be support forensic analysis to have reference standards of all the pipradrol positional isomers. The ACMD recommends that the Home Office considers commissioning the production of standards through the Forensic Early Warning System.

2. Use and prevalence

The National Poisons Information Service in Edinburgh highlighted that a number of individuals had presented to the Royal Edinburgh Infirmary in the summer of 2010 following their use of desoxypipradrol with symptoms that were similar to amphetamine toxicity, but with predominant neuropsychiatric features including:

• Hallucinations
• Paranoia
• Severe Agitation

In some patients the symptoms were still being manifested 5–7 days after ingestion and some patients presented directly to psychiatric services, bypassing A&E. There were approximately 12 cases over this period. It was subsequently reported that 4 out of 5 of the Edinburgh cases in whom confirmatory toxicological screening was carried out were positive for desoxypipradrol in urine/blood confirming exposure.

The number of patients presenting after confirmed ingestion of desoxypipradrol after the summer of 2010 has dramatically reduced in Edinburgh with no cases in 2011 and data from the National Poisons Information Service (NPIS) suggests that there has also been a significant reduction nationally. However, as noted below cases of diphenylprolinol (D2PM) toxicity continue to occur.

So far 3 deaths have been linked to the use of desoxypipradrolb(awaiting final reports).

Data provided by the Home Office Centre for Applied Science and Technology (CAST) under its Forensic Early Warning System (FEWS) reported one sample of 2-DPMP (from a head-shop), 10 samples of D2PM and 4 samples of desoxy-D2PM (from test purchases) during the pilot study.

LGC Forensics reported those samples of “Ivory Wave” it had seen in 2009–2011 contained different active ingredients including the cathinone MDPV (methylenedioxypyrovalerone) then, after this became controlled, naphyrone, and when this too was controlled, desoxypipradrol. More recently, diphenylprolinol has begun to appear in “legal high” products.

Desoxypipradrol has been found as a white powder that is generally taken by nasal insufflation (sniffing the powder into the nose) or swallowing after wrapping the powder in a cigarette paper (“bombing”) to avoid any unpleasant taste.

It is considered that 2-DPMP and its related compounds, as captured under the generic definition (see recommendation), have potential social harms. It appears to the ACMD that such harms are likely in relation to the impairment of function through drug use (mood disorders, changes to lifestyle), loss of relationships and the potential harm to others (directly and indirectly).

3. Preclinical Data

In the 1950’s, Ciba-Geigy investigated the effects of desoxypipradrol, amphetamine and d-methylamphetamine on small animals (report kindly provided by Novartis). The LD₅₀ is the dose, which kills 50% of the animals:

Table 1. Toxicity of desoxypipradrol and other compounds, measured as LD₅₀, to small animals.

(*iv – intravenous, sc – subcutaneous, po – orally)Table 1 shows that desoxypipradrol is, in many cases, more toxic than amphetamine and d-methylamphetamine.

The Ciba-Geigy report (from the 1950s) also noted that desoxypipradrol:

produced a marked central arousal in various, non-anaesthetised animals, consisting initially of general agitation, subsequently a greater degree of increase in co-ordinated motility, heightened reflexes, compelled movements and relatively slight respiratory stimulation.

This was easily discernible objectively in the normal mouse with the aid of the cage movement registration method. With this method the individual movements are registered directly and added up by means of a totaliser.

Figure 1. Effectiveness of desoxypipradrol in stimulating activity in mice when when administered subcutaneously (heavy line) or orally (thin line)
(Figure reproduced with kind permission of Novartis)

The data show that desoxypipradrol is effective as a stimulant in doses comparable to those for amphetamine or methylamphetamine – from 1 mg/kg upwards. For the purposes of its research at the time, Novartis recommended an initial human dose of 1mg or less, (ca 0.014 mg/kg). Anecdotal information would suggest that the human dose is only a few mg, with 10mg or more being considered harmful.

Experimental data supplied by Dr Colin Davidson (St Georges, University of London, 2011) demonstrated that desoxypipradrol potently stimulated dopamine release from rat brain slices in vitro. Dopamine release was measured from the region of the nucleus accumbens, using carbon fibre microelectrodes and fast cyclic voltammetry to electrically measure the oxidations of dopamine. The rate of recovery of stimulated dopamine release also allowed measurement of the action of the drug as an inhibitor of the dopamine reuptake mechanism. Dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens is considered to be a key target for psychostimulant drugs.

Figure 2. Effect of desoxypipradrol (10uM) on dopamine efflux in rat nucleus accumbens

It also proved possible to compare the potency of desoxypipradrol with the psychostimulant drug cocaine in the brain slice preparation. The results (Figure 3) indicate that desoxypipradrol is both more effective and more potent than cocaine in stimulating dopamine release and in inhibiting its reuptake.

Figure 3. Comparison of potencies of desoxypipradrol and cocaine in releasing dopamine, and inhibiting inactivation in rat brain slice preparations (C. Davidson, unpublished)

The results both from Novartis and from Dr Davidson indicate that desoxypipradrol is very potent and comparable to amphetamine or methylamphetamine in its potential to cause acute toxicity.

The available human data also show it to be a long-lasting substance, capable of eliciting agitation lasting for several days after a single dose.

In addition to the reports of toxicity associated with the use of desoxypipradrol noted above, there have also been reports of significant toxicity associated with the recreational use of the related compound diphenylprolinol (D2PM). In addition, reports from forensic providers suggest that D2PM has replaced desoxypipradrol in many “Ivory Wave” products. The clinical toxicology service at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital in London have documented 6 cases of analytically confirmed D2PM toxicity: 1 case in 2008 and 5 cases in 2010 / 2011 (Lidder et al., 2008, Wood et al., 2008, Wood et al., 2011). In these cases patients have presented with a variety of symptoms including:

• chest pain
• agitation
• anxiety
• insomnia
• hallucinations
• paranoia

In many of these cases patients have had ongoing features, in particular neuro-psychiatric features such as anxiety, insomnia and paranoia for up to 48–96 hours after use of D2PM.

4. Recommendation

The ACMD advises that the harms of desoxypipradrol are commensurate with other Class B drugs and recommend that it is controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a Class B substance and in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (as amended). Furthermore, we recommend that the structurally related compounds diphenylprolinol (diphenyl-2-pyrrolidinyl-methanol, D2PM) and its desoxy form 2-diphenylmethylpyrrolidine are similarly controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 by virtue of a generic definition (see Annex 1 of the report) to ensure that desoxypipradrol and related compounds, e.g. diphenylprolinol, diphenylmethylpyrrolidine, are fully captured (see Annex 1 & 2).

The ACMD understands that desoxypipradrol and its related compounds do not have any medicinal uses; however, the ACMD has not formally consulted with the industry.

The proposed generic definition includes desoxypipradrol and those analogues most likely to be produced as alternatives. Some of the compounds that fall within the scope of the proposed generic definition contain a hydroxy group, which can be converted to an ester or ether. Such compounds may have similar pharmacological properties to the parent compound and therefore it is recommended that esters and ethers of these compounds are also subject to control under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971.

Whilst, ideally, any generic definition would include all possible positional isomers, this may mean that non-active compounds would also be controlled. Further, a definition to cover all of these potential analogues is feasible, but it would be very complex and possibly difficult to understand.

Under the definition that the ACMD propose at Annex 1 esters and ethers of pipradrol would not be controlled. This is because pipradrol is specifically excluded from the generic definition and therefore paragraph 2A would also not apply to pipradrol. For consistency the ACMD advise the inclusion of esters and ethers of pipradrol by moving pipradrol from Schedule 2 Part III paragraph 1(a) to paragraph 1(b) so that paragraph 1(d) regarding esters or ethers would apply to pipradrol.

The ACMD further advise that stereoisomers should be controlled by Schedule 2 Part II paragraph 2. The three main drugs, desoxypipradrol, diphenylprolinol (D2PM) and
2-diphenylmethylpyrrolidine all have stereoisomers and most of the compounds covered by the generic definition will also have stereoisomers.

5. References

1. Bellucci G. (1955); (2-Diphenylmethyl-piperidine hydrochloride and the methyl ester of 2-chloro-2-phenyl-2-(2-piperidyl)-acetic acid), drugs with waking effect in anaesthesia. Minerva Anestesiologica 21: 125–8.
2. Bertelsen S, Halland N, Bachmann S, Marigo M, Braunton A, Jørgensen KA. (2005); Organocatalytic asymmetric a-bromination of aldehydes and ketones. Chemical Communications 4821–4823.
3. Enyedy IJ, Sakamuri S, Zaman WA, Johnson KM, Wang S. (2003); Pharmacophore-based discovery of substituted pyridines as novel dopamine transporter inhibitors. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters;13:513–517.
4. Hoffmann K, Heer J. (1958); 2-Diphenylmethyl-piperidine compounds. US Patent 2,826,583.
5. Hoffmann K, Heer J. (1958); Piperidines and their manufacture. US Patent 2,849,453.
6. Hoffman K. (1962); 1-Ethyl-2-diphenylmethyl-piperidines. US Patent 3,048,594.
7. Hoffmann K, Heer J. (1960); Substituted 2-diphenylmethyl-piperidine compounds. US Patent 2,957,879.
8. Isbell H, Chrusciel TS. (1970); Dependence Liability of Non-Narcotic Drugs. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation; 43: Supplement, pages 76–77.
9. Lidder S, Dargan P, Sexton M, Button J, Ramsey J, Holt D, Wood D. (2008); Cardiovascular toxicity associated with recreational use of diphenylprolinol (diphenyl-2-pyrrolidinemethanol [D2PM]). Journal of Medical Toxicology; 4(3):167–9.
10. Nodine JH, Bodi T, Slap J, Levy HA, Siegler PE. (1960); Preliminary trial of a new stimulant SCH 5472 in ambulatory patients with depression, exhaustion, or hypersomnia syndrome. Antibiotic Medicine and Clinical Therapy ; 7:771–6.
11. Novartis (1955) Information on Prep. No. 14?469 (desoxypipradrol), a new synthetic stimulant with central point of application.
12. Schmitt KC, Zhen J, Kharkar P, Mishra M, Chen N, Dutta AK, Reith ME. (2008); Interaction of cocaine-, benztropine-, and GBR12909-like compounds with wild-type and mutant human dopamine transporters: molecular features that differentially determine antagonist-binding properties; Journal of Neurochemistry 107: 928–40.
13. Sigma-Aldrich Co. (2007) “Organocatalysis”, Chemistry files, vol 7, No.
14. Wikipedia entry for AL-1095. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AL-1095>; 2011 [accessed 25.08.11].
15. Winthrop SO. (1960) a-(3-Morpholyl)-benzhydrol and its salts. US Patent 2,947,749.
16. Winthrop SO. (1961); 3-Benzhydrylmorpholine and salts thereof, and method of preparing said compounds. US Patent 2,993,895.
17. Winthrop SO, Humber LG. (1961); Central Stimulants. Cyclized Diphenylisopropylamines. Journal of Organic Chemistry 26: 2834–6.
18. Wood DM, Davies S, Puchnarewicz, Holt DW, Dargan PI. A case series of individuals with analytically confirmed acute diphenyl-2– pyrrolidinemethanol (D2PM) toxicity. Manuscript submitted for publication.
19. Wood DM, Puchnarewicz M, Holt DW, Ramsey J, Dargan PI. (2011); Detection of the precursor benzophenone in individuals who have used legal highs containing diphenyl-2-pyyrrolidinemethanol (D2PM). Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology; 109 (Suppl. 1): 86.

Annex 1

Proposed generic definition

Any compound (not being pipradrol) structurally derived from piperidine, pyrrolidine, azepane, morpholine or pyridine by substitution on a ring carbon atom with a diphenylmethyl group, whether or not the compound is further modified in any of the following ways, that is to say,

1. by substitution in any of the phenyl rings to any extent with alkyl, alkoxy, haloalkyl or halide groups;
2. by substitution on the methyl carbon atom with an alkyl, hydroxyalkyl or hydroxy group;
3. by substitution on the ring nitrogen atom with an alkyl, alkenyl, haloalkyl or hydroxyalkyl group.

Post from: Synchronium

Ivory Wave Destined For Class B

You Might Be Interested In:

• Our Thoughts on New Year’s Eve
• Nutt Sacked Episode II – Attack Of The MPs
• New Avatar
• JWH-018 Toxicology
• Mellow Yellow!
• How To Make Salvia Divinorum Extract
• Meen Green!
• Legal Highs & Terrorism
• Some More Excellent Editing By The BBC
• Salvia Fans, Check This Out…

Plot the graph of this equation:

And this is the result:

I bet René Descartes is rolling in his grave.

Post from: Synchronium

Weed Maths

You Might Be Interested In:

• Dutch Entrepreneurs, Get Ready To Make Some Money

This post has been robbed in its entirety with permission from the always-eloquent Neurobonkers.

A newly leaked cable exposes the intense international pressure the United States placed on the United Nations to block the successful drug harm reduction strategies we have in Europe. The scientific facts are astoundingly clear regarding this issue. Harm reduction is a particularly serious issue because it does not only save the lives of drug users but prevents the spread of HIV. Due to our strategies of harm reduction such as methadone programmes and needle exchanges for intravenous drug users Europe has some of the lowest HIV rates in the world. America and Russia have the worst HIV rates in the developed world because both of these countries do not practice harm reduction measures. This message is particularly serious coming from the US because according to US law items which prevent HIV being transmitted are not only denied to health authorities but they are actually illegal to possess, therefore pushing harm reduction charities such as needle exchanges underground. If this were to happen here we would see levels of HIV sky-rocket towards the appalling levels seen in the United States and Russia. If this is not worrying enough the rhetoric being used to support the US strategy is frankly sickening. The rhetoric is that the more dangerous drug taking is, the less people will take drugs. The fact that this results in countless unnecessary deaths and transmission of HIV which would otherwise be completely preventable is not considered.

In the cable the European standard of harm reduction is described as an “EU Crusade on Harm Reduction” (sic). The irony here is on a number of levels. Firstly, a “crusade” is a war based on the imposition on moral/religious values. The US is conducting a crusade based on the morality of drug abuse yet it is the US however who are accusing Europe of a “crusade on harm reduction”. Secondly, this is clearly not a European crusdade on harm reduction, perhaps it could conceivably be a crusade for harm reduction but definitely not on harm reduction. Thirdly, assuming that is what they meant, a “crusade for harm reduction” is perhaps the most poetically, paradoxically absurd description of a basic health care principle I’ve ever heard. Fourthly, it is patently obvious that it is the US and not Europe who is actually entering a “crusade on harm reduction” namely because they are the only ones crusading in any way shape or form with regard to this issue. (Ok, so are the Russians but they’re just as barmy). Finally, I hope I need not explain the final tragic irony of describing the imposing of a new morally driven blanket ban on a basic health care principle that stops the spread of HIV as a “crusade”. The original crusades resulted in a still existing blanket ban on the primary barrier to HIV transmission and this is of course, the main reason we have a global HIV crisis in the first place. My only conclusion is that this wording was a failed attempt at very dark humour. Trust the Americans to fail at irony. Damn, I’ve just pissed off both of the world’s largest superpowers and the world’s largest religion in one fell swoop. Maybe we should keep the nukes afterall. At least nukes don’t give us AIDS.

Footnote: The title of paragraph four of the leaked cable is “Is it EU Solidarity or (the) UK Leading the Crusade?“. If the Americans insist on calling life saving harm reduction a crusade and suggesting it is us that are leading the charge then this is perhaps the first crusade in our history that we can actually be proud of.

Addendum: Alan Clear, the director of The Harm Reduction Coalition reported the actual events that resulted from this only now released cable…

“Would the UN Member States assemble a political declaration almost identical to the last one? The 1998 version dealt with drug demand reduction by adopting what we now know to be the expensive, ineffective, and disastrous law-and-order route that has cost the US alone 40 billion per year–without significantly reducing either supply or demand–and made us the world’s largest jailer of our own people.

…Or would this be the year that member states would move towards a public health and human rights approach to drug policy?…

…to reject the inclusion of the term “harm reduction” in the Political Declaration being endorsed at this meeting is extremely short sighted and problematic. It puts the US in the position of sitting in judgment of successful programs being run by many countries globally; it also ignores the very successful use of harm reduction in the United States to stem the tide of overdose deaths, low threshold drug treatment and Hepatitis C treatment and care in major centers including New York City. Worst of all, it negates the sound science behind interventions like safer injection spaces or heroin prescription programs.

…This meeting is unfortunately timed. Whereas the new Obama administration is making steps to move in a more progressive human rights based direction, the groundwork for the drafting of the Political Declaration has taken place with State Department employees who took their direction from the previous administration and haven’t yet been presented with a new agenda. Sadly it will be another 10 years before there will be an opportunity to revisit UN drug policy again.”

The full Leaked cable…

VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB
DE RUEHUNV #0031/01 0271621
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 271621Z JAN 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8938
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1453
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000031
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958:  N/A
TAGS: SNAR KCRM UN PGOV AORC UK CO RS JA CA FR SW GM
EI, IT
SUBJECT:  Breaking the UNGASS Impasse on "Harm Reduction"
REF:  A) UNVIE 00001, B) Tsai-Pala 1/23 email
¶1. (U) This is an action message for INL/PC and IO/T.  Please see
paragraph 7.
-------
Summary
-------
¶2. (SBU) Negotiations for the UNGA special session have hit an
impasse, created by EU insistence on adding the controversial term
"harm reduction" to various parts of the draft UNGASS action plan
and political declaration.  While Canada, an opponent of the term's
inclusion, is considering conceding to EU demands, other opponents
are standing firm with the U.S. in preventing such a problematic
element's inclusion.  Mission has engaged counterparts at every
level, from experts to ambassadors in an attempt to break the
impasse and find compromise language.  Mission believes there is
increasing pressure within the EU to resolve this gridlock and avoid
an embarrassing showdown at the March Commission on Narcotic Drugs
(CND) but some delegations will be inclined to hold this issue
hostage up until the opening of the CND, in hopes the US will
relent.  To facilitate EU compromise, Mission recommends that the
Department reach out to various capitals and the European Commission
to help underscore the firmness of U.S. resolve-both to our allies
and to the EU, before the EU horizontal group meeting in Brussels on
February 4.  Mission has urged like-minded countries here (Japan,
Russia, Colombia) to take similar actions.  End Summary.
------------------------------
EU Crusade on "Harm Reduction"
------------------------------
¶3.  (SBU) There have been difficult negotiations in Vienna on the
"harm reduction" issue in the demand reduction chapter of the draft
UNGASS action plan (Ref A) and political declaration.  The Czech
Republic reiterated this demand on January 26 on behalf of the
presidency.  The plan will be annexed to the political declaration
expected to be issued by ministers attending the high-level segment
of the UNGASS review meeting in Vienna March 10-12, 2009.  The main
divide is between EU advocates for including "harm reduction" in the
plan, and those who oppose such inclusion, namely U.S., Russia,
Japan, Colombia and possibly Canada.  Although opposed to harm
reduction, Canada's experts in Ottawa are receptive of a recent
compromise (including the term in a footnote rather than in the
text), and we understand that Ottawa will have a discussion on the
political level to decide how to handle this issue.
-----------------------
Is it EU Solidarity or
UK Leading the Crusade?
-----------------------
¶4. (SBU) Recent meetings to reach a compromise with EU had been
inconclusive.  The USG (United States Government) cannot accept including the specific term
"harm reduction" in any part of the action plan.  The USG also wants
the section to focus on "prevention, treatment and rehabilitation"
in the consideration of any demand reduction strategy.  The EU, on
the other hand, appears less concerned about treatment and
rehabilitation.  The EU presented a very hard-line position in the
opening rounds of these negotiations in mid-January.  Subsequently,
Mission conducted extensive consultations at all levels, including
between Ambassador and the DCM with their counterparts.  Mission's
conclusion is that the EU may not have a tightly united front.  The
UK is the primary and most vocal crusader on this issue, although
Netherlands does lend occasional support, as do Spain and the EC.
Importantly, other EU countries, initially implacable, appear to be
wavering (e.g., Germany).   Still others have expressed varying
degrees of flexibility, including France, Belgium, Ireland, and
Italy, as well as Sweden, which is closest to the U.S. position.
----------------------
Next Steps for Mission
----------------------
¶5. (SBU) Mission continues to engage with both skeptics and
proponents of "harm reduction."  To that end, Mission plans to
offer alternative language, previously sent to INL/PC (Ref B) at the
next informal consultations.  Mission's language is based on the
November 2008 UNGA resolution on international drug control
(A/63/432), which found consensus in New York.  Importantly, that
language was co-sponsored by 58 countries, including  the U.S. and
at least 7 EU countries.  Mission will propose inserting "care" into
the language as a way to address EU concerns.  U.S. proposed
language for paragraph 9 of the draft Action Plan, therefore, would
read,
 "Develop, review and strengthen, as appropriate, prevention,
treatment, care and rehabilitation of drug use disorders and to take
measures to reduce the social and health consequences of drug abuse
as governmental health and social priorities, in accordance with
international drug control treaties, and where appropriate, national
legislation."
(Note:  The 7 EU co-sponsors of the November 2008 UNGA resolution
are: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, and
Latvia.  End Note.)
¶6.  (SBU) Mission has shared this language with Japan, Russia, and
Colombia, as well as the CND chair Namibia, who is chairing the
current negotiations on the political declaration.  Offering this
language will allow Mission to more constructively engage the EU and
the chair of the working group (Iran) (who has taken a very active
role in trying to find consensus).  Although Iran chair had
originally scheduled another informal meeting for the afternoon of
January 27, Namibian ambassador told Missionoffs and their Japanese
and Russian counterparts the morning of January 27 that she would
announce the cancellation of that meeting until further notice.  She
said she had heard from many delegations that there should be a
"cool down" period on this issue.  According to her, many
delegations are opposed to the EU position, even though they did not
speak up on the floor.
¶7. (SBU)  Mission has suggested like-minded countries (Russia,
Japan, Colombia) to intervene at the ambassadorial level in Vienna.
We have also suggested that their capitals demarche relevant
countries.  Mission will also ask the G-8 chair in Vienna, the
Italian ambassador, to convene a meeting of the G-8 members to
underline the same.  By engaging EU member states in a different
context, it may help them to reevaluate their dogmatic and
unproductive approach.
-------------------
Recommended Actions
-------------------
¶8. (SBU)  Action Request:  The EU's horizontal group will have its
next coordination meeting on drugs in Brussels on February 4.  In
order to break EU unity on this issue, and thereby create a climate
in Vienna conducive to compromise, Mission recommends engagement
both with skeptics and supporters of the issue.  Specifically,
Mission recommends;
 (i)  Department instruct USEU to contact the European Commission's
horizontal group on drug control (Carol Edwards at the EC).
Instructions should note that the potential for embarrassment is
great for the EU, should the EU hold hostage an entire document
because of one sub-issue in one section of the action plan..
Mission believes that each passing week without compromise will add
increasing pressure within the EU to resolve this issue and prevent
embarrassment for national ministers planning to attend the CND.
Instructions should also note that the March CND will be the first
foray of the Obama administration into the international drug arena,
and all sides should be keen to make it a positive one.
(ii)  Department instruct U.S. Embassies Tokyo, Moscow, and Bogota
to reach out to host governments and emphasize our need to continue
supporting each other, as well as the firmness of U.S. resolve and
the continuity of our policy vis-`-vis "harm reduction."  It is
important that our allies on this issue remember that the burden is
on the EU, as the proponent of the term, to convince other
delegations-not the other way around.
(iii)  Department instruct U.S. Embassy Ottawa to persuade Ottawa at
a political level that it should at least consider remaining silent
on the EU proposal for the time being, and/or until the EU shows
more flexibility.  Although there is pressure in Vienna on all
delegations to commit to the EU proposal, Ottawa should remember
that there is no need to accede to hard-ball tactics, and that the
goal is for all sides to find common ground.
(iv)  Department instruct U.S. Embassy London to underscore the need
to find common ground.  Mission believes that UK's expert in Vienna
is a driving force behind the current EU approach, and that she may
find herself isolated within the EU as other delegations begin to
feel the urgency for compromise.
(v)  Department instruct U.S. Embassy Prague to reaffirm with the EU
presidency the importance of finding common ground.  Instructions
should note the importance the USG places on getting US-EU relations
off on the right foot, and that nothing related to the CND
jeopardizes that common goal. Instructions should also note that the
Czech Republic was one of the co-sponsors of the November 2008 UNGA
resolution on International Drug Control (A/63/432).
(viii)  Finally, that Department instruct U.S. Embassies Berlin,
Brussels, Paris, Dublin, Rome, and especially Stockholm (as well as
any other capital who may be more sympathetic to the need for
compromise) to underline the firmness of our position, and the
importance of finding common ground for the March ministerial
meeting.  Instructions should also note that Belgium, Ireland and
Italy co-sponsored the November 2008 UNGA resolution A/63/432.  In
particular, it should be noted that the current EU proposal
effectively eliminates the draft's previous focus on prevention,
treatment and rehabilitation.  Although there may be some
disagreement on "harm reduction," Mission believes all delegations
should be concerned that the elimination of prevention, treatment
and rehabilitation from their prominent place in the draft may give
the wrong signal that member states are no longer focusing on the
critical need to reduce the demand for drugs.

If you liked that, you’ll love the rest of Neurobonkers, so go and read it all. You can also follow him on twitter if you’re that way inclined.

Post from: Synchronium

The US & Harm Reduction

You Might Be Interested In:

• Top 10 Reasons Why Legal Highs Should Stay Legal
• A Look At Legal Highs
• How To Make A Bomb
• Should Mephedrone Be Legal?
• Mephedrone Cat
• Mephedrone: The Facts

Sorry about the lack of updates — we’ve turned to the drugs.

[Video]

Post from: Synchronium

The Drugs

You Might Be Interested In:

• Legal Highs & The 2010 Drug Strategy
• Let’s Ban this Menace to Society, Quick!
• The Bachelorette Drinking Game
• Mephedrone Banned On Friday 16th April
• Shaun The Sheep
• The ACMD’s Mephedrone Report Part II
• The ACMD’s Mephedrone Report Part I
• How Opium Was Really Used (And Abused); The Moonstone, Wilkie Collins and Wikipedia

Fuck Going Out

Seriously. Going out for New Year’s Eve is our idea of hell. Don’t get me wrong, we’re not a pair of miserable bastards who hate fun — in fact, here’s an old rave photo to prove it:

While I might look unintentionally serious as shit in the above picture, I can assure you, we were having a brilliant time.

So, why is going out on NYE a terrible idea? Well…

Everyone goes out

More people out means you’ve got less personal space, so less room to dance or sit, and more person/person collisions of every magnitude — whether that be an accidental elbow to the ribs or some wazzock spilling your pint, more people in one location will always lead to more than the usual amount of violence. Massive gangs of people seem to think their shared invincibility is exponentially proportional to the size of their group, which inevitably ends up with more dickish behaviour in general.

More people also means more competition for both the bar and in summoning appropriate transport for the journey home. Both of those situations also bring to mind my next point…

Everything Costs A Fortune

£79.95 for a pint and 4x the usual taxi price (the latter isn’t an exaggeration) coupled with the terrible “consumer experience” I just mentioned automatically make me resent the entire night. This is coming from someone who’s routinely paid £2.50 for a bottle of water without complaining because it didn’t take him fucking for-ever to get served.

Everyone MUST get as drunk as possible

Apparently, if your liver doesn’t explode from acute alcohol poisoning or you can’t ignite your breath, then it’s not a good night out. For a minority of drinkers, that applies to every Saturday night, but that school of thought becomes all the more inclusive in the context of New Year’s Eve. As we all already know, this leads to more violence & aggression, dangerous driving and both the average size and frequency of sick splatters that adorn the pavements. Oh, and the toilets… my god, the toilets. Anyway, moving on…

Pressure to have the BEST time

“The turning of the stars bring a time when my secrets can give you immortality. But when that time has passed, those fleeting minutes gone, the secret is worthless, until once again the stars unlock its power.”

During a single orbit of Neptune around our own star, we get to celebrate NYE less than 165 times. As such, it’s imperative that the night be TOTALLY AWESOME!!!1eleven!! because its ages ’til the next one. A tall order for any other night, but when you’re already having to compensate for the increased dickhead population, time-to-service at the bar and the king’s ransom you’re expected to fork over per drink, it’s no wonder everyone has such a short fuse. This might manifest itself as violence, streams of tears & mascara or anything in between.

No pressure on the venue

Venues can get away with murder on NYE. They just have to book some alright DJs before they inevitably sell out. Why book the best of the best when you’ll get literally zero more people attending? That extra cash saved can be put towards booking someone big to draw a bigger crowd on any other night.

It's cold

Jesus Christ, is it cold. I have a beard and tend to wear jeans on a night out and I think it’s cold. A typical girl out on Birmingham’s Broad Street, however, somehow continues to survive wearing much, much less — I’d be cold on a breezy summer’s afternoon wearing the kind of thing they obviously find acceptable. The smoking ban also means that your venue of choice will probably have some doors permanently ajar, as though the doorway itself were designed as the most efficient way to transfer thermal energy out of the building.

…so that’s why we stayed in.

Post from: Synchronium

Our Thoughts on New Year’s Eve

You Might Be Interested In:

• Legal Highs & The 2010 Drug Strategy
• What The Bible Has To Say About Drugs
• The Bachelorette Drinking Game
• Legal Highs & Terrorism
• Should Mephedrone Be Legal?
• Nutt Sacked
• Shock Horror! Clubs Protect Own Interests!
• Harry Pothead & Other Stuff
• Comments From Matt Bowden
• Can I Get High Legally?

Last week saw the release of the UK Government’s 2010 drug strategy, and so far, this is all I’ve had time to say on the matter:

While I may have spent the time since doing some hardcore diversification (more on that at a later date…), what the government actually proposes sounds more ridiculous as each day passes, so I’ve gone through all the new publications, pulled out everything related to legal highs and displayed them below for your convenience. I’ve also listed a few other choice quotes that stood out at the time (I’m sure there’s more to be found, but I’ve only skimmed it). My comments are in dark red.

Drug Strategy 2010 Main Document

• If the problem is “young people”, why not restrict it like alcohol?
• Even if legal highs were trialled like pharmaceuticals, they’d still never be approved for consumption because they’re largely recreational

• There’s plenty of evidence showing prohibition doesn’t work — consumption will stay the same (if not actually increase); sales can’t be taxed, purity will decrease, users are less likely to seek help in an emergency. Actually, here’s some evidence our former MP sent to Alan Johnson last year when he sacked David Nutt.
• When mephedrone was banned, it was clear the government intended to ban it anyway, pressuring the ACMD to hurry the fuck up while reducing a lot of their hard work to a mere formality.
• The government wants to scrap the requirement to have scientists on the ACMD. More info on that at The Guardian.

Legal means safe!

• First paragraph suggests more powers to ban stuff is the only possible way of “addressing” the “issue”. Very much shoot first, ask questions later…
• Activities against websites, which aren’t actually breaking the laws? Hmm.
• Of course legal doesn’t mean safe — alcohol and tobacco are legal, after all. Do kids think it acceptable enjoy their Frosties with a splash of ice cold ethanol every morning?
• Also, banning something because sellers might sell an illegal substitute instead is mental. If I went to the supermarket and cheekily sprinkled cocaine on the doughnuts, would doughnuts be banned? Obviously the best way to tackle this fairly serious issue would be through regulation. Obviously.

Strategy Impact Assessment

Description and scale of key monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’

• Costs will surely be massive, as my next comment suggests

Rationale

• How much time and money will it cost to fully analyse a substance? If 10 new substances emerge around the same time, that cost increases tenfold, along with the pressure to complete each analysis within the allotted timeframe (which isn’t specified anywhere in these documents — more on that later).
• A great deal of the evidence considered by the ACMD comes from users, such as forum posts, hospital visits or amnesty bins outside nightclubs, for example. How will they pick up on idiosyncrasies affecting say one in 1000 people? I somehow doubt that a rushed report based on poor evidence will be particularly thorough.
• How dangerous does something have to be to earn itself a ban? Anything psychoactive is potentially dangerous, as an altered mental state could lead to an accident or something; driving while tired is dangerous enough to warrant loads of signs along the motorway but we’re not banning tiredness (although, that would be awesome if it were somehow possible!). I just can’t imagine a report concluding “Naw, it’s totally fine!” about anything that isn’t completely inert.
• The ACMD have reported before about what a stupid idea it was to upgrade cannabis to class B, but the government went ahead anyway. What’s stopping them from doing the same in these situations? This whole idea looks like an underhand way of introducing a new supercharged banning stick, like using anti-terror legislation to silence protesters or harass minorities.

Reducing Supply

Cost / Benefit

• No estimate of the cost for even a single analysis. This bit also points out that these analyses are identical to those already performed before a regular ban, so you’d think they’d include an estimate at least.
• The overall tone suggests, once again, that these analyses are no more than a formality. They don’t even consider what might happen should an analysis conclude something’s not that bad after all.

The ACMD's Response

• So, the best way to “keep ahead” of the changing market is by seeing what happens when people actually use something, which, as I mentioned before, will be much less effective with a temporary ban in place.

• The key phrase here is “[we can temp ban shit if] a substance does, or has, the potential to cause harm” — as I mentioned before, anything has the potential to cause harm. ANYTHING.

Legal Highs Section on the Home Office Website

• What happened following the mephedrone ban (catalysed by the media’s undue hype)? Ivory Wave.

TalkToFrank Website

This is the only place with any specifics about the banning process.

• The media keep saying “with immediate effect” — August 2011 is hardly immediate
• The bans are in place for the maximum of a year, while proper clinical trials take several years — also, trialling a new potentially life-saving drug doesn’t bring up anywhere near the amount of ethical issues as testing a recreational substance under the assumption it’s probably harmful

Interesting Bits & Pieces

• Lol.

• All of the sciences get £3 billion between them. Just sayin’.

• When we first read about this, Jo & I came to the same conclusion immediately: the government has no idea what addiction is or what it means to be addicted. Nice to know the experts agree — we can’t be going too far wrong!

***

Well, that’s the lot, but you might be interested in my Top 10 Reasons Why Legal Highs Should Stay Legal.

Post from: Synchronium

Legal Highs & The 2010 Drug Strategy

You Might Be Interested In:

• Should Mephedrone Be Legal?
• Nutt Sacked
• Mephedrone Banned On Friday 16th April
• The ACMD’s Mephedrone Report Part II
• The ACMD’s Mephedrone Report Part I
• Legal Highs & Terrorism
• Comments From Matt Bowden
• Can I Get High Legally?
• Educators Don’t Want To Listen
• Squidgy Black

Here’s a generic news report you’ve probably all read already:

DEA Moves to Emergency Control Synthetic Marijuana

Agency Will Study Whether To Permanently Control Five Substances

NOV 24 — WASHINGTON, D.C. – The United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is using its emergency scheduling authority to temporarily control five chemicals (JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497, and cannabicyclohexanol) used to make “fake pot” products. Except as authorized by law, this action will make possessing and selling these chemicals or the products that contain them illegal in the U.S. for at least one year while the DEA and the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) further study whether these chemicals and products should be permanently controlled.

A Notice of Intent to Temporarily Control was published in the Federal Register today to alert the public to this action. After no fewer than 30 days, DEA will publish in the Federal Register a Final Rule to Temporarily Control these chemicals for at least 12 months with the possibility of a six-month extension. They will be designated as Schedule I substances, the most restrictive category, which is reserved for unsafe, highly abused substances with no medical usage.

Over the past year, smokable herbal blends marketed as being “legal” and providing a marijuana-like high, have become increasingly popular, particularly among teens and young adults. These products consist of plant material that has been coated with research chemicals that mimic THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and are sold at a variety of retail outlets, in head shops and over the Internet. These chemicals, however, have not been approved by the FDA for human consumption and there is no oversight of the manufacturing process. Brands such as “Spice,” “K2,” “Blaze,” and “Red X Dawn” are labeled as incense to mask their intended purpose.

Since 2009, DEA has received an increasing number of reports from poison centers, hospitals and law enforcement regarding these products. Fifteen states have already taken action to control one or more of these chemicals. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 amends the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to allow the DEA Administrator to emergency schedule an abused, harmful, non-medical substance in order to avoid an imminent public health crisis while the formal rule-making procedures described in the CSA are being conducted.

“The American public looks to the DEA to protect its children and communities from those who would exploit them for their own gain,” said DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart. “Makers of these harmful products mislead their customers into thinking that ‘fake pot’ is a harmless alternative to illegal drugs, but that is not the case. Today’s action will call further attention to the risks of ingesting unknown compounds and will hopefully take away any incentive to try these products.”

This all happened in the UK a year ago,  and it took about 7 months before anything decent returned to the shelves. Which is good news for you ‘Mer’cans-  there’s already loads of stuff available that’s still legal.

Post from: Synchronium

DEFCON 1: USA Bans Cannabinoids in K2, Spice, et al

You Might Be Interested In:

• A Look At Legal Highs
• Synthetic Cannabinoid Discussion II
• Synthetic Cannabinoid Discussion
• JWH-018 Toxicology
• JWH-018, Spice & Me
• JWH-018 Toxicology Wordcloud
• I Got My Tits Out In The Paper
• How To Make Hash – The Ultimate Guide!
• Democracy In Action
• Can I Get High Legally?

Click pic for larger version. Brought to my attention by @tripmenz

Also, have a look at this bit of mini-research I did on why we get high in the first place.

Post from: Synchronium

Location-Dependent Effects Of Drugs On Behaviour

You Might Be Interested In:

• Matthias Rath’s Bad Science Finally Catches Up With Him
• Synthetic Cannabinoid Discussion II
• Our Thoughts on New Year’s Eve
• New Avatar
• Egyptian Ecstasy – Blue Lotus
• Squidgy Black
• Salvia Divinorum Presentation
• Harry Pothead & Other Stuff
• Herbal Photography
• Tweaking Salvia Trip

The Dutch coalition government disagree on a great many things — much like our own, I suppose, which saw Nick Clegg go from kingmaker to skivvy overnight — but the one thing they do agree on is that coffee shops (just typed “coffeesh0ps” by mistake — force of habit!) are an embarrassment to The Netherlands and should be extirpated.

Since they can’t just get rid of them overnight, their first step is to try and ban the sale of cannabis to anyone who’s not a Dutch resident. This has already happened in a couple of towns near the borders, receiving the green light from the EU Court. The appropriate EU legislation concerning the “freedom to provide services” would normally prevent bans on trading with foreigners, but since cannabis is an illegal drug, it doesn’t count as regular “goods”, and so falls short of the scope of the law. As such, this means they can do the same across the entire country.

If this ever happens, here’s an idea about how it could easily be exploited: get a Dutch resident to buy it for you with a small fee, say €1 a gram.

Then it occurred to me that many places allow smoking, but don’t actually sell weed themselves. If those places had a couple of guys who offered to go get the weed for the foreigners for that small fee, they could also give a cut to the establishment in return for letting them conduct their business there.

That sounds like it’d work, right?

Post from: Synchronium

Dutch Entrepreneurs, Get Ready To Make Some Money

You Might Be Interested In:

• Weed Maths
• Let’s Ban this Menace to Society, Quick!
• What The Bible Has To Say About Drugs
• Music On Drugs
• Nutt Sacked Episode III – Revenge Of The Schizoids
• Nutt Sacked Episode II – Attack Of The MPs
• Nutt Sacked
• How To Make Hash – The Ultimate Guide!
• Democracy In Action
• Sam Harris, Religion & Drugs

As you may remember from my Bachelorette Drinking Game post, we accidentally got addicted to The Bachelorette while on honeymoon and we since watched the rest of the series all the way to the final.

More dangerous than cannabis.

What prompted this post is the fact that Ali, the “bachelorette”, blatantly picked the wrong guy to marry. Basically, she fancied this guy and got rid of the guy who she was better friends with, as being friends is apparently not the best way to start a marriage. Instead, she picked this steaming pile of cliché who continuously struggles to think up the perfect “smooth” response to everything she says. That kind of attitude isn’t exactly maintainable for a lifetime of marriage, so we both felt that this manufactured engagement was bound to end in failure sooner or later.

So I did a bit of research and here’s what I found:

The Bachelor

The Bachelorette

For The Bachelor, that’s 11 out of 14 seasons that ended in what I’d consider a complete failure. I’d say season 6 was the most successful, leading to a 5 year marriage. Not amazing by a long shot, but definitely the furthest from an abysmal failure. Season 7 was slightly worse, with the couple managing two stints of two years. Worse still, but perhaps not quite in the same league of failure as the rest was season 13, where the bloke ended up marrying the runner up. Yes, they’re still together, but that season was in 2009 — hardly worth getting excited about, right? If you’re wondering why I classify season 11 (everyone rejected) as a failure, well, I’d consider anything other than a long happy marriage a failure for the reasons I’ll set out shortly.

The previous five seasons of The Bachelorette have only given us one success, and based on what we saw from the latest season, I’m not holding out much hope.

How These Programs Wreck Lives

I can’t claim that something is a menace to society without giving some reasons, so let’s have a quick think over some of the ways people can end up hurt…

First off, the marriages this program churns out are far more likely to end in divorce compared with the real world. And that’s a downside that only affects the winners. One half of the winning couple also has to be constantly aware of the fact that their new husband or wife was not only seeing multiple partners right up to their engagement, but also will likely see their new spouse with all these different people when they inevitably end up rewatching clips from their series, or having to talk about it for magazines, catch-up shows, etc. This also applies to both sets of parents — one of which will be thinking their child is some kind of whore and the other having to watch their child be systematically cheated on until their engagement.

If that’s how shit it must be for the winners, what’s it like for the losers then? Other than the immediate misery/humiliation resulting from rejection, the whole experience then becomes a massive skeleton-in-the-closet for any future relationships. If you got kicked off the program toward the beginning, you might have come across as an arse or something, but the later you stay on, the more serious your relationship becomes — all of which is meticulously documented for any future girl/boyfriend to watch, if they haven’t seen it already. One guy in this latest series we watched even got a tattoo to commemorate the experience/show any prospective girlfriends just how completely mental he was.

The winners who then get divorced are fortunate enough to receive both sets of crippling disadvantages, as well as then having to actually get a divorce! That’s not like an ex that gets less and less significant the longer you’ve been apart — it’s a legal procedure that you’ll constantly have to declare and explain away to future partners.

To top it all off, this program is being pumped out by a country where around half of its population of over 310 million people oppose gay marriage; one of their reasoning being that it threatens the sanctity of marriage. Funnily enough, it’s this same chunk of the population that claims cannabis will send you mental and wreck your family.

When you compare The Bachelor with the odd joint, suddenly it doesn’t seem so bad…

Post from: Synchronium

Let’s Ban this Menace to Society, Quick!

You Might Be Interested In:

• The Bachelorette Drinking Game
• The Drugs
• Dutch Entrepreneurs, Get Ready To Make Some Money
• What The Bible Has To Say About Drugs
• Shaun The Sheep
• The ACMD’s Mephedrone Report Part II
• Music On Drugs
• Nutt Sacked Episode III – Revenge Of The Schizoids
• Nutt Sacked Episode II – Attack Of The MPs
• Nutt Sacked