Forums › Drugs › Drugs Research, Drugs Studies & Media Requests › ‘Legal highs’/Novel Psychoactive Substances: User Perspectives
Hi all,
I’m a postgraduate student at the University of Kent, currently studying my MA. I’m currently working on putting my final research project together, it focuses on analysing policy approaches to regulating novel psychoactive substances (‘legal highs’) in the UK.
Most of the policy debates currently going on pay little consideration to users and what they have to say. I want to be able to give you a voice and I’m really interested in what you have to say. If you’re from the UK and could spare approximately 10 minutes to complete a short survey around your use and views of NPS (novel psychoactive substances), it would be extremely helpful.
I can assure anonymity to all participants and I have ensured that IP addresses will not be stored. Your data will also not be passed on to any third party and will be used solely for the purposes of this research.
This promises to be an interesting dissertation and I will return to this thread once the final project is completed with a link to the finished dissertation so you are all able to view the outcome. The project is being supervised by Dr. Kate O’Brien.
If you would like to get into contact with me about the project in any way, please do not hesitate to either e-mail me at cj209@kent.ac.uk or reply in this thread. I will be checking this thread daily if you would prefer to ask anything here.
Thank you,
Charlie Jenkins
Link to survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NPSUK
hey
there have been a few people on here doing similar.
this seems a bit flawed to me, because rc’s or ‘nps’s as you’re calling them cover a broad range of drug types, so its difficult to speak about anything to do with them when they’re being discussed all in one breath
good luck anyhow… and welcome :wave:
Thanks know_hope, I do know what you mean, it’s a real variety of drugs to be all lumped together. What I’m referring to are the drugs (excluding classical psychoactives alcohol, tobacco, caffeine) which are not covered by either the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in the UK or the United Nations conventions. This includes a whole array of well established ‘legal highs’ (e.g. salvia, poppers) but the particular interest from my research perspective is the newly emergenging substances and branded products. I’m interested in what anyone with any kind of experience in ‘legal highs’/research chemicals/NPS has to say about them and how they think policy should work.
By lumping them all together under ‘NPS’ it does not mean I necessarily think they should all be dealt with in the same way with a blanket approach, but I would be interested to hear your views about it all
I filled in the survey and it was one of the better ones to be fair.
NPS is an accepted term in genuine research/official circles – the term “legal high” is a misnomer unless it refers to genuinely tolerated drugs such as alcohol/caffeine/tobacco and these are still subject to strong regulation in many nations.
it was and to some extent still is a loophole to let dealers/wholesalers get away with selling the stuff whilst Governments and wider populations in the EU and worldwide evade the greater work of having properly monitored and regulated sales of these chemicals in the same way that alcohol, caffeine and tobacco consumption is permitted but monitored.
Good luck with your project mate but legal drugs are doing more damage to society than illegals ones right now so for that reason in a rough Duncan Banatyne type voice “I’m out!”
Thanks for filling it out & the feedback, General Lighting – I only really use the colloquial term ‘legal high’ as people are generally more familiar with it than they are with NPS, so they understand what I’m talking about.
There are some issues with using the term though, as you point out.
Filled out your survey.
Filled it out for you mate. The only thing I would say is that question 13 is a bit bad imo as the only options there are (For those who haven’t filled it out or looked) are NPS, Equal and Illicit drugs. But considering that one of these questions is for example “Which do you believe to be more addictive?” it varies greatly.. for example mephedrone (a previous ‘NPS’) is much more addictive then cannabis etc. etc.
All drugs cane be addictive. As can shopping, exercising, computer games and sex (to name a few).
@Deez 552601 wrote:
Filled it out for you mate. The only thing I would say is that question 13 is a bit bad imo as the only options there are (For those who haven’t filled it out or looked) are NPS, Equal and Illicit drugs. But considering that one of these questions is for example “Which do you believe to be more addictive?” it varies greatly.. for example mephedrone (a previous ‘NPS’) is much more addictive then cannabis etc. etc.
I would agree with you, it is pretty hard to generalise a variety of drugs with varying levels of addictiveness (as you say, cannabis and methamphetamine for example), but the question is asking for a general answer based on your own experiences. Hope that clears things up a bit. Thank you for taking the time to fill it out.
Thanks also Chrispydelic!
I can see the problem with the use of the term NPS is very much seen as a “Police / Government” term and many involved with taking these substances (especially folk who perhaps thought they’d managed to put one over on the system) really are not happy that the authorities have caught up comparatively quickly with it (though in the wake of the level of internet monitoring and surveillance worldwide I don’t personaly find the situation that odd or surprising).
that said especially public healthcare workers across the EU and beyond should at least be given credit that todays assesment of NPS is carried out not simply by saying “those should immediately be made illegal without debate” but after a drug has been on the market for some time and only after it has caused significant problems to society.
That is at least some small progress compared to the 1990s.
Consider that sale of substituted cathinones was openly tolerated in the UK and other nations for 2 or more years until there was a rise in emergency healthcare treatment required, and more recently chemicals have only been made controlled substances following repeated hospital admissions for their use.
it does still penalise the more moderate users who rarely get serious issues from taking drugs or reduce their use as soon as it stops being fun but its a better situation than for instance what happened with MDMA which was made illegal in the UK in 1977 long before it had even got anywhere near these shores as change in legislation targeted at a similar chemical was extended to cover new derivatives, making it class A before many folk had even got near it.
An another important difference between the 1990s and 2000s (going by the personal experience of my friends) was that in the 90s the cops usually seemed to be chasing after recreational users after their lifestyles were going off the rails, either because middle class kids were doing “out of character” stuff like petty theft to fund drugs made expensive by prohibition, or ill advisedly driving whilst impaired, simply because the drug dealer might have lived in a different area of town. Selling drugs by post for what is pocket money prices reduces a great deal of these secondary harms (though sadly it does not eliminate them altogether).
For all the kerfuffle over mephedrone it hasn’t actually fucked up that many people, no more than MDMA did back in the day. I still think its a harsher and more dangerous chemical to young people than MDMA or amfetamines but its not the killer its made out to be and that it really is time the UN laws were developed into something more sensible for a globalised 21st century.
Just filled out your questionnaire mate but my puter jibbed as I completed it and cba going through it again, no offence.
As others have already said you could enhance the questionnaire by providing a ‘free’ section where people can express anything relevant not covered by your questions.
The bottom line to my answers though were that I use illicit substances daily (cannabis), and NPS/research chems on average less than once every 6 months.
The NPS I have tried include (in order of use) Methadrone (about 5 years ago when it was a legal cheap alternative to MDMA, although quickly discovered it to be more harmful and less desirable substance; tried it maybe 5-6 times in total from different sources), 5-MEO-DALT (tried once about 2 years ago, no ill effect but little positive effect either), MPA (once by itself around 2 years ago, similar results to Methadrone. Once in a bomb with MDAI, that was quite nice with no ill effect but nothing special so didn’t do it again, That was roughly 18 months ago). The final NPS I have tried is 5-meo-Mipt which I tried for the first time about a month ago. So far the only NPS that delivered the effects I wanted with no negative lashback after several consecutive weekends of moderate (20mg) doses. I will likely try this substance again. Also all but the mipt were bought from online vendors, the mipt was bought from a friend.
I will choose illicit over NPS 99% of the time because I have reliable sources who can test what I’m getting and try themselves before selling on, this means I have NEVER become ill from use of illicit substances unless it’s been my own fault, i.e. took too much or mixed with wrong chemical. I have never purchased any illicit substance that has been adulterated, guess I am lucky with my connections as I know this certainly isn’t the case for everyone. I have however both personally known people and heard many stories of people becoming quite ill (even hospitalised) after buying NPS from online vendors or street dealers.
Illegality is not a deterrent to me. At least with these long standing ‘street drugs’ we know the dangers and how to use safely. I will use drugs and that is a simple fact; no-one is ever going to stop me doing this and I’m going to choose safety (as ironic as that seems) over the enigmatic dangers of ‘research chemicals’. I’d have thought the research part would be quite indicative that nobody is sure what will happen when these substances are used. Yet people continue to do so and start dropping dead…..:rolleyes:
The government has it all wrong by allowing these dangerous, mysterious death drugs to be sold legally when the vast majority are known to be more harmful/addictive or the affects of long term use are totally unknown. By making these products easily available and socially acceptable (not to the same extent as say alcohol and tobacco (which are probably the two most dangerous products the government encourages us to consume) but you won’t get judged as much for using RCs as you would for say cocaine) they are probably causing more unnecessary deaths than if they legalised illicit substances, provided they also taught how to use safely. Rather than the retarded current educational system of illegal drugs are bad, stay away.
I’m having a good ol’ rant here but know I’m wasting my time because the government can’t even openly admit the medicinal properties of marijuana. So will they ever go back on their word and legalise it? Will they fuck because the government are a bunch of pussy shitbags that just pass responsibility and blame and rarely attempt to directly tackle a problem. And those that do speak out usually get ousted or used as a scape goat.
Just for the record too I may smoke weed on a near daily basis (I have bipolar disorder and find this keeps me more stable than any NHS treatment offered so far) but I certainly don’t consider it a wonder drug. It has had an obvious negative effect on my respiratory health and my memory is fucked. Perhaps the memory part though could be rectified if I was given a specially cultivated medicinal strain? Then again maybe not.
Hmm seems it would have been quicker to recomplete the questionnaire lol.
The Psyentist – Thanks for taking out the time not only to fill out the questionnaire but to regurgitate all the information via text here, very much appreciated.
I did try and make the last question a sort of ‘free’ section in which respondents can offer anything about NPS or policy specifically, I’m very happy for any other potential respondents to express in this last question whatever they like.
I’m also going to be looking to start some discussions on this forum and perhaps a few others, where people can put forward their opinions without the constraints of the questionnaire in a much more interactive way. I will repost here when this is live, hoping that some of you might be interested, given the interesting and well articulated posts that are being written!
Thanks once again to all respondents and to anyone taking an interest in this project.
Hi all,
Just to let anyone know on this forum who would be interested in participating in some discussions about NPS and policy in the UK, I’m currently running some on a different forum and they can be found here:
Discussion: Novel Psychoactive Substances & Policy in the UK (Please read first post)
I have tried to set up a similiar thread here but it has not yet been approved by moderators and I have decided to just stick with the above thread.
Kind regards,
Charlie
Did your survey for ya. I found I was putting “neither agree nor disagree” a lot, due to the broad range of chems that fall into both illicit and NPS categories. I tried to agree or disagree with as many questions as I could whilst still being honest though.
0
Voices
14
Replies
Tags
This topic has no tags
Forums › Drugs › Drugs Research, Drugs Studies & Media Requests › ‘Legal highs’/Novel Psychoactive Substances: User Perspectives