Recreational Drug Using Behaviour and Legal Benzylpiperazine Party Pills
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RECREATIONAL DRUG USING BEHAVIOUR AND LEGAL BENZYLPIPERAZINE PARTY PILLS by Katherine Anne Bryson Hammond A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology Victoria University of Wellington 2008 i Abstract Benzylpiperazine (BZP) is a stimulant drug that produces effects similar to amphetamines (Campbell, Cline, Evans, Lloyd, & Peck, 1973). It has been sold legally in New Zealand in the form of ‘party pills’ since 2000. The legal status of BZP party pills has been debated in New Zealand as the media reported cases of apparent overdoses and adverse reactions leading to hospitalization (Brogden, 2005; Crewdson, 2007; Reiber, 2005; Rankin, 2006). Representatives of the BZP party pill industry publicly defended their product claiming that BZP party pills were reducing substance related harm by reducing illicit substance use (Bowden, 2007b, p.1). They also claimed that banning BZP would result in an increase in use of illicit substances, especially methamphetamine or ‘P’ (Barnett, 2007). The overall aim of this thesis is to test the claims that BZP party pills reduce substance related harm by reducing illicit substance use, and to identify potential outcomes of a BZP party pill ban. In addition, the perceived risks of party pill and other drug use will be examined. In chapter one I review key concepts relating to BZP party pill use: recreational drug use, harm reduction, and risk perception. In chapter two the history and New Zealand context of BZP party pills are reviewed. In chapter three, study one qualitatively analyzes BZP party pill marketing material in an attempt to describe the culture and discourse promoted by the BZP party pill industry. This analysis demonstrated that BZP party pills were primarily marketed as part of a recreational drug using culture. ii In chapter four, study two quantitatively investigated whether BZP party pill use was associated with reduced levels of illicit substance use in a sample (N=796) of first year university students. This study also examined the relationship between risk perception and frequency of substance use. Study two demonstrated that BZP party pill users are generally recreational poly-drug users who used illicit substances equally as often as illicit users who did not use BZP party pills. BZP party pills did not appear to reduce illicit substance use, and therefore harm. For the majority of substances there was no significant relationship between risk and use behaviour. The legal status of substances appeared to be important when participants rated the risks of use. Legal substances (including BZP) tended to be rated as safer than illegal substances. In chapter five, study three qualitatively analyzed 60 interviews with regular BZP party pill users to identify potential outcomes of a BZP party pill ban. A combination of alternatives were likely to be used by BZP party pill users, primarily illicit substances, especially ecstasy, as well as alcohol, and black market BZP. However methamphetamine (P) was an unpopular alternative. Study three also analyzed how BZP party pill users assess the costs and benefits of BZP party pill use. Decisions to use BZP party pills relied heavily on the benefits of use, rather than the costs. In chapter six, the general discussion describes the implications, ethical considerations, limitations, and outcomes of the research. iii Acknowledgements First I must acknowledge that this thesis research was made possible with funding from the National Drug Policy Discretionary Grant Fund. Many thanks go to Bruce Atmore and the team at the NDP. Thank you also to my supervisor, Dr Marc Wilson, for giving me the freedom to just get on with it, yet allowing me to pester you with annoying questions when I needed to. Your help has been invaluable. Thank you. Many thanks to my examiners, Dr Hutton, Associate Professor Sheridan, and Dr Measham for their supportive feedback. The revision process has helped me to become a better researcher. Thank you to all my participants, especially my interviewees in study three, who shared their stories with me so openly and honestly, and made this research a pleasurable and interesting experience. Without participants like you, there would be no research. Thanks go to my fellow third floor comrades, who have provided much needed comic relief during our ever so intellectual lunchtime conversations. Some of you have also provided welcome advice and support during the writing up process. Special thanks to: Karen Jones, Christina Cameron-Jones, Dr Matt Gerrie, Sophie Parker, and Guido. Special thanks also go to “the ladies upstairs”: Ngaire Lavery and Nicola Panapa. I’m not sure I’d have made it through without our sanity breaks Ngaire! Thanks for listening to my ramblings and giving all your encouragement. Thanks Nic for your support and friendship to. Thank you to Jebi Jayapalan (not one of the ladies). Your help with managing the grant was greatly appreciated. Many thanks to Hans and Antoinette for your encouragement, advice, and good food! Of course I am especially grateful to my family for all their love and support. Particularly to my parents, Anne and Rob, who have supported me in many ways throughout my eight years of study, providing accommodation, meals, encouragement, and love. Finally, thank you to my husband, Winham, for managing to make me laugh, even when I didn’t feel like it. Your patience, love and support have helped get me through. It’s nearly over, so shoosh! Thank you to everyone who has had a hand in making it possible for me to complete this thesis. Love you all, Kate. iv Table of Contents ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………..III TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………….IV LIST OF TABLES………...………………………………………………………….VIII LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………….X GENERAL OVERVIEW……………………………………………………………...…1 CHAPTER ONE – RECREATIONAL DRUG USE, HARM REDUCTION, AND RISK PERCEPTION…………...……………………………………………….4 Overview…………………………………………………………………………4 Part 1 – What is recreational drug use?.....................................................5 Problematic recreational drug use?..............................................10 Part 2 – Harm Reduction…………………………………………..………...17 Applying the principles of harm reduction………………..……..…21 Part 3 – Risk perception and drugs………………………………...………. 28 CHAPTER TWO – BENZYLPIPERAZINE PARTY PILLS AND NEW ZEALAND……………...………………………………………………..36 Overview……………………………………………………………...……..…36 Benzylpiperazine (BZP)…........................................................................36 BZP party pills in New Zealand…………………………………………...…38 Users of BZP party pills………………………………………...…………….40 The party pill industry in New Zealand………………………...……………40 BZP party pills in the media……………………………………...…………..43 BZP party pills and the law in New Zealand…………………...…………..45 BZP research review………………………………………………………….47 Summary……………………………………………………………………….53 Research questions……………………………………………...…………...55 CHAPTER THREE – STUDY 1: HOW ARE BZP PARTY PILLS MARKETED IN RELATION TO ILLICIT SUBSTANCES?.................................................57 Introduction……………………………………………………...…………..…57 Method…..................................................................................................58 Analytic approach and procedure….……………………….………59 Analysis and discussion………………………………………………...……62 General discussion…………………………………………………………...81 v CHAPTER FOUR – STUDY 2: BENZYLPIPERAZINE PARTY PILLS, HARM REDUCTION, AND RISK PERCEPTION…………………...……………...83 Introduction……………………………………………...………………….….83 Method………………………………………………………………………….85 Participants…………………………………………………..……..…85 Measure……………………………………………………............…85 Analysis….....................................................................................89 STUDY 2A – DO BZP PARTY PILLS REDUCE SUBSTANCE RELATED HARM BY REDUCING ILLICIT SUBSTANCE USE?…………......90 Results and discussion…………………………………………………..…..90 Sample demographic information……………………………..……90 Subgroup demographics………………… …………………..……..90 BZP non-users……………………………………….………90 Group 1: No BZP/No illicit…………………………….…….91 Group 4: No BZP/Illicit………………………......................91 All BZP users………………………………………….……..91 Group 2: BZP/No illicit……………………………….……...91 Group 3: BZP/Illicit…………………………………….…….92 ‘Ever used’ data………………………………………………..……..94 Recent user data………………………………………………..……98 Frequency of use and number of substances used………….…102 Substances respondents wished to try………………………...…105 Substances respondents said they would never use again or try…………………………………………………………111 Knowledge of BZP party pill ingredients………………...……….115 Implications and summary of findings from study 2A……………...…….116 STUDY 2B – WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCIEVED RISK AND USE BEHAVIOUR FOR BZP AND OTHER RECREATIONAL SUBSTANCES?..............................................119 Results and discussion……………………………………..………………119 Perceived risk of using substances……………………….…....…119 Factor analysis…........................................................................124 The relationship between perceived risk and substance use………………………………………………….………..134 General discussion……………………………………………………...…..139 CHAPTER FIVE – STUDY 3: POTENTIAL BAN OUTCOMES AND COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF SUBSTANCE USE……………...…………….141 STUDY 3A: WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF BANNING BZP PARTY PILLS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF REGULAR USERS?.......................................................................................141