DOCSLIB.ORG

Bridging the Gap: a Practitioner's Guide to Harm Reduction in Drug

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bridging the Gap: a Practitioner's Guide to Harm Reduction in Drug Bridging the Gap A Practitioner’s Guide to Harm Reduction in Drug Courts by Alejandra Garcia and Dave Lucas a Author Alejandra Garcia, MSW Center for Court Innovation Dave Lucas, MSW Center for Court Innovation Acknowledgements Bridging the Gap: A Practitioners Guide to Harm Reduction in Drug Courts represents an ambitious reimagining of drug court practices through a harm reduction lens. It was born of two intersecting health emergencies—COVID-19 and the overdose crisis—and a belief that this moment calls for challenging conversations and bold change. Against this backdrop, Bridging the Gap’s first aim is plain: to elevate the safety, dignity, and autonomy of current and future drug court participants. It is also an invitation to practitioners to revisit and reflect upon drug court principles from a new vantage point. There are some who see the core tenets of drug courts and harm reduction as antithetical. As such, disagreement is to be expected. Bridging the Gap aspires to be the beginning of an evolving discussion, not the final word. This publication would not have been possible without the support of Aaron Arnold, Annie Schachar, Karen Otis, Najah Magloire, Matt Watkins, and Julian Adler. We are deeply grateful for your thoughtful advice, careful edits, and encouraging words. A special thanks also to our designers, Samiha Amin Meah and Isaac Gertman. Bridging the Gap is dedicated to anyone working to make the world a safer place for people who use drugs. Thanks to all who approach this document with an open mind. For more information, email [email protected]. August 2021 Acknowledgements Table of Contents Introduction 2 Harm Reduction Strategies for Drug Courts 6 Relational Strategies 8 Treatment Planning 9 Trauma-Focused Care 9 Responding to Use 10 Racial Equity 10 Health Equity 11 Participant Voice 12 Programmatic Strategies 14 Use of Jail 15 Medications for Opioid Use Disorder 15 Overdose Prevention 16 Drug Testing 16 Fines and Fees 17 Measuring Success 17 Conclusion 20 Endnotes 22 Introduction Drug law reforms across the country are trending What is Harm Reduction? toward decriminalization and public health- informed responses, and away from the carceral Harm reduction is a collection of principles and strategies of the past.1 These historic changes are evolving practices aimed at reducing the harms likely to impact drug court operations significantly.2 related to drug use, racialized drug policies, and Fewer drug-related arrests means fewer referrals to social health disparities.6 Harm reduction sees drug drug courts, and a lighter hand in sentencing will use as a morally neutral fact of life and promotes reduce the legal leverage that has long been used any person-centered and voluntary path to improved to incentivize participation. The overdose crisis, health, safety, and well-being. These pathways COVID-19, and renewed demands for racial equity can include — but are not limited to — achieving and legal system transformation have also given abstinence or a reduction in one’s use.7 Harm rise to a more expansive discourse around drug use, reduction-oriented services provide referrals to mental health, and community safety.3 Alongside treatment, in-house counseling, and education this shift, harm reduction initiatives are being around sexual health and safer drug-using practices.8 supported at the local, state and federal level on a In the context of two connected public health scale never seen before.4 emergencies—the overdose crisis and COVID-19—this At their inception, drug courts represented education focuses primarily on preventing overdose a new way of thinking about the intersection of and avoiding injury and virus transmission.9 addiction and crime in society. Offering a treatment Harm reduction services also aim to have a alternative to jail or prison, the model aimed low barrier for entry and be free of judgment. to address the harms — and ineffectiveness — of This strategy helps to engage communities who incarcerating drug users. Today, however, criminal face stigma, discrimination, and mistreatment legal system reformers are calling into question some in healthcare and legal settings. The aim of harm of the model’s most defining features, which remain reduction services is to meet people where they are, largely coercive and punitive. Moving forward, drug surrounding them with the kinds of relationships courts can expect to face increasing pressure from and resources all people need and deserve. Services public health experts and harm reduction advocates are not contingent on a person’s interest or to abandon the abstinence-only model, eliminate jail willingness to change all behaviors. Harm reduction sanctions, and overhaul their drug testing protocols. is not a static set of practices, but rather a dynamic This document is an attempt to provide a fresh movement aimed at supporting and clearing space perspective on several foundational drug court for marginalized groups, including drug users.10 practices and the inherent challenges of this work. Harm reduction aims to improve health and It argues that the most effective way for drug courts safety at a community level as well.11 Strategies vary to evolve — and do less harm — involves integrating in concert with local needs and political buy-in, but the practices and principles of harm reduction.5 can include naloxone distribution, syringe service Drug courts and the harm reduction movement programs, drug-checking services, the “Medication will continue to co-exist for some time and face First” approach, and—in other countries—safe supply similar system barriers while serving many of the prescribing and overdose prevention sites.12 These same people. As such, this document represents a measures have been shown to promote health at conversation that is new and necessary — one that the community-level and reduce overdose rates, aims to bridge the gap between these contrasting healthcare costs, and illegal activities associated paradigms for the benefit of those who participate with criminalized drug use.13 in drug courts. Bridging the Gap: A Practitioner’s Guide to Harm Reduction in Drug Courts 3 Harm reduction-informed policies promote: Drug Courts and Harm Reduction ▪ valuing, validating, and empowering people who Drug court practitioners and harm reductionists use drugs; have a shared interest in improving public health ▪ equitable access to key health factors such as and community safety. It is also likely many housing, healthcare, and income security; drug court practitioners support aspects of harm ▪ social inclusion and equity along the lines of reduction, such as naloxone distribution and race, class, gender, ability, and sexual identities; overdose prevention education. Yet there are key ▪ centering the voices of drug users in program differences in how the two models approach the goal and policy development; and of reducing drug-related harm. ▪ humane and non-punitive drug laws.14 While the phrase “we cannot arrest our way out of the overdose crisis” has become stock language in drug court and harm reduction circles alike, the idea The Drug Court Model that drug use is a crime — or the “criminal addict” archetype — remains at the heart of the drug court Drug courts offer court-supervised treatment model.19 To avoid jail time and access treatment, and ongoing monitoring to legal system-involved drug court participants must agree to an abstinence individuals with substance use disorders.15 mandate, with ongoing use often categorized as Using a “team” approach, the drug court judge, noncompliance. These practices reify the idea that prosecutors, defense attorneys, case managers, drug use is inherently negative, or a criminal act, treatment providers, and others work together a claim the harm reduction model rejects. As a with the goal of helping participants achieve starting point for integrating harm reduction, drug long-term abstinence and avoid future legal system courts will need to re-think how this idea shapes involvement. Participants typically plead guilty to existing practices. By integrating harm reduction enter the program. Once enrolled, they are referred into standard practices, drug courts stand to gain: to mandated treatment services and are required to submit to frequent and random drug testing. ▪ additional life-saving responses to overlapping Participants progress through phases, with total health crises; program length lasting 12–18 months or longer. ▪ effective engagement strategies for individuals Drug courts use stepped incentives and sanctions with complex social health needs; to promote behavior change, rewarding positive ▪ deeper and more trusting therapeutic achievements and punishing noncompliance. In relationships;20 addition to treatment, drug courts offer participants ▪ improved treatment retention and long-term a range of recovery support services such as outcomes; employment training, housing support, family ▪ the expertise of people with lived experience; services, and more.16 and With their focus on treatment and service ▪ adaptability in the face of drug policy reform. coordination, drug courts are well-positioned to carry out several goals that align with harm reduction, including reducing harms associated with drug use, addressing health disparities, and enhancing individual, family, and community safety.17 However, several standard drug courts practices are in tension with the core principles of harm reduction.18 Center for Court Innovation 4 Harm Reduction Strategies for Drug Courts Center for Court
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Harm Reduction Interventions in Substance Abuse Treatment
    Prepared by: Karissa Hughes April 2018 Harm Reduction Interventions in Substance Abuse Treatment 1 Philosophy/Overview ● Harm reduction is a client-centered philosophy that engages clients in the process of behavior change even if they are not motivated to pursue abstinence from substance 2 use or refrain from engaging in other risk-taking behaviors as a treatment goal. ​ ● Harm reduction challenges the traditional notion of abstinence as a universal treatment goal for problem substance use. It focuses on reducing the harm of drug use to the user and society (health, social, and economic consequences) for people unable or unwilling to stop using drugs rather than requiring abstinence as a condition of treatment. o Harm reduction strategies are community-based, user-driven, non-judgmental and address systems that isolate and marginalize individuals. o Harm reduction acknowledges that clients often seek out substance abuse treatment services to address risky injection practices and sexual risk-taking behavior, even when they are not interested in changing substance use patterns. ● Many people who use drugs prefer to use informal and non-clinical methods to reduce their drug consumption or reduce the risks associated with their drug use. Thus, harm reduction is a public health philosophy and service delivery model to reduce the risks of drug use while respecting the dignity and autonomy of individuals. o Harm reduction policies and practices emphasize the human right for the highest attainable standard for health of people who use drugs. o The approach is based on the belief that it is in both the user's and society's best interest to minimize the adverse consequences of drug use when the person is unable or unwilling to discontinue using.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Global Drug Survey
    Prepared by the GDS Core Research Team Dr Adam Winstock, Dr Monica Barratt, Dr Jason Ferris & Dr Larissa Maier Global overview and highlights N > 115,000 Global Drug Survey GDS2017 © Not to be reproduced without authors permission Hi everyone On behalf of the GDS Core Research Team and everyone of our amazing international network partners and supportive media organisations we’d like to share our headline report deck. I know it won’t have everything that everyone wants but we are hopeful it will give people an idea of how the world of drugs is changing and highlight some of the key things that we think people can better engage with to keep themselves and those they care for safe. Once we cleaned the data from 150,000 people we chose to use data from just under 120,000 people this year for these reports. We have data reports addressing 18 different areas for over 25 countries. We can only share a fraction of what we have here on the site. However, we are very open to sharing the other findings we have and would ask researchers and public health groups to contact us so we can discuss funding and collaboration. We have almost completed designing GDS2018 so that we can start piloting early and give countries where we have not yet found friends to reach out to us. We particularly want to hear from people in Japan, Eastern Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Dr Adam R Winstock Founder and CEO Global Drug Survey Consultant Psychiatrist and Addiction Medicine Specialist Global Drug Survey GDS2017 © Not to be reproduced without authors permission We think this will be interesting.
    [Show full text]
  • Talking Tobacco Harm Reduction
    TALKING TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION // WHAT’S HARM REDUCTION? Harm reduction is a range of Do they make sunbathing or pragmatic policies, regulations driving 100% risk-free? and actions. Reducing health risks by providing less harmful forms No – but they do make them of products or substances, less harmful by reducing the or by encouraging less risky risk of illness or injury. behaviours. Sun cream and seat belts are We believe non-combustible nicotine Next Generation Products everyday examples of harm (NGPs) are also an effective form of reduction in action. harm reduction for adult smokers who wish to continue using nicotine – relative to conventional cigarettes. // INTRODUCING TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION Science demonstrates smoking a For adult smokers, the greatest risk of cigarette is the most harmful way to disease stems from burning tobacco and consume nicotine. inhaling the smoke. // WHAT IS THR? Tobacco smoke contains over 7000 The undisputed best action adult chemicals – nicotine is one of them. smokers can take to improve their Around 100 are classified by public health is to stop all tobacco and health experts as causes or potential nicotine use entirely, but many are not causes of smoking-related disease. interested or willing to take this step. Numerous public health bodies1 While the science suggests nicotine is believe transitioning to nicotine addictive and not risk-free, it’s neither products that are substantially less carcinogenic nor the primary cause of harmful than inhaled tobacco smoke smoking-related diseases. is their next best option – we agree. Contains 7000+ Contains chemicals, 100 significantly of them harmful fewer and lower or potentially levels of harmful harmful.
    [Show full text]
  • Harm Reduction and Currently Illegal Drugs Implications for Nursing Policy, Practice, Education and Research
    Harm Reduction and Currently Illegal Drugs Implications for Nursing Policy, Practice, Education and Research Discussion Paper This paper has been prepared by the Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) to stimulate dialogue on a particular topic or topics. The views and opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the CNA board of directors. CNA is the national professional voice of registered nurses in Canada. A federation of 11 provincial and territorial nursing associations and colleges representing 143,843 registered nurses, CNA advances the practice and profession of nursing to improve health outcomes and strengthen Canada’s publicly funded, not-for-profit health system. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transcribed, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher. © Canadian Nurses Association 50 Driveway Ottawa, ON K2P 1E2 Tel.: 613-237-2133 or 1-800-361-8404 Fax: 613-237-3520 Website: www.cna-aiic.ca ISBN 978-1-55119-349-6 March 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5 I. Illegal Drug Use in Canada .................................................................................................. 7 Health
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of a Drug Checking Service at a Large Scale Electronic Music Festival in Portugal
    International Journal of Drug Policy 73 (2019) 88–95 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Drug Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/drugpo Research Paper Evaluation of a drug checking service at a large scale electronic music festival in Portugal T ⁎ Helena Valentea,b,c, , Daniel Martinsb,d, Helena Carvalhoe,f, Cristiana Vale Piresb,g,h, Maria Carmo Carvalhob,h, Marta Pintoa,c,i, Monica J. Barrattj,k a Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the Porto University, Portugal b Kosmicare Association, Portugal c CINTESIS. Centre for Health Technology and Services Research, Portugal d CIQUP. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Faculty of Sciences of the Porto Univsersity of Porto, Portugal e CPUP. Centre for Psychology of the University of Porto, Portugal f inED. Centre for Research and Innovation in Education, Portugal g Faculty of Education and Psychology of the Portuguese Catholic University, Portugal h CRIA. Centre for Research in Anthropology, Portugal i Faculty of Medicine of the Porto University, Portugal j Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University, Australia k National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Australia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Background: Drug checking services are being implemented in recreational settings across the world, however Harm reduction these projects are frequently accused of a lack of evidence concerning their impact on people who use drugs. This Program evaluation paper describes the implementation of a drug checking service at the Boom Festival 2016 and explores the Drug checking impact of this service on its users’ behavioural intentions. Boom festival Methods: 753 drug samples were submitted to the drug checking service for chemical analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.3 Harm Reduction – What Is It and Why Is It Useful?
    SENSIBLE CANNABIS EDUCATION A Toolkit for Educating Youth 2.3 HARM REDUCTION – WHAT IS IT AND WHY IS IT USEFUL? By the end of this section, you will: 1. Understand what harm reduction is 2. Understand practical ways to reduce the harms associated with cannabis use, through both abstinence and the reduction of risky behaviours for youth who are already using cannabis WHAT IS HARM REDUCTION? “Taking a pragmatic approach to this generally understood phenomenon, harm reduction avoids taking a uniform stance that substance use is bad, but instead focuses on getting accurate and unbiased information on the harm of use to potential users, in order to help them make informed decisions about whether to use, and if they choose to use, what precautions to take to minimize their risk.”277 Harm reduction is a philosophy that underpins public health approaches to drugs and drug use, and attempts to reduce the harms of drug use without necessarily reducing drug use itself. Harm reduction acknowledges that there are inherent risks involved with a range of behaviours and that there are ways to reduce those risks. Harm reduction can also be understood in the context of a range of activities other than drug use, as simple as wearing sunscreen or wearing a helmet. REDUCING CANNABIS-RELATED HARMS In order to ensure cannabis education is suitable for all young people, discussing strategies to reduce the harms of cannabis use is of critical importance to supporting responsible and safe use among those youth who may choose to use cannabis. In 2017, the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse (CRISM) released an evidence- based guide on how to improve health and minimize risk for Canadians who use cannabis.278 The following discussion relies on CRISM’s “Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines” (LRCUG), however, it is tailored to youth based on feedback from our content committee and contributors.
    [Show full text]
  • Year End Report 2019 Year End Report 2019
    Vancouver Island Drug Checking Project Year End Report 2019 Year End Report 2019 The Vancouver Island Drug Checking Project delivers drug checking services in Victoria, BC. We currently operate at SOLID Outreach, AVI Health and Community Services, and Lantern Services as well as festivals and community events. This free and confidential service provides information on composition of substances and harm reduction infor- mation. We employ five instruments as follows: Fentanyl Strip Tests Fourier Transformed Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) Raman Spectroscopy 935 Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy (SERS) Samples Tested Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) in 2019 What were people bringing to be tested? We asked people what drug they were bringing to be tested. The majority of substances were expected to be heroin or fentanyl (362), a stimulant (234), or a psychedelic (139). Further, many brought unknown samples for testing (73) or did not provide information (56). This may be due in part to people testing for others and bringing multiple samples or hav- ing found substances. The remaining substances were expected to be dissociatives (31), benzodiazepines (16) or other depressants (5), other opioids (5), polysubstance (3) or other (11). Opioid-Down: heroin and/or Stimulant: methampheta- Psychedelic: LSD, MDMA, 362362 fentanyl 234234 mine, cocaine HCl, cocaine base 139139 MDA, 2CB, DMT Unknown Missing Dissociative: ketamine, DXM, 7373 5656 3131 methoxetamine, PCP Depressant- Other Depressant-Other: GHB, 1616 Benzodiazepines 1111 5 GBL, barbiturates, methaqualone, phenibut Opioid-Other: morphine, phar- Polysubstance 55 maceutical opioids 33 Data are not finalized and subject to change. There were missing data for some samples. Vancouver Island Drug Checking Project Year End Report 2019 How many samples tested positive for fentanyl? We tested all samples using Fentanyl Test Strips to determine whether they contained fentanyl.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Cannabis Harms: a Guide for Ontario Campuses
    Reducing cannabis harms: A guide for Ontario campuses About This Guide This guide explores issues related to cannabis use and provides readers with an overview of health approaches that can reduce the harms and risks associated with it. Any campus professional — whether faculty, academic advisor, counsellor, or student services professional — working with students who use cannabis will be able to refer to the guide for information. The first section will give you a better understanding of cannabis, the Ontario context, the substance use spectrum, as well as substance use disorders and problematic substance use. Section 2 looks at the reasons why students use or don’t use cannabis, the effects of cannabis use on the brain in adolescents and young adults, the link between cannabis use and mental health, the effects of language and stigma, and strategies that campus professionals can use to reduce harms when directly engaging with students. The final section provides concrete steps for developing a campus-wide cannabis-use framework to reduce harm. While the focus of this guide is on cannabis use by students, not campus staff or faculty, this is in no way meant to minimize the need to address the broader scope of mental health, substance use, and well- being on campuses, including among faculty and staff. Each post-secondary institution has unique strengths, circumstances, and needs. For this reason, while the broad areas addressed in this guide are relevant to all institutions, it is not meant to be prescriptive or to serve as legal advice pertaining to cannabis use legislation. As of its writing, the information in this guide is accurate and reflects current research and legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Harm Reduction / Drug Policy Reform Notes
    Questions and answers on the issue of a regulated market for currently illegal drugs Mark Haden Vancouver Coastal Health Draft: February 2012 For the past decade I have been involved with public presentations which explore the failures of drug prohibition. In these presentations I recommend a public health, human rights model of drug control which brings all currently illegal drugs into a regulatory framework. The following is a list of the most common challenges I experience: Q1: Are you saying that you want to legalize all drugs? A: No: Legalization is often interpreted to mean that the current capitalist free market system would be used to advertise and distribute currently illegal drugs. The goal of the free market is to increase consumption. The concept of a regulated market is instead guided by Public Health which has the goal to reduce the health and social problems associated with drugs. Q2: What do you mean by a regulated market for illegal drugs? A: A regulated market would actively control drugs based on the principles of public health and human rights. Prohibition paradoxically stimulates a illegal market that makes concentrated and sometimes toxic, drugs widely available. The goal is to greatly reduce or shut down the illegal market and regulate drugs in a way that reduces harm to individuals, families and our society as a whole. Seeing drug use as primarily a health and social issue rather than a criminal issue allows us to explore a wide range of tools to manage the problems associated with drugs in a more effective way. Q3: Are you saying “yes” to drugs? A: No – but we are saying “yes” to using more effective ways of controlling drugs and their problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment, Prevention and Harm Reduction Interventions for Different Forms of ATS Use
    Correlation European Harm Reduction C Network Briefing Paper Treatment, prevention and harm reduction interventions for different forms of ATS use Correlation European Harm Reduction C Network 1 Correlation European Harm Reduction C Network Colophon This C-EHRN Briefing Paper was developed by Rafalea Rigoni, Nienke Liebregts and Katrin Schiffer and is based on the results and findings of the ATTUNE study and other relevant literature. More info via: wwww.correlation-net.org https://www.correlation-net.org/attune/ Authors: Rafaela Rigoni Nienke Liebregts Katrin Schiffer Review: Graham Shaw Copyright ©2021 Coyright remains with the publisher. Publisher: De Regenboog Groep/ Correlation-European Harm Reduction Network Stadhouderskade 159 1074BC Amsterdam Netherlands Correlation European Harm Reduction C Network Correlation-European Harm Reduction Network is co-funded by the European Commission This project has been made possible by 2 Correlation European Harm Reduction C Network List of Acronyms 4-FA 4-Fluoroamphetamine (C9H12FN), also known as para-fluoroamphetamine (PFA) 4-MA 4-Methylamphetamine (C10H15N) ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ATS Amphetamine Type Stimulants ATTUNE study Understanding Pathways to Stimulant Use: a mixed-methods ex- amination of the individual, social and cultural factors shaping illicit stimulant use across Europe CDU Currently Dependent User CNU Non-dependent Current frequent User EMCDDA The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction EU European Union FDU Formerly Dependent User FFU
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of Drug Checking Services
    IN CONFIDENCE In Confidence Office of the Minister of Health Cabinet Social Wellbeing Committee Regulation of drug checking services Proposal 1 This paper seeks agreement to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 to enable a permanent system of regulation for drug checking service providers. Relation to government priorities 2 This proposal does not relate to a Government priority. Executive Summary 3 Drug checking services check the composition of illicit drugs and provide harm reduction advice to help individuals make informed decisions about drug use. Where a drug is not as presumed, the individual can make the potentially life-saving decision not to consume it. 4 Drug checking is currently regulated under amendmentsreleased made by the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Act 2020 (the Drug Checking Act) to the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Psychoactive Substances Act. These amendments allow appointed drug checking service providers to operate with legal certainty. 5 The Drug Checking Act was always intended to be temporary legislation to allow time for a permanent licensing system to be developed. The Drug Checking Act includes mechanisms which will repeal the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Psychoactive Substances Act in December 2021. 6 If a permanent system is not in place when the Drug Checking Act repeal provisions take effect, drug checking will revert to a legal grey area. This would impede service provision and make it more difficult to prevent harm from dangerous substances such as synthetic cathinones (sometimes known as “bath salts”). Regulation is required to enable good quality services and to prevent low-quality service providers from operating.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Checking Static Pilot Results
    Drug checking static pilot results March 2020 We believe harm reduction services, including drug checking, should be regularly available to all communities in New Zealand. There is no such thing as safe drug use. All drug use is potentially harmful. Harms comes from using an unknown substance, using too much, or using in a harmful way. Drug checking is a free service where people can identify if the substance they intend on taking is actually what they think it is, and have a conversation about their drug use. This harm reduction service plays a vital role in providing people with information so they can make more informed, and often safer, decisions about their drug use. These services have been run in other countries for more than 20 years. In New Zealand, drug checking has been very successful at festivals for the past five years. We believe other people who use illicit drugs should be able to benefit from this service too. So, we piloted a monthly static drug checking clinic at the Drug Foundation Wellington office between July and December in 2019. Client numbers increased over the pilot MDMA was the most common substance tested 112 samples were tested throughout the pilot. The The tested samples included: number of clients and tested samples started low but 67% (75 samples) were MDMA increased steadily. • • 9% LSD 40 37 • 4% cocaine 35 • 4% in the dissociative family, including ketamine • 3% synthetic cathinones. 30 25 Two sample of the highly dangerous synthetic 25 cathinone, n-ethylpentylone, were detected. One of 20 these samples was mixed with MDMA.
    [Show full text]