Trigger warning: Drugs

[AFK]

I think there is an automatic assumption being made that because a survey showed near all synthetic users are using natural that you can just flip that and apply it to the overall population that near all natural users are using synhetic.  You can't do that without providing some kind of evidence that it goes both ways. 

It may be that near all synthetic users are natural users but that doesn't make it a given that all natural users are synthetic users.

This is where the disconnect is occurring.

[AFK]

I mean, there is a good shot that near all heroin users drink, but you can't just spin that around and say near everyone who drinks uses heroin

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

OK.. lets eschew the 7 million. Let's say that there are X people who have tried both, split between the four reasons for trying synth. We're still looking at between 50 and 75% of X. No matter what number X is, that's still a lot of people that wouldn't use a toxic drug if the non-toxic drug were legal.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I used to eat Indian all the time when I was in high school. I was a minor, what did I care if they caught me?

At my job now they test for vindaloo shits every couple months, so I switched to deviled ham. Then deviled ham became illegal, so I switched to spam. I hope to fucking god I don't have to switch to potted meat next.

The whole policy is a fucking joke. My boss comes in fucked up on Mexican every week, his whole office reeks of burritos. But Mexican hasn't been illegal since 1848.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No contortions, it is simple.  If it was being used as an alternative prevalence would be higher.

99% of people who use synth use weed.

93% of those people prefer weed.

Let's see.

I prefer Indian food to Spam.

If I have no other food, I will eat Spam.

This leads you to believe that I will eat Spam when Indian food is available?  Because I don't eat Spam every day?

Not sure where you're getting that logic.

Here is what you are missing.  Yes, in this survey, 99% of the SYNTH users were also using natural cannabis.  But, flip that, what percentage of natural cannabis users are using synth.  If it is the alternative you say it is, a very large percentage of natural users should also be using synth, yes?

No, because not all weed users will use synth, they just do without weed.

I mean, come on, this isn't heroin we're talking about.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't think it's reasonable to speculate on data that hasn't been presented, nor is it reasonable to extrapolate data that doesn't exist. For example, that study did not give us the total number of people from their sample who have ever used cannabis, so we don't know how many respondents have used cannabis but have not used synthetic cannabinoids. However, here is more data from the full text of the study we're discussing:

3.3. Patterns of 'natural' cannabis use among recent synthetic cannabis users

Almost all recent synthetic cannabis users (99.3%, N=975) reported ever use of some form of natural cannabis, including 95.9% reporting ever use of cannabis 'grass' (N=966), 83.5% reporting ever use of cannabis 'skunk' (N=964) and 80.5% reporting ever use of cannabis 'resin' (N=969). The median age of first use of any form of natural cannabis was 16 years (IQR14–18, range12–30,N=942) and the median number of years since first use was 7 (IQR 4–12, range1–45,N=927). Use of any form of natural cannabis in the last 12 months was reported by 95.0% of recent synthetic cannabis users (N=960), including 82.7% reporting recent use of cannabis 'grass', 72.0% reporting recent use of cannabis 'skunk', and 59.9% reporting recent use of cannabis 'resin'. Of those who reported any natural cannabis use in the last 12 months, most (88.4%) also reported use in thelast month (N=905). Of the 800 who reported last month use of any form of natural cannabis,the median days of use in the past month was 17 (IQR 6–29), 6.6% reported use on only one occasion, 81.1% reported use on 5 or more occasions (more than weekly), and 24.6% reported daily use. Fig.1 illustrates the frequency of synthetic and natural cannabis use among recent users of both drug types (N=837), with '0' representing 'not in the last month' and each number representing the number of days used in the last month. The most  common pattern of use was last month cannabis users (days>0) who reported use of synthetic cannabis 'not in the last month' (days=0) (52.1%), whereas only 2.7% reported last month synthetic cannabis use (days>0) with no last month natural cannabis use (days=0). Most of the sample (79.5%) reported a greater number of days using cannabis than synthetic cannabis, 12.3% reported the same number of days, and 8.2% reported a greater number of days using synthetic cannabis than natural cannabis. Only 7 (0.84%) respondents reported daily use of both types of cannabis. Fig. 1 indicates that natural cannabis was used more regularly and recently than synthetic cannabis among this sample.

ETA ugh, sorry for the mashed quote, cleaned it up.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also from the discussion section of the full text:

What remains unexplained is why, despite wide availability of natural cannabis and clear preference for its effects over synthetic products, there is still a demand for a 'legal' cannabis-like product.While the attraction for novel psychoactive drugs such as mephedrone could be understood in the context of decline in the purity of traditional stimulants (Winstock et al., 2010; Winstock and Ramsey, 2010), this does not appear to be the case with cannabis. In their Australian study, Barratt et al.(2012) found that among a sample of mainly cannabis users, the second most commonly mentioned reason for first trying synthetic cannabis was its legal status. It may be the case that cannabis users desire a legal cannabis-like alternative so they can avoid problems often associated with cannabis prohibition, like stigma, arrest, paranoia, problems with police, and confiscation of drugs.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Also from the discussion section of the full text:

What remains unexplained is why, despite wide availability of natural cannabis and clear preference for its effects over synthetic products, there is still a demand for a 'legal' cannabis-like product.While the attraction for novel psychoactive drugs such as mephedrone could be understood in the context of decline in the purity of traditional stimulants (Winstock et al., 2010; Winstock and Ramsey, 2010), this does not appear to be the case with cannabis. In their Australian study, Barratt et al.(2012) found that among a sample of mainly cannabis users, the second most commonly mentioned reason for first trying synthetic cannabis was its legal status. It may be the case that cannabis users desire a legal cannabis-like alternative so they can avoid problems often associated with cannabis prohibition, like stigma, arrest, paranoia, problems with police, and confiscation of drugs.

Thanks for digging through the guts of that report Nigel... I keep hopping between here and other work and I haven't read the entire thing yet.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I emailed Dr. Winstock to ask whether he has data on how many of his respondents from that survey have ever used cannabis but have never used synthetic cannabinoids. That information might come in handy for my minor anyway.

[AFK]

OK.. lets eschew the 7 million. Let's say that there are X people who have tried both, split between the four reasons for trying synth. We're still looking at between 50 and 75% of X. No matter what number X is, that's still a lot of people that wouldn't use a toxic drug if the non-toxic drug were legal.

Those numbers are built upon a lot of assumptions.


a) that your four categories were accurate and comprehensive


and


b) that the percentage of synth users are divided evenly amongst those 4 categories


AND


c) people don't fall under more than one category.

[AFK]

No contortions, it is simple.  If it was being used as an alternative prevalence would be higher.

99% of people who use synth use weed.

93% of those people prefer weed.

Let's see.

I prefer Indian food to Spam.

If I have no other food, I will eat Spam.

This leads you to believe that I will eat Spam when Indian food is available?  Because I don't eat Spam every day?

Not sure where you're getting that logic.

Here is what you are missing.  Yes, in this survey, 99% of the SYNTH users were also using natural cannabis.  But, flip that, what percentage of natural cannabis users are using synth.  If it is the alternative you say it is, a very large percentage of natural users should also be using synth, yes?

No, because not all weed users will use synth, they just do without weed.

Temporarily, because if someone wants to get weed, they are going to get weed. 


And people who live in rural America aren't going to have the headshops that urban areas have, so access will be limited, but access to weed in rural areas isn't nearly as difficult.


So it really is an alternative for a very miniscule amount of users. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Dr. Winstock says that based on his research, only about 10% of natural cannabis users have ever used synthetics. He also had some rather incisive commentary about why that is, along the lines of "why would they?"

Anyway, thank you for the opportunity; he suggested that he may recruit me when he investigates further next year, so this discussion has allowed me to make a helpful professional contact. On that note I will bow out of this thread.

[AFK]

Dr. Winstock says that based on his research, only about 10% of natural cannabis users have ever used synthetics. He also had some rather incisive commentary about why that is, along the lines of "why would they?"

Which is pretty much where I have been coming from. A person who wants weed will get weed.  Someone who wants a different, "stronger" kind of high is going to seek out these more dangerous substances.  Legalization is not going to change that.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Dr. Winstock says that based on his research, only about 10% of natural cannabis users have ever used synthetics. He also had some rather incisive commentary about why that is, along the lines of "why would they?"

Which is pretty much where I have been coming from. A person who wants weed will get weed.  Someone who wants a different, "stronger" kind of high is going to seek out these more dangerous substances.  Legalization is not going to change that.

If it is marketed as legal weed, I can see how the 10% of weed users, 93% of synth users can exist. Not all weed users are going to automatically try it. Maybe not the particularly smart ones. But I imagine that there's also a bit of a guinea pig effect. You tell your pothead friends not to bother. Weed's kind of a social drug.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Dr. Winstock says that based on his research, only about 10% of natural cannabis users have ever used synthetics. He also had some rather incisive commentary about why that is, along the lines of "why would they?"

Which is pretty much where I have been coming from. A person who wants weed will get weed.  Someone who wants a different, "stronger" kind of high is going to seek out these more dangerous substances.  Legalization is not going to change that.

Except for the part where the vast majority of them DON'T WANT A STRONGER PRODUCT. THEY WANT WEED. 7% (the ones who don't like natural cannabis more) will still seek weird shit out, because they are weirdos. 93%, if given the choice in an even market, would stick with the less dangerous substance. 651,000 people (if my math is correct) would rather not be doing this shit, and are likely choosing the inferior product for reasons directly associated with prohibition.

That sounds like harm reduction to me.