Testing for Many Designer Drugs At Once 281
LilaG writes "Drug tests spot banned substances based on their chemical structures, but a new breed of narcotics is designed to evade such tests. These synthetic marijuana drugs, found in 'herbal incense,' are mere chemical tweaks of each other, allowing them to escape detection each time researchers develop a new test for one of the compounds. Now chemists have developed a method that can screen for multiple designer drugs at once, without knowing their structures. The test may help law enforcement crack down on the substances. The researchers used a technique called 'mass defect filtering,' which can detect related compounds all at once. That's because related compounds have almost equal numbers to the right of the decimal point in their molecular masses. The researchers tested their technique on 32 herbal products ... They found that every product contained one or more synthetic cannabinoid; all told, they identified nine different compounds in them — two illegal ones and seven that are not regulated. The original paper appears (behind a paywall) in Analytical Chemistry."
From the article: "The research is timely, too. 'Many drugs of abuse in the Olympics are designer drugs,' he [Gary Siuzdak] says, in the steroid family. Grabenauer plans to extend her method to other designer drug families."
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:4, Interesting)
This topic demands investigation.
Synthetic drugs can mess you up bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Legalization of pot would harm gangs who sell pot in addition to removing pot from being a gateway drug. Since people would no longer go to underground dealers for pot, they would no longer have access to the other underground connections.
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:1, Interesting)
Right. I should have no interest at all in whether or not a forklift operator in my warehouse is on drugs. What bad could come of letting a meth head drive the forklift? I should also have no interest in whether or not the office worker who is about to walk into the warehouse full of moving machinery is stoned out of his gourd, right? Surely, he wouldn't file a worker's comp claim or even possibly sue when he fails to notice the large, beeping, flashing thing coming his way and steps in front of it getting his skull caved in.
Drugs have no place in the workplace. Drug users have no place in the workplace. Anyone who thinks it is unfair for an employer to drug test them should go smoke another bong and dream up their own business while their third eye is open. When they're self employed they can decide who gets to be a worthless stoned sack at the office.
Re:The Devil Snorts Prada (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:3, Interesting)
The best way is to decide if they are worth what you're paying or not, and then decide based on that.
No need to meddle in private lives.
What if the hypothetical drunk you wanted to fire, instead of the mildly slow person, was an alcoholic due to bad parents and genetic propensity? Are you now judging one natural outcome against another while lacking the informed compassion to understand that the drunk never had a choice?
Better yet, avoid being judged as an ignorant or incompassionate employer with one simple foundation: judge the employee as worth/not-worth their pay and leave their life alone.
Re:Not Regulated... (Score:4, Interesting)
A while ago I was speaking with overheard someone talking about a friend being fired for being high at work. I asked him more about it. Apparently the guy had been working in the same job (welder) for around 15 years. He had consumed cannabis at work over that entire time. It wasn't until a new manager came in and decided to fire him for this. It had nothing to do with his performance, he apparently did his job very well.
Re:Insanity. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Paramilitary Police (Score:0, Interesting)
Sadly, as a pharmacist I would agree with much of your assessment that public safety is the lowest priority on the agenda of the regulatory system.
However, I would take exception with your characterization of the rest of the government & corporate agenda. As pharmacists we try very hard to keep from getting taken, and we could use a lot of things to help us in this effort. High on that list would be a list of prescriptions filled at other pharmacies by our clients. While enforcement authorities have access to this; I as a pharmacist do NOT have access to even the state database to check for someone filling multiple prescriptions for the same class of drugs. I can report suspicious activity, but its ultimately out of my hands. Unless I see something that is purely a red flag such as DEA #'s do not match, or a prescription I call in to verify does not pass basic scrutiny (doctors office will not verify) -- I am powerless to stop the scourge of drugs being diverted.
Yet I am responsible for those that do divert drugs, just as I am responsible for those whom practice doctor shopping. I can be sued, have my license revoked, and a host of other things for failing to realize that a (potential) customer is an addict.
I do agree with you that most of the regulation has made the illegal drug market more dangerous rather than less so. I would add that most of the regulation has also made the illegal prescription drug market more dangerous. The most abused drug is vicodin which is CIII in most states, and has up to 5 refills per prescription. It can be called in over the phone by anyone with a basic knowledge of pharmacy, and a valid (or passing the basic checks) DEA #. While I always call back to verify ANY called in prescription for a CIII - or in the case of hospice CII med -- I am without the resources to catch those that are using 2-10 pharmacies for the same thing. I am not happy about it as I know the importance of pain management in terms of treating pain, and in terms of suicide prevention (the suicide rate for chronic pain patients is appalling).
As to the role of blacks in drugs, and illegal drugs market -- blacks have always had a prominent role, and as a group they have always been more likely to commit violence, run from the police, and a host of other things that enhance sentences. If anything, blacks serve less time than their prior criminal history would justify (as do women -- and to a greater extent).
The criminal justice system IS biased, but it is far more biased along the lines of sex than it is race, and if anything there is a black discount for crime rather than a black penalty for crime. Given equal criminal records blacks are far more likely to get probation for crimes that white men would get a custodial sentence for. Blacks as a group are also far more likely to run from the police, and have a weapon on them when they run from the police (and to use that weapon). It is not PC to say it, but it happens to be true for those prosecuted in the St Louis City, St Louis County, and the St Charles County court systems of which I am intimately familiar having testified more than 12 times against those abusing prescription medications.
The bias in favor of women (of all races) is so pervasive that I would wager a man would get 5-10 years for a crime that a woman would get a sentence requiring rehab, and a few months at a half-way house. If I were to include prior criminal records in that calculation the numbers would be even worse. The black discount for crime is evident at all levels in cases that go through St Louis City, and many cases in St Louis County.
Unless those addicted to drugs are committing armed robbery -- those discounts (black male, or female defendant) definitively apply.