Synthetic Cannabinoid use among a Sample of Individuals Enrolled in Community-Based Recovery Programs: Are Synthetic Cannabinoids Actually Preferred to other Drugs?
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2019
Synthetic Cannabinoid use among a Sample of Individuals Enrolled in Community-Based Recovery Programs: Are Synthetic Cannabinoids Actually Preferred to other Drugs?
Background: Over the past decade, availability and use of novel psychoactive substances such as synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRA) have proliferated globally. However, the prevalence of SCRAs use remains uncertain, as does the degree to which individuals reporting SCRA use prefer SCRA to other drugs. Methods: In April 2017, a total of 500 anonymous surveys were completed by clients enrolled in a residential drug recovery program. Chi-square and t tests were used to examine significant differences between those who had ever used SCRA and those who had not. Logistic regression analysis was conducted in order to determine which other substances used within the past 12 months were significantly associated with past-12-month SCRA use. Results: About 69% (68.4%) of clients reported lifetime SCRA use. Those reporting SCRA use were predominantly younger ( vs. 40.7, P < .001), single (60.3% vs. 48.1%, P = .011), and white (87.1% vs. 77.7%, P = .008) and were more likely to have experienced past-12-month homelessness (6.5% vs. 3.2%, P = .004). This group had higher rates of probation/parole involvement (79.2% vs. 61.8%, P < .001) and incarceration (91.8% vs. 79.6%, P < .001). Individuals reporting SCRA use also showed extensive substance use histories and favored heroin, opioids, and amphetamines compared with SCRA. Only 5.2% of the SCRA-using group stated that SCRA was a preferred substance, and only 11.8% reported that they would try SCRA again. E-cigarettes (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.88), traditional cannabis (AOR = 3.87), amphetamines (AOR = 2.20), and synthetic cathinones (AOR = 3.51) were significantly associated with past-12-month SCRA use. Motivations for use included circumnavigating drug screens and peer influence. Approximately half of those who tried SCRA reported adverse effects associated with use. Conclusions: Prevalence of SCRA use among individuals with a history of substance misuse and criminal justice system involvement is high; however, SCRA are not indicated as a preferred drug.
BaumannM H, VolkowN D. Abuse of new psychoactive substances: Threats and solutions. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2016;41:63.
2.
PerroneD. Designer drugs. In BrownsteinHH, ed. The Handbook of Drugs and Society. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2016; 149–175.
3.
MeashamF. Social issues in the use of novel psychoactive substances: Differentiated demand and ideological supply. In DarganPI, WoodDM, eds. Novel Psychoactive Substances: Differentiated Demand and Ideological Supply. London, UK: Elsevier; 2013;105–127.
4.
SmithKE, BuntingAM, StatonM, . Examination of synthetic cannabinoid and cathinone use among a drug-using offender sample, 2013–2015. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2017;49:436–445.
5.
WagnerJA, HuK, KarcherJ, . CB1 cannabinoid receptor antagonism promotes remodeling and cannabinoid treatment prevents endothelial dysfunction and hypotension in rats with myocardial infarction. Brit J Pharmacol. 2013;138:1251–1258.
6.
BurrowsBT, WattersonLR, EgnatiosJ, OliveMF. Synthetic cannabinoids: a summary of selected phenomena with respect to behavioral pharmacology and abuse liability. Handb Cannabis Rel Pathol. 2017;691–699.
7.
Van HoutMC, HearneE. User experiences of development of dependence on the synthetic cannabinoids, 5f-AKB48 and 5F-PB-22, and subsequent withdrawal syndromes. Int J Ment Health Ad. 2017;5:565–579.
8.
AtwoodBK, HuffmanJ, StraikerA, & MackieK. JWH018, a common constituent of ‘Spice’ herbal blends, is a potent and efficacious cannabinoid CB1 receptor agonist. Brit J Pharmacol. 2010;160:585–593.
9.
Le BoisselierR, AlexandreJ, Lelong‐BoulouardV, DebruyneD. Focus on cannabinoids and synthetic cannabinoids. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017;101: 220–229.
10.
CastanetoMS, GorelickDA, DesrosiersNA, . Synthetic cannabinoids: Epidemiology, pharmacodynamics, and clinical implications. Drug Alcohol Dependen. 2014;144:12–41.
11.
CohenK, Kapitány-FövényM, MamaY, . The effects of synthetic cannabinoids on executive function. Psychopharmacol. 2017;234:1121–1134.
12.
GundersonEW, HaugheyHM, Ait‐DaoudN, JoshiAS, HartCL. “Spice” and “K2” herbal highs: a case series and systematic review of the clinical effects and biopsychosocial implications of synthetic cannabinoid use in humans. Am J Addict. 2012;21:320–326.
13.
KevinRC, WoodKE, StuartJ, MitchellAJ, . Acute and residual effects in adolescent rats resulting from exposure to the novel synthetic cannabinoids AB-PINACA and AB-FUBINACA. J Psychopharmacol. 2017;31:757–769.
14.
PapantiD, SchifanoF, BotteonG. “Spiceophrenia”: A systematic overview of “Spice”‐related psychopathological issues and a case report. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2013;28:379–389.
15.
SeelyKA, LapointJ, MoranJH, FattoreL. Spice drugs are more than harmless herbal blends: a review of the pharmacology and toxicology of synthetic cannabinoids. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2012;39:234–243.
16.
SpadernaM, AddyPH, D'SouzaDC. Spicing things up: Synthetic cannabinoids. Psychopharmacol. 2013;228:525–540.
17.
TaitRJ, CaldicottD, MountainD, HillSL, LentonS. A systematic review of adverse events arising from the use of synthetic cannabinoids and their associated treatment. Clin Toxicol. 2016;54:1–13.
18.
BakerS. An Examination of the Reasons that Prisoners Use Spice (Synthetic Cannabinoids). University of Cambridge [Master's Thesis]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University; 2015.
19.
BonarEE, AshrafiounL, IlgenMA. Synthetic cannabinoid use among patients in residential substance use disorder treatment: prevalence, motives, and correlates. Drug Alcohol Depen. 2014;143:268–271.
20.
FattoreL, FrattaW. Beyond THC: the new generation of cannabinoid designer drugs. Front Behav Neurosci. 2011;5:60.
21.
NinnemannAL, LechnerWV, BorgesA, LejuezCW. Synthetic cannabinoids to avoid urine drug screens: Implications for contingency management and other treatments for drug dependence. Addict Behav. 2016;63:72–73.
22.
PerroneD, HelgesenRD, FischerRG. United States drug prohibition and legal highs: How drug testing may lead cannabis users to Spice. Drugs-Edu PrevPolic. 2013;20:216–224.
23.
RalphsR, WilliamsL, AskewR, NortonA. Adding spice to the porridge: The development of a synthetic cannabinoid market in an English prison. Int J Drug Policy. 2017;40:57–69.
24.
WalkerDF. The informal economy in prison: Studying prisoner trading can offer significant insights into prison life observes Dulcie Faure Walker. Crim Just Matters. 2015;99:18–19.
25.
NinnemannA, MacPhersonL. Query and test for synthetic cannabinoids in drug treatment and research. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26:531–532.
26.
VandreyR, DunnKE, FryJA, GirlingER. A survey study to characterize use of Spice products (synthetic cannabinoids). Drug Alcohol Dependen. 2012;120:238–241.
27.
WinstockAR, BarrattM. Synthetic cannabis: a comparison of patterns of use and effect profile with natural cannabis in a large global sample. Drug Alcohol Dependen. 2013;131:106–111.
28.
WoodDM, MeashamF, DarganPI. ‘Our favourite drug’: prevalence of use and preference for mephedrone in the London night-time economy 1 year after control. J Subst Use. 2012;17:91–97.
29.
SoussanC, KjellgrenA. The users of Novel Psychoactive Substances: Online survey about their characteristics, attitudes and motivations. Int J Drug Policy. 2016;32:77–84.
30.
BarnardM, RussellC, McKeganeyN, Hamilton-BarclayT. The highs and lows of NPS/“Legal High” use: Qualitative views from a UK online survey. Drug-Educ, Prev Polic. 2017;24:96–102.
31.
DinesA. M., WoodD. M., YatesC, . Acute recreational drug and new psychoactive substance toxicity in Europe: 12 months data collection from the European Drug Emergencies Network (Euro-DEN). Clin Toxicol. 2015;53:893–900.
32.
JaenickeNJ, PogodaW, PaulkeA, WunderC, ToennesSW. Retrospective analysis of synthetic cannabinoids in serum samples–epidemiology and consumption patterns. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;242:81–87.
33.
BarrattMJ, CakicV, LentonS. Patterns of synthetic cannabinoid use in Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2013;32:141–146.
34.
BlackmanS, BradleyR. From niche to stigma—Headshops to prison: Exploring the rise and fall of synthetic cannabinoid use among young adults. Int J Drug Policy. 2017;40:70–77.
35.
McElrathK, Van HoutMC. A preference for mephedrone: Drug markets, drugs of choice, and the emerging “legal high” scene. J Drug Issues. 2011;41:487–507.
36.
SutherlandR, BrunoR, PeacockA, . Motivations for new psychoactive substance use among regular psychostimulant users in Australia. Int J Drug Policy. 2017;43:23–32.
37.
CavinessCM, TzilosG, AndersonBJ, SteinMD. Synthetic cannabinoids: Use and predictors in a community sample of young adults. Subst Abus. 2015;36:368–373.
38.
JosephAM, ManseauMW, LalaneM, RajpariaA, LewisCF. Characteristics associated with synthetic cannabinoid use among patients treated in a public psychiatric emergency setting. Am J Drug Alcohol Ab. 2017;43:117–122.
39.
RichardsonJB, VilCS., WishE, CooperC. “On papers”: Perceptions of synthetic cannabinoid use among black males under criminal justice supervision. Health Justice. 2016;4:1.
40.
SutherlandR, PeacockA, WhittakerE, . New psychoactive substance use among regular psychostimulant users in Australia, 2010–2015. Drug Alcohol Dependen. 2016;161:110–118.
41.
MartinottiG, LupiM., AcciavattiT, . Novel psychoactive substances in young adults with and without psychiatric comorbidities. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014.
42.
Bassir NiaA, MedranoB, PerkelC, GalynkerI, HurdYL. Psychiatric comorbidity associated with synthetic cannabinoid use compared to cannabis. J Psychopharmacol. 2016;30:1321–1330.
43.
DaveyZ, SchifanoF, CorazzaO, DelucaP, Psychonaut Web Mapping Group. e-Psychonauts: conducting research in online drug forum communities. J Ment Health. 2012;21:386–394.
44.
DelucaP, DaveyZ, CorazzaO, . Identifying emerging trends in recreational drug use: Outcomes from the Psychonaut Web Mapping Project. Progress Neuro-Psychoph. 2012;39:221–226.
45.
SchifanoF, RicciardiA, CorazzaO, . New drugs of abuse on the Web: the role of the Psychonaut Web Mapping Project. Rivista di Psichiatria. 2010;45:88–93.
46.
Doremus-FitzwaterTL, VarlinskayaEI, SpearLP. Motivational systems in adolescence: Possible implications for age differences in substance abuse and other risk-taking behaviors. Brain Cognition. 2010;72:114–123.
47.
VohsKD, BaumeisterRF. (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation: research, theory, and applications. New York, NY: Guilford Publications. 2016.
48.
AnthonyJC, PetronisKR. Early-onset drug use and risk of later drug problems. Drug Alcohol Dependen. 1995;40:9–15.
49.
McGueM, IaconoWG, LegrandLN, MaloneS, & ElkinsI. Origins and consequences of age at first drink. I. Associations with substance‐use disorders, disinhibitory behavior and psychopathology, and P3 amplitude. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2001;25:1156–1165.
50.
MillerBL, StognerJM, MillerJM, FernandezMI. The arrest and synthetic novel psychoactive drug relationship: observations from a young adult population. J Drug Issues. 2017;47:91–103.
51.
WishED, ArtigianiEE, BillingAS. Community Drug Early Warning System: The CDEWS Pilot Project. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy. Executive Office of the President; 2013.
52.
GundersonEW, HaugheyHM, Ait-DaoudN, JoshiAS, HartC. A survey of synthetic cannabinoid consumption by current cannabis users. Subst Abus. 2014;35:184–189.
53.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. Community drug early warning system: the CDEWS-2 Replication Study. Washington, DC. 2015.
54.
GinsburgBC, McMahonLR, SanchezJJ, JavorsMA. Purity of synthetic cannabinoids sold online for recreational use. J Anal Toxicol. 2012;36:66–68.
55.
van AmsterdamJG, NabbenT, KeimanD, HaanschotenG, KorfD. Exploring the attractiveness of New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) among experienced drug users. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2015;47:177–181.
56.
RitterA. Commentaries on Wilkins. Addiction. 2014;109:1587–1588.
57.
LauritsenKJ, RosenbergH. Comparison of outcome expectancies for synthetic cannabinoids and botanical marijuana. Am J of Drug Alc Abus. 2016;42:377–384.
58.
CairnsR, BrownJA, GunjaN, BuckleyNA. The impact of Australian legislative changes on synthetic cannabinoid exposures reported to the New South Wales Poisons Information Centre. Int J Drug Pol. 2017;4:74–82.
59.
RickartAJ, ParmarJD, CrankST. Interpersonal violence and synthetic cannabinoids. Brit J Oral Max Surg. 2017;55:336.
60.
van AmsterdamJ, BruntT, van den BrinkW. The adverse health effects of synthetic cannabinoids with emphasis on psychosis-like effects. J Psychopharmacol. 2015;29:254–263.
61.
WaughJ, NajafiJ, HawkinsL, . Epidemiology and clinical features of toxicity following recreational use of synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists: a report from the United Kingdom National Poisons Information Service. Clin Toxicol. 2016;54:512–518.
62.
PironaA, BoA, HedrichD, . New psychoactive substances: Current health-related practices and challenges in responding to use and harms in Europe. Int J Drug Policy. 2017;40:84–92.
63.
LabayLM, CarusoJL, GilsonTP, . Synthetic cannabinoid drug use as a cause or contributory cause of death. Forensic Sci Int. 2016;260:31–39.
64.
Bassir NiaA, SpriggsS, PerkelC, . Synthetic cannabinoid use in relation to psychosis: Evaluation of the role of stress and immune systems. Biol Psychiat. 2017;81:S232.
65.
DavidsonC, Opacka-JuffryJ, Arevalo-MartinA, . Spicing up pharmacology: A review of synthetic cannabinoids from structure to adverse events. Advances Pharmacol. 2017;80:135–168.
66.
Every-PalmerS. Synthetic cannabinoid JWH-018 and psychosis: an explorative study. Drug Alcohol Dependen. 2011;117:152–157.
67.
DarkeS. Self-report among injecting drug users: A review. Drug Alcohol Dependen. 1998;3:253–263.
68.
DenisC, FatséasM, BeltranV, . Validity of the self-reported drug use section of the Addiction Severity Index and associated factors used under naturalistic conditions. Subst Use Misuse. 2012;47:356–363.
69.
ZanisDA, McLellanAT, RandallM. Can you trust patient self-reports of drug use during treatment?Drug Alcohol Dependen. 1994;35:127–132.
70.
FrinculescuA, LyallCL, RamseyJ, MiserezB. Variation in commercial smoking mixtures containing third‐generation synthetic cannabinoids. Drug Test Anal. 2017;9:327–333.
71.
WeinsteinAM, RoscaP, FattoreL, LondonED. Synthetic cathinone and cannabinoid designer drugs pose a major risk for public health. Front Psychiatry. 2017;8:156.
72.
HervásES. Synthetic cannabinoids: characteristics, use and clinical implications. Arch Psych Psychother. 2017;19:42–48.
