This story appeared in today's Australian.
For those accustomed to drawn-out and detailed diatribes on this blog, you will be relieved to know that this will be a quick one.
You will note that Dr Lucy Burns from the National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) is quoted in the aforementioned article:
Dr Burns said that although cocaine use did appear to be on the rise, the link between this and the decline in ecstasy use had to be made with caution.
"Cocaine is substantially more expensive than ecstasy -- it's unlikely that people using ecstasy would be able to substitute with cocaine, and it's more likely they would switch to something like mephedrone," Dr Burns said. "This is a new drug that we are seeing emerging in this market."
Well Dr Burns, with all due respect, and I hope that you haven't been misquoted, it would have been worthwhile if you could have provided a little bit more evidence for why substitution is "unlikely". Is there not something in the data that can back up your statement?
The reason I ask, is that it is probably important for the readers to know that MDMA ('Ecstasy') is not merely purchased simply because it is relatively cheap. People who use the drug are seeking a specific effect, and it just so happens that the price has decreased to a mildly-healthy 30 or so dollars (a smarter person out there will be able to tell me why). The people who use this drug are not necessarily unable to afford more expensive drugs; it is just that real MDMA has a very specific effect - and by all accounts, a very kick-arse one!
Anyhoo, I digress. I need to ask Dr Burns, why is substitution unlikely due to affordability? I know of a significant number of people who can not only afford MDMA as well as cocaine, but could probably afford to help me a little too. Of course, there is probably data in your files that documents the demographics of your participants, and income is probably included as part of that, so I'm going to end up looking like more of a right twat than I already am.
If not, though, I am going to offer the following possibilities:
a) substitution is actually occurring and people bought cocaine because their usual MDMA dealer said to them on a few Saturday mornings (probably at around the 3am mark), "Sorry mate, but there aint no more to speak of. Charlie's just hit town though? You up for it?" To which the reply came, "Hell yes! I aint leaving the house with nothing. How much?... Oh yeah, no worries; I'll have two and my friends will probably take another five" Because the price of pills, whilst attractive, was not the primary reason such people bought them and the near-six figure salary they earn or that their friend/ partner/ family member earns can move amongst a range of substances.
b) people, as you say, decided to try a new emerging drug on the market and enjoyed it so much that they left MDMA alone.
c) people couldn't get 'E' so decided to not worry altogether, because drug users don't always need a substitute if they can't get their preferred substance.
And you state, Dr Burns, that people are more likely to switch to mephedrone when they can't get 'E', and your figures show that its use has shown up in "significant numbers". But there is nothing to show in this article what that mephedrone use was really about. You see, I would hate for the unaware public to think, "Gee, these pill-popping rave junkies will try anything, even if it's cat fertiliser, when they can't get their fix." It's just that the people I have spoken to who have experimented with mephedrone did so purely because they were very curious - not because they were switching or because they were desperate for SOMETHING. Also, there are many people who aren't mindless drug 'Hoovers' and won't just use a drug because it is new, cheap and has a funny name. Many people who use drugs are actually discerning with their choices.
So yeah, I guess we can include:
d) people switched to mephedrone when they couldn't get 'E'.
Anyway, Dr Burns, we are probably on the same side, I just needed to put my two cents into the overflowing fountain. Have a great weekend.
I laugh when I see these articles, the truth is somewhat stranger. Whilst Cocaine use is shown to have increased, these numbers are now old and not in touch with reality. Around the start of this year, good ecstasy became hard to get. This is now a worldwide problem and indicates that whoever makes it has decided that they'd rather do something else. Probably someone in Holland I'd say..... The 'mdma' market is now filled with 'legal party highs' (if you're lucky- some pills are just worthless) comprising mephedrone and analogues. These things can be particularly dangerous- people are losing their minds on these seemingly quasi legal pills.
ReplyDeleteAt around the same time, the cocaine got better. In retrospect, we suspect this is because the infamous 'Sinaloa' cartel decided that Australia was a prime market. Since shortly after, say around May, the coke has been shit. This coincides with a bust of some people bringing coke in inside paving tiles, and subsequent large busts as well. It seems all of a sudden the police have been getting good intel.
I would bet money that the next survey will show a sharp decrease in cocaine use. How do I know? I've had a cocaine hobby for 20 years. Recently its been so crap that I've had to take up another hobby. For some reason that's long distance running. I'm not sure which is worse for my health.