State Senator Jeffrey D.

Klein
Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse

NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

Research Chemicals: The New Designer Drug Problem

April 2012

Introduction: On May 6, 2011 several young people in a house party in Konawa, Oklahoma, tried a drug that two of the participants, Andrew Akerman and Anastasia Stacy Jewell had been given by their fellow college student Cody Weddle1. Mr. Weddles online drug research led him to purchase one gram of what he believed to be a chemical known as 2C-E, a psychedelic hallucinogen. When the drug arrived, it was dissolved in water, and it was this tainted water that Mr. Akerman and Ms. Jewell took to the house party, intending to sell it to the other guests in order to recoup the cost and make a handsome profit. Several of the participants at the party bought doses of the water and ingested it. An hour later, around midnight, they began to feel sick, and several began to lose consciousness. Partygoers called 911, and ambulances rushed several people to local hospitals. Stacy Jewell died of a drug overdose that night, and several days later Andrew Akerman, who had gone into a coma the night of May 7, was taken off life support. Cody Weddle was arrested and charged with two counts of murder. Earlier in the year, on March 17, eleven kids at a house party in Blaine, Minnesota, had been hospitalized from an overdose of 2CE, and 19-year-old Trevor Robinson died. Timothy Richard Lamere was arrested on charges of third degree murder in the case2. Investigations after these incidents showed that the partygoers in Blaine had ingested very large overdoses of 2C-E, while test of the drug the partygoers in Konawa had ingested showed that the compound they had ingested was not 2C-E, but instead a chemical known as Bromo-DragonFLY, a chemically related drug that was even more powerful than 2C-E. These tragic deaths were highlighted in the November 8, 2011 episode of the Dr. Oz Show3, which discussed this new wave of designer drugs starting to hit this country and highlighted the availability of these drugs online. Senator Jeff Klein, as chairman of Senate Standing Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, chose to follow up on this report and investigate this new drug threat that exists online. What we found was frightening. The office found a wide variety of drugs being advertised as research chemicals. Sites sell substances attached to user reviews of people describing how they became high while under the influence of these substances, packaged in bright wrappings with catchy names. Websites do so while proclaiming that they dont sell these substances for human consumption as a means of skirting the law. These were sites that used professional billing systems no different from what one would use to buy from Amazon or any other reputable online retailer, and the substances are shipped using official postal services or shipping companies like UPS. It is imperative that parents understand the dangers out there and educate themselves in order to be able to educate their children on the dangers of all drugs. Legal Highs, Designer Drugs, and the Law: In 1970 the United States Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Controlled Substance Act of 1970) and created the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to enforce the law. This bill created the modern legal structure that regulates drugs in the United States, including the various drug schedules that determine an individuals ability to posses certain drugs. The structure created by Congress in 1970 and eventually copied
1 2

Story Available at: http://www.startribune.com/local/126065513.html Story available at: http://www.startribune.com/local/north/118182584.html 3 Program available at: http://www.doctoroz.com/newsletter/live-better-newsletter-november-8-2011

by State legislatures set up strict schedules in which specific drug types or active chemicals were named and either made illegal or only available with a prescription. As new drugs come into prominence they may be added to these drug schedules. One example is MDMA, known now as Ecstasy, which was first synthesized back in 1912 by the German chemical company Merck, which was seeking to find a substitute for a competitors drug4; while Merck patented this chemical, it was not developed further at that time. Over the years individuals had conducted different experiments with this substance. By the 1970s it was being used as a recreational drug. Professors Alexander Schulgin at UC Berkeley and David E. Nichols at Purdue University published a paper in 1978 on the psychotropic effects of the chemical, and Prof. Schulgin became an advocate for using MDMA as a therapeutic drug. Eventually, as use of MDMA as a club drug spread, it was criminalized in the US in 1985 when it became a schedule 1 drug, the same schedule as cocaine or heroin. While drugs can be added to the schedules set up under the original Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as seen above, this takes a long time. Even though MDMA was being used as a recreational drug in the 1970s it was not until 1985 that it was criminalized in the United States. Many individuals continue to seek new drugs that create effects similar to those produced by illegal drugs using compounds not included in any of the schedules. Some people have looked for plant-based compounds from different parts of the world that differ from those already scheduled. Others have created new compounds that have come to be called designer drugs. This moniker became popular because unlike many of the best know illegal drugs, like marijuana, cocaine, or heroin, whose active ingredients came from plants or copied chemicals found in plants, these new drugs were based on chemicals born fully formed from laboratories. In 1982 a heroin addict in San Jose, California was brought into a hospital with symptoms similar to those of Parkinsons disease. Doctors were puzzled as to how a man of the addicts age could come down with such symptoms. Eventually the mans affliction was tracked to his use of a compound known as MPPP. MPPP had been designed by a young chemist in 1976 looking for a legal substitute for heroin and other opioids. Unfortunately the young chemist had made a mistake in manufacturing this chemical, and during the manufacturing process had inadvertently also created a compound known as MPTP, which, when metabolized by the body turned into a toxic chemical that attacks the brain and leaves individuals with many of the same problems of Parkinsons disease. The creator of MPPP had injected himself with his compound and come down with Parkinsons like symptoms. The addict in San Jose had also used MPPP tainted by MPTP, and he was not alone. Six other people in the San Jose area were diagnosed with similar problems that year. This event has been called the first designer drug disaster in the United States5. Following this case and others like it the Federal Government decided to enact legislation aimed at curbing the problem of individuals seeking to circumvent the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 by creating new drugs. This act was called the Federal Analog Act.

4 5

Story available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/aug/18/topstories3.drugsandalcohol Information available at: http://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume156/issue4/Kau156U.Pa.L.Rev.1077(2008).pdf

The Federal Analog Act, 21 USC 813 reads6: A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I. In 21 USC 802 lies the following definition7: (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term controlled substance analogue means a substance (i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; (ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; or (iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II. (B) The designation of gamma butyrolactone or any other chemical as a listed chemical pursuant to paragraph (34) or (35) does not preclude a finding pursuant to subparagraph (A) of this paragraph that the chemical is a controlled substance analogue. (C) Such term does not include (i) a controlled substance; (ii) any substance for which there is an approved new drug application; (iii) with respect to a particular person any substance, if an exemption is in effect for investigational use, for that person, under section 355 of this title to the extent conduct with respect to such substance is pursuant to such exemption; or (iv) any substance to the extent not intended for human consumption before such an exemption takes effect with respect to that substance. What was novel about this act is that instead of specifically banning chemicals, it sought to ban any substance that may have a similar chemical structure to an already banned substance and which had effects on the body similar to those of already controlled substances, or was represented or intended to have effects similar to those of already banned substances. In subsequent court cases involving this act, judges have rules that for the Federal Analog Act to apply, the first subsection, that which states that the substance has a similar chemical structure to an already banned substance, must always be true, while either of the two remaining subsections must be true. While this act was meant to prevent disasters like what happened in San Jose with the seven individuals who took tainted MPPP (MPPP is now a schedule 1 drug), it is important to note that a substance must be substantially similar to the
6 7

Information available at: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/813.htm Information available at:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/802

chemical structure of a banned substance. This necessary condition means of course that any drug that has effects similar to those of banned drugs but causes these effects through a whole different chemical pathway is not going to be covered. It needs to be noted as well that the Federal Analog Act applies only to those drugs that are chemically similar to schedule 1 or 2 drugs. The final section of the definition, particularly subsection IV, is also of great importance . this section states that the definition of a compound as a controlled substances analogue, subject to legal ban, is not meant for substances not intended for human consumption. One way sellers of new designer drugs attempt to skirt the Federal Analog Act is by claiming that their products are not intended for actual human consumption. In just the past two years the public has been made aware of two distinct cases of designer drugs being sold in shops as legal highs. In both these cases the sellers of these substances claimed that they were not covered by the Federal Analog Act because the chemicals were either substantially different chemically from already banned substances or because the substances were not meant for human consumption. One well know class of designer drugs have been the synthetic cannabinoids, which were being marketed as herbal substitutes to marijuana. These chemicals were advertised as mimicking the effects of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, which would meet the definition of federal analogues under the subsection, but with a significantly different chemical composition, which would fail to meet the first critical part of the definition of a federal analogue. The other form of designer drugs constituted synthetic stimulants, similar in effects to cocaine, methamphetamines, and MDMA, which were being sold as bath salts. Users were supposedly instructed to add the substances to bath water instead of consuming them. This was done to skirt the Federal Analog Act under the not for human consumption exemption. In both of these cases, after many incidents of deaths, overdoses, and poisonings became public, the DEA was able to use the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 to implement temporary six month bans on a list of the active chemicals being used in these substances 8, bans that the law allows the DEA to expand for additional six month periods while it takes the necessary steps to place these temporarily banned chemicals (which have been placed in schedule 1 for now) into one of the various schedules permanently. It should be noted that recently in Salinas, California, a shop-owner was successfully prosecuted under the Federal Analog Act because he was selling a synthetic cannabinoid which did not include one of the chemicals that the DEA had banned under its emergency powers but which was ruled to be both significantly similar chemically and was being characterized as producing the same effects9 as those chemicals that have been placed on schedule 1 for now. The fact that the DEA finally took action against both synthetic cannabinoids and bath salts, but only after significant suffering had already been inflicted on many American families shows the need for parents to be knowledgeable about the next trend of drugs that claim to be legal while providing the same effects as illegal narcotics. As Sen. Kleins investigation has
8

Information available at: http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr090711.html and http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr022912.html 9 Story available at: http://www.salina.com/news/story/guilty-9-6-11

found, that next wave is the so-called research chemicals. At first these substances were being sold raw, as bags of chemical powder. Now, they are being packaged in individual doses with bright packaging. As with bath salts, the dealers are trying to skirt the law by claiming that they are only selling chemicals not meant for human consumption. As we will show, the testimonies they place on their sites and the packaging they are using belies these claims. The New Wave of Research Chemicals: The partygoers who encountered tragedy in Minnesota and Oklahoma all intended to try out 2C-E, one of the legal highs being marketed online as research chemicals. 2C-E is part of the family of psychedelic substances known as the 2C family, which plays off one of the chemical structures of these drugs. This family of drugs was first developed and described by Alexander Schulgin, the chemist we previously noted as having been one of the men to first describe the effects on MDMA in the medical literature. One of the 2C family, 2C-B is a schedule 1 drug in the United States. Online several versions of the 2C family can be found for purchase now. Many of the chemist manufacturing 2C-E and the more potent and dangerous Bromo DragonFLY, which is not part of the 2C family, got a lot of their information on the possible effects of these chemicals and the methods for their synthesis from scientific journals. Legitimate chemists like Dr. Schulgin or Dr. Nichols conduct studies on the possible uses of many different chemicals as therapeutic drugs. They publish their experiments and their findings in journals. These journals are available to the public and unfortunately unscrupulous chemists seeking to make money by marketing new and legal ways to get high copy those chemicals found to have effects similar to existing drugs. Sometimes they copy chemicals that might have similar effects as illegal drugs even though experiments on the chemicals true effect or safety have not been conducted. An article in the Wall Street Journal on David Llewellyn10, a British chemist who decided to make a living making legal highs after his construction business had closed due to the economic downturn, describes how men like him go through legitimate scientific journals to find chemicals of interest. The label of research chemical seeks to create the veneer of legality, or at a minimum, make successful prosecution under statutes like the Federal Analog Act extremely difficult. The makers of bath salts were attempting to skirt the law by claiming that their products had some common home use other than human consumption, a claim that could be easily refuted by the fact their product was utterly ineffective in their proclaimed role. The makers of research chemicals make a claim that is much harder to refute because after all many of these chemicals might be of interest to legitimate pharmaceutical researchers. These makers are also constantly searching for new chemicals to market. This is an attempt to always stay ahead of the law because as we saw, even though the process is slow, the authorities can and sometimes will clamp down on certain substances. The individuals who brought what turned out to be Bromo DragonFLY to the party in Konawa, Oklahoma, had obtained the drug from a fellow student who had himself purchased the drug online. As part of the offices investigation, staff searched the internet to find how difficult it is
10

Story available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704763904575550200845267526.html

to purchase research chemicals. Staff found that it was not difficult at all, especially if someone does their homework. There are a number of websites made up of individuals who share their drug-use experiences and discuss the new chemicals that are being introduced out there as legal highs. Sites such as www.erowid.org, www.legalhighsforum.com, orwww.partyvibe.com/forums/drugs allow individuals to share experiences and dosing suggestions, though they do not allow individuals to discuss purchasing drugs as a way to ensure they do not come under prosecutorial scrutiny. Individuals can read through the sites without joining, so anyone, including kids, can do preliminary research on what substances are available and what their effects might be. Even without doing any research online, kids will hear about new drugs online or from friends, and can begin to research them online. Figure 1: basic search terms on Google Sites of concern Search Term Total hits in first 100 hits

related Search Terms legal drugs, nutmeg high, herbal high skunk legal high, legal drugs high kratom, legal buds high, salvia research chemicals 2c-i research chemicals mephedrone research chemicals 2c-e research chemicals for sale research chemical supplier, mdai methylone, 5-meo-dalt plant food drug plant food mephedrone homemade plant food plant food ingredients plant food high, schultz plant food molly's plant food, bath salts

Legal High

104 Million

56

Research Chemicals

17 Million

27

Plant Food

385 Million

Google was used because it is by far the dominant search engine online and many of its algorithms form the basis for many other search engines. Staff searched very basic terms related to research chemicals, including the overall catch-all of legal high which would encompass not only research chemicals but synthetic cannabinoids and bath salts as well, the term research chemicals itself, and plant food, a term that has been linked to both drugs being labeled as research chemicals and drugs termed bath salts. A the chart shows, these more general terms generated a huge number of hits. Staff then combed through the 100 hits that Google termed most relevant. They were looking for sites that offered drugs for sale, or sites in which people discussed their experiences of taking drugs. Left out where sites selling legitimate products, news stories about drugs and their effects, and any sites that were down or included possible malware and other cyber-threats. Sites that were advertising the sale of drugs or discussing personal drug experiences were labeled as sites of concern. As can be seen above, more than half of the first 100 sites that came up under legal high were sites of concern.

Slightly more than a quarter of the first 100 sites under research chemicals were sites of concern. The vast majority of the first 100 sites under plant food were legitimate. Also noted in the chart are the related searches that Google suggested. These showcase terms that are commonly used alongside the terms we used. The terms that come up are very instructive. As the chart shows above, many of the related searches for research chemicals feature the names of actual drugs, including 2C-E, the related 2C-I, MDAI, a chemical we will encounter later, and methylone, a drug whose effects are similar to ecstasy (MDMA) and which was part of the emergency ban on synthetic stimulants announced by the DEA. The terms related to plant food are equally instructive. People are searching for the term plant food in relation to a variety of drugs, including mephedrone, which was one of the substances temporarily banned alongside methylone by the DEA, the term bath salts, and the term drugs itself. Figure 2: Focused Terms on Google Search Term Total hits Sites of concern in first 100 hits related Search Terms 2ce, buy bromo dragonfly online bromo dragonfly death bromo dragonfly experience bath salts, 2cb, erowid, dmt research chemicals acacia simplex research chemicals cp 47 mephedrone plant food mephedrone sale buy mephedrone plant food mephedrone suppliers None buy 2c-e online 2c-e vendor buy 2c-e research chemical buy 2c-I, buy research chemicals undrugged, 4-aco-dmt buy bromo dragonfly

Bromo DragonFLY

242 Thousand

41

Research Chemicals Mephedrone Plant Food Legal High

2.8 Million 60.4 Million

77 33

buy 2C-E

2.15 Million

57

Staff then searched for more focused terms more likely to bring up sites related to the specific issue of research chemicals. As the chart shows, these terms brought up far fewer hits than the more general terms but on average more of the first 100 hits were sites of interest. The search that brought up the most hits was searching for research chemicals and mephedrone together. The combination of Plant Food and Legal High brought up 33 sites of concern in the first 100 sites. Searching for buy 2C-E brought up 57 sites of concern in the first 100 sites. A significant number of sites were either malware or had become obsolete. Staff also compared one search on Google with a search for the exact same term on the Bing search engine.
7

Figure 3: Google Search vs. Bing Search Search Term Total hits Sites of concern in first 100 hits related Search Terms buy 2c-e online, 2c-e vendor buy 2c-e research chemical buy 2c-I, buy research chemicals undrugged, 4-aco-dmt buy bromo dragonfly Buy 2C E Research Chemical 2C E Buying Online 2 C E Buy Free Buy 2Ce or 2Ci Free 2C E Research Chemical Buy 2C e-Free Vendor, 2Ce Buy Order 2C E

buy 2C-E (Google)

2.15 Million

57

buy 2C-E (Bing)

642 Thousand

58

As can be seen, the number of overall hits was significantly different, thought the number of sites of concern was basically the same. Interestingly enough, the two lists were significantly different, and the recommended related search terms also differed. The two searches using different search engines produced 105 different web pages. The sites of concern that these searches produced varied; many of the web pages that came up were essentially free classified ads in which individuals had posted that they were offering research chemicals for sale and left e-mails for interested buyers to contact them to set up the transaction. These generally came up when staff used specific chemical names, such as when the terms Bromo DragonFLY, mephedrone, or 2C-E were part of the search. Many times the individuals advertising these chemicals were advertising the sales of a variety of different chemicals, along with the sale of other substances, including testosterone, or prescription painkillers. Some of them advertised illegal narcotics for sale as well as specific research chemicals. Prices were not included in the adds themselves, nor much information about the perspective sellers. Many of the classifieds that came up were posted in international sites and identified the perspective sellers as being based outside the US, but some identified the sellers as being in the US, and one identified the seller as living in New York, specifically Long Island. Sites in which various wholesalers or manufacturers place adds themselves also came up. These sites differ from the classified add sites because they generally specified prices on the add themselves, as well as possible payment and shipping options. These sites looked much more professional and they were not adds advertising obviously illegal substances. These kind of sites were generally found by searching for specific chemical terms, as it was specific chemicals that the manufacturers were advertising. The more general term searches brought up a number of sites modeled after any common online retail web site. These websites offered a variety of products and utilize the common shopping
8

cart system by which an individual can browse and shop online, ordering a whole host of different items or chemicals before using a professional check-out system in which an individual puts their billing and delivery information. These website use the same sort of billing services that common internet retailers use. Some of these retail sites specialized just in research chemicals. These websites used a visual style designed to make them look like companies that sell chemicals meant for actual chemical research. The pictures they used for the products were chemical formulas and they sell the material by weight, advertised as a powder. The way they can be distinguished from legitimate chemical dealers is in their very narrow and focused inventory, and the fact they did not advertise the sale of any more common materials commonly used in actual chemical research, such as solvents or containers. These sites solely advertised mood altering chemicals, and nothing else. Figure 4: Local classified ad:

The other kind of retail sites that came up advertised research chemicals along with a variety of other legal highs, including synthetic cannabinoids and bath salts. Some of these sites also
9

sold drug paraphernalia and in some cases marijuana related products, including marijuana seeds. These sites made sure to include claims that the products being sold were not meant for human consumption. Of course, the fact that they sold items under the name of legal highs, or that some of them included user reviews in which individuals described their experience with the products, some using very transparent code meant to imply that the drugs had not actually being consumed by the person themselves, belie these warning and claims. Of course, these disclaimers are included so that the individuals running these sites can claim that anyone buying these products with the intention of human consumption is defrauding the sellers themselves by using the chemicals in unauthorized ways. Figure 5: Classified Ad advertising illegal substances

10

Figure 6: Direct from Manufacturer site example

Staff browsing the retail sites that sold a variety of legal highs found that the marketing of research chemicals was changing and starting to mimic the marketing of the two previous waves of new drugs, the bath salts and the synthetic cannabinoids. Instead of offering for sale quantities of powdered chemicals in bags, these sites were offering these chemicals in premeasured capsules. The capsules themselves are wrapped in shiny foil packages, packages that have been given brand names. Some of the brand names we found for research chemicals or research chemical powders were: Pink Panther AKA Powder Benzo Fury Green Beens Gogaine China White Red-Es MXE Sparkle-E Charly Sheen Matrix AMT

Some websites classified these products as party pills or party powders, which belie their disclaimers that the products are not meant for human consumption. In looking at the location of these retail sites, it became clear that the majority of the English language versions of them are located outside of the United States, particularly in Britain. Modern billing websites make using credit cards to buy items whose prices are denominated in different currencies hassle-free, and
11

while some sites would not ship certain items to certain countries, including sometimes the US, other sites prominently displayed the fact that they ship to the United States. Figure 7: Mimicking Chemical Manufacturers

Staff picked one of the retail sites that prominently advertised US delivery for its products and placed a purchase of three different of these research chemical powders or pills, as well as a couple of items designed to help individuals hide their drugs from prying eyes. The process of buying the drugs was no different than any common online purchase. The items were placed on a shopping cart and then using a standard internet billing program the billing and delivery information was entered. Once the order was placed, a confirmation e-mail for the order was sent, and another e-mail was sent once the order shipped along with a tracking number. Overall, the experience of buying these untried experimental drugs was no different than buying music or books online. The purchase was denominated in British pounds and the correct amount in US dollars was charged from the credit card used, like a reputable online retailer would. The overall price was $123.04. The individual packets of chemicals cost between $8 and $20 each. The three brand name research chemical powers or pills purchased were: Charly Sheen Gogaine
12

Pink Panthers Figure 8: Retailing Legal Highs including research chemicals

After a couple of weeks, the package arrived. The package itself had a private address as the return address. The customs declaration attached to the bag that brought the products declared the items contained inside as novelty gifts (likely referring to the fake containers that had been ordered) and craft set parts. No mention of chemicals, research or otherwise, on the declaration. The declaration claimed that the entire package and its contents was worth less than half what was actually paid. None of these actions comport with what would be the expected behavior from a legitimate chemical supply company sending actual research chemicals. Once the package was opened, we discovered that one of the two fake containers that had been ordered was not sent. In its place were two additional drug packets, one for Dust till Dawn powder and one for E-Scape pellet. Neither package said research chemicals anywhere on them though both had labeling claiming that these items were not form human consumption. All the packages said that their contents were harmful and not for human consumption. None of the packets had any instructions on what these products would be used for. None had any explanation of what chemicals the packages contained, an omission that would make legitimate chemical research quite impossible, since knowing what chemicals you are using is a critical part of actual chemical research.

13

Figure 9: Customs declaration Label on package

The websites selling these drugs did not provide any breakdown of what chemicals went into the making of either Gogaine or Charly Sheen, stating only that they were research chemical mixes. This was true of the majority of these research chemical powders or pills. A minority did include descriptions of the ingredients. Pink Panther was described as a mix of the chemicals MDAI, 5-IAI, and 2-IA. The chemical MDAI falls in a class of drugs that include MDMA (ecstasy) and MDA, both of which are schedule 1 drugs. The information available online states that MDAI has some of the empathic and psychedelic effects of ecstasy though they are less pronounced. The chemical 5-IAI and 2-IA are closely related and in studies with rats 5-IAI had effects similar to MDMA and 2-IA had effects similar to amphetamines. The effects of these chemicals on human beings is not something that has been extensively examined or observed. The brand Sparkle-E was explained as being high-grade MDAI. An article by the Star Tribune had identified that MDAI was also the active ingredient in Charly Sheen11, even thought as we noted above, this was not stated anywhere on the sites selling it. The packet also included lidocaine, a common topical anesthetic that can be deadly if taken in large doses. The two other brands whose contents were described were Benzo-Fury and MXE. MXE was described as containing Methoxetamine. This chemical has been in the news in Britain recently
11

Story available at: http://m.startribune.com/news/?id=129189483

14

after the deaths of two men led the British government to impose an emergency 12 month ban on the drug12. Methoxetamine is chemically related to ketamine, a drug that is used as an anesthetic for both humans and animals. When used as a recreational drug, it can cause hallucinations, euphoria, or a dissociative state. In 1999 Ketamine became a Schedule 3 drug in the United States due to its use by some as a recreational drug. Repeated Ketamine use can destroy the bladder and cause Kidney problems. Methoxetamine supposedly does not cause these issue, and was being marketed as a safe alternative to Ketamine. It should be noted that because this drug is similar to a schedule 3 drug, the Federal Analog Act would not apply, since a substance has to be chemically similar to a schedule 1 or 2 drug. The online discussions about the chemical 6APB, which is called Benzo Fury, described its effects as being very similar to those of amphetamines. Figure 10: Research Chemicals and other unidentified drugs received, front view

The fact that information on the actual effects of these chemicals can at times be very sparse showcases just how new and untested these chemicals are, and in truth we simply dont have enough evidence to know what the long term effects of these substances are, nor how addictive they are. As noted above, these drugs can commonly be mixed with other substances that in and of themselves can be fatal if taken in significant amounts. The deaths caused by Bromo

12

Story available at: http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2012-03-28/legal-high-given-12-month-ban/

15

DragonFLY in this country, and the deaths attributed to Methoxetamine in Britain are proof that these chemicals can be deadly. Figure 11: Research Chemicals and other unidentified drugs received, back view

When someone is poisoned the information is gathered by Poison control. Staff reached out to poison control and asked for information regarding incidents of poisoning in New York caused by research chemicals. Here in New York State, poison control is divided into an Upstate Region and a Downstate Region. Downstate covers Long Island, New York City, and Westchester. Upstate covers all parts of the state north of Westchester. Poison control affirmed that they were aware of the issue of research chemicals but explained that they are not treated as their own independent class. They provided information on the poison categories that include those chemicals they consider research chemicals. It should be noted that the two offices have some slight differences in how they record the data, which accounts for the differences in the charts. Figure 9: 2011 Poison Control numbers for Upstate New York
2011 Hallucinogenic amphetamines Synthetic marijuana Hallucinogens Stimulants Amly/butyl nitrite No symptoms 6 18 0 3 1 Minor symptoms 32 184 2 57 1 Moderate symptoms 39 97 1 80 1 Major symptoms 4 8 0 9 0 Death 1 0 0 1 0 unknown 23 48 0 45 2 Totals 105 355 3 195 5

16

Figure 10: 2011 Poison control numbers for Downstate New York
2011 No symptoms Minor symptoms Moderate symptoms Major symptoms No F/U, non and min effects No F/U Pot Tox Missing/ Invalid Death Totals

Hallucinogenic amphetamines THC Homologs LSD and other Hallucinogens Amphetamine Amly/butyl nitrite

6 2 3 48 0

27 22 6 58 2

44 32 22 112 2

10 4 3 19 1

4 1 5 35 0

11 8 10 64 3

1 1 1 44 0

0 0 0 0 0

103 70 50 380 8

Hallucinogenic Amphetamines refers to chemicals like 2C-E and its cousins in the 2C family, as well as drugs known as piperazines that are not controlled substances like many of the research chemicals we have discussed. Synthetic marijuana covers the synthetic cannabinoids that have recently become controlled substances. As we can see, one death was attributed to hallucinogenic amphetamines in Upstate New York last year. Upstate poison control was able to send up to date figures for 2012.

Figure 11: Poison control numbers for Upstate New York for 2012 up to March 20
2012 Hallucinogenic amphetamines Synthetic marijuana Hallucinogens Stimulants Amly/butyl nitrite No symptoms 0 11 0 3 1 Minor symptoms 5 58 0 10 0 Moderate symptoms 9 37 0 27 0 Major symptoms 1 2 0 1 0 Death 0 0 0 0 0 unknown 5 16 0 10 1 Totals 20 124 0 51 2

Important Steps to Keep our Kids Safe In just the past two years parents and authorities in New York and around the country have been forced to deal with two new waves of legal highs, bath salts and Synthetic Cannabinoids. Even as authorities try to get a handle on these two sets of new dangerous drugs, the next wave of new dangerous designer drugs is already available online. Sen. Klein has introduced legislation, Senate bill 7009, that would make the chemicals we found being advertised online as components of these research chemical powders and pills schedule 1 controlled substances in New York State, which would make their sale and possession here in New York illegal.
17

The chemicals being banned by the bill are: 2C-C 2C-D 2C-E Bromo-DragonFLY 2C-B-FLY 3C-B-FLY Methoxetamine 5-MeO-DALT 5-MeO-DIPT 3-MeO-PCE 4-MeO-PCP; methoxydine 5-IAI MDAI 6-APB or Benfamine 2-AI desoxy-D2PM

This legislation is an important a first step we can to crack down on this new wave of dangerous drugs. Unfortunately, unscrupulous chemists will continue to misuse the work of researchers to concoct new drugs and will market them as legal alternatives to illegal substances. taking these chemicals is gambling with their health and possibly their lives. As such, parents need to be proactive in educating their children about the dangers to their health and welfare from ingesting ANY drug. The following are lessons that parents need to know so that they can better educate their own kids. Given how new chemicals become available online with increasing speed, it is important to teach kids lessons that apply to all such chemicals and not just yesterdays drug of concern. 1. Just because it says it is legal to buy in the United States does not make it safe. Conversely just because a site says it is not legal for purchase in the United States, does not mean that a manufacturer will not still send it to your children. There are many products that have been labeled legal in the United States on sites. However, the legality of a particular research chemical does not mean that it is safe to ingest. In fact, some manufacturers use the harmful and illegal ingredients as part of the legal research chemical pills and tablets. They only difference is that they are hidden from the eyes of the public. Furthermore, dont assume that if a site says it is not legal for purchase in the United States that the site will not sell it to your children. Many parents believe that the law will filter out these harmful chemicals from being purchased by children, but the fact is that the labeling of not legal in the United States is just to protect the retailer not your children. 2. Dont assume the products your children are purchasing on line are the product they will receive. The deaths in Ohio and Minnesota of teens who ingested research chemicals prove that what one orders on line is not necessarily what they will receive. Those teens purchased what they believed to be 2C-E and took the recommended dosage that was suggested to them on line.

18

However, what they actually received was Bromo DragonFLY which at the same dosage of 2CE would killand it did. One milligram off and a research chemical can have deadly effects.

3. If your kids can look for it online, then they will find it online!! Parents can try to figure out numerous search terms and do due diligence on various products your child can search but it is inevitable that a child will fall upon a site that is willing to send them chemicals that can kill them. Furthermore, one may attempt to search any and every term a child may think of to find the sources of these sales, but children will manage to search he most innocuous terms to find the most deadly results. 4. Just because a product is labeled not for human consumption does not mean that your children will not ingest it, especially if it is packaged in brightly colored foils with names like Charlie Sheen or Matrix. Many companies, if not all, label products such as these as not for human consumption for obvious purposes. They are trying to evade any responsibility for any death or injury that might be caused if a child doe s in fact uses these products. But the warning of not for human consumption is where their concern ends. By packaging these products in colorful wrappers and giving them the name of famous movies or actors, these retailers are in fact luring your children into imbibing their product, often with deadly consequences. 5. Dont assume that because it is a drug or substance that you have never heard of it, it is harmless. In this day and age, it is likely that your children are not getting high off of crack or heroin or have easy access to it under your supervision. What they are getting high on though are products name meow-meow or dragon fly, names you never heard and sound quite innocuous. For the same reasons kids would think these products are harmless, parents are also fooled that as long as it does not have a familiar name of a product discussed in movies or in the news, that it cant be t hat bad. Unfortunately, what we know now is these chemicals are not only poisonous but deadly. 6. Dont assume that because it is a drug or substance can be delivered to your home it is actually legal. One of the substance highlighted in the report was a chemical known as 2C-E. The Drug Enforcement Agency considers it a banned substance given its close chemical relation to 2C-B, which is a schedule 1 controlled substance, like heroin or cocaine, and if your child purchases this chemical they could in theory be prosecuted for having possession of a controlled substance. The truth is that what drugs are legal or illegal in different parts of the world differ and websites outside of the US are more than willing to sell your kid illegal substances online, protected by online anonymity. 7. The use of ANY drug carries risks. Make sure your children understand that there is no such thing as a completely safe drug.

19

Putting any chemical into your body carries risks. You should understand yourself and make sure your kids understand that drugs should never be taken lightly. You and them should only use drugs based on the advice of a physician, making sure to follow all the instructions you are given, or in the case of off-the-counter medication, only when recommended on the package and by strictly following the given instructions. Doing anything else is putting your health at risk. Conclusions: The spread of information made possible by the internet has allowed individuals to share information on the possible human effects of a variety of chemical substances. Many people have chosen to use this information to create new drugs to market to our children. The speed at which new drugs are entering the market creates problems for authorities because they must follow time consuming rules and regulations before being able to impose legal controls over these dangerous chemicals. The internet also gives individuals a new place to buy drugs from the comfort of their own homes, many times from dealers half a world away. In just the past two years authorities in this country have had to deal with designer drugs being marketed as legal replacements for marijuana or drugs being marketed as bath salts in an attempt to skirt the law. Even as authorities take steps to crack down on these substances, new drugs are reaching our shores and have started killing young people. These drugs are being marketed as research chemicals as a way to avoid the attention of law-enforcement. Websites claim to be selling chemicals purely for research while packaging their drugs in colorful packages with names like Pink Panther or Charly Sheen. These are not the actions of legitimate sites selling actual research chemicals. It is important that parents understand that these substances are out there and are being marketed to your kids on sites that make buying drugs as easy as buying books or music online. Sen. Klein has introduced legislation, Senate bill 7009, that will make the sale and possession of the specific new drugs we found online illegal in New York State. This is an important first step in the fight against these new designer drugs. At the same time, the Senator knows that unscrupulous individuals will continue trying to devise new drugs to sell to our kids. Sen. Klein urges parents to keep abreast of the latest drug trends and also to impart some basic and timeless lessons to your kids about the inherent dangers of taking any drug. Parents are the front lines of the war on drug abuse and good information is more important now than ever because the speed with which new, untested and dangerous chemicals hit the streets is increasing. By the time you hear about a drug trend on the news, and by the time the authorities get a chance to ban a dangerous substance your child will have already had the opportunity to move on to the next designer drug. In this age it is more important than ever to instill life-long lessons that will guide your kids to safety even as the name of the drug dangers they face change with increasing speed.

20