Oldal 55 [55]
3. ASSESSING THE EXPERIENCE OF USING SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS... m 53
see: (drugabuse.com; Sharecare.com), may have been used here as a rational¬
ization or justification of their own problematic behavior.
Participants described asocial behavior as another im pact of SC use.
Though addiction in general is associated with a retreat from social connec¬
tions and an avoidance of the outside world (Kemp, 2001), people who used
other drugs than SCs including mephedrone, ecstasy, and GHB reported in¬
creased sociability, talkativeness, and loss of social (and other) inhibitions
due to the effects of the drugs (Barker et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2011; O'Neill,
2014). However, isolation and turning inward seem to be the consequences
of SC use, and therefore SC use is a potential mediator of asocial behavior
(Every-Palmer, 2011). Psychoactive substance user groups can function as a
risk management strategy and a place to share the problems derived from
drug consumption (Barker et al., 2007; O’Neill, 2014; Ribeiro, Sanchez, &
Nappo, 2010). Although the presence of the user group could help to control
the unpredictable effects of SCs, people who use SCs, however, often leave
the user group.
Boserman (2009) analyzed diaries of people who used cannabis and uti¬
lized IPA to explore experiences of cannabis use. When we compare those
results with the experience of SCs use in this study, some similarities and
some differences emerge. The experience of cannabis use is mostly positive
and serves as a ritual or social and recreational action. Cannabis is regarded
vital in order to reequilibrate the lost balance of life. Due to fast alteration of
experiences derived from SC use, however, participants in this study reported
a predominance of negative experiences. The ritualistic approach provides a
closer and intimate relationship with cannabis (the participants fondle and
respect the drug), while users’ relationship with SCs is rather paranoid.
Since the toxicity profiles of NPS may be also very different to those of tra¬
ditional drugs and hard to identify its health risks, and it is difficult to estimate
its consumption levels, which may not be detected by conventional drug screens
(John-Smith, McQueen, Edwards, & Schifano, 2013), it may be important to
involve personal reports of NPS use in harm reduction and clinical treatment
which are rather provide services according to “classical” drug harms (Miiller,
Kornhuber, & Sperling, 2015). The described experiences by the participants
of the current study outlined the subjective aspect of SC harms including clin¬
ically significant withdrawal, acute mental health, and overdose symptoms (e.g.,
(Macfarlane & Christie, 2015)) that reinforce the urgent need of harm reduction
and treatment services’ enhanced preparedness.
Our study has several limitations. Based on the methodology of IPA, a
small homogenous sample was recruited, which may question the study’s
generalizability. In addition, only male participants attended, so our results
may not apply to women. For this study, a purposive sample was recruited
and consisted only of SC users who were in treatment (presumably they ex¬