Page 55 [55]
OCR
3. ASSESSING THE EXPERIENCE OF USING SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS... m 53 see: (drugabuse.com; Sharecare.com), may have been used here as a rationalization 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 connections and an avoidance of the outside world (Kemp, 2001), people who used other drugs than SCs including mephedrone, ecstasy, and GHB reported increased 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 utilized 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 traditional 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 clinically 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
