Oldal 56 [56]
OCR
54 = USING INTERPRETATIVE PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS perienced problems with SC use). In addition, people who use SCs recreationally or who are not in treatment may understand their experiences differently. An additional important limitation is that our study participants had assumed but were unable to confirm that they had been using SCs. Therefore, the experiences may vary depending on whether they had actually been using SC or maybe another substance, e.g., URB-579 (see (Nakajima et al., 2013)) or various other chemicals that have been found on synthetic cannabis products (Castaneto et al., 2014; Dresen et al., 2010). The narratives of drug use experience (such as drug “taking over” or “hijacking” personality) reflect the subjective views of the respondents, and this may be in part a result of the treatment setting, as well. Further research to explore the experiences of people who use SCs and not in treatment for drug problems is suggested. During the interviews, the participants of this study solely focused on the effects of the drug use, so an additional limitation of the study is the absence of information how other factors, such as individual factors, and biopsychosocial, social, and cultural contexts might shape the effects and harms of SC use. An additional limitation could be the absence of reports of other drug experiences which were not as emphatic in the accounts as experiences of SC use. The importance of other factors in the examination of drug use is increasingly being recognized on research on other drugs. Duff (2007) used the word “assemblage” to describe drug use as an act that is a network with many persons and highlighted the context’s impact on drug use practice and experience. The framework of “risk environment” developed by Rhodes (2009) describes drug harms as products of social situations and environments in which individuals participate. These suggest the shift of responsibility for drug harms and the focus of harm reduction from the individual alone to social and political institutions which have a role in harm production. In Hungary, there is a noticeable growth of new psychoactive substance use, while availability of harm reduction services is very limited (Gyarmathy et al., 2016; Rácz, Csák, et al., 2016). 3.5. CONCLUSIONS Our study suggests that the comparison of SCs to cannabis may be misleading: many people who use SCs, smoke them as an available alternative for cannabis and/or other drugs, but the use of SCs is often associated with more negative experiences (that are different from other drug experiences). Due to the rapid development of effects, participants had difficulties interpreting or integrating their experiences. Since these experiences are mostly unknown and unpredictable, a forum where people who use the drug could share their experiences
