Literature DB >> 27936283

Purity, adulteration and price of drugs bought on-line versus off-line in the Netherlands.

Daan van der Gouwe1, Tibor M Brunt1, Margriet van Laar1, Peggy van der Pol1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: On-line drug markets flourish and consumers have high expectations of on-line quality and drug value. The aim of this study was to (i) describe on-line drug purchases and (ii) compare on-line with off-line purchased drugs regarding purity, adulteration and price.
DESIGN: Comparison of laboratory analyses of 32 663 drug consumer samples (stimulants and hallucinogens) purchased between January 2013 and January 2016, 928 of which were bought on-line.
SETTING: The Netherlands. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome measures were (i) the percentage of samples purchased on-line and (ii) the chemical purity of powders (or dosage per tablet); adulteration; and the price per gram, blotter or tablet of drugs bought on-line compared with drugs bought off-line.
FINDINGS: The proportion of drug samples purchased on-line increased from 1.4% in 2013 to 4.1% in 2015. The frequency varied widely, from a maximum of 6% for controlled, traditional substances [ecstasy tablets, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) powder, amphetamine powder, cocaine powder, 4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine (2C-B) and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)] to more than a third for new psychoactive substances (NPS) [4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA), 5/6-(2-aminopropyl)benzofuran (5/6-APB) and methoxetamine (MXE)]. There were no large differences in drug purity, yet small but statistically significant differences were found for 4-FA (on-line 59% versus off-line 52% purity for 4-FA on average, P = 0.001), MDMA powders (45 versus 61% purity for MDMA, P = 0.02), 2C-B tablets (21 versus 10 mg 2C-B/tablet dosage, P = 0.49) and ecstasy tablets (131 versus 121 mg MDMA/tablet dosage, P = 0.05). The proportion of adulterated samples purchased on-line and off-line did not differ, except for 4-FA powder, being less adulterated on-line (χ2  = 8.3; P < 0.02). Drug prices were mainly higher on-line, ranging for various drugs from 10 to 23% higher than that of drugs purchased off-line (six of 10 substances: P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Dutch drug users increasingly purchase drugs on-line: new psychoactive substances in particular. Purity and adulteration do not vary considerably between drugs purchased on-line and off-line for most substances, while on-line prices are mostly higher than off-line prices.
© 2016 Society for the Study of Addiction.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adulteration; cryptomarkets; darknet; dosage; drug markets; price; purity; quality; webshops

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27936283     DOI: 10.1111/add.13720

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Addiction        ISSN: 0965-2140            Impact factor:   6.526


  6 in total

Review 1.  Interpol review of controlled substances 2016-2019.

Authors:  Nicole S Jones; Jeffrey H Comparin
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Synerg       Date:  2020-05-24

2.  Nonmedical prescription psychiatric drug use and the darknet: A cryptomarket analysis.

Authors:  Jack Cunliffe; David Décary-Hêtu; Thomas A Pollak
Journal:  Int J Drug Policy       Date:  2019-02-14

3.  Drug checking services for people who use drugs: a systematic review.

Authors:  Nazlee Maghsoudi; Justine Tanguay; Kristy Scarfone; Indhu Rammohan; Carolyn Ziegler; Dan Werb; Ayden I Scheim
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2021-12-12       Impact factor: 7.256

4.  Will growth in cryptomarket drug buying increase the harms of illicit drugs?

Authors:  Judith Aldridge; Alex Stevens; Monica J Barratt
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 6.526

5.  Coordination of a Dual-Channel Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Based on the Susceptible-Infected-Susceptible Epidemic Model.

Authors:  Yanhong Hou; Fan Wang; Zhitong Chen; Victor Shi
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Invited Commentary: Drug Checking for Novel Insights Into the Unregulated Drug Supply.

Authors:  Nabarun Dasgupta; Mary C Figgatt
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 4.897

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.