Slashdot Mirror


Testing for Many Designer Drugs At Once

LilaG writes "Drug tests spot banned substances based on their chemical structures, but a new breed of narcotics is designed to evade such tests. These synthetic marijuana drugs, found in 'herbal incense,' are mere chemical tweaks of each other, allowing them to escape detection each time researchers develop a new test for one of the compounds. Now chemists have developed a method that can screen for multiple designer drugs at once, without knowing their structures. The test may help law enforcement crack down on the substances. The researchers used a technique called 'mass defect filtering,' which can detect related compounds all at once. That's because related compounds have almost equal numbers to the right of the decimal point in their molecular masses. The researchers tested their technique on 32 herbal products ... They found that every product contained one or more synthetic cannabinoid; all told, they identified nine different compounds in them — two illegal ones and seven that are not regulated. The original paper appears (behind a paywall) in Analytical Chemistry." From the article: "The research is timely, too. 'Many drugs of abuse in the Olympics are designer drugs,' he [Gary Siuzdak] says, in the steroid family. Grabenauer plans to extend her method to other designer drug families."

15 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. The Devil Snorts Prada by cosm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can't wait to be forced to provide mouth swabs at airports.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  2. until we by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    address the greater issue of biblical retribution as drug policy i dont see science being able to contribute anything meaningful. Occams razor would suggest the simple solution to whatever the hell OP means by "synthetic marijuana" is just to legalize marijuana itself.
    the 'war on drugs' is such an abject failure that that not even our presidents and congress comment upon unless to reinforce the consistently disproven negative myths and stereotypes. Until we apply a modicum of science to determining what vectors cause drug abuse in society, all we're doing is inventing new ways to fill prisons.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  3. False Positives, anyone? by 0WaitState · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, um, what's the false positive rate with this test? For a while people were being convicted of cocaine trafficking because the money in their pockets had traces of cocaine. Eventually it was disclosed that ALL (US) currency has traces of cocaine.

    --

    Remain calm! All is well!
    1. Re:False Positives, anyone? by bky1701 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't matter. If there is a chance you did something illegal, in the new United States, you are automatically convicted and will serve out the maximum sentence until proven innocent. And if, by some miraculous mechanism you manage to survive that fate, well, they'll just revoke all the "privileges" you have, like driving, internet, education, leaving your house....

      False positives stopped being a concern around the time that "reasonable doubt" was replaced by "irrefutable proof of innocence."

  4. Did you see Hancock movie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He did 80 million in damages to stop a freeway chase.
    That is what the government is doing to tax payers with this crap.

    End the drug war and give old people back there social security.

    I am sick of footing the bill for anything they can think of.

  5. Re:Not Regulated... by joocemann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As an employer that is realistic and wants good efficiency, you have no business trying to find out if employee x is on drugs unless the intox is blatant and/or dangerous.

    Measure your employees by their ability to produce desired output; leave alone their human private lives and personal choices.

    'Screening' employees for drugs only makes liars out of the honest people you hire. Drug tests should follow a workplace accident where intox is suspected. Otherwise you should fire them for honest reasons, like low productivity or focus or whatever real issue you observe.

  6. OR by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

    or... we could just make pot legal so people wouldn't be smoking these horrifically dangerous "Bath salts" as a replacement. Pots dangers are well known, and relatively benign in comparison to even most over the counter medications. You're far more likely to become dependent on cold medicine and even be killed by it than you are pot. But we continue to treat pot like it's some kind of hardcore child killer.

    They are right, Pot is a gateway drug. But only because they made it so. They tell school children its this horrible thing. Bad kids do it. Then the kids find out just how many of their friends smoke it at parties. Holy crap! and then they try it... and it doesn't make them go insane like they've been lead to believe. If they've lied to me about pot, how bad can cocaine be right?

    Make it legal to grow. Legal to smoke. Legal to give away for free to someone over the age of 18. Make it illegal to sell. Problem solved and no more bath salts.

  7. Paramilitary Police by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the 'war on drugs' is such an abject failure

    That depends on your definition of "success." Since its inception, there have been the following goals in the war on drugs:

    1. Harassing and arresting black people, especially black men. As far back as the debate on cocaine prohibition (yes, this was once debated), there were people, especially police officers, warning of the dangers of black men using drugs. Black men on cocaine were unstoppable monsters, and cops had no choice but to upgrade the caliber of their guns to fight them. Black men who smoked marijuana were incited to play jazz music, and white women who smoked marijuana would want to have sex with black men. Black men who use PCP will go crazy. Black people will go nuts over crack cocaine.
    2. Increasing police power. Related to the above, since we obviously need more police officers in black neighborhoods to crack down on dangerous black drug users. We also need cops attacking hippies and anti-war protesters. We need cops who carry assault rifles and grenades to fight the drug dealers (did I mention that they are black too? That's the message that the mainstream media sends.). The cops also need the power to declare drugs to be illegal, without consulting congress. The cops also need to be allowed to recycle seized assets from drug raids into their budgets. They need expanded surveillance capabilities.
    3. Corporate profits. Hemp fibers compete with synthetics. Alcohol, tobacco, and coffee companies have to compete with all those other recreational drugs, so let's make them illegal. Pharmaceutical companies get to inflate their profits by ensuring that only they legally are allowed to market entire classes of drugs (opiates, amphetamines, etc.). Firearms companies, law enforcement equipment makers, and so forth have seen big profits from the drug war. Let's not forget the private prison operators, a relatively new trend but an important one -- big profits come from big prison populations.

    Notice something missing from that list? Public health and safety. That's at the bottom of the priorities list in the war on drugs, because the war on drugs never had anything to do with health or safety.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  8. Re:Not Regulated... by amRadioHed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And it is not even possible all the time, some people don't work individually and some people are not doing work that is exactly the same as other work and therefore easy to estimate how long it should take.

    Just because you don't have any good metrics for measuring workers performance, why does that give you the right to make up arbitrary standards unrelated to the job?

    If the tests were actual tests to measure intoxication then it would be reasonable, because you're right that you should be able to expect your employees to not be intoxicated on the job. However the tests don't measure that, they test if the user has been exposed to the drugs at any time recently. This doesn't mean they were intoxicated on the job, and for new hires probably doesn't even mean they were intoxicated while working for you.

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  9. Simple question... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These synthetic marijuana drugs, found in 'herbal incense,' are mere chemical tweaks of each other, allowing them to escape detection each time researchers develop a new test for one of the compounds. Now chemists have developed a method that can screen for multiple designer drugs at once, without knowing their structures. The test may help law enforcement crack down on the substances.

    Why? Do we not have enough people in prison to make it sufficiently profitable for the new privatized penal industry?

    Isn't the meteoric increase in worker productivity over the past decades enough for our economic overlords? Is it just to make sure we all know who's boss?

    Did you know that the industry-funded legislative group ALEC is behind many of the new harsher drug laws? I really don't understand it. Why is an industry-funded lobbying group so concerned about marijuana, gay marriage, gun laws and keeping the poor, students and the elderly from voting?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Legalize everything. by thesandtiger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let people smoke, shoot, drink, or otherwise ingest anything they want. Tax drugs, use part of the tax to pay for the societal costs of drug abuse, and go from there.

    Intoxication should be considered an aggravating factor in any crime, and should be made a crime in and of itself in certain situations (see driving under the influence).

    Making better tests is interesting in an academic way, and possibly useful for certain professions where sobriety is absolutely essential (law enforcement, for one example), but honestly, who gives a fuck for most anything else? If drug use affects your work you'll get fired in time anyway, and if you do harm to another person while high you're screwed anyway.

    I'm saying this as someone who works in public health - the damage done by this kind of prohibition VASTLY outweighs the societal benefit of restricting drug use. There's absolutely no question about it.

    --
    Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  11. Re:Not Regulated... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I had a very bad parent because of a genetic propensity to severe alcoholism. I am not an alcoholic. I drink but not often. My brother was an alcoholic but stopped drinking because he knew he couldn't do it responsibly so that it was all or nothing. He chose nothing. Some of my father's siblings drank too much but stopped. My grandfather was a raging drunk with a mean disposition. And so on down the line.

    Stop making fucking excuses for people. People are not addicted to anything because of genetic predisposition or parenting. They get addicted because of their fucking actions. Fuck I hate... HATE this politically correct BULLSHIT. The drunk always had a choice so shut the fuck up unless you have something useful to say on the subject.

    People are responsible for their actions unless they are mentally retarded, and even then many are still bright enough to be responsible. It's why many can live on their own and have jobs etc. The only people who aren't responsible for their own actions are people too mentally deficient to be or those with mental disabilities who need to live on a psyc ward. Now go find a commune and sing fucking Kumbaya with your friends and leave actual thinking to others.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  12. Re:Let people do drugs, and let them rot by ClioCJS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fine: But you don't get to go to bars anymore, you're not allowed to go skiing, play football, or anything else that I deem unnecessary to your life which might raise my group insurance plan rates. Also, you have to wear a helmet outside. This is my polite way of saying fuck you and your flawed philosophy.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  13. Re:Not Regulated... by dontbgay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Judging from your comment, it wasn't the drugs. You and the guys in your shop were just assholes being irresponsible with other peoples' property. /DBG

    --
    Sig not found.
  14. Re:Not Regulated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you guys were wrecking cars it was because you're a bunch of fucking idiots, not because you were high on pot. It's the complete lack of Giving a Fuck that leads to the risky behavior which results in injury and damage, and it happens just as much at a shop with squeaky clean people who have that type of attitude. And judging by a lot of shops I've worked in, seen, or known the workers of, most of you were also drinking and a couple of you were probably spun off your nut on Meth.