Activity 3 Post

Upon viewing the research articles by Halpern et al, Mir et al, and Schneir et al, I’ve elected to focus on the findings that the articles came up with. The first article compared illicit ecstasy users and non-users while using a small criteria. The subjects must exclude those with a “significant life-time exposure” to all other drugs and alcohol, they must be a part of the “rave subculture”, and all subjects are to be drug tested to exclude “surreptitious substance use” at the time of evaluation. Ultimately, that field came down to 52 illicit ecstasy users and 59 non-users. The findings came as a bit of a surprise to the researchers, to say the least. After conducting the 15 neuropsychological tests for the participants, it was discovered that there was little to no evidence to support the hypothesis that ecstasy use had a significant effect on the cognitive state of the individual. The only real difference between users and non-users came when navigating a pegboard with the non-dominant hand, a test in which ecstasy users fielded much slower results.

I also found this result surprising because, based on what we learned in class, ecstasy is a Schedule 1 drug, meaning it cannot be given to any individual, even for research purposes. It was already discussed how most countries’ studies do not support the findings that the U.S. bases its views on ecstasy off of, especially considering the scientist admitted to mixing up the vile labels when studying the substance. This research furthers my skepticism as to whether or not ecstasy deserves a Schedule 1 rating.

A strength of this research deals with the actual testing and comparison of results between illicit ecstasy users and non-users to draw conclusions about the effects of ecstasy on the human mind. It uses a variety of different tests and accounts for all the different variables to make some very conclusive arguments. The only weaknesses I found were the sample size and the time frame involved. The sample size, which was slightly over 100, may not provide enough substantial data to provide proper conclusions. The time frame involved is also an issue because the test shows the immediate aftermath of ecstasy, but there’s no data about months and years down the road, something that should be considered.

Each of the other two research articles deals with synthetic marijuana and the medical issues associated based on a few particular cases. The first article about synthetic marijuana (Mir et al) dealt with three individual cases in which each patient suffered from myocardial infarction, the first confirmed cases after use of synthetic marijuana. The second article (Schneir et al) deals with two girls that experienced increased levels of anxiety upon smoking “spice”, a certain type of synthetic marijuana. Both research articles found that this synthetic marijuana could achieve the same euphoric feeling or “high” as natural marijuana, but contrary to natural marijuana, it wouldn’t pop positive on a drug test.

The relationship this has to class goes into our discussion about E-cigarettes, a product that is currently unregulated and features many chemicals, some of which are extremely harmful to humans. It also relates in the way that only one chemical currently found in synthetic marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug, that being HU-210. We discussed how marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug, so it doesn’t make much sense how a synthesized version would not even make the schedule.

I found these research articles had a few weaknesses, first and foremost being the sample size. The first article covered three cases of myocardial infarction, the second covered the two girls. That’s not to say they didn’t provide some very specific scientific data as to the chemical makeup of synthetic marijuana and the effects of these chemicals, but there are going to need to be many more tests conducted to prove that these cases are the norm and not outliers.