the DATIA focus winter 2013 publication3
.
During this period, only eight compounds were in the panel. In 2014, the number of compounds tested was increased to 21 and the original compounds, JWH-018 and JWH-073, have largely been replaced with new synthetic versions. Te constant change in the compounds used to produce synthetic cannabinoids is due to placing these into Schedule I status by the federal government.
Results Following more than three years of testing and nearly 150,000 specimens at Clinical Reference Laboratory, Inc., distinct trends in the positive rates and detected com- pounds has occurred. Figure 1 contains the “Samples Screened
by Reason for Testing” over the last three years. Te “random” percentage has de- clined with an increase in “pre-employment testing”. Employers are still testing heavily for “reasonable cause” and “post-accident”. Figure 2, “Positive Specimens by Analyte”
graph indicates the relative positive rates for each of the primary synthetic cannabinoids with an additional category for the sum- mation of low volume positives “additional analytes”. During the first year of testing, the predominate synthetic cannabinoids found were JWH-018 and JWH-073 comprising 94.5% of all positive results. By 2014 the prevalence of these two compounds dropped to 5.7% and has been replaced by UR-144, AB-PINANCA, PB-22 and 5-F-PB-22. Te “Percent Positive by Reason for
Testing” is found in Figure 3. Te high- est positive rates occurred in 2012 with employers testing specifically for high-risk groups based on perceived use through discovery of empty product containers. As demonstrated in the graph, there has been a decrease in the overall positive rate for most categories; although the random cat- egory has remained at 2 percent for 2013 and 2014. Another factor for the decline in the positivity rate from 2012–2014 has been the increase in overall testing from
www.datia.org
Figure 4: K2 Positives K2 vs. Multi-drug Positive Jan 2013–Dec 2014
BENZO
AMP/ MAMP
THC K2
■ K2 91.8% ■ THC 4.1% ■ AMP/MAMP 2% ■ BENZO 1.1% ■ COCAINE <1% ■ Methadone <1% ■ Tramadol <1% ■ HC/HM <1% ■ Morphine <1% ■ OC/OM <1% ■ ETG <1% ■ Bath Salts <1% ■ BUTALBITAL <1% ■ 6-AM <1% ■ Codeine <1% ■ PCP <1%
employers including large pools of individ- uals (e.g. all random or pre-employments) and not focusing on high-risk groups such as reasonable cause or post-accident. Figure 4 illustrates surprising outcome
with regard to positive rates for synthetic cannabinoids and other illicit drugs. For this same group of individuals, the donors were evaluated for “other” drugs when a synthetic cannabinoid was confirmed positive. Te data shows that 91.8 percent of the positives for synthetic cannabinoids were only posi- tive for that drug. While only 4.1 percent were positive for both synthetic cannabi- noids and marijuana. Te dual positive rates were even lower for amphetamine, cocaine, etc. Tis indicates that these individuals were single drug abusers (synthetic cannabi- noids) rather than adding these drugs to an already drug abuser lifestyle.
Summary The use of synthetic cannabinoids continues even though these chemical
compounds are regularly added to the Schedule I drug classification. There are currently about 30 compounds in Schedule I status with more added on a near monthly basis. Profits from the sale of these synthetic products are high. In a 2014 drug bust in the Kansas City metro area, a drug ring manufacturing and distributing synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones sold $16 million in two years and even used human testers of the products to tweak the effects and potency. Only by placing these drugs into Schedule I status will the laws become stringent enough to curtail their manu- facture and distribution. Te overall positive rate for synthetic
cannabinoids was 2.2 percent in 2013 and 1.7 percent in 2014 in the CRL population tested. Tis positive rate for the synthetic cannabinoids is higher than the marijuana positive rate for DOT. Te oil and gas industry has been carefully evaluating the usefulness of such testing and are including synthetics as part of their routine panels.
datia focus 61
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76