Kronic hysteria: exploring the intersection between Australian synthetic cannabis legislation, the media, and drug-related harm.

BACKGROUND: Having first appeared in Europe, synthetic cannabis emerged as a drug of concern in Australia during 2011. Kronic is the most well-known brand of synthetic cannabis in Australia and received significant media attention. Policy responses were reactive and piecemeal between state and federal governments. In this paper we explore the relationship between media reports, policy responses, and drug-related harm. METHODS: Google search engine applications were used to produce time-trend graphs detailing the volume of media stories being published online about synthetic cannabis and Kronic, and also the amount of traffic searching for these terms. A discursive analysis was then conducted on those media reports that were identified by Google as 'key stories'. The timing of related media stories was also compared with self-reported awareness and month of first use, using previously unpublished data from a purposive sample of Australian synthetic cannabis users. RESULTS: Between April and June 2011, mentions of Kronic in the media increased. The number of media stories published online connected strongly with Google searches for the term Kronic. These stories were necessarily framed within dominant discourses that served to construct synthetic cannabis as pathogenic and created a 'moral panic'. Australian state and federal governments reacted to this moral panic by banning individual synthetic cannabinoid agonists. Manufacturers subsequently released new synthetic blends that they claimed contained new unscheduled chemicals. CONCLUSION: Policies implemented within in the context of 'moral panic', while well-intended, can result in increased awareness of the banned product and the use of new yet-to-be-scheduled drugs with unknown potential for harm. Consideration of regulatory models should be based on careful examination of the likely intended and unintended consequences. Such deliberation might be limited by the discursive landscape.

Memory performance in abstinent 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, "ecstasy") users.

Research with animals and humans has suggested that acute and subacute use of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA "ecstasy") may lead to memory impairment. However, research is limited by (1) low power due to small sample sizes, (2) the possible confound of polydrug use, and (3) the failure to consider intelligence as a covariate. The present study compared the memory performance on the Wechsler Memory Scale-III of 26 abstinent (2-wk. minimum) recreational MDMA users with 26 abstinent (2-wk. minimum) recreational polydrug users. Despite significantly greater polydrug use amongst these MDMA users, no significant group differences in memory were observed. Regression of total lifetime amount of MDMA use also did not predict memory performance after accounting for intelligence. In addition, the length of time since abstinence (at least 2 wk.) was not associated with an increase in memory performance. Greater total lifetime cocaine use, rather than total lifetime MDMA use, was significantly associated with greater decrements in General Memory and Delayed Verbal Memory performance.

Cannabis law reform in Western Australia: an opportunity to test theories of marginal deterrence and legitimacy.

'Marginal deterrence' refers to deterrence of a more harmful act because its expected sanction exceeds that for a less harmful act. 'Legitimacy of the law' predicts that laws perceived as fair will generate compliance and laws perceived as unfair will generate defiance. The introduction of the Cannabis Infringement Notice (CIN) scheme in Western Australia provided an opportunity to test these theories by assessing whether perceptions of certainty, severity and fairness of punishments dictated by the CIN scheme would affect how regular cannabis users intended to obtain cannabis after legislative change. One hundred Perth residents (mean age 32.2 years; two-thirds male) who reported using cannabis at least once a week were given semi-structured interviews before the CIN scheme came into effect. There was limited opportunity for the CIN scheme to effect marginal deterrence, as most of the sample were already purchasing or growing within the lower penalty thresholds. However, of the minority who were purchasing and growing outside the CIN scheme, a significant proportion reported intending to change their behaviour to fit within the scheme, including the only purchaser of more than 30 g and six of 14 non-hydroponic growers of three or more plants. Perceived certainty, severity and fairness of penalties were not as important in determining purchasing and growing behaviour as factors such as 'meeting needs', 'cost' and 'preference'. The results suggest that under the CIN scheme, marginal deterrence and legitimacy will probably play only a small or selective role in decisions about obtaining cannabis, although in some areas, such as the numbers of non-hydroponic plants, marginal deterrence may be evident.