Assignment 3

           All three of the research articles (Halpern et al [2011], Mir et al [2011], and Schneir et al [2011]) that we read last week were unique in their discoveries, drawbacks, and relations to the class.  This paper will address all three articles and their implications in order to provoke critical thought about all topics presented.

            Halpern et al (2011) studied the effect of long-term ecstasy use on cognitive skills.  In order to conduct this test, researchers compared cognitive functioning of non-users, moderate users (17-50 uses in their lives), and heavy users (50+ uses in their lives).  After a series of many different cognitive functioning tests, Halpern et al (2011) concluded that there did not seem to be significant differences in cognitive functioning between users and non-users of ecstasy.  The only significant finding was that heavy users were more likely to have lower impulse control.  One thing that I thought was interesting was that it supported the conclusion that we learned in class: ecstasy is demonized and does not seem to cause the brain damage that we once thought.  I also thought it was important to note that the researchers went to great lengths to avoid bias in their research.  At the end of the report, the authors stress that they had no ulterior motives or interests in reporting this research.  Because the study of drugs is so demonized and politically charged, this is a necessary disclaimer to prove that the data is scientifically and not politically driven.  However, the authors seemed hesitant to say that there were specifically no negative consequences of chronic ecstasy use on cognitive functioning, so they perhaps were biased that ecstasy is harmful in this regard (and it’s interesting to note that their study was funded by the United States National Institute on Drug Abuse, which may have perhaps swayed the findings summary a bit).  I also thought it was interesting that heavy users had lower impulse control, perhaps indicating towards some sort of addiction to the substance.  Perhaps addiction to a certain substance lowers impulse control towards other substances and activities, opening the door to further addictions.  One thing that I appreciated about this study is that it seemed to work very hard to eliminate confounding variables in their experiment, and even performed a test run before their actual experiment.  Many factors were taken into account, such as other drugs taken, amount of time spent raving without sleep or drink, and family history of mental disorder, to try to account for anything that would change the outcome of the study.  The only thing that I would change is that in the study, Halpern et al (2011) mentioned that they compared groups “without formal statistical correction.”  I think that they should have performed this math.  Although a hassle, I think it would have added credibility through numbers to their study, and it could have made their findings clearer to the readers.

Ecstasy use is very common in rave culture

            Scheir et al (2011) and Mir et al (2011) both studied the effect of synthetic cannabis drugs, such as spice and K2.  Both reports studied young people in the emergency room suffering from symptoms such as anxiety, palpitations (specifically myocardial infarction as studied by Mir et al [2011]), and tremors.  While all subjects left the hospital without life-threatening conditions, these synthetic cannabinoids were expected to have been the cause of these symptoms.   These reports are interesting because they study the relatively unresearched topic of synthetic cannabis, of which most kinds were unscheduled at the time of writing (and thus legal to purchase on the open market).  Because of laws ruling certain drugs illegal (marijuana is a Schedule I drug), young people look for a legal high, and end up smoking these potentially dangerous synthetic drugs.  In fact, both articles predicted that use of synthetic cannabis would increase in the near future, most likely because of these illegal drugs.  I feel that this increase in synthetic marijuana use is inevitable unless marijuana becomes legalized by the states.  In class, it was discussed how laws may not stop people from participating in illegal drug use.  So, making marijuana illegal will not keep people from partaking in drug use, but they may instead try to take more untraceable drugs, like these synthetic drugs.  As such, if legalization of marijuana becomes a reality, hopefully usage of these more dangerous drugs will decrease.  While I think that these articles are a good start into the study of these new drugs, the combined sample of only five young patients is not nearly large enough to provide reliable research about the drugs or its effects, and thus I think that while these results show reason for concern, more studies should be conducted to fully understand the drug, not only by testing young people, but by testing people from all ages and backgrounds.  Furthermore, these studies should be in a controlled laboratory environment, unlike these studies.  This way, the subjects will stay safe, and many variables can be controlled to get the most accurate data about these synthetic drugs.

Some synthetic marijuana

            In conclusion, all of the research reports had their own findings, all relating to this class.  Though all seem to have very telling information about the properties of the drugs tested, there is always more research to be done to make even more educated conclusions in order to inform society and the scientific community about drugs and their effects on people.   

Sources Cited

Halpern, J., et al.  (2011).  Residual neurocognitive features of long-term ecstasy users with            minimal exposure to other drugs.  Addiction, 106, 777-786. 

Mir, A., et al.  (2011).  Myocardial infarction associated with use of the synthetic cannabinoid K2.  Pediatrics, 128, e1622-e1627.

Schneir, A., et al (2011).  “Spice girls”: synthetic cannabinoid intoxication.  The Journal of  Emergency Medicine, 40, 296-299.