Skip to content

The detection and prevention of unintentional consumption of DOx and 25x‐NBOMe at Portugal's Boom Festival

Daniel Martins, Monica J. Barratt, Cristiana Vale Pires, Helena Carvalho, Mireia Ventura, Iván Fornís Espinosa, Helena Valente

Human Psychopharmacology Clinical and Experimental May 1, 2017 DOI: 10.1002/hup.2608 via OpenAlex

Summary

AI-generated from the abstract

At the 2014 Boom Festival in Portugal, a drug-checking service analyzed 245 samples that users believed to be LSD. Only 67.3% actually contained LSD alone; 24.1% contained another psychoactive substance instead, including 11.4% that were DOx derivatives and 9.8% that were 25x-NBOMe derivatives. Among users who received unexpected results, 74.2% said they did not intend to consume the drug they actually had. After alerts were disseminated on the second day, a larger proportion of all tests conducted were for LSD compared to the 2012 festival, where no such alert was issued. The authors suggest these findings support integrated drug-checking services in party settings.

Study at a glance

Characteristics Observational study Peer reviewed
Sample size 245
Population Attendees of Boom Festival 2014 who submitted drug samples for testing
Keywords Drug Test biology Consumption sociology Boom Advertising
Citations 76
Key finding Only 67.3% of alleged LSD samples contained LSD, and 74.2% of users who received unexpected results reported they did not intend to consume the drug they actually had.

Abstract

Abstract Objective This paper describes the misrepresentation of LSD at Portugal's Boom Festival 2014 and the prevention of unintentional consumption of DOx and 25x‐NBOMe among LSD consumers attending a drug‐checking service. Methods Two hundred forty‐five drug samples expected to contain LSD were submitted to the drug‐checking service for chemical analysis. One hundred ten post‐test questionnaires were successfully matched with test results. Results About 67.3% of the alleged LSD samples tested contained only LSD; 0.8% contained LSD combined with adulterants; 24.1% did not contain LSD but did contain another psychoactive substance, including 11.4% that were 2,5‐dimethoxyamphetamine derivatives and 9.8% that were N ‐benzyl‐2,5‐dimethoxyphenethylamine derivatives; and no psychoactive substance was detected in 7.8%. The majority of service users who received unexpected test results regarding their alleged LSD (74.2%) reported that they did not intend to consume the drug. Following dissemination of alerts on day 2, a larger than expected proportion of all tests conducted were for LSD, when comparing the 2014 festival to 2012, where no such alert was disseminated. Conclusions Although these results support the provision of integrated drug‐checking services in party settings, evidence of their utility and effectiveness would be improved through future research incorporating more robust measures of outcomes following provision of drug‐checking results.

Comments

No comments yet.

Log in to comment