Drugs: education, prevention and policy, April 2012; 19(2): 156–162

Copyright � 2012 Informa UK Ltd.

ISSN: 0968-7637 print/1465-3370 online

DOI: 10.3109/09687637.2011.617796

Curiosity killed M-Cat: A post-legislative study on mephedrone usein Ireland

Marie Claire Van Hout1 & Rebekah Brennan2

1Department of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, School of Health Sciences, Waterford Institute ofTechnology, Ireland and 2Addiction Training Institute, Ireland

Mephedrone (4-methylmethcathinone) is a synthetic‘amphetamine-type stimulant’ (ATS) derived fromthe Khat plant and collectively known as ‘M-Cats’.Research has indicated the presence of strongdisplacement patterns in post-legislative timeframeswith mephedrone incurred positive effects stimulat-ing user preferences over amphetamine, MDMA andcocaine. The aim of this research was to investigatepost-legislative mephedrone consumerist patternsand the presence of (any) incurred displacementpatterns, as follow-up to an earlier study on pre-legislative mephedrone use in the Republic ofIreland (Van Hout & Brennan, 2011c. Plantfood forthought: A qualitative study of mephedrone use inIreland. Drugs Education Prevention and Policy.1–11. Advance online publication.). A total of 22in-depth interviews were undertaken with findingsindicative of the relative influence of macro- andmicro-level club drug markets in determining thecontinuation of mephedrone use. ‘Temporary dis-placement’ patterns between mephedrone and clubstimulant drugs were observed with 10 usersreporting continued use and the remainder revertingback to ‘old favourites’. This was based on useremergent negative psychostimulant experiences withmephedrone, concerns for product contaminationand improved quality of club stimulants at that time.The synthetic drug market remains of concern, giventhe recent evidence for ‘blended’ club drugs usingmephedrone, and with the need for continuedmonitoring on the impact of legislation on drugconsumptive patterns and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

The emergent designer drug market in Europe has beena topic of many user fora and academic discussions

since 2007 (Dargan, Albert, & Wood, 2010; Measham,Moore, Newcombe, & Welch, 2010; Measham, Moor,& Østergaard, 2011; Measham, Wood, Dargan, &Wood, 2011; Newcombe, 2009; Power, 2009;Psychonaut Web Mapping Research Group, 2009),with a variety of products available on the ‘legal high’scene (Hillebrand, Olszewski, & Sedefov, 2010; Long,2010; Schmidt, 2009; Van Hout & Brennan, 2011bforthcoming). Mephedrone (4-methylmethcathinone)is a synthetic ‘amphetamine-type stimulant’ (ATS)derived from the ‘Catha Edulis’ or Khat plant (Davies,Button, Archer, Ransay, & Holt, 2010) and collectivelyknown as ‘M-Cats’, with an estimated 30–40 millionusers worldwide (United Nations Office on Drugs andCrime, 2010). Mephedrone was identified in the EUEarly Warning system on new drugs in 2008 (Delucaet al., 2009; EMCDDA, 2010a, 2010b). It is currentlyunder legislative control in the UK, Ireland, Denmark,Germany, Romania, Estonia, Norway and Sweden.Mephedrone has been co-implicated in several fatali-ties in the UK, Sweden and the USA (Dickson, Vorce,Levine, & Past, 2010; Hillebrand et al., 2010; Morris,2010).

To date, much of the research into mephedrone isbased in UK, Ireland, the Netherlands and Australiaand concentrated on mephedrone availability, user drugoutcomes, particular consumptive practices and drugdisplacement patterns (Brunt, Poortman, Niesink, &van den Brink, 2010; Dargan et al., 2010; Matthews &Bruno, 2010; McElrath & O’Neill, 2011; McElrath& Van Hout, 2011; Measham et al., 2010; Measham,Moor, et al., 2011; Measham, Wood, et al., 2011;Newcombe, 2009; Van Hout & Brennan, 2011aforthcoming, 2011b forthcoming; Winstock & Power,2011; Winstock, Mitcheson, Ramsey, & Marsden,2011; Winstock, Mitcheson, Deluca, et al., 2011).Mephedrone incurs stimulant, empathogenic andhallucinogenic effects similar to cocaine,

Correspondence: M. C. Van Hout, Department of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, School of Health Sciences, Waterford Institute of

Technology, Waterford, Ireland. Tel: 00 353 51 602166. Fax: 00 353 51 845562. E-mail: mcvanhout@wit.ie

156

Dru

gs E

du P

rev

Pol D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

Aus

tral

ia o

n 05

/14/

13Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

amphetamine, MDMA and methylamphetamine(McElrath & O’Neill, 2011; Schifano et al., 2011;Van Hout & Brennan, 2011c; Winstock, Mitchesin,Deluca, et al., 2011). Consumers purchase productsadvertised as ‘plant food, bath salts, hoover fresheneror research chemicals’, often branded as ‘MiaowMiaow, Meph, Drone, Bubbles, Mmcat; MMCHammer, Bounce, Ronzio, Rush and Subcoca’(Measham et al., 2010; Newcombe, 2009; Schifanoet al., 2011; Van Hout & Brennan, 2011b forthcoming)online (Dargan et al., 2010; Deluca et al., 2009;Mephedrone 2you, 2010; Vardakou, Pistos, &Spiliopoulou, 2011) or via illicit night-time streettrade (Measham, Moor, et al., 2011). Online userforums provide user guides and personal records ofexperiences (Brandt, Sumnall, Measham, & Cole,2010; Mephedrone2you, 2010; Schmidt, Sharma,Schifano, & Feinmann, 2010). Attitudinal researchhas indicated the presence of strong displacementpatterns in post-legislative timeframes with positivemephedrone incurred effects stimulating user prefer-ences over street amphetamine, MDMA and cocaine(Brunt et al., 2010; Measham et al., 2010; Measham,Moor et al., 2011; Measham, Wood, et al., 2011;Newcombe, 2009) and increased prevalence among the‘early adopter’ club and gay scenes (Measham, Moor,et al., 2011; Measham, Wood, et al., 2011; MixMag,2010; Winstock and Power, 2011). The aim of thisresearch was to present a post-legislative snapshot ofmephedrone use, as follow-up to an earlier publishedstudy on pre-legislative mephedrone use in theRepublic of Ireland (ROI; Van Hout & Brennan,2011c) in order to investigate (any) incurred displace-ment patterns within an Irish regional context.

Design and methodsThe research was originally conducted in the ROI aspart of a cross-border pre- and post-legislative study onmephedrone use, with ethical approval gained atQueen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland(McElrath & O’Neill, 2011; McElrath & Van Hout,2011). The study criterion for the pre-legislative studyundertaken 4 weeks prior to legislative control (June2010) in the ROI (Van Hout & Brennan, 2011c) wasmephedrone use in the 6 months preceding fieldwork.Participants were recruited via Facebook invitations,drug user blog forums and internal snowballing. Thesamples (n¼ 22) were recreational club drug usersaged 18–35 (eight females and 14 males) with themajority semi-professional and employed, and theremainder in third level education. No participantsdropped out of the study at that time. The interviewguide was created by consultation between the ROI(McElrath and O’Neill) and the NI (McElrath andO’Neill) research teams and several drugs task forces,and consisted of questions pertaining to mephedronesourcing, routes of administration, dosage protocols,drug outcomes, experiences and social contexts for use,

decision-making processes and risk perceptionsgrounded in legality.

This article presents the findings from the follow-upstudy undertaken with the original ROI cohort3 months after legislative control of mephedrone.Of particular interest for the researchers were displace-ment patterns occurring elsewhere in Europe andAustralia, where mephedrone popularity appearedgrounded in declining availability of good qualityillicit drugs such as cocaine, MDMA and amphetamine(Brunt et al., 2010; Matthews & Bruno, 2010;Measham et al., 2010) and where specific sub-culturalpost-legislative mephedrone markets had emerged(McElrath & O’Neill, 2011; Measham, Moor, et al.,2011; Measham, Wood, et al., 2011). For the purposesof the follow-up post-legislative study, additionalinterview questions were added with regard to post-legislative sourcing of mephedrone, user experiencesand the presence of drug switching patterns (if any).Similar to the pre-legislative study, the focus was onthe ‘lived experiences’ of these Irish mephedrone usersand very much grounded in their localized associa-tional drug networks.

A total of 22 semi-structured interviews wereundertaken with the original cohort. No follow-upparticipants dropped out. In contrast to the pre-legislative study, participants were not reimbursedfinancially for their participation. The interviews wereconducted in a conversational manner, were approxi-mately 45 min in duration and occurred in variousinformal settings, which included cars, houses andcafes. All participants were informed again with regardto the follow-up study’s aim and gave verbal consent topartake. All were assured of anonymity and allowed towithdraw if and when they wished. Participants wereencouraged to explore their feelings, ideas and expe-riences within each interview. Audio-taped interviewdata were fully transcribed following each interview.Fieldwork notes and digital researcher observationswere also maintained. Similar to the pre-legislativestudy, memoing of each transcript and the phenome-nological concepts of ‘bracketing, intuiting, analyzingand describing’ (Coyle, 2008; Giorgi, 1985; Leininger,1985) were employed to identify categories of datawithin a researcher ‘second order’ reflective, integratedand non-judgemental stance. The researchers analysedindependently and as a team using descriptive codesand spider diagrams to map the post-legislativemephedrone experiences. Outliers were interpretedwithin team briefing sessions.

RESULTS

The narratives shall be presented according to thefollowing identified thematic categories: ‘post-legisla-tive mephedrone choices’, ‘post-legislative mephe-drone experiences and settings’ and ‘perceptions ofpost-legislative mephedrone risk and legality’.

CURIOSITY KILLED M-CAT 157

Dru

gs E

du P

rev

Pol D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

Aus

tral

ia o

n 05

/14/

13Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Post-legislative mephedrone choicesPrior to June 2010, mephedrone was purchased along-side other legal ‘headshop’1 products and sold as‘Plantfood’, ‘Bathsalts’ and ‘Hoover freshener’ andidentified by the following product labelling; ‘M1’;‘Miaow Miaow’; and ‘Wildcat’. Pre-legislative userdecision-making factors were centralized in wide-spread mephedrone availability in local ‘headshops’and drug-using networks, competitive pricing, positivepeer reporting, perceptions of legality inferring safetyand favourable comparisons to club stimulant drugs(MDMA and cocaine). Participants in the pre-legisla-tive study commented:

At an affordable price, mephedrone has realised the gamble

of paying for aggressively priced street drugs is unneces-

sary. . .the commonly experienced disappointment of paying

hundreds of euros for cocaine which does little other than to

generate insomnia can’t compare to the reliability of paying

E40 for a gram of mephedrone with an inbuilt customer

satisfaction guarantee. (female, 26)

Everybody seems to be taking mephedrone. It’s better than

MDMA and it’s cheaper. It’s like a proper drug for less

money. (male, 31)Similarly, when asked what mephedrone

consumptive choices were based on in pre-legislative time

frames, several post-legislative study participants observed:

It was legal which made it super easy to get. (female, 29)

Because of the buzz around it with my friend and acquain-

tances, and hearing so many rave reports. (female, 28)

When questioned in the pre-legislative study withregard to their intended mephedrone use after the ban,pre-legislative users speculated that mephedrone wouldcontinue in its popularity via street trade and onlinepurchasing, with some intending to stockpile and thenrevert back to illicit club drugs. A total of 10participants (four males and six females, aged 22–29)reported continued mephedrone consumption, withpost-legislative continuation of mephedrone use attrib-uted to continued street availability, favourable pricingand pleasurable drug effect. Post-legislative usersdescribed their reasons for continued sourcing and use:

For the same reasons as before. . .it was still widely available

amongst my circle of acquaintances. (female, 29)

As it was cheaper than coke and the buzz lasted longer.

(male, 23)

Post-legislative mephedrone users reported access-ing mephedrone through personal and drug networksand to a lesser extent via online drug forums.Opportunistic unplanned use of mephedrone was alsoreported. Some users reported stockpiling smallamounts prior to the ban and observed emergingdifficulties in sourcing mephedrone:

The only difference being that I would have to ask around, as

with other drugs rather than just walk into a shop. (female, 29)

It has become a lot harder than before. Now you have to wait

on dealers to get it in. (male, 23)

Mephedrone use in post-legislative time framesremained within recreational ‘club drug taking scenes’and ‘techno/dance music’ gatherings. The majority ofpost-legislative study participants commented on slightstreet mephedrone price increases at approximatelyE50 a gram (up from E40), with users encouraged topurchase large amounts at discounted prices from drugdealing networks. Online pricing appeared unaffectedby the legislation.

It’s sold in bigger batches, hard to buy just a E50 bag.

(male, 28)

Yes, definitely more expensive some people charge what they

like. (female, 22)

Post-legislative participants observed an improve-ment in the availability and quality of cocaine andMDMA after mephedrone was regulated, and thosewho ceased mephedrone use in post-legislative time-frames reported ‘switching back to ecstasy andcocaine’. Those who discontinued mephedrone useobserved:

The glory of mephedrone was that you could buy it so easily

now it’s gone off the shelves the fact that its a good bang

mightn’t be enough for people – coke and E’s are better these

days. (male, 28)

The quality of drugs has gotten a lot better since mephedrone

became so popular so it really depends on how good the

cocaine and ecstasy available is. (male, 23)

A shift in post-legislative participants’ perception ofmephedrone’s ‘‘better quality high’’ to cocaine orecstasy was described:

People are always going to prefer coke or E. (male, 23)

Post-legislative mephedrone experiences andoutcomesMephedrone drug outcomes were described in the pre-legislative study as ‘feeling loved up’, heightenedsenses, sensuality and sex drive, with feelings ofelation. Few negative side effects with the exception ofa burning sensation in the nostrils, unpleasant acidictaste in the sinuses and slight disorientation when‘snorting or bumping’,2 were reported during the ‘comeup period’. Pre-legislative users cited this quality ofdrug outcome with decreased severity of comedownsymptomatology, as significant consumptive decision-making factors in their choices to use mephedrone overother club stimulants at that time. Polysubstance useusing alcohol, other ‘headshop’ products and illicitdrugs was common. Few pre-legislative participantsreported cravings or withdrawal symptoms. Pre-legislative participants observed:

It’s a heightened sense of absolutely everything. . .There are

no problems when you are high on meph, you can’t remember

if there is anything in your life worrying you or troubling you,

real life seems far away and irrelevant. . .The high is clean

and simple with no uncomfortable physical side effects like

158 M. C. VAN HOUT & R. BRENNAN

Dru

gs E

du P

rev

Pol D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

Aus

tral

ia o

n 05

/14/

13Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

increased body temperature, sweating and gurning that you

get with E. It seems like a purer drug. I believe your body will

tell you if you have harmed it. With meph I woke up the next

day feeling fine and I have nothing but good things to say

about this drug. (male, 29)

There’s not really a comedown as such off meph, you start to

feel a bit tired and not as happy, I suppose you’d call it ‘back

to reality’. I don’t remember ever feeling sick after it or

needing to take something to ease it. (male, 29)

The post-legislative route of mephedrone adminis-tration continued to be intranasal with dosages gaugedand based on user experience of the drug (0.5 to 2grams over the course of 6–12 h). In contrast to the pre-legislative cohort, post-legislative users appeared todevelop individual harm reduction mechanisms whichincluded eating prior to mephedrone use, heightenedpersonal control of dosage, frequent hydration dur-ing the mephedrone episode, avoidance of excessivealcohol consumption and reduced use of other drugs.Post-legislative users reported:

Don’t drink too much, and have a decent meal before you go

out so things don’t all go to your head at once. (male, 29)

I wouldn’t just go hell for leather and whack the bag into me.

I think as with any drug, a bit of cop on and keeping an eye on

your own peers goes a long way. (male, 26)

As was the case prior to legislative control, post-legislative users were aware of socially appropriate andconditioned circumstances to partake in mephedroneuse. Despite the situation of mephedrone usewithin club dance scenes, it was notable that (para-doxically) pre-legislative users reported that mephe-drone decreased social interaction and relatedness withpeers:

I was too absorbed in my own buzz to notice what other

people were experiencing. (male, 27)

I think this particular drug, has a capacity to take the human

element out of relations. (female, 28)

In contrast, post-legislative users observed a changein inner group relations operating not only as normativepeer control mechanism for excessive use as mephe-drone emerged as a street drug, but also additionally asbenchmark for user responsibility and peer group care.Mephedrone experiences appeared to alter in post-legislative time frames, even though use was notdescribed as excessively frequent or irresponsible. Incontrast to pre-legislative participant reports of positivedrug outcome and decreased negative ‘come-down’symptomatology, post-legislative users described anemergence of ‘new’ negative effects on continued useof mephedrone and this appeared to threaten internalsenses of control central to this group of users. Initial‘come up’ effects which had altered over time weredescribed as:

When I took mephedrone I had a sudden feeling of panic that

I associate with the strength of the initial rush, which is

almost too strong and overwhelming. . .it takes from my sense

of control which is essential to me enjoying my buzz.

(female, 28)

Disorientation, visual disturbances, not being able to talk

properly, general mess. (male, 28)

Other cumulative side effects emerging on contin-ued use were observed as:

The more I used it the worse the after-effects were.

(female, 29)

Serious chest pains for about 2 months afterwards. I was

fainting in the shower and getting regular panic attacks for

about 3 months. I was more paranoid and convinced myself

I had angina. But it went away eventually. (male, 23)

Serious mood changes, serious depression and anger – this

was pointed out to me by others, my partner said I was a

lunatic afterwards. (female, 29)

Skin crawling and feeling skagged out. (female, 23)

Post-legislative perceptions of risk and legalityIn the pre-legislative study, user perceptions of riskwere centralized in the lack of threat for criminalconviction, easy consumer access in ‘headshops’ andlegal status inferring safety. A post-legislative partic-ipant commented:

As it was legal and didn’t have to worry about taking it in

public or keeping it on me. (male, 23)

Mephedrone risk management was centralized inprior illicit drug taking experiences and controlledmanagement of use within specific social contexts,with little concern for the ‘not for human consumption’labelling present on product packaging or for mediareporting in pre-legislative time frames. A pre legisla-tive user reported:

They are all the same, take in moderation and you won’t

go wrong, take loads and you are running the risk things

will get out of hand and the comedown will be harsh.

(male, 28)

When questioned with regard to the effect oflegislative control of mephedrone on participant feel-ings around safety and perceived health risks, allparticipants in the post legislative study observed thatlegislation and media reporting had not deterred use,but rather personal and peer (negative) experiences ofmephedrone had.

A friend of mine was seriously affected mentally by the drug.

He was and still is a social user of cocaine, ecstasy and acid.

(female, 29)

I now see mephedrone as a very dangerous drug. Pre-ban I

have to say I didn’t think those media reports were accurate. I

remember seeing a story about a girl that died after taking

bath salts and thinking there had to be other factors. But I’ve

heard quite a few horror stories from friends at this stage.

(female, 28)

CURIOSITY KILLED M-CAT 159

Dru

gs E

du P

rev

Pol D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

Aus

tral

ia o

n 05

/14/

13Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

The majority of post-legislative study participantswere also concerned about potential contaminants andmixed agents in street mephedrone. Some also dis-cussed the potential contamination of MDMA pillswith mephedrone:

Now that the drug is in the hands of unscrupulous dealers, no

doubt it’ll be cut with all sorts of toxic substances.

(female 28)

I wouldn’t be keen on mephedrone anymore. Pills have gotten

a lot better since the ban and all that, I don’t know if that’s

connected. To be honest I’m a bit afraid of it now – I had a

bad experience on it. (female, 28)

DISCUSSION

This follow-up study builds on earlier studies whichobserved the presence of drug displacement patterns inpost-legislative time frames, with mephedrone’s con-sumer popularity tentatively dependent on quality partydrug availability, mephedrone pricing and prior drugtaking careers (Matthews & Bruno, 2010; Meashamet al., 2010; McElrath & O’Neill, 2011; MixMag,2010; Psychonaut Web Mapping Research Group,2009; Winstock, Mitcheson, & Marsden, 2010). Pre-legislative studies conducted in the UK and Australia,although not population based, have presented preva-lence data in club and student cohorts (Dargan et al.,2010; Matthews & Bruno, 2010; Newcombe, 2009;Winstock, Mitcheson, Deluca, et al., 2011). Winstock,Mitcheson, Ramsey, et al. (2011) in their UK-basedpre-ban qualitative study indicated that 47% of thesample reported intending to use mephedrone in thepost-legislative month, with a later online survey 2months after the ban reporting that 63% had continueduse (Winstock, Mitcheson, Deluca, et al., 2011). Otherresearch undertaken 4 months after the ban in the UKreported conflicting results with most users accessingmephedrone via drug using forums (i.e. www.blueligh-t.ru), 42% of participants intending to continuemephedrone use and 53% reporting that legislativecontrol had not affected mephedrone availability; andcontrastingly, 47% reporting that mephedrone was lessavailable to them in their locality, with 58% reportingthey would not attempt to source mephedrone sincemade illegal (Carhart-Harris, King, & Nutt, 2011).Recent research reports on the continued popularity ofmephedrone within ‘early adopter’ club and gay dancescenes in the UK (Measham, Moor, et al., 2011;Measham, Wood, et al., 2011). This research, however,confined to a small existing group of club drug usersand restricted to a regional Irish context indicates areduction in mephedrone use, with less than halfreporting continued mephedrone use. We recognizethat post-legislative use in this case appears dependenton the consumerist negotiation of dynamic localizedclub drug markets. Indeed, Winstock and Power (2011)also found that mephedrone use had decreased

following its control from 34% to 25% during thetime frame of autumn 2009 to 2010.

Mephedrone in pre-legislative time frames appearedpreferentially selected for its positive drug outcomeswith descriptions of stimulatory and hallucinogeniceffects supporting those outlined by Winstock,Mitcheson, Deluca, et al. (2011). Both positive andnegative effects of mephedrone have been described(Brunt et al., 2010; Carhart-Harris et al., 2011;McElrath & Van Hout, 2011; Van Hout & Brennan,2011a forthcoming, 2011c). Post-legislative user pre-ferred route of administration remained intranasal, incontrast to post-legislative users in other countries,where oral use was also popular among older users, andgrounded in risk perceptions around harmfulness andnasal sensitivity (McElrath & O’Neill, 2011; McElrath& Van Hout, 2011). Indeed, research by Winstock,Mitcheson, Deluca, et al. (2011) has observed thatintranasal use is associated with increased frequency inconsumption, with Brunt et al. (2010) observing thatintranasal use incurred greater potential for negative orharmful outcomes. However, those who continuedmephedrone use did not report cravings or uncontrol-lable use, and mephedrone remained very muchcompartmentalized within weekend club and houseparty socializing. Although daily use of mephedrone isuncommon (Dargan et al., 2010; Newcombe, 2009),some research suggests that dosage and frequency ofuse may increase over time (Newcombe, 2009;Winstock, Mitcheson, Ramsey, et al., 2011). In addi-tion, polysubstance use is common with mephedroneis often consumed alongside alcohol (Carhart-Harriset al., 2011; McElrath & Van Hout, 2011; Winstock,Mitcheson, Deluca, et al., 2011). However, reports ofnegative user experiences over time appeared toinfluence individual and peer decision making, withpost-legislative users describing uncomfortable ‘comeup’ and ‘come down’ effects occurring with continueduse. As outlined in other research on mephedrone(Morris, 2010; Winstock, Mitcheson, Deluca, et al.,2011), very little is known with regard to long-termclinical outcomes. These reported increases in adversestimulant type symptomatologies were of concern tothe participants. In response to these incurred effects,those who chose to continue use described personal andgroup harm reduction practices involving frequenthydration, eating prior to consumption, reduced con-sumption of alcohol and other illicit drugs, gauging ofdosage and heightened awareness of peer care mech-anisms. Building on initial discussions in the compar-ative paper (McElrath & Van Hout, 2011), where notonly localized market factors determined club drugtaking choices and contexts for use, the ‘feeling incontrol’ drug experience for these post-legislativemephedrone users appeared to be supported by peerinner group members, but also increasingly fragmentedby resultant negative ‘come up’ and ‘come down’effects.

160 M. C. VAN HOUT & R. BRENNAN

Dru

gs E

du P

rev

Pol D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

Aus

tral

ia o

n 05

/14/

13Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

In the pre-legislative study, we speculated whethermephedrone had ‘side stepped the so called deviantsubterranean element of drug use’. Mephedrone useoccurred alongside identified ‘secondary motivatingfactors’ which included pricing, availability, poor clubdrug quality and declining availability of good qualityclub drugs at that time (Measham et al., 2010, MixMag,2010; Newcombe, 2009) with users reporting they hadlittle concern for mephedrone’s transition from legal toillegal drug, and indicating stockpiling and sourcingof new designer M-Cats would take place in post-legislative time frames. In this post-legislative timeframe, mephedrone appeared to become immersed inillicit street trade, with some user interest in onlinepurchasing. Mephedrone pricing increased butremained cheaper than cocaine (McElrath & VanHout, 2011; Winstock et al., 2010). We surmise thatthe ‘temporary displacement’ (Hammersley, 2010)observed in this small sample of users occurred dueto individual and peer concerns for emergent negativemephedrone drug effects and risk of street contamina-tion of mephedrone, and improved quality of MDMAand cocaine at that time. Indeed, Brunt et al. (2010)have reported on the decline of MDMA purity sincemid-2008, with an emergent presence of mephedronein tablets sold as MDMA in The Netherlands. Indeed,we speculate that the new and improved MDMA andcocaine emergent after the ban in Ireland was theproduct of clever blending with mephedrone inresponse to market forces, and thereby caused thislocalized market shift.

CONCLUSION

The findings in this post-legislative follow-up studyare indicative of the relative influence of macro- andmicro-level drug environments in determining thecontinuation of mephedrone use within this regionalIrish context. In contrast to heightened user popular-ity in the UK occurring alongside reductions inquality club drug availability (Measham, Moor, et al.,2011), this post-legislative research, however, con-fined to a small group of club drug users isindicative of mephedrone’s popularity waning as aresult of the (re)emergence of quality MDMA andcocaine, occurring alongside individual and peernegative experiences with continued mephedroneuse. The ever increasing designer drug marketremains of concern, given the recent evidence forblended synthetic drugs using substituted cathinoneslike mephedrone (Brunt et al., 2010) and incurringgreater potential health hazards for users. The needfor continued monitoring on the impact of legislationon drug use patterns, processes and harms is evident,in order to guide the development of proactive harmreduction interventions and policies.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of

interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content

and writing of the article.

NOTES

1. A head shop is a retail outlet which specialises in drugparaphernalia related to consumption of cannabis, other recrea-tional drugs, and New Age herbs, as well as counterculture art,magazines, music, clothing and home decor.

2. A coin dipped in a bag of mephedrone and snorted.

REFERENCES

Brandt, S.D., Sumnall, H.R., Measham, F., & Cole, J. (2010).

Analyses of second-generation ‘legal highs’ in the UK: Initial

findings. Drug Testing and Analysis, 2, 377–382.

Brunt, T.M., Poortman, A., Niesink, R.J., & van den Brink, W.

(2010). Instability of the ecstasy market and a new kid on the

block: Mephedrone. Journal of Psychopharmacology,

September 8, Early Online. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

pubmed/20826554

Carhart-Harris, R.L., King, L.A., & Nutt, D. (2011). A web-

based survey on mephedrone. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,

118, 19–22.

Coyle, A. (2008). Qualitative methods and ‘the (Partly)

Ineffable’ in psychological research on religion and spiritu-

ality. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5, 56–67.

Dargan, P.I., Albert, S., & Wood, D.M. (2010). Mephedrone use

and associated adverse effects in school and college/university

students before the UK legislation change. Quarterly Journal

of Medicine, 103, 875–879.

Davies, S., Button, J., Archer, R., Ransay, J., & Holt, D. (2010).

Methcathinone derivatives: Findings from test purchases of

capsules and powders from the Internet. Analytical Unit and

2TICTAC Communications Ltd, St George’s, University of

London, UK. Kingston University, Surrey, UK, 1.

Deluca, P., Schifano, F., Davey, Z., Corazza, O., Di Furia, L., &

the Psychonaut Web Mapping Research Group. (2009).

Mephedrone Report. Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College

London, London (UK). Retrieved from

www.psychonautproject.eu.

Dickson, A.J., Vorce, S.P., Levine, B., & Past, M.R. (2010).

Multiple-drug toxicity caused by the coadministration of

4-methylmethcathinone (mephedrone) and heroin. Journal of

Analytical Toxicology, 34, 162–168.

EMCDDA (2010a). ‘Article 5 of the Council Decision’ Council

Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information

exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive

substances [Official Journal L 127, 20.5.2005]. Retrieved

from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?

uri=CELEX:32005D0387:EN:HTML

EMCDDA (2010b). Europol–EMCDDA joint report on a new

psychoactive substance: 4-methylmethcathinone (mephe-

drone), Lisbon, Portugal: Author. Retrieved from http://

www.emcdda.europa.eu/drug-situation/new-drugs

Giorgi, A. (1985). Sketch of a psychological phenomenologi-

cal method. In A. Giorgi (Ed.), Phenomenology and

psychological research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne

University Press.

CURIOSITY KILLED M-CAT 161

Dru

gs E

du P

rev

Pol D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

Aus

tral

ia o

n 05

/14/

13Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Hammersley, R. (2010). Dangers of banning spice and

the synthetic cannabinoid agonists. (Letter.). Addiction, 105,

373.

Hillebrand, J., Olszewski, D., & Sedefov, R. (2010). Legal highs

on the internet. Substance Use and Misuse, 45, 330–340.

Leininger, M.M. (1985). Ethnography and ethnonursing: Models

and modes of qualitative data analysis. In M.M. Leininger

(Ed.), Qualitative research methods in nursing (pp. 33–72).

Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton.

Long, J. (2010). Headshop drugs across Europe: Data from the

EMCDDA. Paper Presented at the meeting of the National

Regional Drugs Task Force ‘Legal Highs’ Conference,

Mullingar, Ireland, 26 January 2010.

Matthews, A.J., & Bruno, R. (2010). Mephedrone use amongregular ecstasy consumers in Australia (EDRS Drug Trends

Bulletin). Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research

Centre, University of New South Wales. Retrieved

from http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/resources/

BulletinsEDRS2010/$file/EDRSþDecemberþ2010.pdf

McElrath, K., & O’Neill, C. (2011). Experiences with

mephedrone pre- and post-legislative controls: Perceptions

of safety and sources of supply. International Journal of DrugPolicy, 22, 120–127.

McElrath, K., & Van Hout, M.C. (2011). A preference

for mephedrone: Drug markets, drugs of choice and the

emerging ‘legal high’ scene. Journal of Drug Issues, in press.

Measham, F., Moor, K., and Østergaard, J. (2011). Emerging

drug trends in Lancashire: Night time economy surveys phase

one report. LDAAT Emerging Drug Trends Phase 1 report.

April, Lancashire Drug and Alcohol Action Team and Dept of

Applied Social Science, Lancaster University, UK.

Measham, F., Moore, K., Newcombe, R., & Welch, Z. (2010).

Tweaking, bombing, dabbing and stockpiling: The emergence

of mephedrone and the perversity of prohibition. Drugs andAlcohol Today, 10, 14–21.

Measham, F., Wood, D.M., Dargan, P., & Wood, K. (2011). The

rise in legal highs: Prevalence and patterns in the use of illegal

drugs and first and second generation ‘legal highs’ in South

London gay dance clubs. Journal of Substance Use, 16,

263–272.

Mephedrone2you (2010). Retrieved from

www.mephedrone2you.com

MixMag (February 2010). The Mixmag drug survey. MixMag,

pp. 44–53. Mephedrone: Meet the UK’s favourite new drug.

Retrieved from www.mixmag.net/mephedrone.

Morris, K. (2010). UK places generic ban on mephedrone drug

family. The Lancet, 375(17), 1333–1334.

Newcombe, R. (2009). Mephedrone: The use of mephedrone(m-cat, meow) in Middlesbrough (pp. 1–16). Manchester:

Lifeline Publications and Research.

Power, M. (2009). Mephedrone: The future of drug dealing.

DrugLink, 25, 6–7, 9.

Psychonaut Web Mapping Research Group (2009). Mephedronereport. Retrieved from http://194.83.136.209/documents/

reports/ Mephedrone.pdf

Schifano, F., Albanese, A., Fergus, S., Stair, J.L., Deluca, P.,

Corazza, O., . . . , ReDNet Research Groups (2011).

Mephedrone (4-methylmethcathione: ‘‘meow meow’’:

Chemical pharmacological and clinical issues.

Psychopharmacology, 214, 593–602.

Schmidt, M. (2009). Legal highs in the UK: Overview and the

results of a user survey. Paper presented at the meeting of the

Psychonaut Conference, Ancona, Italy, 18 September.

Retrieved from http://194.83.136.209/documents/presenta-

tions/SchmidtM. Psychonaut Conference2009.pdf

Schmidt, M.M., Sharma, A., Schifano, F., & Feinmann, C.

(2010) ‘‘Legal highs’’ on the net – Evaluation of UK-based

websites, products and product information. Forensic ScienceInternational. DOI: 10.10161j.forsciint2010.06.030.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2010). World drugreport 2010. Vienna: Author.

Van Hout, M.C., & Brennan, R. (2011a). Bump and grind: An

exploratory study of mephedrone users’ perceptions of

sexuality and sexual risk. Drug and Alcohol Today, 11,

93–104.

Van Hout, M.C., & Brennan, R. (2011b). Heads held high: An

exploratory study of legal highs in pre legislation Ireland.

Journal of Ethnicity of Substance Abuse, 10, 256–272.

Van Hout, M.C., & Brennan, R. (2011c). Plantfood for thought:

A qualitative study of mephedrone use in Ireland. DrugsEducation Prevention and Policy, 18, 371–381.

Vardakou, I., Pistos, C., & Spiliopoulou, C. (2011). Drugs for

youth via the internet and the example of mephedrone.

Toxicology Letters, 201, 191–195.

Winstock, A.R., Mitcheson, L.R., Deluca, P., Davey, Z.,

Corazza, O., & Schifano, F. (2011a). Mephedrone, new kid

for the chop? Addiction, 106, 154–161.

Winstock, A., Mitcheson, L., & Marsden, J. (2010). Mephedrone:

Still available and twice the price. Lancet, 376, 1537.

Winstock, A., Mitcheson, L., Ramsey, J., & Marsden, J. (2011b).

Mephedrone: Use, subjective effects and health risks.

Addiction, May 18, Advance online publication.

Winstock, A., and Power, M. (2011). Mixmag drugs survey.

MixMag, March, 49–59.

162 M. C. VAN HOUT & R. BRENNAN

Dru

gs E

du P

rev

Pol D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

Aus

tral

ia o

n 05

/14/

13Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.