Search

Objectives. To investigate the effects of precursor chemical regulation aimed at reducing cocaine production on cocaine-related maternal and newborn hospital stays in the United States. Methods. We analyzed monthly counts of maternal and neonatal stays from January 2002 through December 2013 by using a quasi-experimental interrupted time series design. We estimated the preregulation linear trend, postregulation change in linear trend, and abrupt change in level. Results. The number of monthly cocaine-related maternal and neonatal stays decreased by 221 and 128 stays, respectively, following the cocaine precursor regulation change. We also observed a further decline in per-month maternal and neonatal stays of 18 and 8 stays, respectively. Conclusions. A supply-side disruption in the United States cocaine market was associated with reduced hospital stays for 2 vulnerable populations: pregnant women and newborns. Results support findings that federal precursor regulation can positively reduce cocaine availability in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) have become a widely embraced policy to address the US opioid crisis. Despite mixed scientific evidence on their effectiveness at improving health and reducing overdose deaths, 49 states and Washington, DC have adopted PDMPs, and they have received strong bipartisan legislative support. This article explores the history of PDMPs, tracking their evolution from paper-based administrative databases in the early 1900s to modern-day electronic systems that intervene at the point of care. We focus on two questions: how did PDMPs become so widely adopted in the United States, and how did they gain popularity as an intervention in the contemporary opioid crisis? Through this historical approach, we evaluate what PDMPs reflect about national drug policy and broader cultural understandings of substance use disorder in the United States today. (Am J Public Health. 2020;110:1191–1197. 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305696) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In March and October 2015, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and CDC issued nationwide alerts identifying fentanyl, particularly illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF), as a threat to public health and safety (1,2). IMF is pharmacologically similar to pharmaceutical fentanyl (PF), but is unlawfully produced in clandestine laboratories, obtained via illicit drug markets, and includes fentanyl analogs. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid 50-100 times more potent than morphine and approved for the management of surgical/postoperative pain, severe chronic pain, and breakthrough cancer pain.* DEA's National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) collects drug identification results from drug cases analyzed by federal, state, and local forensic laboratories throughout the United States.(†) In 2014, 80% of fentanyl submissions (i.e., drug products obtained by law enforcement that tested positive for fentanyl) in NFLIS were identified from 10 states, including Florida and Ohio (2), and seven of these 10 states reported sharp increases in fentanyl-related overdose deaths (fentanyl deaths) (3). This report presents findings of increased fentanyl deaths during 2013-2015 from investigations conducted by the University of Florida and the Ohio Department of Public Health, in collaboration with CDC. Analyses examined the association between trends in fentanyl-related law enforcement submissions and fentanyl deaths and describes groups at risk for fentanyl death using medical examiner and coroner reports. The marked increases in fentanyl death in Florida and Ohio during 2013-2015 were closely associated with parallel increases in fentanyl submissions, with the largest impact on persons who use heroin, consistent with reports that IMF is commonly mixed with or sold as heroin (1,4). In Ohio, circumstances associated with fentanyl deaths included a current diagnosed mental health disorder(§) and recent release from an institution such as a jail, rehabilitation facility, or hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on mirage of impairing drug concentration threeholds as a rationale for zero tolerance per se driving under influence of drugs laws. It discusses those equivalents which are considered mirage and which cannot be determined due to variable drug tolerance, lack of consistent relationships between drug blood concentrations and impairment, innumerable drug combinations and other factors. It proposes specific legislation to address alcohol- and drug-impaired driving in the U.S.