Assessment of the Availability, Cost, and Motivations for Use over Time of the New Psychoactive Substances—Benzodiazepines Diclazepam, Flubromazepam, and Pyrazolam—in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been increasing interest in the availability of non-prescription benzodiazepines and their sale as new psychoactive substances. We wanted to determine UK availability from Internet suppliers and motivations for use of three benzodiazepines (diclazepam, flubromazepam, and pyrazolam). In November 2014 and March 2016, using the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction Snapshot Methodology, Internet search engines ( google.co.uk , uk. yahoo.com and ask.com.uk ) were searched using the terms ‘buy diclazepam’, ‘buy flubromazepam’ and ‘buy pyrazolam’. Threads from drug-user forums ( bluelight.org , drugs-forum.com , erowid.org , legalhighsforum.com ) were analysed using a general inductive approach. Data were converted into price per gram/pellet to allow cost comparisons and to determine motivations for use. There was an increase in websites selling these benzodiazepines between 2014 and 2016: diclazepam (49 in 2014 to 55 in 2016), pyrazolam (33 to 35), and flubromazepam (39 to 45). Thirty-eight (63.3%) sites were based in the UK/Europe. Drugs were sold as pellets (49 websites, 81.7%), powder (19, 31.7%), and blotters (1, 1.7%). Pill forms were not available, and one (1.7%) website sold diclazepam/flubromazepam in liquid form. The cost reduced with increasing purchase quantities. Main motivations for use included anxiolysis, management of benzodiazepine withdrawal, sedation/sleep aid, and management of stimulant withdrawal. These three benzodiazepines are widely available online, most commonly as pellets, and are (mis)used for a number of reasons. This study could be used to support triangulation of data from other sources to inform harm minimisation strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".