MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406816483 · doi:10.1111/add.16777

Commentary on Craft <i>et al</i>.: Drug contaminants and substitutions in illicit vapes represent a major health risk

2025· article· en· W4406816483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caroline S. Copeland

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicForensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraftEnvironmental healthIllicit drugDrugAddictionMedicinePsychiatryPsychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The discovery of contaminants in unregulated THC vaping products brings cause for concern due to the additional health harms associated with the heating and inhalation of drugs not designed for this route of administration. Efforts are needed to educate vape users of the harms of unregulated vaping products. In the past decade, nicotine vaping in the UK has changed dramatically. Originally targeted at adults as smoking cessation aids [1], the use of vapes amongst teenagers and young adults has rapidly grown to what has been described as a ‘vaping epidemic’, with a 2023 survey showing that 20% of 11–17 year olds had tried vaping, up from 7% in 2014 [2]. A significant driver of this trend has been cited as the emergence of disposable vapes that are available in a variety of flavours and nicotine strengths [3]. In response to the health and environmental concerns posed by disposable vapes, the UK Government announced that they will be banned from June 2025 [4]. Concurrently, there has been emerging demand for non-nicotine vapes, predominated by those marketed as containing Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) [5], the major psychoactive ingredient in cannabis [6]. Although it is legal to manufacture and sell THC vapes in other countries (e.g. Canada, Germany and certain states in the USA), they remain illegal in the UK [7]. Craft et al. describe a case where an individual submitted seven vapes sold as containing ‘THC-based products’ to a drug and alcohol service in the UK, which upon forensic toxicological analysis were found to contain the synthetic cannabinoid 5F-MDMB-PICA [8]. Synthetic cannabinoids, including 5F-MDMB-PICA, are full agonists of the CB1 receptor [9], and have been linked to several fatal and non-fatal poisonings [10, 11]. The contamination and substitution of illicit THC vapes with other substances has also been observed elsewhere, with the Welsh Emerging Drugs & Identification of Novel Substances (WEDINOS) project [12] – an initiative that tests drug samples submitted by members of the public – detecting a variety of both illicit drugs (e.g. cocaine, heroin, ketamine, synthetic opioids of the nitazene class, ‘street’ benzodiazepine bromazolam, the hallucinogen 25B-NBOH and the synthetic stimulant 4-CEC) and licensed medicines (e.g. aspirin, dihydrocodeine, the local anaesthetic lidocaine, the sedating antihistamine promethazine and the anxiolytic pregabalin) in samples submitted as ‘THC vapes’, ‘THC vape fluid’ or ‘THC vape juice’. The health harms of illicit drugs such as cocaine and nitazenes are well documented and understood [13, 14]. However, the vaping of many drugs – whether illicit substances or licensed medicines – will likely pose additional health harms as drugs are seldom designed to be heated and inhaled as the route of administration. Whereas the risks of vaping potent sedatives such as nitazenes may be more immediately apparent, with rapid systemic absorption by the alveolar epithelium leading to respiratory depression, the addition and/or substitution of common licensed medicines such as aspirin and lidocaine into vape fluid may at first seem fairly innocuous. However, upon heating, aspirin can break down to form salicylic acid and acetic acid [15], which if inhaled can cause lung irritation leading to significant inflammation, and the vaping of lidocaine could cause myocardial infarction as lidocaine can precipitate cardiac arrythmias [16]. Prior to the UK ban of disposable vapes coming into enforcement in June 2025, there needs to be significant investment in harm reduction strategies for people who may then source vapes from alternative unregulated suppliers, with particular focus on reaching younger people. Education initiatives are needed to highlight the risks of obtaining unregulated vape products and to alert users to the adverse effects of contaminated or substituted vapes (e.g. chest pain, difficulty breathing or confusion), to encourage timely medical intervention. This initiative could be expanded to address the wider problem of substituted and contaminated counterfeit drug products from other unregulated sources, such as online pharmacies [17]. Drug checking facilities – such as the one opened in Bristol in January 2024 [18] – would also play a vital role in this remit by helping people to verify the contents of their purchases. Craft et al. have brought to attention the public health issue of THC vape contamination, and also therefore the opportunity to advocate for harm reduction measures to prioritise the safety of vape users. None. No funding source. None. Not applicable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictionSame topicForensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisFrench-language works237,207