Introduction
Narcotics are classified under criminal law as a variety of substance that induces sleep. In terms of law, narcotic refers to opium, derivatives of opium, and or its synthetic or semi-synthetic substitutes. So according to the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), cocaine, coca leaves, etc. are classified as narcotics (Tilstone et al, 2006). These are categorized a “controlled substance” which means that the use, sale, or distribution of such drugs are regulated either by the federal or state government. These items are listed specifically or by classification under CSA or under Part 1308 of the Code of Federal Regulations. CSA acts as a regulatory body which controls the usability of these restricted drugs to those who are likely to abuse them. Given this definition of narcotics and its abuse, we now consider how narcotics abuse can be tested in order to convict the abuser.
There are different forms of tests that can be employed to provide substantial evidentiary proof to support and convict a drug abuse. They can be tested through urine, hair, saliva, etc. here in this paper we will discuss a few. We will consider each one at a time.
Discussion
First is blood sample. Studies have shown that excessive intake of drug produces huge amount of EE in blood. Thus, occurrence of EE in blood shows that this is due to abnormal concentration of yeast infection in blood (Karch, 2007). But this test may not be able to provide substantial evidence to convict a person for drug abuse as this concentration of yeast in the stomach may take place due to excess of glucose content in body. Further, this test provides small evidence and thus lacks any forensic significance. Recent study reveals that drug content in urine can be detected by measuring the content of 5-Hydroxytryptophol (5HTOL) (Karch, 2007). With the increase in drug intake, the presence of 5HTOL increases in blood and urine due to hepatic oxidation of ethanol. Thus, this proof can be passed on as a substantive evidence to convict for drug abuse as this test negates the possibility of yeast formation due to excess intake of any other form of carbohydrate. Another method which has been adopted for narcotics test is urine sample test even though it has a very small fraction of undiluted or transformed drugs in urine (about 1 – 2 percent). Urine analysis indicates drug use which has occurred within a time period of 2-3 days (DuPont & Baumgartner, 1995).
Testing the saliva of a drug abuser is also an accepted method of proving drug abuse. Saliva is presented as an alternative matrix in the establishment of drug abuse (Samyn et al, 1999). The definitive salivary concentration is confirmed by three processes viz. the salivary pH, administration, the degree of binding of plasma protein, and the physico-chemical properties of the drug that has been abused. According to Samyn et al. due to saliva-plasma ratio exceeding 1, saliva can be considered as a better analytical tool than blood while testing drug abuse in the roadside. Moreover saliva can be obtained from the suspect under supervision and non-invasively. Even though saliva testing provides substantial and extensive proof for drug abuse, its use is limited. Even though saliva testing is apparently a useful method for drug testing, it is not devoid of problems: (1) due to existence of differences in the process of collecting procedure of saliva, the outcome of the tests varies considerably, for instance in case of roadside abuse testing only a small fraction of saliva can be obtained; (2) the concentration of drug in saliva is much lower than in urine; and (3) saliva by principal has the parent drug and so far, no appropriate immunoassays has become successful. Samyn et al. further states that even though saliva is a potent sample for proving drug abuse research is yet to prove of some drugs like cocaine are a suitable matrix to display the drug under which a roadside abuse taking place.
Another contemporary method of analyzing drug abuse is hair analysis (DuPont & Baumgartner, 1995). Thus, hair analysis is the forensic test that is employed to understand the mode, pattern, and the degree of drug abuse for a long period of time. According to DuPont and Baumgartner hair analysis is a more effective method of drug abuse testing than urine analysis. This is due ot the authenticity of sample collection in case of hair analysis and evasiveness in case of urine analysis. Another problem with urine analysis is positive drug abuse when the case is otherwise, for instance in case of ingestion of poppy seed. The reason behind this problem is hypersensitivity of the urine test, i.e. to set low-cutoffs to recompense for the temporary drug use (DuPont & Baumgartner, 1995). This problem can be avoided in hair analysis, as because there is a wide range of samples in this case which ensures that there is efficient detection of the test is not hindered due to the use of more effective cut-off levels to detect exposure to inert endogenous drug. One concern for wrong detection of hair analysis is endogenous exposure of hair to drugs such as through smoke, is a valid concern for hair analysis for drug abuse. This drawback can be taken care of by carefully washing the hair before conducting the test, by kinetic analyses of the hair that is washed, and by measuring the metabolites (DuPont & Baumgartner, 1995). The problem that may arises due to race or hair color which is avoided by eliminating melanin from analysis of hair.
Conclusion
Thus, we see that drug abuse analysis can be done through saliva, blood, urine, or hair testing. If these are found positive then the person can be convicted of drug abuse. Further, we have seen that these tests each have some drawbacks, so conducting one or two tests simultaneously may confirm the results.
Bibliography
- DuPont, R. & Baumgartner, W., 1995. Drug testing by urine and hair analysis: complementary features and scientific issues., Forensic Science International Volume 70 (1-3), p. 63 – 76.
- Karch, S.B., 2007. Drug Abuse handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
- Samyn, N., Verstraete, A., van Haeren, C. & Kintz, P., 1999. Analysis of drugs of abuse in saliva., Forensic Science Review 11 (1), p. 1-19.
- Tilstone, W.J., Savage, K.A. & Clark, L.A., 2006. Forensic Science. California: ABC-CLIO.