‘Spice’ Use Motivations, Experiences, and Repercussions among Veterans of the United States Armed Forces

Abstract

Background and Objectives

The potential for synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) to function as an alternative to marijuana without the same risk of a positive urinalyses led to claims of pervasive military SC use. Case studies confirm use among veterans, but no study has adequately explored SC use in the military using detailed interview data.

Methods

Interviews (1-2 h) were conducted with 318 justice-involved veterans. Recruitment was attempted with all participants in eight veterans treatment courts in three U.S. states (54.9% of 579 eligible veterans). Interviews were transcribed and thematic analyses completed.

Results

SC use was reported by 65 participants (21.3%). Major emergent themes indicated SCs were perceived as unpleasant, overly powerful, and a poor substitute for marijuana. Further, habitual use was rare as many chose not to reuse after initial negative experiences. Few indicated that the perception that SCs would not appear on routine military urinalyses enabled their use. Veterans were aware of the changing drug composition and feared “bad batches.”

Conclusions

SCs were explicitly disliked both independently and relative to marijuana. Nine discussed avoiding positive military drug screens as a consideration, but negative initial experiences generally prevented progression to habitual use. Veterans did not view SCs as a suitable marijuana replacement. Fears that SCs are being used as a marijuana alternative among veterans subject to frequent drug testing appear unfounded. These interviews suggest that routine military drug testing did not motivate individuals to use SCs habitually as a marijuana replacement; however, veterans’ negative interpretation of SC effects contributed to this outcome.

Keywords:

• Synthetic cannabinoids
• spice
• cannabis testing
• military
• veterans

Acknowledgements

Data for this article comes from the Multi-Site Evaluations of Courts on the Frontline: Systematically Assessing. Implementation and Intermediate Outcomes in Veterans Treatment Courts, which was supported by Award No. 2015-VV-BX-K020, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.

Author contributions

Dr. Stogner oversaw the study, completed all analyses, and authored the methods, results, and discussion. Dr. Baldwin oversaw data collection and assisted with final manuscript preparation. Amelia Wiercioch assisted with the introduction/ literature review and edited the manuscript. Each author certifies that their contribution to this work meets the standards of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Award No. 2015-VV-BX-K020, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.Data was collected as part of National Institute of Justice, 2015-VV-BX-K020: Multi-Site Evaluations of Courts on the Frontline: Systematically Assessing. Implementation and Intermediate Outcomes in Veterans Treatment Courts.