Women drunk, not "spiked"?

[JoseNarof]

I call BULLSHIT!!!

"In a study by U.K. researchers, not one of 75 women who thought their drinks were spiked with date-rape drugs like GHB, ketamine or Rohypnol tested positive for the drugs, the Evening Standard reported Feb. 17.

The yearlong study from doctors at Wrexham Maelor Hospital concluded that the women who though they had been incapacitated by drugs being added to their drinks more likely were just victims of their own binge drinking. Two-thirds of the study group had been drinking heavily, while one in five also tested positive for other recreational drugs like cocaine even though all denied taking other drugs."

http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2007/study-finds-women-who-think.html

[Mandate My Ass]

1. All it takes is one urination and those drugs are gone

I call double bullshit. These drugs are given because they leave the system of the victim extremely quickly. Who can get to the hospital after drinking, being drugged, passed out sometimes for hours, and then raped without peeing?

More blame the victim bullcrap disguised as "science."

[JoseNarof]

3. Really?! That I didn't know.

Double bullshit indeed!

[SteppingRazor]

Well, I don't think it's blame the victim unless you make the connection...

that binge-drinking somehow makes someone deserving of rape.

In other words, even if this study is perfectly correct, it doesn't make rape any less vile.

[Bunny]

7. Yeah, I thought that too.

I was under the impression that these drugs left the system quickly, and were very difficult to detect. Did these women get blind drunk, then immediately report to a laboratory for bloodwork and urinalysis?

[Lance_Boyle]

2. The EMJ is a reputable journal.

On what basis do you call shenanigans?

[JoseNarof]

5. 1 study, 75 women

Nowhere near enough for any kind of scientific conclusion. That's why! I'm tired of people trying to minimize rape.

[TheWraith]

9. Actually, that's plenty for a scientific study. NT.

[Lance_Boyle]

10. You'd better write the journal

and explain to them that their science is deficient. Boy would they be red-faced to be found spouting random nonsense with no backing whatsoever...

[GOTV]

37. Do you see rape minimization a lot? Like in the study cited? Really?

If you see it in that study, then I'll bet you do see it a lot.

[JoseNarof]

47. I see too many women getting raped

and having been raped. Including me.

[GOTV]

50. That's a different issue and not what I asked. n/t

[Mandate My Ass]

8. I work in a hospital and met an MD who wrote a chapter for a textbook

She said one urination and the drugs are gone. She an ER doctor and is an expert in the field.

[Lance_Boyle]

15. More of an expert than the study authors?

Not all MDs have expertise about all drugs. I'd take the opinion from your source with a slightly larger grain of salt than I'd find necessary for the authors of this study, given anecdotal or no evidence versus a sound research design and methodology resulting in publication in a peer reviewed journal.

[Mandate My Ass]

23. she works in the ER on a major university campus where date rape

is a very commonplace event and she has literally treated hundreds of women. Her expertise is well established in the field and her work is also peer-reviewed. You can take as many grains of whatever size you wish, I find her eminently trustworthy.

[Warpy]

21. Rape is rape

and the fact that those drugs are undetectable after about 4 hours added to the fact that this "study" is a by a bunch of MEN trying to tell us if a woman drinks, then she's fair game for drugging, raping, and whatever else the male who set her up wants to do with her unconscious body. In other words, it's the same old rape apologist saying "She ASKED for it!"

The researchers should know how fast those drugs clear the system. That they didn't speaks ill of their abilities as researchers and even less about their qualifications as human beings.

Note: "Less than 2% of GHB is eliminated unchanged in the urine.<162, 164> Owing to the short half-life, there is no accumulation of GHB with repeated dosing and GHB doses of up to 100 mg/kg are no longer detectable in the blood from 2-8 hours or in the urine after 8-12 hours.<162, 165> The variability of these findings may depend on the sensitivity of the assay used, or it may be due to interindividual variability. In summary, it has been suggested that regardless of the dose given, the elimination of GHB is so rapid, even in those with compromised liver function, that the drug is completely eliminated within 4-6 hours after ingestion.<162>"

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/418321_3

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. That's bollocks, in several ways

They are not "trying to tell us if a woman drinks, then she's fair game for drugging, raping, and whatever else the male who set her up wants to do with her unconscious body" - and that's an outrageous slur on them. Their objectives were "To assess the scale of drink spiking in our area and identify which drugs are being used to spike drinks and also to assess whether there is a problem with drink spiking in any particular establishment".

One of the researchers is a woman.

Two thirds of the patients attended A&E between 10pm and 3am on the night they thought they had been given the drug, so detecting the drug (both blood and urine were tested) is a reasonable expectation. I can see 3 references saying the detection window is 12 hours (1, 2, 3). Those agree with the upper limit your reference gives (and they're more up to date - yours comes from 2001).

[GOTV]

53. Majority of subjects were tested between 10pm and 3am...

... it's not like they were tested the next day. All but 8 showed no trace of any drug but alcohol.

[asthmaticeog]

4. Why do you call bullshit?

Do the researchers at Wrexham Maelor have a particular motive to lie, or to spend a year's work on a bogus study? Do you think they're part of a shadowy cabal of influential drink-spiking apologists?

Frankly, the only place I've ever heard about drink-spiking was on hyperventilating local-news scare stories, so the possibility that the "phenomenon" might be at least partly mythical doesn't seem so out there.

[JoseNarof]

6. See post #5 n/t

[asthmaticeog]

11. So who's trying to minimize rape?

A study that suggests that drugging isn't as commonplace as we'd be led to believe does nothing to minimize rape.

[JoseNarof]

17. The article can be used against rape victims

THAT'S WHY!

[asthmaticeog]

19. You'd suppress the results of a scientific study that competes with your politics, then?

[JoseNarof]

25. Balance, my friend, balance. n/t

[asthmaticeog]

27. One could say the same to you.

Welcome to DU.

[JoseNarof]

41. Well, thanks, I think

[GOTV]

49. I say no to balance. I want 100% truth no matter who it hurts...

... if the study is inaccurate, that is a problem. If it is accurate but can be used for evil that is not a problem with the study.

[JoseNarof]

61. By not including other info

about women being raped after being drugged the article/study presents a false view. That is the exact opposite of truth.

[GOTV]

63. What other info should have been included? n/t

[JoseNarof]

67. Well, geeeee

How about stats on drugged rape victims of which there are many? For a start!

[GOTV]

76. Well, see, that would be irrelevant to the goal of the study....

... which is not a study of rapes worldwide and throughout history. In fact, it's not even about rape even though many of the subjects may have been in fact raped. The study would have been unaffected had all the subjects not been raped at all.

[mongo]

29. Drink spiking is far from a "mythical" problem

My wife knows a woman who this has happened to, and we've heard many other stories.

It is a fucking awfull thing to do to a person, and it doesn't need to be minimized by either this study, or by anyone claiming it is a "mythical" problem.

[asthmaticeog]

46. And as evidence you cite a friend-of-a-friend story.

I'm not saying it's never happened, only that the magnitude of the problem might be smaller than the scaremongering.

To wit, re-read my post. I didn't call the problem mythical:
"..the possibility that the 'phenomenon' might be at least partly mythical doesn't seem so out there."

[Dora]

34. It's not entirely urban myth. My husband was dosed.

He doesn't drink at all, but he's a musician so he's in bars all the time seeing bands. One night as he was driving home after seeing a friend's band in a popular/packed nightclub, he was overcome by a sudden and strange buzz. He managed to get the truck home without incident, puked in the driveway, then passed out in the cab until 4:00 a.m. He was sick as a dog the next morning. I went down the list with him - what did you eat? what did you drink? are any of your friends sick?

Then I asked if he thought he'd been dosed.

It turns out there were a couple of frattish-type guys standing at the bar next to him. Their demeanor was odd enough (cozy, secretive) for him to notice. At one point my husband felt something wet splash the back of his hand (which was resting/holding his glass of Coke), and he blew it off thinking it was errant bar spray or somebody spilling/tossing their drink in the crowd. He left 15 minutes after that.

I am convinced he was hit by bored GBH-bearing fratsters.

[Dora]

40. And the moral?

Anyone can be a target, so keep your hand covering your drink, cutie-pie.

[izzybeans]

12. Drunk or Drugged someone is raping them while they sleep.

It doesn't matter.

[gollygee]

13. Yes - the language I don't like in the article is

"more likely were just victims of their own binge drinking"

If they're the victims of rape, they are victims of rape, not "just their drinking".

[izzybeans]

14. I need to read it again, but is that the summary quote or the study authors'?

I read it again and the reasearchers are clearly shifting blame on this. (on edit)

[GOTV]

77. They are shifting the blame for feeling as though you've been drugged from the drugs to the alcohol

Since most of the men and women studied reported being drugged were found not to be drugged at all, only drunk. And of the ones that were drugged, they were not drugged by common date rape drugs only common illegal recreational drugs.

[asthmaticeog]

16. The article doesn't say they were victims of rape, though.

Merely that they thought they'd been incapacitated by spiked drinks.

If they *were* raped and the article neglected to say so, that's some appallingly irresponsible reporting.

[gollygee]

26. If they went to the emergency room and said they thought their drinks

had been spiked with a date-rape drug, at least some of those women must have been victims of rape, don't you think? It seems like a fair jump IMO. If a woman goes to the emergency room, it isn't likely to be just because she passed out.

If you read the article that is linked in the OP's article - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23385868-details/Drug%20rape%20myth%20exposed%20as%20study%20reveals%20binge%20drinking%20is%20to%20blame/article.do - it sounds even more like they were in emergency rooms being treated at least in some cases for rape.

How do you read this?

Last month a personal safety campaigner claimed that Rohypnol had never been used to assist a sexual assault in the UK. Doctors carrying out the latest study at the Wrexham Maelor Hospital said it was far more likely women were claiming their drinks had been spiked as an "excuse" for binge-drinking.

The 12-month study was based on 75 patients - mostly women - treated in casualty who told doctors their drinks had been tampered with in pubs or clubs.

[asthmaticeog]

35. Thank you.

I'm astonished that the OP's linked article didn't specify whether the women in the study were in fact rape victims or not.

[JoseNarof]

18. Thank you! This is a progressive site

isn't it? Jeeez!!!

[jobycom]

28. There is no mention of rape in the study.

According to the actual study (post 22 below), these were people of both genders who presented themselves to a specific emergency clinic claiming their drinks had been spiked. 68% were women. Most people didn't even provide urine samples, so the tests weren't conclusive.

The purpose of the study was only to test the prevailance of spiking in one area in England. The article is just a bad summary of a narrow survey.

[gollygee]

32. Would you please see #26?

it seems to me that at least some of these cases were likely rapes. Read post #26 to see my take on that. Thanks.

[jobycom]

45. I saw 26. Would you please read the study? There is no mention of rape

These were men and women who reported on their own to the clinic claiming they thought their drink had been spiked. They weren't unconscious, they weren't reporting rape, only 6 were even admitted to the clinic after talking to a doctor. The urine tests were done after the patients had left. The study mentions one count of vaginal bleeding, and that's the closest I can come to figuring out how many may have been reporting rape. It doesn't say whether this was one of the 42 people who provided urine samples, or one of the six people who checked into the clinic.

The study only says what it says. It didn't study rape victims, it didn't study police reports. It's purpose was to see how many people reporting to an emergency clinic in a specific area with a concentration of bars had had their drinks spiked. It isn't claiming that anyone was raped, or that they weren't raped, or that people who are raped while unconscious from alcohol are not really rape victims. Nothing of the sort. It was a simplistic, flawed, little bitty survey that said none of what most people here are assuming--without bothering to even wonder if they have enough information to make an assumption--it said.

[gollygee]

52. How do you know the emergency room patients weren't reporting rape?

it certainly doesn't say they *weren't* there for rape. When you take the case that included vaginal bleeding into account especially, it seems obvious that at least some of the women in this study were rape victims.

From the study:

The use of alcohol and sedating substances by rapists is a centuries-old practice. Today, numerous legal and illegal drugs can be misused and covertly added to beverages in a social setting. Many of these substances when combined with alcohol will have their effects magnified.

There has been a lot of media coverage in recent years, mainly focusing on just a few substances, including the central nervous system depressants, flunitrazepam (rohypnol) and {gamma}-hydroxybutyrate (GHB). As a result, there has been a public perception that drink spiking is a widespread practice. Elliott1 reported on a series of 27 non-fatal instances of suspected GHB intoxication in the UK between 1998 and 2003.

In a UK study of more than 1000 women who claimed drug-assisted sexual assault, only 2% were identified as deliberate spiking cases with sedative drugs.2 The most common drug detected was alcohol in 46% of samples, with illicit drugs detected in 34%.

The whole purpose of this study was because of the potential use of drugs by rapists.

[jobycom]

57. That has nothing to do with the survey or its conclusions.

The study had nothing to do with rape. I no more know whether the people admitted were raped than I know whether they had eaten asparagus, because neither was the purpose of the study.

Your last sentence is wrong. Here is the actual purpose of the study: To assess the scale of drink spiking in our area and identify which drugs are being used to spike drinks and also to assess whether there is a problem with drink spiking in any particular establishment.

[GOTV]

62. Some of them were probably raped, some of them probably were not. What's the mix?

... we don't know. The study did not say.

[izzybeans]

38. True, but they were interested in claims of being spiked with known date-rape drugs

In the study itself they mention that several of the women were admitted to the hospital, one with vaginal bleeding.

Their findings don't even rule out the possibility of their drinks being spiked with other drugs.

Not all women who get drunk or have their drinks spiked get raped. However, at least one of them in this study most likely did. And the implication the study's authors make is that their trip to the emergency room was caused by them alone. And yet all they did was rule out "spiking" by known date rape drugs, while 1/8 of the sample had quantities of amphetamines, Ecstasy, and cocaine in their bodies despite 100% of them denying drug use. Now granted some of these girls a probably lyng about it, but not all of them. And 1/4 of the sample showed up after the screening window ended for the drugs they were concerned about. (estimated from memory)

[jobycom]

54. My point is that the study's purpose was not to investigate rape.

It makes no determination about rape. The post I responded to makes assumptions that aren't in the study. No one in the article or the study claimed that a woman raped while drunk was not a rape victim, and the survey makes no conclusions about rape in any way. Yet that's what the post implied. That's what I responded to.

As for the six admitted to the hospital, only one was clearly a woman. The other five were admitted for :degree of intoxication/agitation (n = 4), social reasons (n = 1)." There is no explanation of what that means, because the study is making no conclusions about anything other than what it is studying.

[izzybeans]

73. I think we agree.

[GOTV]

58. The article does not specify if any subject was actually raped...

... It might be reasonable to assume since they were in the hospital, but if you suddenly experienced the strange effects of some of these drugs, you might go to the hospital as well without the rape.

[jobycom]

20. 75 over a year, plus the article contradicts the study.

"There has been a lot of media coverage in recent years, mainly focusing on just a few substances including Rohypnol and GHB, which has led to the perception that drink spiking is a widespread practice. But most patients allegedly having a spiked drink tested negative for drugs misuse," said researcher Hywel Hughes.
--

Clearly means that not all patients claiming their drinks were spiked were wrong, yet the study claims the 75 they tested were all wrong. So the questions to ask are: 1) how did they decide which women to include in the study, since they obviously left those who tested positive out; 2) how many accurate cases have their been where a woman thought she'd been spiked and tested positive; 3) how many overall cases were there, whether a determination could be made or not; and 4) (as was said above) was the testing done fast enough to prevent the drug leaving their system--in other words, are they claiming the 75 who tested negative could not have been drugged, or only that doctors could not find traces of the drug, meaning they could have been drugged but it couldn't be proven.

This is too short an article summarizing a study to mean much. It doesn't let us judge the actual study, and we have no idea whether the writer accurately portrayed the study, in addition to the gaping holes it leaves in its summary.

Having said all that, a large part of being drunk or high is psychological. Your mind makes your body react a certain way even before the physical effects take control, which is why infrequent drinkers don't get drunk as easily as frequent drinkers. If someone has been drinking heavily and convinces himself or herself that they've been drugged, their mind starts making them feel drugged, just like someone who is convinced they have an illness will start feeling symptoms of that imaginary illness. So I'm sure there are many cases of someone believing they are drugged who aren't. And I've personally known people who lie to get out of trouble by claiming they were drugged.

But I don't get any idea from this article how common that is, how common actual spiking is, or anything else. 75 in one year is not a very representative number of anything.

[izzybeans]

22. Here is the study itself

http://emj.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/24/2/89

several of these women had other drugs in their system, all of which they claimed to have not taken. So the possibility that their drinks were spiked can't really be eliminated, just not of the drugs being studied.

[jobycom]

31. Thanks. Little connection between the article and the study.

The study says that only 42 urine samples were obtained, and only 34 blood samples, and this was for one emergency clinic in one region in England.

[izzybeans]

42. Yeah it leaves a lot to be desired IMO. I'm not sure how to justify any claim with

this study. It seems inconclusive at best.

[GOTV]

59. The objective of the study was to examine a local problem...

... which is why it was limited geographically.

[jobycom]

66. Exactly, but even so, it's flawed.

Obejective: To assess the scale of drink spiking in our area and identify which drugs are being used to spike drinks and also to assess whether there is a problem with drink spiking in any particular establishment.

--

All it really has assessed is the reliability of the self-diagnosis of people who have checked themselves into a specific clinic believing they have been drugged, so it hasn't even really achieved its objective. It is interesting, but it concludes none of what some people are assuming it concludes. How many people even go to an emergency clinic if they assume they've been drugged. I'll bet a sizeable proportion wakes up and forgets about it, especially if they haven't been raped. A lot of people waking up knowing they had just been raped would either call the cops or, as we unfortunately know many people do, try to ignore it and go take a shower. Which would make the survey much less reliable.

[GOTV]

71. Probably a consession to the difficulty of finding subjects...

... the only way to get around that limitation would be to take volunteers and dose some them with illegal drugs to see if those so dosed could tell.

[jobycom]

74. True, the flaws were more in the limits of the survey, not the mistakes

of the surveyors.

[Gormy Cuss]

65. Right. The study is not flawed. It's just not generalizable because of the limitations.

It's the sort of analysis undertaken to provoke further research, not to make grand conclusions on broader issues.

[jobycom]

68. "grand conclusions on broader issues."

The study didn't have to do that. That's what DU is for. :rofl:

[Gormy Cuss]

72. Watch it, buster. I have a pitchfork and I'm not afraid to use it.

:evilgrin:

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Or, another explanation,

they just don't remember taking the other drugs because they took them while in blackout from the date-rape drug, which was then eliminated more quickly than the other.

[izzybeans]

43. Perhaps, but their really is nothing to say one way or the other, at least that

was reported by the authors. The interview data should be interesting.

[CBGLuthier]

24. Reading Comprehension 101

OK having read the article a few points.

First, the word RAPE only appears in connection with the common term for those types of drugs. No where is there any information as to whether or not these 75 women were assaulted.

Second, this study does NOT try to claim that most allegations are false. It states exactly what they found, of the 75 women they tested, none had any traces of the drugs. Now, it may be true these drugs dissipate quickly although i would not think reputable researchers would ignore this fact.

And finally, not from the article itself but one bit of information that may shed some light on this. Binge drinking has become a serious problem in England. Men and women have been drinking themselves into a stupor to the point that it is becoming a minor health crisis. Public campaigns have been launched to address this issue.

So, it is ENTIRELY possible that these 75 women drank too much and were not the victim of adulterated beverages. This does not mean that date rape drugs are not used, that rape is not a serious crime or any other nonsense as has been suggested in this thread.

It does seem to indicate that some people underestimate their capacity for alcohol. Period.

[jobycom]

33. Shut up and grab a pitchfork. There are witches about, ya know?

:yoiks:

[TahitiNut]

55. Word!

:hide:

It'll probably be regarded as a sin to point out that nowhere does the article say how many or even IF any of those tested were raped - allegedly or otherwise - just that they were tested for the drug after suspecting they'd been dosed.

To read DU, one might suspect that we're overrun with people who view rape as excusable - when I have yet to see anyone who doesn't regard it as one of the most despicable and reprehensible acts of all. Indeed, one could hardly regard a false allegation of rape, no matter how few, to be frightening and reprehensible without regarding rape itself as far more so.

[jobycom]

60. It is regarded as a sin, Check out my attempts to do that above.

This whole thread is starting to remind me of the witch scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail. I think I'll go find a discussion on Olvie Garden or Tom Cruise. :hi:

[asthmaticeog]

39. THANK YOU.

Some of the fucking people on this thread...

[Dora]

51. Good summary. n/t

[Katherine Brengle]

30. Am I correct that those kinds of drugs

evacuate the system very quickly? What was the delay between alleged drugging and drug testing?

[GOTV]

70. Most subjects were tested between 10pm and 3am....

... when do you think most spiking would take place?

They could have been claiming to have been spiked over breakfast, or several days ago - we don't really know.

We can all make our own assumptions though.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. Nah, No Real Reason To Believe It's Bullshit. Seems Logical Actually.

Just how prevalent did you expect drink spiking to be?

The study and its conclusions seem to be perfectly fine, and it appears the only reason that you object to it so much is because you didn't like its findings. But I'm not sure why you would've preferred to have seen a higher instance of drink spiking, since that wouldn't be a good thing anyway.

I see no reason to criticize the credibility of the study and also find no reason to view the results as objectionable. It all fits logically and the findings don't surprise me one bit.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Makes sense.

A lot more women have been raped after falling victim to alcohol, than to GHB.

It research should be stressing the potential dangers of alcohol. Seems like a good idea to me.

[Mandate My Ass]

64. there are no potential dangers to drinking alcohol

other than to one's liver. If a sociopath uses a woman's inebriation as an excuse to commit a heinous crime against her, he's still a criminal and she's still a blameless victim of his aggression.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. I'm not seeing your point.

:shrug:

[jobycom]

75. Where did anyone claim otherwise?

:shrug: And why just sociopaths? Anyone guilty of rape is guilty of rape.

[RaleighNCDUer]

78. That's just silly.

A person can be blameless and still be in grave danger. This is not about "blame the victim". It's about the prevalence, or lack thereof, of these drugs in these situations.

[hedgehog]

79. It doesn't really matter. Alcohol is the original date rape drug and

still the most popular.