GC/FID测定毒品在人体内残留时间

本文主要研究应用GC/FID来测定吸毒者尿液中毒品吗啡的残留时间,确定毒品吸食后在体内代谢时间,从而对吸毒者进行强制戒毒提供科学证据.     

如何确定毒品犯罪中量刑的毒品数量标准

在毒品犯罪案件中,毒品的种类和数量是量刑的重要依据,不同种类的毒品,因其毒性的不同,已在立法上有不同的量刑规定。例如鸦片和海洛因,发生毒害作用的主要成分都是吗啡,但鸦片含吗啡量较低,而海洛因本身就是吗啡化合物(二乙酰吗啡),所以二者在相同的量刑幅度内数量规定却相差20倍之多。同一种类的毒品,由于制造工艺不同或者犯罪分子掺杂使假,纯度差别很大,而有的完全是假的。所以,犯罪的毒品数量与能够实际造成危害的毒品数量并不一定一致,这就需要解决如何确定不同纯度毒品的量刑数量标准问题。     

新精神活性物质4F-MDMB-BUTINACA在斑马鱼体内的代谢

目的通过建立斑马鱼模型研究合成大麻素2-[1-(4-氟丁基)-1H-吲唑-3-甲酰氨基]-3,3-二甲基丁酸甲酯(4F-MDMB-BUTINACA)的体内代谢转化途径。方法将6条成年斑马鱼随机分为空白对照组和实验组,每组3条。实验组斑马鱼在4F-MDMB-BUTINACA(1μg/m L)药液中暴露染毒24 h后转移到清水中清洗3次,进行样品前处理,待仪器分析。空白对照组斑马鱼不暴露于4F-MDMB-BUTINACA。采用液相色谱-高分辨质谱技术结合Mass Frontier软件对4F-MDMB-BUTINACA及其代谢产物进行质谱解析和结构分析。结果斑马鱼体内共检测到4F-MDMB-BUTINACA的26个代谢产物,包括18个Ⅰ相代谢产物以及8个Ⅱ相代谢产物。4F-MDMB-BUTINACA在斑马鱼体内的Ⅰ相代谢途径主要包括酯水解、脱烷基化、氧化脱氟和羟基化,葡萄糖醛酸结合反应是主要的Ⅱ相代谢转化途径。结论酯水解代谢产物Md24和酯水解脱氢代谢产物Md25被推荐为4F-MDMB-BUTINACA滥用的良好生物标志物。     

处理制造、贩卖、运输毒品案件应注意的若干问题

<正> 所谓制造、贩卖、运输毒品罪,根据我国刑法规定,是指非法制造、贩卖、运输鸦片、海洛英、吗啡或者其它毒品的行为。该罪侵害客体是国家对毒品的正常管理。该罪违反国家关于毒品管理的法规,主要是指违反国务院《关于重申严禁鸦片烟毒的通知》、《麻醉药品管理条例》的规定,破坏国家对毒品的正常管理,损害人民健康,是一种严重犯罪。该罪的犯罪对象,根据刑法的规定,只能是毒品,主要是指鸦片、吗啡、海洛英等。客观方面是行为人实施了非法制造、贩卖、运输鸦片,吗啡、海洛英或者其它毒品的行为。所谓非法制造毒品的行为,是指利用原材料进行毒品的配制加工,即将含有鸦片、吗啡、海洛英等毒质之物品,加工制成     

吗啡及其代谢物在藏毒致死者体内分布初探

目的采用固相萃取、液相色谱一串联质谱（LC-MS／MS）检验方法,考察吗啡和葡萄糖醛酸吗啡（M3G）在一例体内藏毒致急性死亡者体内分布情况。方法提取死者心血、尿、胃内容物、肝、肾、脑等15种检材,经Waters HLB小柱固相萃取后,C18色谱柱分离,采用电喷雾电离（ESI）、多反应监测模式（MRM）检测目标化合物。结果所建方法在0．0l～101μg／mL浓度范围内线性关系良好,提取回收率大于75％。结果显示总吗啡含量（游离态＋结合态）在胃内容物中最高,其次是尿、‘肾,在心血、胃组织、肺和腺体中居中,脑组织和心脏含量最低。结论本例检验结果验证了胃内容物、尿液和肾脏等是该类中毒案件的理想检材,其分布规律也可作为体内毒品分析实验依据。     

毒品及毒品鉴定(Ⅱ)

2　常见毒品概述　　鸦片类毒品、苯丙胺类毒品、可卡因类毒品、大麻类毒品、常见致幻剂等常见毒品的来源、特性及滥用情况如下分述。2.1　鸦片类毒品目前,鸦片类物质从来源上可以分为天然、半合成和全合成3大类。天然鸦片类又分为外源性和内源性2种。外源性物质包括鸦片、吗啡和可待因等;内源性物质包括天然存在于人和动物的脑中的内啡肽、脑啡肽、强啡肽,在人体中起着镇痛和调节多种生理代谢的作用。半合成代表物是海洛因,全合成代表物是杜冷丁、美沙酮、镇通新等。2.1.1　鸦片、吗啡及海洛因　鸦片类毒品主要来源于原生植物——罂粟。罂…     

微波衍生化和GC/MS/MS技术分析血、尿中的吗啡

目的建立了血、尿等生物检材中海洛因代谢产物吗啡的定性分析方法。方法以丙酸酐为衍生化剂,采用微波衍生化技术结合GC/MS/MS进行分析。结果当CID电压为0.9V时,衍生化物的母离子与子离子碎片信息丰富,碎片为m/e268、324、342。结论此方法科学、准确,灵敏度高,能满足吸食海洛因类、吗啡类毒品人员的生物检材的检验要求。     

生物检材中海洛因代谢物分析现状

海洛因在体内极易代谢,其主要的代谢产物为单乙酰吗啡、吗啡等。目前,检测海洛因代谢物的常用生物检材有尿液、血液、毛发等;常用分析方法有薄层色谱法、气相色谱法、高效液相色谱法、气相色谱-质谱联用法、液相色谱-质谱联用法、免疫分析法、毛细管电泳法等。本文参考近年来的文献对生物检材中海洛因代谢物的分析方法作一综述,为法医毒物分析等相关领域的研究提供参考。     

生物样品中鸦片类毒品检验概述

概述了近 5年来生物样品中鸦片类毒品的检验情况 ,其中包括鸦片类毒品的主要种类及结构 ,鸦片类毒品在体内的代谢 ,LLE、SPE和SFE等提取净化技术 ,免疫测定、GC/MS、HPLC和LC/MS等检测方法。     

online-SPE UPLC-MS/MS对医院污水中毒品监测结果及毒情评估

目的 污水分析法在毒情评估时，医院使用的吗啡、可待因类、麻黄碱类等药物可以经污水管网排放至污水处理厂中，为了避免毒品滥用量被高估，让禁毒或者政府部门对毒情产生误判，对医院污水中的毒品进行监测和结果分析。方法 采用在线固相萃取-液相色谱串联质谱法对87家医院的171个污水样品中13种毒品及其代谢物和人口标记物可替宁进行检测，得到了各目标物的浓度水平，并对毒品浓度的相关性和污水处理前后的毒品去除率进行了分析。结果 在监测的毒品及其代谢物中，吗啡的检出率和浓度都是最高的，远远高于全国污水厂的平均水平，吗啡的浓度与可替宁、可待因的浓度也呈现一定的正向相关性。大部分医院污水中的毒品有着较高的去除率，但是仍然存在医院的污水处理不到位的情况，可能会导致吗啡等物质的滥用量被高估。结论 规范医院药品的处置和污水的处理、优化毒品滥用量计算模型有着非常重要的作用，可将医院作为毒品监测的重点区域，建立长期监测网络，优化毒情评估模型，为准确评估毒情和精准打击毒品犯罪提供参考。     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.