Flualprazolam distribution in postmortem samples

The constant emergence of novel psychoactive substances is troubling to both public health officials and legislators. Additionally, sufficient data collection for each new compound can take months up to years. Flualprazolam, a triazolobenzodiazepine, quickly garnered attention as a sedative drug that likely expresses adverse reactions similarly to alprazolam. This study focuses on the distribution of flualprazolam in multiple common postmortem matrices. Central blood, vitreous humor, liver homogenate, brain homogenate, gastric contents, and urine samples from death investigation cases were quantitated when available. Samples were screened with liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight with limit of detection set at 4 ng/ml and quantitated on liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, with concentration range from 4 to 256 ng/ml. From August 2018 to September 2020, 24 central blood samples were quantitated for flualprazolam. Central bloods of 22 cases had concentrations above the limit of quantitation. The average flualprazolam central blood concentration was 16.3 ng/ml with a median of 9.95 ng/ml (4.24–48.0). Additional analyses for unconjugated flualprazolam were performed on at a total of 15 urine samples ( = 14.4, 4.07–36.1 ng/ml), 23 brain homogenates ( = 23.2, 3.99–69.3 ng/g), 23 liver homogenates ( = 50.7, 13.6–156 ng/g), five vitreous humor samples ( = 7.70, 4.03–12 ng/ml), and 12 gastric contents samples ( = 0.36, 0.02–2.51 mg). The cause of death for 13 of the 24 cases listed flualprazolam as a contributing factor of death.     

Governance as multiplicity: the Assemblage Thinking perspective

Policy Sciences - Governance, the process of steering for collective action, is being theorized and empirically explored on a variety of subjects, private and collective issues and spatial levels....     

The Right to Buy,the Leaseholder,and the Impoverishment of Ownership

Right to Buy is one of the most successful schemes devised to extend home ownership to those otherwise excluded. Its introduction by Margaret Thatcher and endorsement by New Labour provide a critical indicator of those governments' neo‐liberal credentials. This article suggests that one of the key achievements of the Right to Buy was to obscure inequalities inherent in a project of democratization via property ownership. It examines New Labour's political reform of local authority landlordism and leaseholder rights and exposes the vulnerability of Right to Buy lessees and their successors in title. It argues that the promise of inclusion via home ownership is a more conditional promise than generally recognized, in some cases impoverishing rather than enriching. It concludes by reflecting on the importance of scrutinizing schemes which purport to democratize ownership, observing that the position of Right to Buy leaseholders is unlikely to improve following the abandonment of social reform projects by the coalition government.