I'm right there, Interviewee 33.
I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions that have been drawn for Study 2 (the one I participated in), especially given the sample size of 60 people. In fact, I think the only conclusion you can draw from that is that *GASP* people like to use drugs, and *DOUBLEGASP* if BZP is banned, people will continue to use drugs, only all the drugs they take will be illegal instead of only some of them.
Also, I'm not sure about the conclusion that people are more likely to take other drugs because they've used BZP. I think it's more likely that people who are of a mindset that doesn't somehow believe drugs are morally wrong, are including BZP in with 'recreational substances' and that 'recreational substances' are OK - thus, are more likely to take drugs full stop. BZP has simply provided an alternative that doesn't make them criminals.
And I'm not sure how you get from "X number of people using drugs which include BZP saying that if BZP is banned they will use more illegal drugs because illegal drugs work better", to "BZP is not doing anything for harm minimisation." I really don't get that at all (especially given that the whole 'harm minimisation' thing is pandering to the fallacy that drugs are somehow evil (unless they're alcohol).
Oh well. I will continue to stand up for what I believe in by participating in these types of studies, because even if it's only a tiny drip in the ocean of uneducated moral judgement, each time I do it the statistics swing a little away from "Drug users are losers unless their drug of choice is alcohol" to "Hey, lets have a real look at recreational chemicals. PEOPLE TAKE DRUGS, lets accept that, and move on to something a bit more realistic than criminalising everyone who likes to alter their mental state artificially but doesn't like alcohol."