Was there truly a meth epidemic? Was government intervention responsible for the alleged epidemic? Did their subsequent actions then fail to control it? How much of that was intentional? Should consumers pay the cost for an alleged epidemic? At what level should ingredients for meth be regulated?

The purported Meth Epidemic is another indication that policy and attitudes towards drug use are ineffective and merely promote the agenda of law enforcement, policy makers, legislators, lobbyists, politicians, and pharmaceutical companies. Such attitudes perpetuate the disastrous War on Drugs, waste federal funding, prompt uniformed public hysteria, and whittle away civil liberties. It is dangerous to label something what it is not, doing so establishes a incompetent mentality. An inaccurate framework can not create accurate resolutions to the meth problem.

Crystal Methamphetamine is a really potent drug.  The chemicals used to cook it are volatile and the by-products are toxic.  In some cases, abuse of meth has severe repercussions;  for the user, the community, and the environment.

Experts, whose jobs depend upon keeping drugs illegal and treating addicts, warn that using it just one time is highly unlikely given that its tremendous euphoria fosters dependence. Likely, there is truth to this, because with meth, the euphoria of a line is 12x greater than other pleasurable activities like sex, 4x higher than cocaine.

To call it an epidemic however, is to ignore its history.

Epidemic
n.
1. An outbreak of a contagious disease that spreads rapidly and widely.
2. A rapid spread, growth, or development

Meth has not spread rapidly through our nation. The body count of meth related incidents does not threaten to send our culture to the edge of a meth-rotted-mouth abyss anytime soon.

Brief History of Meth
1887 – Amphetamine is first synthesized in Germany.

1919 – Methamphetamine is first synthesized in Japan.

1930s – “Amphetamines are sold under the name Benzedrine to treat narcolepsy, depression,
attention deficit disorder, Parkinson’s disease and alcoholism.”

1938 – First published report of amphetamine addiction.

1940s – Amphetamines including methamphetamine reportedly given to U.S. WWII soldiers and pilots    to fight fatigue and depression.

1950s – “Legally manufactured methamphetamine tablets were used nonmedically by college
students, truck drivers, and athletes, who usually did not become addicted.”

1960s – Outlaw motorcycle gangs begin producing and distributing methamphetamine; meth
becomes part of the “1960s drug culture.”

1960s-early 1970s – Amphetamines used medically as appetite suppressants. “At one time, there were 31 million active prescriptions approved, meaning that approximately 6-8 percent of the American population was legally exposed to amphetamines.”

1970 – Meth becomes regulated under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

1980s – “Drug treatment counselors see increased abuse among gay men. Mexican drug
manufacturers begin bringing meth north of the border.”

1990s – “Methamphetamine abuse, as measured by the number of people entering rehab centers, spread eastward…while intensifying in the West.”

1994 – Mexican drug-trafficking organizations with ‘super labs’ in California and Mexico begin to take control of U.S. meth production and distribution.”

2000 – Federal Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act passes – limits over-the-counter
purchase of pseudoephedrine-containing drugs.

2004 – Oklahoma legislation places more stringent controls on pseudoephedrine sales: limits
consumers to 9 grams (3 boxes) per month; restricts sales to pharmacies only; requires customers to show ID and sign a log book at purchase.

The only thing that has (re) ignited rapidly is the public’s panic about meth, instigated by a lot of stupid, uniformed journalists ready to meet deadlines by using slanted statistical evidence and flimsy quotes from “so called experts.”

Jack Shafer, over at Slate magazine, is a rare voice screaming against the meth madness, pointing out that meth is the new crack, in terms of drug epidemics. The mere fact that meth has been around for 119 years without turning your neighbor into a flesh eating zombie should be enough to quell the panic.

Steve Suo spent 2 years investigating crystal meth for a series published in the Oregonian. It is an extensive, commonly referenced literature on methamphetamine. It is far better than most articles on meth, avoiding cliches and the predictable hysterical formula.

An example here is, Jerry Massetti, a chemist with the California Bureau of Forensic Services, discussing meth superlabs, “Then the monster headed north like a shadow passing over the landscape.”

What surprised me though, and left the taste of yet more propaganda in my mouth was that after years of research, Suo concludes that “sustained pressure by the government could stop the unnecessary epidemic.”

I disagree. Evidence shows that government intervention created a thriving black market for amphetamine/methamphetamine. Then in a series of botch jobs, the government failed to to control it– even when given a clear solution and eventually, the necessary authority.

It was the Federal Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965 which actually made illegal production of speed a profitable business. Prior to that, “illicit speed labs had to compete with diverted legal tablets priced at wholesale as low as thirteen or fourteen tablets for a penny–– 75 cents per thousand.” After the government intervened, the amphetamines that even JFK once regularly took became harder to legally acquire, but they could still found on the streets. (Keep in mind that article was written in 1972, just another reason Meth is not a sudden epidemic)

For perspective:
When sold to a U.S. pharmaceuticals company, the pseudoephedrine stored here today in 140 barrels will fetch $180,000 and be pressed into pills that can clear a stuffy nose. In the hands of a shadier clientele, it would be enough to produce $50 million of methamphetamine at wholesale value.

None of the clandestine meth labs could cook without supplies of ephedrine or psuedoephedrine. Only 9 factories in the world manufacture those supplies.

Suo reports:

An investigation by the Oregonian shows that Congress and federal authorities could have contained the methamphetamine epidemic, and still can. The investigation establishes for the first time that methamphetamine traffickers are uniquely vulnerable to government pressure.

However, Suo’s detailed series actually demonstrates how, inevitably, government interference always botches the situation.

The government didn’t even realize that every time they deprived traffickers of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, the trade declined. Who else exactly reads these statistics? Why do we have a drug czar if their office can’t even analyze data as well as a journalist?

The DEA has shown incompetence handling the full powers that it won from Congress over the course of time. The federal budget spends double digit billions on our domestic war on drugs, but somehow the DEA was too understaffed to utilize the regulatory controls they were granted. In 1997 the DEA was made responsible for approving applications to distribute pseudoephedrine products–a job formerly assigned to doctors, pharmacies and pharmaceutical factories.

Here you might need some background.

Awhile ago, meth wasn’t flooding the market. People used meth, but the labs were making smaller, more personal amounts. A person made some, sold to friends and kept some for themselves–they could make about 280 doses at a time. Then, In the early 1990’s, superlabs came about. These labs were purchasing 5 tons of ephedrine at a time from overseas factories. Superlabs can make about 1 million doses in two days. Most of the increase is contributed to Mexican cartels that run these superlabs.

The U.S. Gov’t began to regulate ephedrine powder in 1989, but they kept ephedrine pills legal. Regardless, the Mexican cartels went OVERSEAS to the factories and purchased bulk ephedrine powder–delivered in barrels. Whenever a drug becomes more abundant, the purity increases, as there is no need to dilute it. Ok, so suddenly, around 1992, meth is easier to get in America, thanks to our Mexican neighbors. The purity more than doubled from those good ol days of biker crank in the 70’s. Still, NOT an epidemic!

Eventually, ephedrine became impossible to get, it was tightly monitored. Enter pseudoephedrine, (PE) the next best thing. Cartels made the chemical switch and blam the meth trade was back up. Here is the thing, PE is used for the common cold and allergies and it is accessible to many people. It’s everywhere. You can get a wholesale permit for it, take advantage of the loopholes in the law and sell millions of tablets to supply the meth trade–without ever even setting foot in the lab.

The DEA then proceeded to approve hundreds of applications from Joe Mobile Home or Sally Storage Unit to distribute the pseudoephedrine required to cook meth–the very thing they were granted powers to eliminate. Their tactics when a breach of contract was discovered? In many cases…warning letters…in some cases upwards of 14 warning letters per case.

Many of these “companies” would file an application to sell the product to mini-marts. It’s totally acceptable if Sam Self Employed makes a living as the middle man in that type of legitimate scenario. See, it’s easy to surmise when an applicant might be supplying meth traffickers.

92 million pills in eight months sets off some warning lights. Tablets are found at meth dumpsites, leading back to the manufacturer and the wholesaler.

But this is tricky territory. Not every manufacturer can be held responsible for what happens past the retail level. If it becomes commonplace for pedophiles to use Tickle Me Elmos to seduce young girls–you can’t prosecute Fisher Price or Toys-R-US.

As Lawrence wrote to me the other day,

The argument against Prohibition was never “It is not lowering alcohol consumption” but rather “Our successful attempt to lower alcohol consumption is destroying America”.

I think the same argument applies to anti-meth enforcement. The argument shouldn’t be “Law enforcement efforts will fail to lower meth consumption” but rather should be about the damage such law enforcement efforts can do.

The use of meth has dropped rather sharply in the 6 year period since 2002. This could be attributed to the rise of many PSA’s, non-profits entities, and websites which warn about meth’s hazards. After all, our society has gone through several phases of popular amphetamine use, for at least 50 years.

If the success rate were merely attributed to federal and state entities, then the budget spent still isn’t worth the outcome. As addictive as meth is made out to be, I can’t believe that merely choking the supply would truly eliminate the demand or crimes committed to obtain it. It seems more likely that when production was at a high point it flooded the streets, many people tried it (perhaps during the rave phase), put it down and moved on.

Suo attributes the flood of meth to the Amezcua cartel, who founded the Walmarts of meth labs. These labs consist of only 4% of the busts that are reported, the rest of them are your Betty Crocker neighbor being industrious enough to feed her habit.  Just like the bootleggers were.

The DEA also say that Southern Cali is the Colombia of the meth trade and that Mexico is now responsible for 80% of the meth trade. (including providing just the pseudoephedrine pills)

With these facts, it seems clear that fortifying the USA Patriot Act in 2005 to combat meth and limiting consumer access to pseudoephedrine is not going to erase meth. In fact, it’s going to violate our civil liberties, pump a bunch of money into federal agencies, create a dependency on federal funding, and escalate border violence.

Regulation of business by a federal drug agency in order to curtail meth trafficking stifles free enterprise and is prone to failure.

On the DEA’s new role,

“It calls into question the effectiveness of the law, the effectiveness of the regulatory controls, the effectiveness of the regulatory implementation, as well as the effectiveness of the law enforcement,” said Woodworth, retired DEA director of diversion control.

If you believe drug use is a huge problem, then the proposal to regulate every single chemical involved in the illegal trade might sound justifiable–from solvents to essential ingredients of every illegal drug. The legislation proposed by Gene Haislip, in 1986, would place those chemicals under the Controlled Substances Act. If you used them, you had to report to the government. In meth manufacturing, this would include something like Freon, which is found in millions of taxpayers AC units.

What I find most ironic is that Haislip, after forced to scale back his legislation to only include the key chemicals used in the drug trade, introduced it to Congress just as President Reagan announced the War on Drugs.

And it didn’t pass. The pharmaceutical industry had too much influence. But one would think that a President declaring a crusade would have agreed to at least regulate the two main ingredients in meth.

Just twenty years ago meth was seen as “kiddie dope.” Now it’s a so called epidemic? Another irony of Haislip’s failed legislation, is that in its original form it would have been easier to implement and had less impact on the consumer. Almost everything he proposed 20 years ago is now being implemented. Today, as a result of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, we have to sign off for a purchase of Sudafed with pseudoephedrine.

Since only 9 factories in the world make the two main ingredients for meth, it seems easy to monitor the trade. This is not a situation where peasants and gang lords grow cocoa in dense fields to support the cocaine trade–a new one popping up every time someone dies. These 9 factories have legitimate businesses and can be contacted via the internet; these enterprises have millions in start up equipment and employ top-notch chemists.

Haislip proposed that these 9 companies work with the DEA to report customers who bought more product than Canada would need for all its sniffly nosed citizens in a two year period.

I’m inclined to think regulation at that level would been the most acceptable interference, at the least, it would have been more cooperative, direct and cost efficient. I hope this proposal doesn’t seem contradictory. Cooperation amongst the international factories with the DEA would be a good business ethic. After all, these suppliers will always have their original market, even once the meth traffickers are weeded out. Industry responsibility is key.

My biggest concern with meth lab production is the environmental waste left for the federal taxpayer to clean up. Even that expense is preferred over the billions spent combating the drug.

Meth is often made from chemicals found in everyday household products. One common method of producing, or “cooking,” meth centers around pseudoephedrine, the active ingredient in over-the-counter cold and allergy medications such as Sudafed and Claratin-D. In the “cook cycle,” pseudoephedrine is mixed with acid, red phosphorus, caustic soda, freon, and hydrogen chloride. These and other chemicals used to produce meth can be highly toxic and
damaging to those who come in contact with them, including the manufacturers themselves and any law enforcement or health officials investigating a lab site.

Meth is frequently made in kitchens and other parts of a house, exposing any children present to risk of injury or death from fire or explosion, risk of acute health problems such as upper respiratory symptoms, headaches, or chemical burns; and risk of long-term problems such as asthma or cancers. For every pound of methamphetamine produced in a clandestine lab, 5 to 6
pounds of waste are produced as well. This waste is typically dumped into the environment and left until accidentally found. Bulk chemicals and apparatus that are left behind in a clandestine lab seized by law enforcement are removed by the state Department of Toxic Substances Control at substantial state cost. (DTSC does not remediate buildings back to their uncontaminated state; this cost is borne by property owners themselves). (pdf http://tinyurl.com/5zt49c)

The DEA’s costs to clean up these lab sites increased from $2 million in 1995, to $23.8 million in 2002. Meth use seems to have reached its peak now, with the federal surveys reporting a drop in use. Lab seizures have declined from 9,208 in 2002 to 1,802 in 2007.

The dangerous toxicity of the drug, as well as its psychological effects on the user, warrant it be taken seriously. Education campaigns and recovery services which truly address the addicts needs would be a better way to approach this so called epidemic. Said approach invites non-profits and communities to participate in the education, with more effective regional results and coalition building opportunities.

Timothy Leary and his tribe, crazy albeit experienced, emphasized setting as the most important aspect of recreational drug use. Education is part of setting.
Knowing what a drug will do to you is more important than limiting the average consumers accessibility to cold medicines. After all, the absence of drug education accounts for a lot of those terrible statistics that we read about in the news, which in turn drives the demand for more ineffective policy. Whether or not meth is legal, people will use it. If it is legal, just like alcohol– not everyone will use it.

The Meth Project and Faces of Meth are two well funded campaigns which offer uncomfortable, honest images to deter non-users. It’s clear that meth is a risk no one should take–so is drunk driving. But people will–whose burden should that be and at what price? It seems as if many federal and state agencies have been getting money by claiming we have an uncontrollable meth epidemic that other parts of these agencies directly contributed to creating.