Question

Are we doing enough to control methamphetamine production in the U.S.? Also FL? Please support your opinions (what makes you say it is adequate, what other measures should be put in place, etc.). In order to fully answer this question, you will need to research federal and state regulations meant to derail meth production, statistics surrounding methamphetamine use in your state/area, and/or proposed changes to the regulations.

Answer 1

INTRODUCTION

Significant public health problems associated with methamphetamine (MA) production and use in the United States have emerged over the past 25 years.The law-enforcement groups, welfare agencies, substance abuse treatment program admission data, data on criminal justice populations, and state/county executives indicate that MA is a very significant public health problem for many communities throughout much of the countryMethamphetamine (MA) is a potent stimulant with high abuse potential that can be smoked, snorted, injected, or taken orally. The desirable short-term effects of MA or initial “rush” is characterized by increased energy and alertness, an elevated positive mood state, and decreased appetite The access and availability are major contributors to the problem as MA is manufactured using readily available retail products and numerous “recipes” on how to produce MA are widely available on the internet. Although there are increasing reports of the growing misuse of pharmaceutical amphetamines particularly among college students, the vast majority of amphetamine that is abused illicitly is manufactured MA.

Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 sharply limited the accepted medical uses for prescribed amphetamines, which served to greatly reduce the ATS problem in the U.S. during the 1970s. By the late 1970’s, use of ATS was limited to a few circumscribed geographic areas in California and Oregon, where MA continued to be manufactured illicitly mostly by motorcycle gangs. Their practice of carrying MA in the crankcases of their motorcycles, led to the slang term “crank” for MA.The increased availability of MA became apparent in the Southeastern U.S. after 2000 and by 2005, high rates of MA use were reported in almost all parts of the U.S. expect for the Northeastern corridor.

CONTROL MEASURES

In 2004, many state governments began to pass laws restricting the sale of the primary MA precursor, pseudoephedrine, in an effort to reduce the domestic production of MA and prevent the ongoing spread across populations and communities. The purchase of over the counter cold and sinus preparations containing pseudoephedrine became limited in a number of manners. In most states, the number of packages of tablets of these medications that could be purchased at one time was restricted, some states took these medications completely off the open counter and put them behind the counter, while other states required purchasers to show identification and sign for their pseudoephedrine products. In 2005, the Federal government passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, which federally regulated the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine and further reduced its availability for use in MA manufacture. These precursor efforts have produced a significant decrease in the availability of MA in many parts of the U.S. and have resulted in dramatic price increases for the supply of MA. Indicators reflecting these changes include the reduction in the number of MA labs seized by law enforcement, decreased primary MA treatment admissions, and reduced emergency room visits associated with MA

SUGGESTIONS AND IMPLICATION

The serious MA problem that evolved in the U.S. over the past 20 years has significantly impacted the public health, social welfare, and criminal justice systems. The experience with the emergence of the MA problem has implications for public health policy in the U.S.

First, there needs to be an adequate epidemiological assessment system in place to bring emerging drug problems to the attention of public health officials and policy makers. Our current epidemiological monitoring system is not adequate to fully identify and recognize emerging drug problem as was witnessed by the slow recognition of the seriousness of the MA problem. The MA problem emerged as a small local problem and spread exponentially from west to east over a 20 year span without a coordinated federal response.

Second, an effective monitoring system should incorporate public health indicators and data from multiple systems including criminal justice agencies (both police departments and correctional facilities), the educational system, social welfare agencies, and the primary care and mental health systems to adequately identify specific subgroups and geographical communities that are impacted.

Third, a coordinated national response should include comprehensive prevention and treatment programming. Prevention efforts for MA in the U.S. have been sparse and regional. Only recently, during the last few years, have we begun to see prevention efforts for MA initiated at the national level.

Forth, the response to the needs of addicted individuals should be based upon a public health approach as opposed to a criminal justice approach. Tens of thousands of MA users filled prisons in the Western and Midwestern U.S. long before there was an organized and meaningful response from the public health system.