Analysis of Methamphetamine Epidemic - Research Paper Example

Analysis of “Methamphetamine Epidemic” Introduction The film “Meth Epidemic” is an insightful breakdown of the underground methamphetamine industry. Its participants did a fantastic job of delineating the historical context of the drug, its physical and medical workings as well as its effects. Most importantly, the documentary unmasks two critical mechanisms for eradicating the epidemic. The first entails curtailing access to chief ingredients for meth manufacture by cooperating with ingredient manufacturers globally. Conversely, authorities may control over-the-counter access to methamphetamine ingredients at the retail level by limiting the number of drugs to be purchased and registering persons purchasing those drugs. Film Review It is evident from the documentary that effects of methamphetamines are deep and heart-breaking. They destroy families and reduce individuals to meth-chasers. Even the biology of the drug’s functioning is particularly disturbing; its ability to destroy brain cells makes everything else in the user’s life seem meaningless. Meth eventually becomes the only thing that can elevate a user’s mood, so it becomes their sole preoccupation. Clearly, some strategies are imperative in dealing with it. Four key points emerge from the interviewees, correspondents and narrators in the documentary. First, authorities have the option of interrupting the supply chain for production of the key ingredients. The documentary identifies ephedrine and its closely-related, methyl-based alternative called pseudoephedrine as the primary ingredients needed for the manufacture of methamphetamines. Gene Haislip, a former DEA leader, states that since the key ingredients do not grow naturally like the coca plant, it is relatively easily to track its manufacturers anywhere around the world. Therefore, once those individuals are found, the DEA can get them to stop supplying the ingredients to meth companies or cooks. Working with companies like Krebs, which is Indian-based, played a significant role in cutting off the Mexican supply of ephedrine. This eventually undermined their options and reduced meth availability in the United States. The second point emerging from the documentary is the use of retail-level strategies to curb the practice. It is also possible for legislators to pass laws requiring the registration of all purchases of over-the-counter cold medicines containing meth key ingredients. Additionally, legislators may also require individuals to minimize the amount of drugs sold to consumers by placing a cap of three boxes. Resistance from pharmaceutical companies is always a direct result of these campaigns or laws because they stand to lose a lot of sales from the practice. Many of them argue that the policy gives an incentive to legitimate cold-medicine users to refrain from purchasing the drugs altogether. Therefore, fighting against a $3 billion pharmaceutical industry is not an easy task. A third point from the film that is closely associated with the above strategy is the reinvention of drug cartels and sellers. Regardless of the strategies employed by the DEA or other stakeholders, meth manufacturers and cooks appear to always find ways of evading the restrictions. For instance, when the US government cooperated with Krebs, a prime ephedrine manufacturer and supplier for meth producers, Mexican drug cartels resulted to the use of pharmaceutical cold medicines to get their essential ingredients. Likewise, manufacturers in the US also used a new method called shake-and bake, which would only require the use of one box to make the ingredients. These meth manufacturers were also quite enterprising in going around the over-the-counter bans and registrations. They hired individuals called ‘smurfs’ who would purchase cold medicines on their behalf and sell them to meth cooks. Some even went from town to town using this strategy in order to find raw materials. Therefore, the resilience and innovativeness of the drug-makers is unquestionable. It is also a serious obstacle to eventual elimination of the drug. However, some experts in the film believe that supply-chain tactics or over-the-counter prescriptions have not worked because they did not get to the heart of the problem. This brings out the fourth point in the documentary. A complete victory of the meth-drug menace can only arise if pseudoephedrine-containing drugs are turned into prescription drugs. This cuts down on supplies for clandestine meth cooks, reduces the potency and purity of the drug and minimizes the number of users. Opinion In order to determine whether some of the assertions in the documentary are truthful, it is critical to look at studies done in Oregon or other states highly-affected by the meth epidemic. One of the suggestions the respondents made in the film concerning solutions to the epidemic included restricting access to drugs through registration of persons and reduction of quantities. Bovett (2006) found that this rule is highly effective in minimization of the number of labs around the country. Stomberg and Sharma (2012) did an analysis in Oregon concerning the effects of a prescription–only law that had been passed in the state. In the documentary, one of the experts stated that a prescription-only policy was quite effective because it minimized the number of laboratories in the state as well as the number of drug-related crimes. However, the authors of the research study differ with the documentary’s assertions. They affirm that a decline of labs in the state by about 90% is only a superficial indicator of the real progress in that state. Stomberg and Sharma (2012) believe that other factors contributed to the reduction of meth labs since their reduction had started even before 2006 when the laws had been passed. Washington and California are also experiencing sharp declines in methamphetamine labs regardless of a lack of prescription-only laws for pseudoephedrine-containing cold drugs. Therefore, other factors like market forces or technological factors may account for the changes. Even the quantities of meth drugs have not declined in Oregon thus indicating that small labs may have diminished but large-scale manufacturers may still be thriving. Experts suggest that Mexican drugs being smuggled into the country have now replaced local manufacturers’ methamphetamines. It may be true that the overall rate of meth use has declined in Oregon, but percentage reductions only relate to those prevalent in other parts of the country like Washington and California. These ideas put into question the assertions made in the documentary. Perhaps the interviewees were too eager to find support for their retail-access measures that they attributed success to themselves even when other factors needed to be taken into consideration. Scientific methods are always effective in settling debates about policy interventions, and the above findings strongly neutralize support for prescription-only strategies. Another point in the documentary was the continued reinvention of drug manufacturers and cooks throughout time. It seemed that individuals always found a way out of prevailing laws. Vanderwaal et. al. (2008) carried out an analysis on the effectiveness of controlling meth precursors across Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky, Oregon and Indiana. They found that precursor laws often worked to reduce a certain way of accessing the drugs but rarely minimized the quantity of drugs available in the market. New ways that had previously been underestimated often took the place of the old ones. For instance, the process of ‘smurfing’ initially arose out of a need to go around the registration and quantity laws surrounding cold medicines. When stakeholders found that this did not work, they introduced prescription-only drugs. This reduced the presence of labs but did not eliminate meth drug use; other sources made them available. It should be noted that the above findings do not completely render these precursor laws useless. The elimination of ‘smurfs’ cut off raw materials for small meth labs in the country. This had a number of non-addiction-related outcomes. The number of children exposed to toxic settings went down. Furthermore, the environmental implications of methamphetamines were dramatically reduced. Even costs of setting up and cleaning labs were minimized; therefore all was not lost. The documentary also focused on supply chain interruptions. It was suggested that a key strategy for dealing with the meth drug menace would be to trace ingredient producers and get them to stop supplying raw materials to drug cartels. Piper (2008) believes that supply-side strategies are highly misguided and also a waste of time. These approaches only tackle one side of the story and do not focus on demand. If law enforcers and other authorities only dwell on how drugs get to users rather than why they are in use, then interventions will yield unsatisfactory results. The meth market is just like any other; for it to thrive, demand and supply sides have to match. As long as demand for the product exists, no attempt to curtail its prevalence will stop people from using it. Just like the alcohol prohibition laws of the 1930s, sometimes supply side strategies even worsen the problem. They encourage proliferation of illegal sources and the growth of black markets. Perhaps the documentary would have been more balanced if it also considered demand-side solutions. Getting to the root of the problem from the consumers’ perspective would have been more convincing. Elements such as prevention programs in school treatment programs for users and minimization of scare tactics could be other alternatives of dealing with the crisis. These would have addressed why people get into meth drugs in the first place. Conclusion It appears that the documentary is informative but has still not addressed a number of issues. The acknowledgement that meth manufacturers always find a way of skirting existing laws shows that supply-side attacks are not an optimal solution. Even success rates attributed to precursor laws only focus on superficial results like number of labs in the country. Market-side strategies may be the best way out of this dilemma. They could eliminate black markets from illegal international traffickers as consumers will see no need for the drugs. Some positive outcomes have emanated from the use of supply-side laws such as reduction of child-exposure; however, the most comprehensive mechanism should merge supply and demand side interventions. Treatment programs and effective drug prevention programs in schools could be a start. References Bovett, R. (2006). Meth Epidemic solutions. North Dakota Law Review, 82, 1195-1216. Piper, B. (2008). A four pillars approach to methamphetamine: Policies for effective drug prevention, treatment, policing and harm reduction. Washington DC: The Drug Policy Alliance. Stomberg, C. and Sharma, A. (2012). Making cold medicine RX only did not reduce meth use: Analyzing the impact of Oregon’s prescription-only pseudoephedrine requirement. Portland, Oregon: Cascade Policy institute. Vanderwaal, C., Bishop, R., McBride, D., Rosales, K., Chriqui, J., O’Connor, J. and Terry-McElrath, Y. (2008). Controlling methamphetamine precursors: The view from the trenches. National Institute of Justice Report, 223480, 1-154. Read More