Conflicting Priorities
Daniel Koffler | July 6, 2005, 5:01pm
The nation's cops agree: crystal meth--which, as Michelle Malkin would point out, is what the kids call methamphetamine--is our new national scourge:
More than half of the sheriffs interviewed for a National Association of Counties survey released Tuesday said they considered meth the most serious problem facing their departments.
Trouble is, the Office of National Drug Control Policy still considers our old national scourge to be our current national scourge:
The report comes soon after the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy restated its stance that marijuana remains the nation's most substantial drug problem. Federal estimates show there are 15 million marijuana users compared to the 1 million that might use meth.
Given the progress of the war against weed, the prospects for eradicating a chemical that can be synthesized from household cleaning supplies and Sudafed might not be terribly rosy. Not that that will deter anyone from trying.
Story here; link via Death/Media Incarnate.
asd | July 7, 2005, 2:54am | #
Number 6: "I know amphetamine has been a common, medically prescribed drug in the past. I thought meth was a different, higher-octane animal. Am I wrong?"
Lowdog: "yes, you're wrong."
"Methamphetamine is methamphetamine. A big problem with meth is that people smoke it. Especially if it's not particularly pure, it will definitely fuck with your mind. The other thing that make people go psychotic on it is that folks won't sleep for days when they're on it. And while they're not sleeping for days, they will just keep doing it and doing it."
From a physiological standpoint, number 6 is closer to the truth than Lowdog. Meth is amphetamine with a methyl group on the amine (the chemical name for dextroamphetamine is D-phenylisopropylamine, and dextromethamphetamine (the more potent and more common isomer) is D- n-methyl phenylisopropylamine). They are physiologically quite similar--both are believed to cause the release of dopamine by producing activity at the presynaptic norepinephrine sites. Meth is simply more potent, has a longer halflife, and more neurotoxic. The mechanism of neurotoxicity is not very well understood, but meth is more dangerous for this reason. While it is possible to smoke amphetamine, the amount required (and the physical side effects) would make this procedure arduous. I've tried both, and I find their mental effects indistinguishable. To get an equivalent amount of mental effects from amphetamine produces more unpleasant physical symptoms--a natural check on taking too much.
"Still, not everyone who does it becomes an addict, not everyone does it the way I just described, etc, etc, so I don't see that it's some huge deal."
Taken in large doses, meth can be extremely dangerous. It can cause hallucinations, violent outbursts, and paranoia. I could actually see a public safety argument for keeping meth illegal, if safer alternatives were legal.
"As to whether any legit companies would make it, I imagine that some would. I would love to have it available in a time-released pill form for those times when you just absolutely need to stay up for a decent amount of time, or when you need to get up for something very important and weren't able to sleep the night before."
Indeed. I used to make and use meth regularly (using a method which didn't involve stealing anhydrous ammonia from farmers), and I mainly took it in small oral dosages to increase creativity and abate sleep. However, I think that meth is a much less safe drug than amphetamine for the reasons mentioned above (though psychosis can result from excessive amphetamine use as well). If amphetamine were legalized again, but meth remained illegal, I think the illicit market in meth would essentially disappear, as users switched to cheaper amphetamine tablets. This is exactly what happened to the illicit cocaine market when amphetamine was legal. If meth were legalized, I suspect that no major corporation would make it in pure smokable form. The product liability would be too large, and it would impossible to get insurance. Large companies might make small (e.g. 5mg) tablets of it, but the meth would be made difficult to isolate (not that that stops methamphetamine producers from isolating pseudoephedrine from tablets now). Small companies which exist for only a few years or months would probably make crystal meth, though I doubt that many stores would carry it, again due to liability concerns.
asd | July 7, 2005, 3:48am | #
Luisa: "I'm largely ignorant, but have believed meth was seriously addictive and physically destructive to users and anyone unfortunate enough to be exposed to a lab. When you say meth was "a relatively benign narcotic," can you detail or point me to a source to learn more?"
As to meth being seriously addictive, I think it depends on your personality. I didn't have much difficulty quitting it, but different people can find the high nearly irresistible. I'm going to try to describe what smoking a large amount of meth (about 40mg) feels like, but it's difficult to put into words.
Imagine that you're holding a pipe filled with the meth, and you apply heat to it, inhale, and hold in the vaporized drug. You hold it for about 10-15 seconds, and as you exhale, you're already starting to feel it. At first, you're not sure if it's oxygen depravation, but after a few breaths of fresh air, you start to realize that you've never felt this good before. This isn't the kind of "feeling good" that you normally think about (e.g. kissing your love, or having sex). It's like the feeling you get after you accomplish something really good (ace a test, win a race, etc.), only infinitely more intense than you've ever felt it before. You feel confident, energetic, sexy, intelligent, and just like a fucking great person. If you're like me, you can't stop smiling--not everyone does, but I look like the Joker in Batman. You feel like you could run a marathon, outsmart whoever you're around; your mind feels *bigger*. Your body also feels great. The closest analogy is sexual pleasure all over your entire body, but the feeling is a bit different--not as layered or complex--just an intense feeling of goodness. You start talking really fast, about whatever comes into your mind, and (in my case, at least) people around me were intensely interested in what I had to say. I was much more interesting, intelligent, and I segued from one random topic to the next, giving a fast summary of all my thoughts on the issue. You start to wonder how you can feel this good, how that's even possible. This lasts about an hour. After that, you feel really energetic and confident for about 10 hours. You get all the little things you've been procrastinating done, and then you start to feel kind of cranky. If you have more meth, you'll use more at this point. If not, then you'll start to feel really angry, and little things can set you off. After a while, you'll fall asleep, but you'll be half awake for a while. The next day, you feel a new level of awful. This is everything the high wasn't--you feel depressed, like you're worthless, your life sucks, you can't do anything right. More meth can solve this problem, and that's not far from your mind.
The right kind of person can look at this experience, and say "look, this isn't where I want to be," and won't suffer ill effects from ceasing use. The wrong kind of person will say "I need more meth, so I can feel like that again." I suggest looking at erowid.com in the methamphetamine section.
As for the danger from labs, this is real, but overstated. I ran a meth lab for several months last year using the so-called "red phosphorus method." This involves mixing red phosphorus from matchbook strikers with iodine, pseudoephedrine and a little bit of water. The product is then purified through steps called an acid/base extraction (involving hydrochloric acid, naptha, and sodium hydroxide from drain cleaner), then recrystalization (this step is usually skipped by clandestine chemists, but it involves rubbing alcohol and acetone). The chemicals used here are relatively benign if handled properly. The dangers lie in excessive exposure to iodine, and the production of phosphine gas during the reduction. The former can be dealt with by proper handling, and the latter by adding enough water to the reaction mixture. Of course most clandestine chemists weren't as careful as I was. The other method (besides a direct synthesis) is to reduce pseudoephedrine by "Birch reduction", which involves mixing pseudoephedrine, lithium metal from batteries, and anhydrous ammonia. In some ways, this is safer than the previous reaction. Large amounts can be produced very easily, and the product is less likely to contain toxic impurities. However, anhydrous ammonia is a gas at room temperature--it boils at -28F. It's highly caustic, reacts with water, and is very explosive. It is difficult to produce without blowing oneself up, so it's usually stolen from farms, frequently by circumventing the safety equipment attached to the tanks. This is dangerous both for the cook, the farmer, and whoever the cook happens to be around.
Isildur: "Meth *is* nasty, because it's made by tweakers in trailers in the woods. Prescription speed is smooth, pleasant, and has no ill effects (unless you don't like being under the influence of speed, which would count as an 'ill effect' the same way that 'loss of motor control' is an ill effect of alcohol)."
Very pure meth is superior in terms of physical side effects to adderall or pure dexadrine (USP grade, both).
"Would legitimate companies sell amphetamines? Well, how many were selling ephedra before the ban? People *want* amphetamines. People want them for the anti-fatigue effects, for the focus and productivity effects, and for the appetite suppressant effects. The last of those three alone is sufficient to guarantee that, if amphetamines were legal OTC drugs, manufacturers would be falling over themselves to get speed into drugstores."
No, this is a false analogy. Ephedra is far less dangerous from a cardiovascular standpoint than meth or normal amphetamine. Furthermore, there is the liability of the violent acts committed under the influence of amphetamine psychosis, which most major companies would be unwilling to accept. See my predictions in a previous post.
Dynamist: "The chemicals are ethically/morally neutral. What (some) people do to get them, or while under the influence, is bad, scary stuff."
I think that certain chemicals have different proclivities for producing undesirable effects in people. THC, for example, has very little ability make a previously nonviolent person violent. Meth has that ability if used in large enough doses.
"As a generalization, the small producers in the U-Hauls make ugly tainted stuff. Big players tend to cut down on the straight poison component."
I don't know exactly what meth is usually cut with, but I suspect that most things are fairly harmless. Cocaine, for example, is usually cut with some "variety pack" of compounds, including: maltose, lactose, lidocaine, caffeine, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine (you can read about it on the DEA's website). These are all pretty innocuous. Think about this rationally, if meth were cut with rat poison, no one would buy it because of the risk of immediate death.
"On the other hand, I would LOVE to meet a boutique chemist making LSD for the love and hippie good intentions."
And you're very, very unlikely to meet such a person. LSD is very hard to manufacture without access to some pretty weird chemicals (including the lysergamide precursor--usually ergotamine diverted from medicine). The boutique LSD cook has been left in the '60's, when the precursor chemicals were all very easy to obtain.
(Sorry about the length of this post, but I think I know a lot more about meth than most of the commenters on this thread, including current or former users.)
