Rt 298 Here We Grow Again

• Periodical List
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC3243901

Addict Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 Dec 1.

Published in final edited grade as:

PMCID: PMC3243901

NIHMSID: NIHMS321271

METHAMPHETAMINE: HERE WE GO AGAIN?

Jane Carlisle Maxwell

Addiction Research Institute, School of Social Piece of work, The Academy of Texas at Austin, I University Station, Austin, TX 78712, 512-232-0610, ude.saxetu.liam@llewxamcj

Mary-Lynn Brecht

UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, 1640 S. Sepulveda, Ste. 200, Los Angeles, CA 90025, 310-267-5275, ude.alcu.tendem@thcerbl

Abstract

Following more than two decades of generally increasing trends in the use and abuse of methamphetamine in certain parts of the country, prevalence indicators for the drug began to decrease in the mid-2000's—but was this decrease signaling the cease of the "meth problem"? This newspaper has compiled historical and recent information from supply and demand indicators to provide a broader context within which to consider the changes in trends over the past half decade. Data suggest supply-side accommodation to changes in precursor chemic restrictions, with prevalence indicators beginning to benumb in the mid-2000's then increasing again past 2009–2010. Results support the need for continuing attention to command and interdiction efforts appropriate to the irresolute supply context and to continuing prevention efforts and increased number of treatment programs.

Keywords: methamphetamine, supply, demand, pseudoephedrine, phenyl-2-propanone

1. Introduction

The history of the methamphetamine epidemic in the U.S. has been marked past the interaction of supply and demand. Supply means not only the quantity of the drug available and seized, but besides purity, toll, formulation of the drug, and responses by criminal justice agencies. Demand is characterized by the initiation and continued utilise of the drug as shown in changes in incidence and prevalence in surveys and in adverse events equally indicated past information such as emergency room and drug treatment program admissions. The cyclical nature of the increases and decreases in utilize after before methamphetamine precursor bans has been documented in studies by Cunningham et al. (2003, 2005, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2010). Decreases in use are often accompanied past a lessening of public policy attention to prevention, treatment, and interdiction needs. Notwithstanding, every bit discussed by Cunningham et al., during the by few decades, decreases in methamphetamine trends have been short-lived and followed by subsequent increases. In this paper, we seek to document the emerging furnishings of the latest precursor bans on methamphetamine supply and demand and consider time to come changes in the utilize of this drug.

2. Material and Methods

To help empathize the changes and risk factors identified with methamphetamine, the near current data from surveys, emergency room and treatment admissions, arrestee drug testing, manufacturing processes, price and purity, and toxicological analyses of seized forensic items were retrieved from bureau publications and national online sources. These information sources are described briefly forth with their results. Information are displayed descriptively.

3. Results

3.1. Trends in indicators of methamphetamine supply

three.1.1. Production/distribution

Amphetamine tablets were available in the U.South. without a prescription until 1951. At that time, the illicit amphetamine market consisted of diverted pharmaceutical amphetamine (Anglin et al., 2000). In 1970, amphetamine was rescheduled, which lessened its availability for diversion and past 2009, amphetamine was only 3.6% of all the stimulants identified by federal, country, and local forensic laboratories, while methamphetamine comprised 85.3% of the stimulants (Drug Enforcement Assistants [DEA], 2010a).

After amphetamine was rescheduled in 1970, illicit manufacturers began making methamphetamine using phenyl-2-propanone ("P2P") and methylamine. Motorbike gangs and small-calibration local producers dominated the manufacturing and distribution procedure (Finckenauer et al., 2001), simply after phenylacetone became Schedule II in the U.S. in 1980, operators of cloak-and-dagger laboratories shifted to using ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Large quantities of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine were smuggled from Mexico for use in "super labs" in the southern California desert. At the same time, quantities of a smokable and highly pure grade of d-methamphetamine hydrochloride, known every bit "water ice," "crystal," or "tina," were imported from Far Eastern sources into Hawaii (Joe-Laidler & Morgan, 1997) and then into the West Declension of the U.S. with a gradual movement e towards the terminate of the 1990'due south (Ling et al., 2006).

Equally methamphetamine use and abuse grew, there was an increase in small-time local producers in the U.S. who used over-the-counter cold medications and readily available chemicals to produce d-methamphetamine. The Birch reduction technique ("Nazi" method) used ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, lithium, and anhydrous ammonia, and the "cold" method used ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, red phosphorus, and iodine crystals (Bianchi et al., 2005).

Federal regulations targeting ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in forms used by big-scale producers in the U.Due south. were implemented in 1989, 1995, and 1997 and precursors in forms used past small-scale producers (east.g., over-the-counter medications) were implemented in 1996 and 2001. During 2004, in response to the proliferation of local laboratories, diverse states began to limit admission to over-the-counter pseudoephedrine products and in March, 2006, U.Southward. federal legislation (P. L. 109–177) imposing limits became effective nationwide, with a resulting decline in methamphetamine items seized and examined in forensic laboratories reporting to DEA's National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) and in the number of methamphetamine clandestine laboratories reported in DEA's National Hugger-mugger Laboratory Database (Maxwell & Rutkowski, 2008; DEA 2011) (Figure 1). However, in 2008, the number of laboratory incidents began to increase, an indication that methamphetamine "cooks" had constitute ways to circumvent the legislation and obtain pseudoephedrine tablets and other ingredients used to produce the drug. In add-on, Mexican producers shifted to other precursors to produce methamphetamine. These increases are also seen in the proportion of methamphetamine items examined by toxicology laboratories (DEA, 2010a).

Number of methamphetamine clandestine laboratory incidents and percentage of all substances identified that were methamphetamine in the U.S.: National Undercover Laboratory Database and National Forensic Laboratory Information Arrangement 1999–2009

Canada, which had been a master supplier of pseudoephedrine to United mexican states, enacted legislation in January 2005 to control its distribution (Regime of Canada, 2005). Mexico began to limit imports of pseudoephedrine to manufacturers in 2006 and farther restrictions were placed on the sale of over-the-counter common cold medications in 2007 (Randewich, 2007). The seizure of a "rogue" commercial chemical company in United mexican states that had illegally imported more than 60 tons of pseudoephedrine and the 2008 ban on all pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products in Mexico resulted in meaning decreases in methamphetamine purity and handling admissions in Texas and Mexico (Cunningham et al., 2010).

As the precursor bans in Mexico and the U.Due south. became constructive, the purity dropped merely later rose (DEA, 2010c) every bit the producers shifted to the P2P procedure, which uses chemicals other than pseudoephedrine (Logan, 2002). By the quaternary quarter of 2010, 69% of the 2010 domestic and Mexican samples examined by the DEA Special Testing and Research Laboratory were produced using the P2P method, while the phosphorus-iodine method was identified by DEA in just nine% of the samples. The other 22% were mixed combinations or unknown precursors (DEA, 2010b).

The methamphetamine molecule exists as two enantiomers: that processed with ephedrine or pseudoephedrine yields d- methamphetamine while the P2P recipe produces combinations of d- and l- methamphetamine, which in an equal mixture of d- and l- is a racemic mixture. Using isomer purification techniques, the proportion of d- methamphetamine made with the P2P process is increasing. In the outset quarter of 2010, 50% of the samples were d- isomer only and 35% were d- with l- isomers. In the fourth quarter of 2010, 62% were d- isomer simply and 25% were d- with l- isomers (DEA, 2010b).

The d- methamphetamine grade is associated with more potent physiologic and behavioral furnishings and higher abuse liability (Mendelson et al., 2006), also as being a more potent dopamine releaser (Kuczenski et al., 1995). Users injected with d-, dl-, or l-methamphetamine gave l- methamphetamine significantly lower ratings for its power to produce "intoxication" and "drug liking." D- methamphetamine produced more intense stimulant effects and college abuse liability than fifty- methamphetamine (Fowler et al., 2007). At high doses, fifty- methamphetamine intoxication was similar to that of d- methamphetamine, but the psychodynamic effects were shorter-lived and less desired past users, whereas the racemic mixture had similar effects to d-methamphetamine (Mendelson et al., 2006).

In addition to the shift to the P2P process, DEA (2010d) reported that Mexican producers were increasingly turning to Primal and South America and South Africa as sources of precursors (DEA, 2010d). An additional concern is the finding that the samples entering the U.S. from the Far East in 2010 were approaching 96% purity (DEA, 2010b).

3.i.ii. Toll and purity

The System to Retrieve Data on Drug Testify (STRIDE) is a database of drug exhibits sent to DEA laboratories from police enforcement agencies. It is not a representative sample of drugs available in the U.S., just reflects evidence submitted to DEA laboratories for assay. Figure 2 shows that from July 2007 through September 2010, the toll per pure gram of methamphetamine decreased 61%, from $270.10 to $105.49, while the purity increased 114%, from 39% to 83% (DEA, 2010c).

All domestic methamphetamine purchases: STRIDE information 2006–2010

3.two Trends in indicators of methamphetamine demand

Similar to the trends seen in supply reduction, the need for methamphetamine decreased subsequently the forerunner chemical bans. However, the need for the drug has been characterized over time past geographic variations, besides as past different types of the drug, unlike routes of administration, and different types of users.

3.ii.1. Survey findings

The Youth Risk Beliefs Survey (YRBS) is conducted every ii years during the leap semester to provide data representative of students in grades 9–12 in public and private schools throughout the Usa. Lifetime utilize of methamphetamine peaked in 2001 at 9.8% and dropped to 4.1% in 2009 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009).

The Monitoring the Hereafter Survey (MTF) is an annual national survey that tracks illicit drug use and attitudes toward drugs past approximately l,000 8th, tenth, and twelfth graders. The MTF survey reported that lifetime utilise of methamphetamine peaked at 8.2% for twelfth graders in 1999 and declined to 2.3% in 2010. The question on crystal methamphetamine (ice) has been asked since 1991, and the highest lifetime use by twelfth graders was reported in 1998 at 5.3%. Past 2010, lifetime use had dropped to a low of 1.eight% (Johnston et al., 2010).

The National Survey on Drug Employ and Health (NSDUH) is an annual multistage area probability sample of 68,700 individuals that collects information on the prevalence, patterns, and consequences of booze, tobacco, and illegal drug use and abuse in the U.South. noncombatant non-institutionalized population ages 12 and older.

The survey instrument has inverse since 1979 and the findings before 2002 nigh non-medical use of prescription stimulants cannot be compared statistically with later findings because questions almost methamphetamine were not added until 2002. Even so, Figure three shows the cyclical changes in lifetime apply of stimulants over time. (SAMHSA, 2010).

Percentages reporting lifetime utilize of stimulants in the National Survey on Drug Use and Wellness: 1979–1994 and National Household Survey on Drug Corruption: 1994–2009

Of the 2009 respondents, the lifetime prevalence for methamphetamine was 0.8% for those ages 12–17, iv.5% for those 18–25, and five.8% for those 26 and over. The lifetime prevalence for males was 6.2% and 4.0% for females (SAMHSA, 2010).

The upwards trend in methamphetamine use is also shown in Effigy 4, where past yr initiation of methamphetamine is compared against by-month use of the drug. The increases in the incidence of new users and prevalence of past month utilise between 2008 and 2009 were significant at the p=.05 level (SAMHSA, 2010).

Past year initiation of methamphetamine apply and past month utilise: NSDUH 2002–2009

three.two.2. Drug use by arrestees

The Arrestee Drug Corruption Monitoring (ADAM Ii) program collects information on drug use and related topics from developed male offenders within 48 hours of arrest in ten U.Southward. counties. ADAM was non operational between 2004–2006. ADAM data testify general increases in the pct of arrestees testing positive (urine tests) for methamphetamine at the beginning of the decade (2000–2003) and generally lower levels from 2007–2009 (Table 1). Just a small set of metropolitan expanse sites contributed data for this plan across this period, just they were selected to represent geographic multifariousness. For Denver, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis, percentages accept been relatively consistent during the period 2007–2009 at levels similar to those in 2000–2003. Following the design shown by treatment access trends in many states, Portland and Sacramento show somewhat lower percentages in 2007–2009 than in 2003; the slight twelvemonth-to-twelvemonth decreases for 2007 to 2008 and 2008 to 2009 were not statistically significant (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2010).

Table 1

Percentage with Methamphetamine-Positive Urine Test Results: Adult Male Arrestees, ADAM Sites, 2000–2003 and 2007–2010

	2000	2001	2002	2003*	2007	2008	2009	2010
Atlanta, GA			ii.seven	ane.iii	0.7	0.4	0.2	0.five
Charlotte, NC	2.2	0.9	1.ii	1.6	0.9	0.5	0.1	0.3
Chicago, IL	0.0	ane.0	0.8	one.3	0.7	0.iv	0.6	0.6
Denver, CO	3.iv	4.2	6.5	6.5	5.7	iii.1	4.4	4.0
Indianapolis, IN	ane.7	1.9	3.5	3.5	2.6	2.0	one.0	two.7
Minneapolis, MN	3.2	one.7	2.4	3.4	3.2	2.4	3.half dozen	2.iv
New York, NY	0.ii	0.iii	0.half-dozen	0.iii	0.one	0.1	0.0	0.1
Portland, OR	xx.8	21.5	22.iii	26.8	20.4	14.6	13.3	nineteen.8
Sacramento, CA	31.1	31.0	36.four	45.8	35.six	34.5	xxx.seven	33.2
Washington, DC			2.1	1.8	v.8	1.8	0.4	ane.0

3.2.three. Emergency department reports

The Drug Abuse Alarm Network (DAWN) emergency department (ED) component provides estimates of drug-related visits to EDs for selected metropolitan areas every bit well as for the nation. The number of emergency section visits for methamphetamine dropped from 132,576 in 2004 to 64,117 in 2009 (SAMHSA, 2011a). The rate of visits has dropped from 45.three per 100,000 in 2004 to twenty.nine in 2009. Males were more likely to be seen in the EDs than females, with case rates of 26.6/100,000 for males versus 15.iv for females in 2009. The group nigh likely to be seen for methamphetamine issues were those ages 25–29, with a case rate of 59.7, followed by those ages 21–24 (55.6) and 30–34 (48.6). The example rate for those under 21 was 8.6 in 2009.

3.ii.3. Treatment admissions

The Treatment Episode Data Fix (TEDS) comprises admission data that are routinely collected past states in monitoring their handling admission systems. At the fourth dimension of preparing this commodity, state-level data were available through 2009 and 2010 for nigh states, only nationwide data were only available through 2008. While not representing the total national demand for substance abuse treatment, TEDS contains a significant proportion of all treatment admissions, and includes those that constitute a burden on public funds. A few states do not distinguish between methamphetamine and amphetamine in their TEDS reports; for brevity, both substances are referred to equally "methamphetamine" in this newspaper. Numbers and percentages of methamphetamine admissions by land are shown in Table 2 for the menstruum 2000–2010 (SAMHSA, 2011b)

Table ii

Number and Percentage of Methamphetamine/Amphetamine Treatment Admissions past State and Twelvemonth 2000–2010, TEDS.

Yr	2000		2001		2002		2003		2004		2005		2006		2007		2008		2009		2010one
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	%
Alabama	496	2.eight	922	5.iii	ane,344	6.ix	1,713	eight.1	1,987	ten	ane,956	9.vii	one,768	8.5					1,722	vii.vii	8.ix
Alaska	53	1	50	one.3	80	i.6	71	1.8							118	3.0	129	2.four	146	2.5	2.6
Arizona	614	4.5	1,267	ix	ane,277	half-dozen.9	1,625	x.two	iii,301	8.ix	4,566	14.nine	iii,702	13.7	3,104	14.7	2,872	xiii.seven	two,385	12.iv	13.8
Arkansas	ii,461	18.4	2,139	17.half dozen	ii,812	20.3	3,015	22.i			3,471	25.ii	2,943	21.five	two,605	17.3	4,340	fifteen.two	four,037	16.4	17.ix
California	33,427	eighteen.two	39,911	22.3	59,258	27.vii	62,139	30.5	60,343	32.viii	67,157	36.6	71,087	35.nine	68,923	34.1	59,155	29.iii	49,239	27.3	27.ix
Colorado	1,785	3.2	1,558	3.6	2,593	3.viii	three,318	v.ii	4,875	seven.one	half dozen,396	8.3	half dozen,076	7.7	v,939	7.v	5,334	6.2	4,946	5.vi	6.ix
Connecticut	41	0.1	128	0.three	110	0.ii	114	0.2	99	0.ii	110	0.2	90	0.2	85	0.ii	119	0.3	98	0.two	0.2
Delaware	x	0.i	5	0.one	12	0.two	15	0.two	18	0.two	32	0.iv	38	0.5	24	0.3	22	0.3	9	0.one	0.2
Florida	420	0.v	467	0.7	741	0.8	i,022	1.2	686	one.7	1,194	2.five	1,142	2.two	981	1.nine	i,222	i.5	one,297	1.7	i.nine
Georgia	632	2.ane	987	2.vii	ane,588	iv.6	ii,820	seven.8	2,887	ix.2	5,685	12.seven
Hawaii	1,834	27.5	2,089	31.9	two,241	34.seven	2,570	41.3	two,382	40.9	2,625	38.six	two,181	33.five	2,184	31.2	one,918	25.ix	one,980	27.2	27.6
Idaho	1,238	21	1,763	20.ix	one,295	26.1	820	26.2	2,205	35.four	ii,355	36.ix	2,303	35.five	1,540	41.6	1,563	25.2	1,496	22.8
Illinois	557	0.9	986	1.3	1,547	i.9	two,158	2.v	two,608	3.ii	ii,568	3.3	2,395	two.8	i,302	1.8	1,001	1.iii	892	i.iii	1.4
Indiana	673	1.eight	757	2.7	1,167	3.8	1,419	iv.5	1,967	5.2	2,315	6.2	ii,209	half-dozen	ane,459	five	993	5.2	938	5.2	four.9
Iowa	3,386	13	4,183	xv.5	iv,839	17.nine	v,335	19.half-dozen	5,558	nineteen.seven	v,779	20.iii	4,513	15.eight	3,436	12.8	2,652	ten.one	2,945	10.half-dozen	12.6
Kansas	one,003	vii	1,180	8.iii	ane,408	9.vii	i,443	10.2	1,808	11.7	2,190	13.9	1,578	12.1	1,961	xiii.1	1,815	10.8	2,036	x.8	12.8
Kentucky	250	one.three	454	1.viii	455	1.7	696	2.two	532	2.6	1,307	5.8	1,249	5.ane	1,045	four.three	844	iii.8	833	3.9	four.iv
Louisiana	355	one.iii	405	1.five	680	2.four	792	2.9	1,055	iii.seven	1,229	iv.9	950	4.2	978	iv	718	2.8	746	2.half dozen	3.two
Maine	39	0.4	38	0.3	39	0.3	51	0.4	62	0.five	79	0.6	104	0.7	eighty	0.5	72	0.v	70	0.5	0.7
Maryland	73	0.1	104	0.2	131	0.2	173	0.ii	204	0.3	215	0.3	222	0.3	219	0.3	165	0.2	148	0.2	0.2
Massachusetts	seventy	0.1	lxxx	0.1	69	0.ane	101	0.2	119	0.2	152	0.iii	194	0.2	171	0.ii	102	0.1	92	0.1	0.ii
Michigan	179	0.iii	249	0.5	430	0.7	567	0.9	755	1.3	797	1.4	605	0.9	452	0.7	599	0.ix	665	1	one.2
Minnesota	1,698	iv.2	two,707	half-dozen.3	3,252	seven.ix	4,293	10.1	five,934	12.nine	7,159	15.viii	v,380	11.ii	4,903	9.eight	3,686	7.4	iii,600	6.9	viii.2
Mississippi	311	3.2	564	5.2	623	5.4	664	6.one	615	6	643	7.two	487	6	481	5.eight	443	5.0	425	v.iii
Missouri	3,457	7.8	three,928	8.six	four,028	nine.viii	iii,969	ten.5	iv,914	12.5	half dozen,154	fourteen.1	5,295	eleven.7	four,513	9.5	4,544	9.two	five,056	9.6	10.2
Montana	776	11	895	12.nine	938	thirteen.5	i,116	xiv.iv	i,185	15.4	1,476	18.ane	1,128	xiv.two	964	10	517	6.nine	424	v.8	half-dozen.3
Nebraska	902	ten.half-dozen	1,294	fourteen.3	i,485	15.9	ane,722	sixteen.2	two,064	thirteen.6	2,100	13.8	i,662	11.i	one,591	ix.half dozen	1,148	7.1	1,068	half-dozen.vii	7.five
Nevada	2,409	22.three	2,562	23.7	2,830	26.ix	3,257	27.eight	three,338	28.8	3,420	34.1	3,186	31.8	2,776	28.2	ane,967	21	one,893	xix.one	21.6
New Hampshire	18	0.3	18	0.three	76	1.5	17	0.3	32	0.v	56	1.one	75	1.2	53	0.9	51	0.eight	45	0.7	0.seven
New Jersey	116	0.two	131	0.ii	138	0.three	137	0.ii	195	0.4	173	0.3	190	0.iii	203	0.3	189	0.3	245	0.four	0.3
New Mexico	103	1.2	198	2.eight	197	ii.9	269	3.ix	315	5.7	703	vii.7	910	7.3	1,018	8.5	846	seven.3	721	7.ane	8.5
New York	361	0.1	460	0.2	547	0.2	699	0.2	673	0.2	704	0.2	610	0.2	783	0.3	694	0.two	805	0.iii	0.three
North Carolina	165	0.5	189	0.vi	227	0.8	283	ane	333	1.3	490	2	302	1.7	320	1.4	495	1.three	791	1.five	1.iv
Due north Dakota	90	iv.6	153	six.ix	377	xi.5	240	eleven.7	374	thirteen.5	419	18.1	378	14.three	249	10.3	190	seven.6	128	5.three	half-dozen
Ohio	109	0.2	185	0.iii	330	0.5	320	0.half-dozen	423	0.viii	832	ane.i	750	1	734	0.7	554	0.v	566	0.6	0.6
Oklahoma	two,599	18.vii	3,323	19.2	iii,471	19.3	3,555	21.vi	iv,007	23.v	iv,194	25.1	iii,728	23.eight	3,365	20.4	ii,687	15.8	two,965	17.5
Oregon	7,665	14.5	8,744	15.seven	9,463	16.nine	7,548	16.6	viii,561	19	x,062	21.1	9,226	18.eight	8,803	16.8	vii,354	13.9	six,283	12.9	13.ix
Pennsylvania	245	0.4	221	0.iv	233	0.4	260	0.4	464	0.5	433	0.6	351	0.5	304	0.4	274	0.4	221	0.four	0.3
Rhode Island	xiv	0.1	xvi	0.1	21	0.2	10	0.1	thirteen	0.1	16	0.one	22	0.2	28	0.2	32	0.3	28	0.3	0.ane
South Carolina	118	0.4	164	0.five	233	0.eight	302	1.2	424	i.8	788	two.ix	713	2.vii	605	2.3	596	2.two	551	2	ii
South Dakota	194	2.1	206	3	446	4.9	575	vi.3	668	7.1	1,346	10	1,157	7.iii	911	5.8	623	4.1	599	iv	4.two
Tennessee	143	1.ix	195	2	280	2.9	368	3.3	558	v.i	541	4.6	414	iii.7	287	2.8	277	two.8	338	3.3	4.i
Texas	1,367	4.7	1,844	half-dozen	ii,349	6.6	2,969	8.3	three,736	10.ane	five,827	13.v	5,432	12.4	4,816	10.6	3,677	8	3,799	8.three	8.7
Utah	3,362	17.2	3,013	xviii.nine	2,178	18.9	3,322	26	three,377	26.6	3,576	29	3,999	29.3	3,585	25.3	two,969	xx.3	2,479	sixteen.6	16.1
Vermont	26	0.4	x	0.ane	22	0.3	19	0.3	19	0.three	37	0.4	19	0.2	thirty	0.4	19	0.two	20	0.iii
Virginia	86	0.four	130	0.5	222	0.6	417	0.8	545	0.9	514	1.iv	351	one	363	1.1	282	0.8	298	1
Washington	iii,614	11.viii	4,241	14.1	4,056	14.4	4,330	14.7	5,148	xvi.one	vi,464	18.1	6,551	17.6	6,378	sixteen.7	five,233	13.ii	4,522	xi.3	12.2
Due west Virginia					eight	1.7	57	ane.4	77	1.seven	175	2.half dozen	187	2.4	138	ane.eight	147	1.5	68	1.i
Wisconsin	70	0.3	110	0.5	160	0.8	238	1	259	1.one	483	1.9	443	ane.iv	355	one.2	275	0.ix	289	one	i.1
Wyoming	437	10.2	596	10	695	thirteen.1	933	fifteen.5	one,018	17.9	i,296	22	873	nineteen.ane	686	xiii.3	642	10	696	11.1	xi.3
Full U.S.2	80,066	iv.half dozen	95,855	five.4	123,018	vi.5	133,876	7.ii	144,177	vii.9	172,270	9.i	161,132	8.three	146,004	seven.6	127,000	6.iii

Information from TEDS show increases in the number and percentage of treatment admissions for primary methamphetamine utilise from 21,073 (1.4% of all admissions reported to TEDS) in 1992 to a peak in 2005 of 172,270 (ix.1% of total admissions) with decreases to 127,000 in 2008 (half dozen.iii% of total admissions) (SAMHSA, 2011b). The aggregate national picture masks considerable variability in the impact of methamphetamine abuse on the handling organization across states. For example, eleven states reported fewer than 1% of their TEDS admissions were for methamphetamine in 2010 while two states reported more than 27%. The ten states with the highest percentages of methamphetamine treatment admissions reached levels of more than 20% during the 2000–2010 period (Figure v). These percentages represent one perspective of the magnitude of the "meth problem" relative to other substances, merely should exist interpreted along with the actual numbers of admissions from Tabular array 2 since treatment organisation chapters can besides alter over time. These ten states accounted for over lx% of the methamphetamine admissions in 2009–2010. Similar trends are visible for these ten states, with increasing percentages in the first part of the decade, most peaking in 2005 merely the timing of peaks ranging from 2003 (Hawaii) to 2006 (Idaho and Utah). For each land, some subtract in methamphetamine admissions has occurred following the height; but all show some leveling of decreases or an increment in percentages from 2008 to 2010. If the number of admissions is considered, instead of the percentages, nosotros meet similar patterns for eight of these 10 states; however, for Arkansas and Idaho, trends based on numbers or percentages differed somewhat during the second half of the decade.

Primary methamphetamine/amphetamine admissions to substance abuse treatment reported to TEDS: National and selected states, 2000–2010

In spite of some decrease since the mid-decade peaks, levels of methamphetamine admissions to handling remain loftier in several states at levels besides seen in the early 2000's (see, due east.1000., Figure 5), well above levels from the 1990's. For instance, methamphetamine admissions accounted for 6.1% of the total in 2008 compared to i.4% in 1992 nationwide, and 27.iv% in California in 2009 compared to 7.8% in 1992 (SAMHSA, 2011b). The attenuation of declines since the mid-decade peaks seen graphically in Figure 5 is also seen nationally with nigh three-fourths of the states with information for 2010 posting an increase in percentage of methamphetamine admissions over 2009 levels (Tabular array 2).

Assay of the TEDS data from 1992 through 2008 showed that inhalation was the primary route of administration of methamphetamine amid U.S. clients entering treatment until 1998, when smoking became the ascendant method with the increase in the supply and popularity of the crystalline ice. Rates of smoking methamphetamine rose from 12% in 1992 to 68% in 2008. The demographics of the users inbound treatment also inverse from 85% White in 1992 to 72% White in 2008, with the proportion who were Hispanic increasing from 8% to 23% in the aforementioned period. The proportion of clients who were female remained stable at near 45% (Maxwell, 2011; SAMHSA, 2011c).

iv. Conclusions

The supply and demand data bear witness that methamphetamine indicators are again increasing in certain parts of the country, following a few years of decline in the mid-2000'due south. This alter is seen in supply due to precursors shifting from ephedrine and pseudoephedrine back to the P2P recipe, with standing refinement of product methods to produce purer and more than strong methamphetamine. Of concern are reports from DEA intelligence that Mexican manufacturers are looking to other areas in the world for the required chemicals and the power of Asian manufacturers who use ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to produce large quantities of loftier quality methamphetamine which may get some other source of the drug in the U.Southward. in the future. At the same fourth dimension, the declines in need indicators which were seen from 2005–2008 are beginning to reverse in 2009–2010, with notable increases in those states which have had significant bug with methamphetamine use in the past. The electric current attenuation of the decreasing trends that accompanied the most contempo precursor controls support the previously-identified temporary nature of the effects of such controls (eastward.thou., Cunningham & Liu, 2008). This situation points to the need for continuing attention to control and interdiction efforts advisable to the irresolute context and to continuing prevention efforts and increased supply of handling programs.

The shifts in the manufacture of methamphetamine are besides seen in the irresolute preferences in the routes of administration of methamphetamine. Over time, users have shifted to the crystalline version which can be smoked, rather than using the powdered version that tin can be injected or inhaled. Although methamphetamine users are most probable to exist male and Anglo, the increasing proportion of Hispanics entering treatment is an indication of the spread of the drug into other populations, and the highest employ rates among those in their twenties points to a accomplice at futurity gamble of condign dependent and needing treatment. In improver, the increasing purity and authorization of may result in the shortening of the time betwixt initiation (kickoff use) and dependence.

Finally, based on previous methamphetamine epidemics, it appears the U.South. may accept reached a point where there volition exist communities with substantial numbers of dependent methamphetamine users regardless of supply reduction efforts, and methamphetamine volition go established forth with cocaine and heroin as major chronic drug problems. Each of these drugs has its own geographic pattern and specific user groups. If this predicted entrenchment of methamphetamine as a chronic drug problem proves to be accurate, there will exist standing and even increasing need for supply and demand reduction efforts in the affected areas.

Contributor Data

Jane Carlisle Maxwell, Addiction Research Institute, School of Social Piece of work, The University of Texas at Austin, I Academy Station, Austin, TX 78712, 512-232-0610, ude.saxetu.liam@llewxamcj.

Mary-Lynn Brecht, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, 1640 S. Sepulveda, Ste. 200, Los Angeles, CA 90025, 310-267-5275, ude.alcu.tendem@thcerbl..

REFERENCES

• Anglin Dr., Burke C, Perrochet B, Stamper Due east, Dawud-Noursi S. History of the methamphetamine problem. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2000;32:137–141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bianchi RP, Shah MN, Rogers DH, Mrazik TJ. Laboratory analysis of the conversion of pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine from over-the-counter products. DEA Microgram Periodical. 2005;three(No. i–2) [Google Scholar]
• Centers for Disease Command and Prevention (CDC) [Retrieved on September 22, 2010]; High school youth risk beliefs survey. 2009 from http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline dataset.
• Cunningham JK, Liu LM. Impacts of federal ephedrine and pseudoephedrine regulations on methamphetamine-related hospital admissions. Addiction. 2003;98:1229–1237. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cunningham JK, Liu LM. Impacts of federal forerunner chemical regulations on methamphetamine arrests. Addiction. 2005;100:479–488. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cunningham JK, Liu LM. Impact of methamphetamine precursor chemical legislation, a suppression policy, on the need for drug handling. Social Scientific discipline & Medicine. 2008a;66:1463–1473. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cunningham JK, Liu LM, Callaghan R. Impact of United states and Canadian precursor regulation on methamphetamine purity in the The states. Addiction. 2009;104:441–453. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cunningham JK, Liu LM, Muramoto M. Methamphetamine suppression and route of assistants: precursor regulation impacts on snorting, smoking, swallowing and injecting. Addiction. 2008b;103:1174–1186. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cunningham JK, Bojorquez I, Campollo O, Liu LM, Maxwell JC. Mexico's methamphetamine precursor chemical interventions: impacts on drug handling admissions. Addiction. 2010;105:1973–1983. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control. National Forensic Laboratory Information System: Twelvemonth 2009 almanac report. Washington, DC: U.Southward. Drug Enforcement Administration; 2010a. [Google Scholar]
• Drug Enforcement Agency. Part of Forensic Sciences, Special Testing and Research Laboratory. [Received from DEA on February 28, 2011]; Methamphetamine profiling program, fourth quarter CY2010. 2010b [Google Scholar]
• Drug Enforcement Assistants, Intelligence Partitioning, Indications and Warning Section. All methamphetamine purchases, domestic STRIDE information, January 2007–September 2010. 2010c. Received from DEA Domestic Unit of measurement Special Strategic Intelligence Department on March iii, 2011. [Google Scholar]
• Drug Enforcement Assistants, Strategic Intelligence Section. Methamphetamine trends. Presented at the National Rural Law Enforcement Methamphetamine Pinnacle; June 22, 2010; Denver CO. 2010d. [Retrieved on June 22, 2010]. from http://methpedia.org/download/nrlemi/RLEMI-MichaelVrakatitsis2.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Drug Enforcement Administration. [Retrieved on Jan, 2011]; Methamphetamine clandestine lab incidents. 2011 from http://www.justice.gov/dea/business organisation/map_lab_seizures.html.
• Finckenauer JO, Fuentes JR, Ward GL. United mexican states and the United States: neighbors confront drug trafficking. National Constitute of Justice Publications; 2001. [Retrieved on October 29, 2010]. from http://world wide web.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/218561.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Fowler JS, Kroll C, Ferrieri R, Alexoff D, Logan J, et al. PET studies of d-methamphetamine pharmacokinetics in primates: comparing with l-methamphetamine and (--)-cocaine. Periodical of Nuclear Medicine. 2007;48:1724–1732. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Government of Canada. [Retrieved on October 15, 2010]; Controlled drugs and substances human activity: Forerunner control regulations. 2005 from http://www.cscb.ca/listinfo/precursors.pdf.
• Joe-Laidler K, Morgan P. Kinship and community: The 'ice' crisis in Hawaii. In: Klee H, editor. Amphetamine misuse: International perspectives on current trends. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers; 1997. pp. 163–179. [Google Scholar]
• Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the future: National results on adolescent drug use, overview of key findings. Ann Arbor, MI: Found for Social Research, Academy of Michigan; 2010. [Retrieved March iv, 2011]. from http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-overview2010.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Kuczenski R, Segal DS, Cho AK, Melega Due west. Hippocampus norepinephrine, caudate dopamine and serotonin, and behavioral responses to the stereoisomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine. Periodical of Neuroscience. 1995;15:1308–1317. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ling West, Rawson R, Shoptaw S. Management of methamphetamine abuse and dependence. Current Psychological Reports. 2006;eight:345–354. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Logan BK. Methamphetamine effects on human performance and behavior. Forensic Science Review. 2002;14:134–151. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Maxwell JC. [Retrieved March 8, 2011]; Overcoming challenges in accessing and using substance use data. 2011 from http://methpedia.org/uploads/Webinar3-8-2011/RuralMethMaxwell2011rev.pdf.
• Maxwell JC, Rutkowski BA. The prevalence of methamphetamine and amphetamine abuse in Due north America: a review of the indicators, 1992–2007. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2008;27:229–235. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mendelson J, Uemura N, Harris D, Nath RP, Fernandez E, Jacob P, et al. Human being pharmacology of the methamphetamine stereoisomers. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2006;80:403–420. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Office of National Drug Command Policy. ADAM Two 2009 almanac report. Washington DC: ONDCP; 2010. [Retrieved September 28, 2010]. from http://world wide web.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/adam2009.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Public Police 109-177. [Retrieved October 29, 2010]; Championship VII, The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Deed of 2005. 2005 from http://world wide web.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/meth/pl109_177.pdf.
• Randewich Due north. [Retrieved October 15, 2010]; Mexico limits some cold remedies in narcotics war. 2007 Jul 29; from http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1927125520070719?sp=true.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Assistants. [Retrieved January 4, 2011]; Detailed tables: National estimates, drug-related emergency section visits for 2004–2009. 2011a from https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/information/ed/National/National.zip.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Wellness Services Administration. [Retrieved March 20, 2011]; Quick statistics from the drug and booze services information system 1992–2010. 2011b from http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/webt/data.htm.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Assistants. [Retrieved September 22, 2010]; Results from the 2009 national survey on drug use and health: Volume I. Summary of national findings. 2010 from http://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k9NSDUH/tabs/TOC.htm, Tables 1.1A, 4.5B.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Wellness Services Administration. [Retrieved March iv, 2011]; Treatment episode information set -- Admissions (TEDS-A) -- Concatenated, 1992 to present. 2011c from http://world wide web.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/SAMHDA/series/00056 database.

cockerillsectud.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3243901/

Share this post