Abstract
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, methamphetamine was labeled by some as a new drug scourge and a substance that was instantly addictive. It was sometimes called the most dangerous drug on earth. However, it wasn’t a new drug, was not instantly addictive, and was far from the most dangerous drug on the Earth. The drug had been available in various forms for nearly three quarters of a century and produces few complications when legally prescribed under the trade name Desoxyn®. Doctors can legally prescribe methamphetamine for obesity, narcolepsy, and for children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Ironically, what some have called the most dangerous drug on the Earth is categorized by the Drug Enforcement Administration as less dangerous than marijuana.
Meth Mania is an attempt by the author to understand how methamphetamine came to be demonized. He does this through the lens of a social constructionist perspective in which he documents the ebb and flow of public concern over methamphetamine as reflected in a variety of media sources. Although others have taken a similar approach to the study of methamphetamine, those studies are journal articles or book chapters and are consequently constrained by space limitations.
The book is laid out in eight chapters. In Chapter 1, “From Wonder Drug to Public Health Menace,” the author presents the book’s theoretical framework, describing the social constructionist approach. There is a brief overview of drug use in ancient civilizations followed by a summary of past cases in which the social constructionist approach has been applied to other drug scares. This chapter emphasizes the role of media in creating and shaping drug panics.
Chapter 2, “Early Drug Use,” considers drug use in America in the late 1800s and the rise of drug control efforts in the early 1900s. Although narcotics, cocaine, and marijuana were widely available through doctors and over the counter, neither drugs nor drug users were seen as evil or particularly problematic in the late 1800s. Various interest groups, social conditions, and racism combined to change the perception of these drugs. These efforts culminated in passage of the 1914 Harrison Act. Although amphetamine was not yet publicly available, the Harrison Act and state-level regulations set the stage for subsequent controls of amphetamines and methamphetamine. The author argues that amphetamines became popular as a reaction to the prohibition of cocaine.
In Chapter 3, “The Emergence of Amphetamines,” the author traces the early use of amphetamines and the emergence of methamphetamine up through the 1960s. Stimulant drugs were appealing to the pharmaceutical industry because they were purely synthetic, meaning they could be patented and dozens of variations could be created. Amphetamines were initially seen as safe and nonaddictive, with a number of health and social benefits. That changed as unregulated use led to problems, which, in turn, led to the mobilization of interest groups to limit production. However, when regulators restricted access to one form of amphetamine, pharmaceutical companies would develop another unregulated variation. This led to a dramatic increase in use during the early 1950s, followed by further restrictions that, in turn, led to the rise of a black market in amphetamines.
Chapter 4, “The First Scare: Speed Freaks,” covers the period from the early 1960s until 1971 and shows how restricted access to legal injectable methamphetamine (Methedrine) led to an illicit market and to domestic manufacturing of the drug. The dangers of methamphetamine, as reflected in the phrase “speed kills,” were grossly exaggerated as was the reported association between meth and violent crime. First seen as a problem among disenfranchised or marginal groups, concerns about meth grew when “good people” were portrayed as falling under its influence.
In Chapter 5, “The Second Scare: Ice,” the author argues that although meth use increased through the 1970s, it attracted little media attention until 1989. As a result of restrictions on legally manufactured methamphetamine in 1970, much of the methamphetamine thereafter was produced in clandestine laboratories. Early laboratories used a process that produced meth relatively low in quality. As officials enacted restrictions on that method, alternative methods arose, which produced high-quality crystal meth. This scare was short lived, lasting only through 1990.
Chapter 6 addresses “The Third Scare: Crystal Meth.” Beginning in 1995 and peaking in 2005, this scare again presented meth as a new drug and described the problem as epidemic. Meth users were demonized and portrayed as little more than walking skeletons with rotting teeth and a propensity for random acts of violence. “Good” White rural citizens were now susceptible, as were marginalized groups, including gays and Mexicans. The children of users and manufacturers were now counted among the victims.
Chapter 7, “Context and Consequences,” places the third meth scare within the context of other social concerns at the time. Those concerns, gay rights, illegal immigration, and environmental devastation, attracted growing media attention and all three were linked to meth use, meth production, or both. Criminal justice agencies fueled the scare amid concerns they would lose resources as the crack cocaine crisis subsided. The author shows that public concern about meth had only a modest association with the objective reality of the problem.
The book closes with Chapter 8, “New Panics, New Approaches,” in which the author speculates about drug panics yet to come citing bath salts as one candidate. The chapter also recaps the shift in perceptions of methamphetamine from medicine to drug, reminding the reader of the many occasions in which drug controls created problems more serious than those they were designed to address. Finally, the chapter makes arguments for an increased focus on demand reduction and harm reduction in drug policy.
Although Meth Mania is ostensibly about methamphetamine, it is also an excellent primer on the way in which more general drug policies emerge and change over time. Time and again, efforts to deal with the drug problem have themselves created new problems. As the author notes, there is nothing inherently good or evil about any drug. What matters is the context in which it is used and the way it is perceived by the public.