The Frontline documentary on methamphetamine which aired on PBS this past week managed to be even more sensationalistic and one-sided than I expected. I had to laugh out loud when the narrator came out with "methamphetamine is the most addictive substance known to man." Really? Wasn't crack the most addictive? Or was it heroin? Go back far enough and you'll find the same claims made about marijuana. And that's the point. Without some balanced, historical perspective on the phenomena of illicit drug use, programs like this devolve into simple drug war hysteria.

There were other problems with this show. But, here, I'm going to let Michael Clark lay it out for you, because he's a PhD, and a much better writer and thinker than I am:

The program was misleading on at least two major issues:

1st, and most importantly to the thesis, they claimed that ephedrine has no natural source and they implied that without ephedrine or pseudoephedrine meth manufacture would not be possible. Ephedrine has a natural source-- ephedra (duh!). And the ephedrine synthesis is used because it is the easiest and most direct route. There are plenty of other ways to make meth from a variety of other precursors if one is willing to do the organic chemistry. The documentary clearly details how the meth industry adapted at a frightening pace to every attempt to cut off precursors, as well as the huge size of the market. Anyone who thinks that the industry isn't going to start using ephedra to extract precursors or switch to a non-ephedrine based synthesis, is figuratively speaking, smoking meth.

Aggressively cutting off (pseduo)ephedrine might well decrease purity and increase price, and thereby lower addition rates. But it is not going to do anything resembling end meth use and might even have unforseen negative consequences (such as how they documented that pushing meth labs into Mexico increased meth shipments to the east coast). The major advantage of forcing a change to ephedra as a pre-precursor or a change to non-ephedrine synthesis would seem to be closing down the crude kitchen labs. This could be argued as a worthwhile harm reduction measure.

Specifically, forcing a shift to requiring the meth industry to use more sophisticated chemistry, means more work done by chemists and less by untrained meth cooks intoxicated with their own product. The anticipated result should be a reduction in the frequency of fires and small toxic waste dumps in residential areas, as well as a reduction in the number of children exposed to these environments.

But the reduction in use is not even going to resemble what happened with methaqualone, a near complete drop off. There the molecule was much more complicated, and there was another drug rising (i.e. cocaine) for the Columbians to make much more money on than yet another sedative-hypnotic; especially one that wasn't all that different in effect and duration from drugs still widely available.

2nd- The documentary makes it seem like Mark Souder is concerned about people addicted to drugs. The man might as well be nicknamed "Kick 'em when they're down" Souder for his work to put as many obstacles as he can into the way of recovering addict's re-integration into society. The man is no friend to anyone who is concerned about the effect of drugs and drug addiction on individual human beings. He got a free ride.

Thanks, Michael for sending around this analysis!

Tags: Meth, Methamphetamine, Frontline, PBS.