Substance Abuse: Methamphetamine and Big Pharma

Illustration by Henning Wagenbreth

The popular AMC series Breaking Bad has increased awareness of methamphetamine culture, use, and production in the U.S.  However, the series fails to address practical solutions to reduce the amount of methamphetamine that is made and the negative effects of its use. 

Methamphetamine, a central nervous stimulant, is a drug that may be prescribed by a physician to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) under the trade name Desoxyn (FDA, 2007). Because of its high potential for misuse and the ease with which it is made, small domestic laboratories threaten the safety of local communities throughout the U.S. (NIH, 2010). The images and stories of how lives are affected by at-home methamphetamine labs, as well its cost to society illustrate the need for change.

A recent interview with journalist Jonah Engle explores the increasing prevalence of the “shake and bake” or “one-pot method” for at-home methamphetamine production and its prevalence in the poorest areas of the U.S. (Davies & Engle, 2013). A similar article authored by Engle states that in Kentucky, meth-related clean up and law enforcement cost 30 million dollars in 2009 alone. That figure does not include “the cost of crimes addicts commit to support their habit, of putting out meth fires, of decontaminating meth homes, of responding to domestic-abuse calls or placing neglected, abused, or injured kids in foster care” (2013).  

A key ingredient is required to make methamphetamine using the “shake and bake” method, pseudoephedrine—a chemical commonly found in over the counter allergy and cold medicine. Although, many states have put pseudoephedrine behind the counter and stopped selling pseudoephedrine-containing medicine at convenience stores, the number of small methamphetamine labs have increased nationally since 2005 (Davies & Engle, 2013). Despite state and federal efforts, Engle explains how large pharmaceutical companies are implicated in the increasingly prevalent problem.

In 2006, Oregon passed legislation that returned pseudoephedrine-containing medicine back to its prescription status, requiring a physician signature to obtain the medication (Engle, 2013). After the bill became law, Oregon saw the number of meth labs fall by over 90% (Davies & Engle, 2013). After the success Oregon had, why doesn’t every state implement similar legislation? This is where “big pharma” enters the picture.

When Kentucky attempted a similar bill in 2009, an organization called Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA) spent over $300,000 lobbying in one month, a new spending record. This organization supports large pharmaceutical companies that make over-the-counter medications, such as Pzifer and Johnson & Johnson. Much of the over $300,000 was spent on hiring top lobbyists and robocalls made to residents that went like this: "The government wants to take your cold and allergy medicine away. Press 9 and we'll put you through to your legislator," (Davies & Engle, 2013). The effectiveness of such campaigns by the CHPA is evidenced by the fact that 24 states have attempted legislation similar to Oregon’s since 2009 and 23 have failed (Davies & Engle, 2013).   

Prescription Legislation Map

This leads to the question, what makes it acceptable for corporations to benefit from the poorest and most vulnerable in society? While corporations profit from methamphetamine misuse, tax payers are left to pick up the pieces, including the cost of jail time or hospital care for often uninsured patients. Perhaps, with little effect on the consumer using pseudoephedrine-containing medicine for its intended purpose, practical measures could be implemented to reduce the devastation that occurs related to methamphetamine production and use. 

Click to watch an interview with Jonah Engle.