Methamphetamine Producers and Users' Reactions to Pseudoephedrine Legislation in the Rural South

• NCJ Number: 225510
• Journal: Journal of Crime &Justice Volume: 31 Issue: 2 Dated: 2008 Pages: 117-137
• Author(s): Rocky Sexton; Robert G. Carlson; Carl G. Leukefeld; Brenda M. Booth
• Date Published: 2008
• Length: 21 pages
• Grant Number(s): 1R01DA15363
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute on Drug Abuse
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research); Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This study used baseline and followup qualitative interviews with methamphetamine (MA) producers and users in rural Arkansas and Kentucky in order to explore local reactions by drug users to laws in these States that restricted sales of pseudoephedrine medications that are used to produce MA.

Abstract

During the first year after these laws were enacted, both the users and producers of MA reported declines in the availability of pseudoephedrine and in MA production; however, limited amounts of pseudoephedrine could still be obtained through the accumulation of small purchase amounts, "pill shopping," and imported pseudoephedrine. None of the participants with experience in cooking MA were active in producing MA at followup. Most participants reported either stopping or reducing MA use at followup. Decreased MA production and use among participants, however, were not linked directly to the new pseudoephedrine laws. Rather, they were attributed to the cumulative effectiveness of law enforcement in conjunction with the new laws. Other factors mentioned in reducing or stopping MA use were personal and legal problems associated with MA abuse. Data were derived from the qualitative component of a largely quantitative 3-year study of illicit stimulant users in three rural counties in eastern Arkansas and three rural counties in western Kentucky. Between October 2003 and July 2006, baseline qualitative interviews were conducted with 39 (23 in Kentucky and 16 in Arkansas) study participants who reported MA as their primary illicit stimulant used, as well as a nonproject member who was a recovering MA user and former MA cooker. Nine other study participants also had past or current experience as MA cookers. Followup interviews occurred from October 2004 to July 2006. The followup interviews involved 24 participants (13 in Kentucky and 11 in Arkansas), including 7 MA cookers. 30 references