Thursday, May 11, 2006
Steven Suo beats meth
The phrase “drug problem” is as ubiquitous as it is vague. America has had drug problems with just about every drug on the market, legal and illegal. The latest decade-long craze is methamphetamine, and like most drug problems, unraveling why it happened, how to track it and how to stop it are society’s lasting conundrums. But journalist Steven Suo found a way. He started with a comparison of rehab entrants state-by-state and, after noticing Oregon ranked number one, embarked on a 2-year investigative journey that has garnered attention and action from the United States Congress, the Mexican government and the United Nations.
Listening to him tell the story, you might think he’s a bit burnt out. In total, he’s written a five-part series for The Oregonian, his employer, traveled the world and analyzed figures regarding emergency room visits, property and identity theft crimes, rehab visits and drug purity. Such a glut of activity would fatigue anyone. His work, however, produced results that makes breathing easier for anyone connected to the meth epidemic (except for users and dealers). He found how to decrease consumption dramatically and keep it low. The solution isn’t novel: simply choke the supply.
Eighty percent of meth is produced in “super labs” located in California. In other words, while stories of small-time producers is true - one of meth’s odious qualities is how “easily” it is to produce from homes - the bulk of manufacturing takes place on the West Coast. Its chief agent is pseudo-ephedrine, an ingredient in common cold medications. Only nine factories in four countries, none being the U.S., produce ephedrine/pseudo-ephedrine, which means that actions that stifle the exportation of the ingredient stifle meth suppliers.
Simple, no? Restrict the supply of ephedrine, and meth dealers close shop. Suo found that when ephedrine was more heavily regulated in the mid-90s, ER rooms saw fewer meth overdoses and accidents, property crimes decreased, rehabilitation centers greeted fewer meth addicts and drug purity decreased. These all indicate a decrease of the drug overall. So why doesn’t Congress impose tight restrictions? Please enter pharmaceutical companies.
Cold medication sales total $3 billion annually, and according to pharmaceutical companies, regulation is a slippery slope that, at its worst, could mean the end of ephedrine in the U.S. Alternatives that don’t include ephedrine have been developed but not marketed because producers say that they don’t surpass what’s already available (in terms of efficacy)? May I scream, please?! Why does private interest so oftern trump public interest?
That’s a rant for another day. Bottom line, Suo found definitive answers through exhaustive research, and governments have answered. While ephedrine supply is restricted, pseudo-ephedrine is not, and drug dealers have persevered for now. But Suo’s work has provided lessons for future journalists: tackle big problems, practice skepticism, don’t relent and don’t be afraid. You may help end someone’s drug problem.
Listening to him tell the story, you might think he’s a bit burnt out. In total, he’s written a five-part series for The Oregonian, his employer, traveled the world and analyzed figures regarding emergency room visits, property and identity theft crimes, rehab visits and drug purity. Such a glut of activity would fatigue anyone. His work, however, produced results that makes breathing easier for anyone connected to the meth epidemic (except for users and dealers). He found how to decrease consumption dramatically and keep it low. The solution isn’t novel: simply choke the supply.
Eighty percent of meth is produced in “super labs” located in California. In other words, while stories of small-time producers is true - one of meth’s odious qualities is how “easily” it is to produce from homes - the bulk of manufacturing takes place on the West Coast. Its chief agent is pseudo-ephedrine, an ingredient in common cold medications. Only nine factories in four countries, none being the U.S., produce ephedrine/pseudo-ephedrine, which means that actions that stifle the exportation of the ingredient stifle meth suppliers.
Simple, no? Restrict the supply of ephedrine, and meth dealers close shop. Suo found that when ephedrine was more heavily regulated in the mid-90s, ER rooms saw fewer meth overdoses and accidents, property crimes decreased, rehabilitation centers greeted fewer meth addicts and drug purity decreased. These all indicate a decrease of the drug overall. So why doesn’t Congress impose tight restrictions? Please enter pharmaceutical companies.
Cold medication sales total $3 billion annually, and according to pharmaceutical companies, regulation is a slippery slope that, at its worst, could mean the end of ephedrine in the U.S. Alternatives that don’t include ephedrine have been developed but not marketed because producers say that they don’t surpass what’s already available (in terms of efficacy)? May I scream, please?! Why does private interest so oftern trump public interest?
That’s a rant for another day. Bottom line, Suo found definitive answers through exhaustive research, and governments have answered. While ephedrine supply is restricted, pseudo-ephedrine is not, and drug dealers have persevered for now. But Suo’s work has provided lessons for future journalists: tackle big problems, practice skepticism, don’t relent and don’t be afraid. You may help end someone’s drug problem.
# posted by Mia @ 9:58 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Yes I totally agree. Drug companies have way to much power. It's ironic that an industry that is suppose to help people get better is actually making them more sick. I wonder what that Japanese guy was up to when he discovered meth. Man, what a mess he created!
Post a Comment
<< Home
