Methamphetamine laboratories have been a widely variable problem across the United States, very problematic in some communities but not at all in others. This study analyzes the variation in methamphetamine labs using demographic and geographic information on 17,720 seized laboratories. The analysis found that traditional community-level factors representing economic disadvantage, social disorganization, and civic community theories demonstrated little power to predict the presence of methamphetamine laboratories, although they were useful in predicting other types of crime. A single spatial lag variable measuring a county’s geographic proximity to other counties with drug laboratory seizures accounted for almost half of the variance in meth lab prevalence and contributed substantially to the explained variance in index crime arrests and drug arrests. The findings demonstrate the utility of spatial lag variables in assessing proximity effects in explaining crime patterns, while demonstrating that fully explaining different forms of crime may require different theoretical models.
AkersR. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
2.
AkersR. L. (2001). Social learning theory. In PaternosterR.BachmanR. (Eds.), Explaining criminals and crime: Essays in contemporary criminological theory (pp. 192-210). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
ArmstrongT. A.ArmstrongG. S. (in press). A multivariate analysis of the sociodemographic predictors of methamphetamine production and use. Crime and Delinquency.
5.
BurgeM.HunsakerJ. C.DavisG. J. (2009). Death of a toddler due to ingestion of sulfuric acid at a clandestine home methamphetamine laboratory. Forensic Science Medicine and Pathology, 5, 298-301.
6.
BurgessJ. L. (2001). Phosphine exposure from a methamphetamine laboratory investigation. Clinical Toxicology, 39, 165-168.
7.
BurgessJ. L.BarnhartS.CheckowayH. (1996). Investigating clandestine drug laboratories: Adverse medical effects in law enforcement personnel. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 30, 488-494.
8.
BurgessJ. L.KovalchickD. F.SiegelE. M.HysongT. A.McCurdyS. A. (2002). Medical surveillance of clandestine drug laboratory investigators. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 44, 184-189.
9.
BurtonB. T. (1991). Heavy metal and organic contaminants associated with illicit methamphetamine production. In MillerM.KozelN. J. (Eds.), Methamphetamine Abuse: Epidemiologic issues and implications monograph number 115 (pp. 47-59.). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
10.
CaulkinsJ. (2003). Methamphetamine epidemics: An empirical overview. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 3(4), 17-42.
11.
CoveyH. C. (Ed.). (2007). The methamphetamine crisis: Strategies to save addicts, families, and communities. Westport, CT: Praeger.
12.
DanksR. R.WibbenmeyerL. A.FaucherL. D.SihlerK. C.KealeyG. P.ChangP.. . . LewisR. W. (2004). Methamphetamine-associated burn injuries: A retrospective analysis. Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, 25, 425-429.
13.
Drug Enforcement Administration. (2003). Seizures of illegal drug laboratories by the Drug Enforcement Administration: By type of drug manufactured, United States, Fiscal years 1965-2003. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2003. Table 4.39. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t439.pdf
Esri (2003). Sourcebook America 2003 [Data CD]. Redlands, CA: ESRI Business Information Solutions.
16.
FarstK.DuncanJ. M.MossM.RayR. M.KokoskaE.JamesL. P. (2007). Methamphetamine exposure presenting as caustic ingestions in children. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 49, 341-343.
17.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008). Uniform crime reporting program data [United States]: County-level detailed arrest and offense data, 2006 [Computer file]. ICPSR23780-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR2378010.3886/ICPSR23780
18.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2009). Uniform crime reporting program data [United States]: County-level detailed arrest and offense data, 2007 [Computer file]. ICPSR25114-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. doi: 10.3886/ICPSR25114
19.
FesterU. (2009). Secrets of methamphetamine manufacture (8th ed.). Port Townsend, WA: Loompanics Unlimited.
20.
FornangoR. J. (2010). When space matters: Spatial dependence, diagnostics, and regression models. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21, 117-135.
21.
GatesZ. R. (2005). Obeying the “speed” limit: Framing the appropriate role of EPA criminal enforcement actions against clandestine drug laboratory operators. Penn State Environmental Law Review, 13, 173-215.
22.
GrantP. (2007). Evaluation of children removed from a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 33, 31-41.
23.
GrantP.BellK.StewartD.PaulsonJ.RogersK. (2010). Evidence of methamphetamine exposure in children removed from clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. Pediatric Emergency Care, 26, 10-14.
24.
Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. (2007). County characteristics, 2000-2007, United States [Computer file]. Ann Arbor, MI: Author [producer and distributor].
25.
JenkotR. (2008). “Cooks are like gods”: Hierarchies in methamphetamine-producing groups. Deviant Behavior, 29, 667-689.
26.
LandK. C.McCallP. L.CohenL. E. (1990). Structural covariates of homicide rates: Are there any invariances across time and social space?American Journal of Sociology, 95, 922-963.
27.
ManningT. (1999). Drug labs and endangered children. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 68, 10-17.
28.
MillerH. J. (2004). Tobler’s First Law and spatial analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94, 284-289.
29.
MitkaM. (2005). Meth lab fires put heat on burn centers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294(16), 2009-2010.
OwenF. (2007). No speed limit: The highs and lows of meth. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin.
32.
PietschmannT. (1997). Economic forces driving manufacture, trafficking and consumption of amphetamine-type stimulants. In KleeH. (Ed.), Amphetamine misuse: International perspectives on current trends (pp. 275-290). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Harwood Academic.
33.
PineJ. (2007). Economy of speed: The new narco-capitalism. Public Culture, 19, 357-366.
34.
PrattT. C.CullenF. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Volume 32. (pp. 373-450). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
35.
PrattT. C.CullenF. T.SellersC. S.WinfreeL. T.MadensenT. D.DaigleL. E.. . . GauJ. M. (2010). The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27, 765-802.
36.
RoussellA.HolmesM. D.Anderson-SprecherR. (in press). Community characteristics and methamphetamine use in a rural state. Crime and Delinquency.
37.
RupasinghaA.GoetzS. J. (2008). U.S. county-level social capital data, 1990-2005. The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development. University Park, PA: Penn State University. Retrieved from http://nercrd.psu.edu/Social_Capital/index.html
38.
SantosA. P.WilsonA. K.HornungC. A.PolkH. C.RodriguezJ. L.FranklinG. A. (2005). Methamphetamine laboratory explosions: A new and emerging burn injury. Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation, 26, 228-232.
39.
SextonR.CarlsonR. G.LeukefeldC. G.BoothB. M. (2006). Patterns of illicit methamphetamine production (“cooking”) and associated risks in the rural South: An ethnographic exploration. Journal of Drug Issues, 36, 853-876.
40.
ShuklaR.BartgisE. E. (2008). An analysis of clandestine methamphetamine laboratory seizures in Oklahoma. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 10, 97-110.
41.
SkeersV. M. (1992). Illegal methamphetamine drug laboratories: A new challenge for environmental health professionals. Journal of Environmental Health, 55(3), 6-10.
42.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2006). State estimates of past year methamphetamine use. The NSDUH Report, Issue 37. Washington, DC: Office of Applied Studies, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k6/stateMeth/stateMeth.htm
43.
SuiD. Z. (2004). Tobler’s First Law of Geography: A big idea for a small world?Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94, 269-277.
44.
TardeG. (1962). The laws of imitation (Elsie Clews Parsons, Trans.). Glouster, MA: Peter Smith. (Original work published 1903)
45.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Census bureau regions and divisions with state FIPS codes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf
46.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2003). County and city data book: 2000 [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, Administrative and Customer Services Division.
47.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2010). World drug report, 2010. United Nations Publication Number E.10.XI.13. Vienna, Austria: United Nations.
48.
WeisheitR. A. (2008). Making methamphetamine. Southern Rural Sociology, 23(2), 78-107.
49.
WeisheitR. A.FullerJ. (2004). Methamphetamine in the heartland: A review and initial exploration. Journal of Crime and Justice, 27(1), 131-151.
50.
WeisheitR. A.WellsL. E. (2010). Methamphetamine laboratories: The geography of drug production. Western Criminology Review, 11(2), 9-26.
51.
WeisheitR. A.WhiteW. L. (2009). Methamphetamine: Its history, pharmacology, and treatment. Center City, MN: Hazelden.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
