Developed primarily in clandestine laboratories, methamphetamine is a highly addictive synthetic drug whose physical effects include hyperactivity, euphoria, tremors, and a sense of increased energy. While the accuracy of recent accounts suggesting a methamphetamine epidemic in the United States is unclear, these reports have nevertheless translated into significant funding allowances by the federal government. This increased funding suggests that the opportunity is ripe for the development of a scientific, environmentallybased model for methamphetamine prevention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgnewR., & WhiteH. (1992). An empirical test of General Strain Theory. Criminology, 30, 475–499.
2.
AnglinM. D.BurkeC.PerrochetB.StamperE., & Dawud-NoursiS. (2002). History of the methamphetamine problem. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 32(2), 37–141.
3.
BammerG.HallW.HamiltonM., & AliR. (2002). Harm minimalization in a prohibition context—Australia. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 582, 80–93.
4.
BavejaJ.CaulkinsJ. P.LiuW.BattaR., & KarwanM. H. (1997). When haste makes sense: Cracking down on street markets for illicit drugs. Socio-Economic Planning Science31(4), 293–306.
5.
BirckmayerJ.HolderH.YacoubianG., & FriendK. (2004). A general causal model to guide alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug prevention: Assessing the research evidence. Journal of Drug Education, 34(2), 121–153.
6.
BlockL. G.MorwitzV. G.PutsisW. P., & SenS. K. (2002). Assessing the impact of anti-drug advertising on adolescent drug consumption: Results from a behavioral economic model. American Journal of Public Health, 92(8), 1346–1351.
7.
BrookD.BrookW.GordonA. S.WhitmandM., & CohenP. (1990). The psychosocial etiology of adolescent drug use: A family international approach. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 116, Whole No. 2.
8.
CaulkinsJ. P. (1993). Local drug markets' response to focused police enforcement. Operations Research, 41(5), 848–863.
9.
CaulkinsJ. P. (1995). Domestic geographic variation in illicit drug prices. Journal of Urban Economics, 37(1), 38–56.
10.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT). (1997). Proceedings of the National Consensus Meeting on the use, abuse, and sequelae of abuse of methamphetamine with implications for prevention, treatment, and research (DHHS Pub. No. SMA 96–8013). Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.
11.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT). (1999). Treatment for stimulant use disorders (TIP 33) (DHHS Pub. No. SMA 99–3296), Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.
12.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53(SS-2), 1–29.
13.
ChaloupkaF. J.GrossmanM., & SafferH. (1998). The effects of price on the consequences of alcohol use and abuse. Recent Developments in Alcoholism, 14, 331–346.
14.
ChaloupkaF. J., & LaixuthaiA. (1997). Do youths substitute alcohol and marijuana? Some economic evidence. Eastern Economic Journal, 23(3), 253–275.
15.
ColfaxG., & ShoptawS. (2005). The methamphetamine epidemic: Implications for HIV prevention and treatment. Current HIV/AIDS Reports, 2(4), 194–199.
16.
CoppleJ. E.CoppleC. K., & BaileyK. (2005). Methamphetamine policy analysis and policy alternatives. Alexandria, VA: Strategic Applications International.
17.
DentonR. E., & KampfeC. M. (1994). The relationship between family variables and adolescent substance abuse: A literature review. Adolescence, 29, 475–495.
18.
DeSimoneJ., & FarrellyM. C. (2001). Price and enforcement effects on cocaine and marijuana demand. Economic Inquiry, 41, 98–115.
19.
DiNardoJ., & LemieuxT. (1992). Alcohol, marijuana, and American youth: The unintended consequences of government regulation. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 4212.
20.
EckJ. E. (1995). A general model of the geography of illicit drug marketplaces. In EckJ. & WeisburdD. (Eds.), Crime and place, Vol. 4, Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
21.
EckJ. E., & WartellJ. (1998). Improving the management of rental properties with drug problems: A randomized experiment. In MazerolleL. & RoehlJ. (Eds.), Civil remedies and crime prevention, crime prevention studies, Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
22.
ElliotD. S.HuizingaD., & AgetonS. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
23.
GfroererJ. (1987). Correlations between drug use by teenagers and drug use by older family members. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 13, 95–108.
24.
HansenW. B.GrahamJ. W.SobelJ. L.SheltonD. R.FlayB. R., & JohnsonC. A. (1987). The consistency of peer and parent influences on tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use among adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 559–579.
25.
HawkinsJ. D.CatalanoR. F., & MillerJ. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance use prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64–405.
26.
HerzD. C. (2000). Drugs in the heartland: Methamphetamine use in rural Nebraska. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
27.
HyattR. R., & RhodesW. (1995). The price and purity of cocaine: The relationship to emergency room visits and death and to drug use among arrestees. Statistics in Medicine, 14, 655–668.
28.
JenkinsP. (1994). The “Ice Age”: The social construction of a drug panic. Justice Quarterly, 11(1), 7–31.
29.
JohnstonL. D.O'MalleyP. M.BachmanJ. G., & SchulenbergJ. E. (2004). Monitoring the future, national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2004. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
30.
LineberryT. W., & BostwickJ. M. (2006). Methamphetamine abuse: A perfect storm of complications. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 81(1), 77–84.
31.
LurigioA.DavidR.RegulusT.GwisadaV.PopkinS.DantzkerM.SmithB., & OuelletA. (1993). An evaluation of the Cook County state's attorney's office narcotics nuisance abatement program. Chicago, IL: Loyola University Department of Criminal Justice.
32.
MacCounR. J., & ReuterP. (2001). Drug war heresies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
33.
MazerolleP.BurtonV. S.CullenF. T.EvansT. D., & PayneG. L. (2001). Strain, anger, and delinquent adaptations: Specifying General Strain Theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 89–101.
34.
MillerM. A. (1991). Methamphetamine abuse: Epidemiologic issues and implications. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
35.
MillerM. A. (1997). History and epidemiology of amphetamine abuse in the United States. In KleeH. (Ed.), Amphetamine abuse: International perspectives on current trends (pp. 113–133), Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
36.
MirinS.WeissR., & MichaelJ. (1988). Psychopathy in substance abuses: Diagnosis and treatment. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 14, 139–157.
37.
MolitorF.RuizJ.FlynnN.MikandaJ.SunR., & AndersonR. (1999). Methamphetamine use and sexual and injection risk behaviors among out-oftreatment injection drug users. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 25(3), 475–493.
38.
National Institute of Justice. (2003). 2000 Arrestee drug abuse monitoring annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
39.
OettingE.DeffenbacherJ.TaylorM.LutherN.BeauvaisF., & EdwardsR. (2000). Methamphetamine use by high school students: Recent trends, gender and ethnicity differences, and use of other drugs. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 10(1), 33–50.
40.
Office of Applied Studies. (2003). Results from the 2002 national survey on drug use and health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 03–3836, NSDUH Series H-22). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
41.
Office of Applied Studies. (2004). Results from the 2003 national survey on drug use and health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 04–3964, NSDUH Series H-25). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
42.
Office of Applied Studies. (2005). Results from the 2004 national survey on drug use and health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 05–4062, NSDUH Series H-28). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
PennellS.EllettJ.RienickC., & GrimesJ. (1999). Meth matters: Report on methamphetamine users in five western cities. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
45.
ReuterP.HaagaJ.MurphyP., & PraskacA. (1988). Drug use and drug programs in the Washington metropolitan area. Report no. R-3655. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
46.
RodriguezN.KatzC.WebbV. J., & SchaeferD. R. (2005). Examining the impact of individual, community, and market factors on methamphetamine use: A tale of two cities. Journal of Drug Issues, 35(4), 665–694.
47.
RossH. L. (1982). Deterring the drinking driver: Legal policy and social control. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
48.
RydellC. P.CaulkinsJ. P., & EveringhamS. S. (1996). Enforcement or treatment? Modeling the relative efficacy of alternatives for controlling cocaine. Operations Research Society of America, 44(5), 687–695, 1996.
49.
SafferH., & ChaloupkaF. (1999). The demand for illicit drugs. Economic Inquiry, 37(3), 401–411.
50.
ShermanL. W. (1990). Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. In TonryM. & MorrisN. (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
51.
SmithB. E.DavisR. C.HillenbrandS. W., & GoretskyS. R. (1992). Ridding neighborhoods of drug houses in the private sector. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
52.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2004). Amphetamine and methamphetamine emergency department visits 1995–2002. United States Department of Health and Human Services.
53.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2005). Drug abuse warning network, 2003: Area profiles of drug-related mortality. United States Department of Health and Human Services.
54.
SvirdoffM., & HillsmanS. T. (1994). Assessing the community effects of tactical narcotics teams. In MackenzieD. L. & UchidaC. D. (Eds.), Drugs and crime: Evaluating public policy initiatives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
55.
TanneJ. (2006). Methamphetamine epidemic hits middle America. British Medical Journal, 332, 382.
56.
VingilisE., & CoultesB. (1990). Mass communications and drinking-driving: Theories, practices and results. Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving, 6, 61–81.
57.
WeatherburnD., & LindB. (1997). The impact of law enforcement activity on a heroin market. Addiction, 92(5), 557–569.
58.
WoodE.TyndallM. W.SpittalP. W.LiK.AnisA. H.HoggR. S.MontanerJ. S. G.O'ShaughnessyM. V., & SchecterM. T. (2003). Impact of supply-side policies for control of illicit drugs in the face of the aids and overdose epidemics: Investigation of a massive heroin seizure. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 168(2), 165–169.
59.
YacoubianG. (2000). Assessing ADAM's domain: Past, present, and future, Contemporary Drug Problems, 27, 121.
60.
YacoubianG. (2004). The sins of ADAM: Toward a new national criminal justice drug use surveillance system. International Journal of Drug Testing, 3.[On-line]. Available: http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/journal/volume3.html
61.
YacoubianG. (2005). Exploring the methamphetamine explosion among San Diego arrestees. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 49(1), 7–20.
62.
YacoubianG., & PetersR. (2004). Exploring the prevalence and correlates of methamphetamine use: Findings from Sacramento'sADAMProgram. Journal of Drug Education, 34(3), 281–294.
63.
YuanY., & CaulkinsJ. P. (1998). The effect of variation in high-level domestic drug enforcement on variation in prices. Socio-Economic Planning Science, 32(4), 265–276.
