Timeline: Big Pharma’s Fight to Protect the Drugs That Cooks Turn Into Meth

Box: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurafries/61632567/sizes/m/in/photolist-6rTdt-8K7GFS-tq3vU-4oggzn-xDWaB-5rZU3R-yandg-DubsE-2mzvGx-8xjGx-6iwFdw-JPiT8-5WgcGe-7GbCdz-D3b81-4K6Z6n-azfrLa-7vxv1t-DP9pu-5NcMhv-wD95T-aua2xz-aNvkpD-5G7NbT-5pDo4V-4hRsUG-5VvdRi-qLMT8-5VHPsB-4rk8oN-723DAg-7oCGE8-DLFhQ-bWSx3Z-87Tyv-dSR7GH-aA9wyZ-asYD1p-2SSbm8-818BPD-8LYXcA-8Fyn35-8TWCnm-ggUrS-yxgyP-5NRkrK-9MGDaR-bXrNW9-5k2PhB-5LHBCZ-921met/">LauraFries.com</a>/Flickr; Pills: <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sudafed_Pills.jpg">ParentingPatch</a>/Wikimedia Commons; Chef: Shutterstock


YEAR

LEGISLATIVE ACTION

REACTION

1980

The federal government tightens restrictions on phenyl-2-propanone, used to make methamphetamine.

Meth producers switch to ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, used in cold meds, to produce a more potent form of meth.

1986

Fresh from its, and so far only, victory against a drug—control of the chemical used to make quaaludes—the Drug Enforcement Administration proposes controls for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.

Pharma lobbyist Allan Rexinger calls the White House, which “basically intervened on our behalf,” Rexinger tells the Oregonian in 2004. “After that we had useful negotiations with the dea.”

1988

The Federal Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act mandates recordkeeping for various drug precursor chemicals. Industry wins an exemption for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in pill form.

Meth producers and their suppliers switch to ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in pill form.

1993

The Domestic Chemical Diversion and Control Act closes the ephedrine pill loophole, but pseudoephedrine exemption remains.

Labs switch from ephedrine to pseudoephedrine pills.

1996

The Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act closes the pseudoephedrine pill loophole. Industry, with help from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), wins exemption for pills sold in blister packs.

Labs switch to blister packs.

2000

The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act reduces the amount of pseudoephedrine that can be sold in a single transaction. Blister packs are again exempted.

Meth labs proliferate nationwide.

2004

Oklahoma becomes the state to put pseudoephedrine behind the counter. Industry fights the measure.

Meth labs plummet in Oklahoma, encouraging other states to follow suit.

2005

The Federal Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act requires stores to put pseudoephedrine behind the counter (without requiring a prescription) and limits how much an individual can buy. Industry says this will hurt consumers and won’t reduce labs.

Meth lab incidents fall 61 percent nationwide. But cooks begin employing smurfers to go from pharmacy to pharmacy and buy the maximum amount allowed.

2006

Oregon makes pseudoephedrine a prescription drug despite massive industry lobbying.

Meth lab incidents decrease 96 percent in Oregon over the next six years.

2007

Bucking industry opposition, Mexico bans most pseudoephedrine.

Potency of meth being smuggled into the US plunges as Mexican labs switch to other chemicals.

2009 to present

Lawmakers in 24 states try to make pseudoephedrine a prescription drug. In DC, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden drafts a federal prescription bill.

All but one of the bills are defeated. Citing consumer concerns and “heavy industry spending,” Wyden never introduces his legislation.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.