High Price

including our own, have used (and continue to use) amphetamines since World War II because of these properties. 2 The drug helps soldiers fight better and longer.

    Figure 2. Chemical structure of amphetamine (active ingredient in Adderall), left, and methamphetamine.
    My fellow panelists were horrified because my lecture was in stark contrast to the stories they told about methamphetamine. The attorney showed a slide presentation filled with disheveled children of alleged illegal methamphetamine makers. “These are America’s children,” she asserted, hoping to evoke a sympathetic emotional response. Her remarks were echoed by the narcotics agent, who declared that methamphetamine was unlike any drug he had seen in his twenty years of service. They asserted that the drug produced an addiction more severe than any other drug, including crack cocaine. The police officer further warned that users of methamphetamine are so violent that Taser guns are ineffective at stopping them. “These people are animals,” he said, and insisted that more intensive methods are necessary for stopping someone high on methamphetamine. The officer concluded his remarks with an anecdote so ghastly that the audience moaned in unison. He stated that methamphetamine causes cognitive impairment so severe that it can lead parents to decapitate their own children; he swore he had witnessed this firsthand.
    Judging from the audience’s responses, the anecdotes were effective. They urgently wanted know why law enforcement hasn’t done more do to get this awful drug off the streets. Or how could anyone in their right mind take such a destructive chemical? None of the writers raised questions about the veracity of the stories told by the attorney or the narcotics agent, even though they had just heard conflicting information about the drug. The world was flat again. My mind raced with thoughts about that 1914 New York Times article describing “Negro cocaine fiends” and how southern police forces had to exchange their revolvers for heavier-caliber weapons because cocaine gave black people superhuman strength. I was baffled that others in the room didn’t recognize how myths about drugs are recycled from one generation to another; I was disappointed because I believed this roundtable would be different. I thought evidence from science would inform our view on the drug. Instead the roundtable turned out to be similar to other drug discussions sponsored by the government, an exchange in hysteria and ignorance. I was also angry because I knew such hysteria unfairly vilified methamphetamine users and decreased their willingness to seek help if needed.
    The discussion also reminded me of the exaggerated claims about crack cocaine two decades before. As I pointed out earlier, that drug was believed to be so powerfully addictive that even first-time users would become addicted. It had also been linked to the deaths of two promising young athletes—Len Bias and Don Rogers—although later it became clear that the athletes had taken large amounts of powder and not crack cocaine. Powder cocaine was seen as a recreational drug for the wealthy.
    Few people asked whether the sentencing disparity between the two forms of cocaine was based on scientific evidence. In 1986, there were only two scientific publications on smoked cocaine. Both studies contained a number of limitations, which decreased their relevance in public policy discussions. As a result, the law that created the 100:1 crack-powder sentencing ratio was based entirely on anecdotal reports. This in itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing as long as lawmakers understood the limits of this approach and were prepared to alter the law as new, more complete knowledge dictated.
    By the early 1990s, concern about the dangers of crack intensified and lots of money was pumped into the war on that drug. Not only were law enforcement budgets increased but more money was also allocated for research. Now scientists had a stake in the crack hysteria game. As a result, the scientific database on crack cocaine grew substantially within a few years. As I stated earlier, the data showed that both forms of cocaine produce identical effects; these effects are predictable. That is, as the dose is increased, so are the effects, whether they are blood pressure and heart rate or subjective “high” and addictive potential. The evidence clearly indicated that the 100:1 ratio exaggerated the harms associated with