Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 31, 2026
Color Spot Test As a Presumptive Tool for the Rapid Detection of Synthetic Cathinones
Published on: February 5, 2018
Impacts of federal precursor chemical regulations on methamphetamine arrests
James K Cunningham1, Lon-Mu Liu
1Public Statistics Institute, Irvine, CA 92612, USA. jkc@publicstatistics.org
Aims:
The US government regulated precursor chemicals, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, multiple times to limit methamphetamine production/availability and thus methamphetamine problems. Research has found that the regulations reduced methamphetamine hospital admissions, but authors have argued that other problems were unaffected. This study examines whether the regulations impacted methamphetamine arrests.
Design:
ARIMA-intervention time-series analysis with control series.
Setting:
California (1982-2001).
Measurements:
Dependent variable series: monthly methamphetamine arrests. Control series: monthly marijuana arrests and cocaine/heroin arrests.
Interventions:
Bulk powder ephedrine and pseudoephedrine: regulated November 1989. Products containing ephedrine as the single active medicinal ingredient: regulated August 1995. Pseudoephedrine products: regulated October 1997. Large-scale producers used ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in these forms. Ephedrine combined with other active medicinal ingredients (e.g. various cold medicines)-used mainly by small-scale producers: regulated October 1996.
Findings:
The regulation targeting small-scale producers (1996) had no significant impact. In contrast, methamphetamine arrests stopped rising and dropped 31% to 45% each of the three times precursor chemicals used by large-scale producers were regulated. Within 3 years of the bulk powder regulation (1989) and again within 2 years of the ephedrine single ingredient regulation (1995), arrests fully rebounded. During the 4 years following the last regulation (pseudoephedrine products, 1997) arrests only partially rebounded. These effects parallel those reported on hospital admissions. The control series were generally unaffected.
Conclusions:
Precursor regulations targeting large-scale producers impacted methamphetamine arrests, a criminal justice problem, much as they impacted the public health problem of methamphetamine hospital admissions. Ongoing research is needed to determine whether these problems eventually fully rebound from the last regulation.
Related Concept Videos
01:25Drug Regulation
01:23Drugs Acting on Autonomic Ganglia: Stimulants
Ganglionic stimulants activate NM nicotinic receptors in autonomic ganglia, falling into two categories: nicotine mimetics [e.g., lobeline, dimethylpiperazine, tetramethylammonium] and muscarinic receptor agonists [e.g., muscarine, methacholine]. The first category's action is rapid and blocked by nicotinic receptor antagonists, while the second category's action is delayed and blocked by atropine-like agents. Nicotine, an alkaloid, affects the heart rate by stimulating sympathetic or...
01:28Adrenergic Agonists: Mixed-Action Agents
Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine lack a catecholamine group, making them less susceptible to degradation by metabolic enzymes. They have increased oral bioavailability and lipophilicity, resulting in a longer duration of action. Their response is reduced by...
01:29Drugs Affecting Neurotransmitter Synthesis
01:03Drug Control Governance: Regulatory Bodies and Their Impact
01:17Phase II Reactions: Methylation Reactions
The mechanism of methylation unfolds in two stages. The first stage sees a methyltransferase enzyme facilitating the transfer of a methyl group from S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) to the substrate, forming S-adenosylhomocysteine (SAH). The second stage involves further metabolism of SAH into homocysteine, which can be recycled...