Controlling Methamphetamine Precursors: from Policy to Practice – An Overview American Public Health Association Washington D.C. November 5, 2007 Duane C. McBride, PhD, Principal Investigator Andrews University Jamie F. Chriqui, PhD, MHS, Co-Principal Investigator The MayaTech Corporation Jean C. O’Connor, JD, MPH, Co-Investigator Emory University Curtis J. VanderWaal, PhD, MSW, Co-Investigator Yvonne M. Terry-McElrath, MSA, Co-Investigator University of Michigan Project supported by a grant from the National Institute of Justice 2005IJCX0028

Impetus for the Project 1. Increasing Trends in the Production of Methamphetamine in Small Toxic Labs (STLs) -- Documented in Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System (as well as other) reports. 2. Ease of Methamphetamine Production -- Methamphetamine is one of the few drugs that can be “manufactured” from common over-the-counter products. 3. Consequences of Methamphetamine STL Production -- Surveys of counties (and general research literature) indicating methamphetamine production through STLs related to major local public safety and health problems including HIV risk. 4. Experienced Research Team -- Worked together for seven years on drug policy research project supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Committed to and experienced in policy research. Just note some of the health problems such as toxic fumes for adults, children, child neglect, explosions, toxic waste disposal, crime/violence over drug markets, dental health, etc. Rapidly changing state and federal policy in attempt to reduce numbers of STLs Different State Policy Approaches to Reducing STLs -- Increasing role of states in developing and implementing drug policy and the variance in state policy approaches. A Unique Opportunity -- These developments provided an opportunity to examine state policy elements associated with changes in STL seizures. Show meth lab seizures, 2000 compared to 2005

The key point is to help set the context of increase in lab seizures (the thus why states developed new laws) and the move from West to Midwest toward Southeast.

Overarching Purpose 1. Document state methamphetamine precursor laws/regulations (policies) effective as of October 1, 2005. 2. Examine precursor policy effectiveness through the perceptions of law enforcement personnel and other professional Key Informants in five selected states representing a range of precursor control policies: Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, & Oregon. 3. Examine the relationship between state policies and trends in small toxic lab (STL) seizures in a before-after and between-state design. And now to the specific research findings

Policy Implications 1. State Methamphetamine Precursor Policies Consistently Related to STL Reductions 2. State and Federal Policies Both Needed 3. A Comprehensive Multi-Facetted Approach Needed This slide will be put up after the other presentations to kind of close our session. From a policy perspective, one of the most striking things about this study was the “immediacy” of the policy impact on systems-level changes and outcomes. The quantitative analysis show that STL seizure data declined after the passage of state Methamphetamine precursor laws. as well as KI perceptions. The qualitative data suggest that this was also consistently perceived by the KI’s in the five states studied. Both state and federal policies were independently related to STL declines. This reinforces the dynamic interplay between state innovation and the need for a federal baseline of regulations/laws. It also supports the notion of the field that the federal laws alone were not enough. The elements of precursor laws examined showed that a comprehensive approach that included quantity controls on purchase, controlled the point of purchase requiring some type of clerk intervention, and a regulatory agency monitoring the implementation of state policy were independently related to STL reductions. A simple criminalization approach did not remain significant in the multi-variate model. Overall the data suggest that policies may relate to increasing public safety and health, the importance of state/federal cooperation and the need for a comprehensive approach to drug policy.