Impact of US and Canadian precursor regulation on methamphetamine purity in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Reducing drug purity is a major, but largely unstudied, goal of drug suppression. This study examines whether US methamphetamine purity was impacted by the suppression policy of US and Canadian precursor chemical regulation. DESIGN: Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA)-intervention time-series analysis. SETTING: Continental United States and Hawaii (1985-May 2005). Interventions US federal regulations targeting precursors, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, in forms used by large-scale producers were implemented in November 1989, August 1995 and October 1997. US regulations targeting precursors in forms used by small-scale producers (e.g. over-the-counter medications) were implemented in October 1996 and October 2001. Canada implemented federal precursor regulations in January 2003 and July 2003 and an essential chemical (e.g. acetone) regulation in January 2004. MEASUREMENTS: Monthly median methamphetamine purity series. FINDINGS: US regulations targeting large-scale producers were associated with purity declines of 16-67 points; those targeting small-scale producers had little or no impact. Canada's precursor regulations were associated with purity increases of 13-15 points, while its essential chemical regulation was associated with a 13-point decrease. Hawaii's purity was consistently high, and appeared to vary little with the 1990s/2000s regulations. CONCLUSIONS: US precursor regulations targeting large-scale producers were associated with substantial decreases in continental US methamphetamine purity, while regulations targeting over-the-counter medications had little or no impact. Canada's essential chemical regulation was also associated with a decrease in continental US purity. However, Canada's precursor regulations were associated with purity increases: these regulations may have impacted primarily producers of lower-quality methamphetamine, leaving higher-purity methamphetamine on the market by default. Hawaii's well-known preference for 'ice' (high-purity methamphetamine) may have helped to constrain purity there to a high, attenuated range, possibly limiting its sensitivity to precursor regulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".