The New York Times Credulously Embraces the 'Super Meth' Theory
There is no solid evidence that P2P meth is more dangerous than pseudoephedrine-derived meth and no reason to think it would be.

A story about polysubstance use in today's New York Times mentions "super meth" four times: once in the headline, once in a subhead, and twice in the body text. "A decade or so ago, Mexican drug lords figured out how to mass-produce a synthetic 'super meth,'" Times reporter Jan Hoffman writes. "It has provoked what some researchers are calling a second meth epidemic. Popular up and down the West Coast, super meth from Mexican and American labs has been marching East and South and into parts of the Midwest."
Yet Hoffman never explains what "super meth" means. Instead she links to a widely cited 2021 article in The Atlantic by journalist Sam Quinones. In that piece, which is based on Quinones' 2021 book The Least of Us, he posits that methamphetamine derived from phenyl-2-propanone (P2P), the dominant method nowadays, is more potent and more hazardous than methamphetamine derived from pseudoephedrine, a process that became less common after the U.S. government restricted access to that precursor.
If that were true, it would be yet another illustration of prohibition's tendency to make drug use more dangerous: By cracking down on cold and allergy medications containing pseudoephedrine, the government pushed production abroad and encouraged traffickers to use P2P instead, which, according to Quinones, made the resulting methamphetamine purer, more addictive, more physically harmful, and more likely to trigger "mental illness"—so much so that, according to the headline over his Atlantic article, it might not even make sense to "call it meth anymore." But although Hoffman evidently considers Quinones a credible source, he never offered a plausible reason to believe any of that.
As drug historian David Herzberg notes in a Washington Post review of Quinones' book, "Quinones has no laboratory or epidemiological evidence that P2P meth is different from ephedrine-produced meth—the 'super-meth' theory is based entirely on anecdotes." Herzberg adds that "journalists were writing equally terrifying things about 'crack' cocaine and ephedrine-based meth (and heroin) back in the 1980s and 1990s."
Quinones himself is hazy on the scientific basis for his theory. "No one I spoke with knew for sure" why "P2P meth" was "producing such pronounced symptoms of mental illness in so many people," he says.
Claire Zagorski, a paramedic who teaches harm reduction at the University of Texas at Austin College of Pharmacy, questions the assumption underlying that question. "We have no evidence supporting the idea that the meth currently on the market is meaningfully different at a population level," she writes in Filter, "or that P2P-produced meth is any more or less neurotoxic than ephedrine meth." Nor is that surprising, since "all meth actually has the same chemical makeup," and "the only difference is the production method."
Hoffman avers that "super meth" packs "a potentially lethal, addictive wallop far stronger" than ephedrine-based meth. But on the face of it, you would expect the latter method to produce more potent methamphetamine—exactly the opposite of what Hoffman and Quinones are claiming. An "ephedrine/pseudoephedrine reduction," the Drug Enforcement Administration notes, yields "high quality d-methamphetamine," the psychoactive isomer, without unwanted l-methamphetamine. The P2P method, by contrast, "yields lower quality dl-methamphetamine," a combination of the two isomers.
Quinones concedes that P2P-derived meth is not actually a new thing, noting that "the Hell's Angels and other biker gangs" used this method before phenyl-2-propanone, which was placed on Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act in 1980, became harder to come by. In his telling, the key development in the marketing of P2P meth happened sometime around 2006, when Mexican cartels figured out how to "separate d-meth from l-meth," which he describes as "tricky" and "beyond the skills of most clandestine chemists." In reality, Zagorski says, "isomer separation is fairly teachable" and "not all that mysterious":
The cleanest and most straightforward way to remove the L from the psychoactive D isomer is capillary electrophoresis. This process involves feeding a meth sample into a small capillary tube and exploiting differences between the two isomers that cause one to "stick" to the tube's coating while the other continues on. Anyone with around $4,000 can do this with via a capillary electrophoresis machine, which automates the process to minimize human error and labor.
However challenging the process, it is necessary only because the P2P method yields an inferior mixture compared to the "high quality d-methamphetamine" produced by the pseudoephedrine method. Either way, Zagorski notes, the goal is something like "pharmaceutical-grade meth, the regulated version of which is sold under the brand name Desoxyn." Yet that "FDA-approved prescription form" of the drug "doesn't cause 'cerebral catastrophe'" involving the "violent paranoia, hallucinations, conspiracy theories, isolation, massive memory loss, [and] jumbled speech" that Quinones describes.
Unfazed by the lack of such symptoms in patients who take Desoxyn, Quinones asserts that "methamphetamine is a neurotoxin" that "damages the brain no matter how it is derived." Still, he says, "P2P meth seems to create a higher order of cerebral catastrophe."
Why would that be? "One theory is that much of the meth contains residue of toxic chemicals used in its production, or other contaminants," Quinones writes. "Even traces of certain chemicals, in a relatively pure drug, might be devastating."
The problem, in other words, is not that P2P meth is especially pure but rather that it contains potentially "devastating" contaminants. Maybe.
Or maybe not. "The sheer number of users is up, too, and the abundance and low price of P2P meth may enable more continual use among them," Quinones says. "That, combined with the drug's potency today, might accelerate the mental deterioration that ephedrine-based meth can also produce." That explanation, however, has nothing to do with the inherent properties of P2P-derived methamphetamine, contrary to the "super meth" theory that The New York Times has credulously embraced.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe the catastrophic effects of the meth have something to do with the lifestyle of no sleep, terrible nutrition and obsessive behaviors. Getting purer stuff probably helps people get addicted faster and keep the party going for longer.
Having spent an unfortunate amount of time in East Texas hospitals, where meth is surprisingly common, it's a combination of that and the drug itself.
One thing I can say for sure is that it ages people at something like twice the rate of an average person. It's pretty horrific.
As for the 'super meth' designation, that seems like the standard pearl clutching of news outlets that have no idea what chemistry is, let alone how it works. Reading the article it becomes pretty clear that meth is meth, regardless of production method. If it wasn't, there would be either no effect or a different effect for the user themselves.
Regular meth seems to be doing the job pretty well, not sure why we're worried about Super Meth. Does someone think regular meth is slacking?
Methican Americans are scared
That joke is borderline problematic.
You think he should tweak it to be less so?
Are they Methodists?
Method Man includes Methican Anthem on next drop.
It's pretty crystal clear.
narcan to avoid a code red.
There's no need to fear, Super Meth is here! (best played at 2X and looped for 48-72 hours for effect)
When prohibitionists in this world appear,
and regulate the people they should fear,
and frighten all who see or hear,
the cry goes up both far and near for
Super Meth!
Super Meth!
Super Meth!
Speed of lightning, roar of thunder,
Fighting all who rob and plunder,
Super Meth, super Meth, super Meth!
When in this world the headlines read
Of those whose hearts are filled with greed
And rob and steal from those in need.
To right this wrong with blinding speed goes
Super Meth!
Super Meth!
Super Meth!
Speed of lightning, roar of thunder,
Fighting all who rob or plunder
Super Meth, Super Meth, Super Meth!
https://twitter.com/Oilfield_Rando/status/1724072210833277253?t=Z2PiEUvfRbhWZEHLp5fyeQ&s=19
Congressmen getting carjacked, Secret Service popping off warning shots to protect VIPs.
And we're still not going to acknowledge that Restorative Justice is the root cause of all this madness.
[Link]
They didn’t have the right people in charge of emptytheprisons, we’ll get it right next time
Yet they arrested the guy who fired shots to protect a woman on the subway.
He should have left that bitch to her fate.
Maybe the P2P synthetic process produces different side products that are more toxic than those using the pseudoephedrine synthesis? I don't think drugs gangs are very careful about cleaning up the end product, at least as not as much as a legitimate pharma company.
a legitimate pharma company
That's an interesting concept...
That is my thought as well. I was just looking up some of the synthetic methods for meth using P2P. One of the more popular ones involves a reduction using an aluminum amalgam. It would not be terribly surprising if some of that mercury ended up in the final product.
The "legitimate pharma companies" have a history of tolerating mercury in their "final product".
It’s the “good” kind of mercury.
I'm vaccines (which no longer contain it) the form of mercury in use wasn't biologically available to humans, and as such was inert. But it did drastically increase the shelf life of vaccines, thus allowing vaccines to be stored longer and produced in larger quantities (because it was more practical to produce excess stock related to the longer shelf life). However, the whole mercury causes autism pseudoscience convinced many consumers that mercury was always bad, and thus pharmaceutical companies stopped using it as a preservative. Now vaccine manufacturers, due to lower shelf life, produce less excess, thereby creating periodic shortages of common vaccines.
I think it’s funny that, for decades, if not several centuries, we filled people’s teeth with mercury amalgam at quasi-random intervals and nobody noticed everyone (not) developing autism but we inject 1/10,000th the amount of mercury into people’s at 2-6 year intervals, suddenly everybody develops low grade erethism.
"...Now vaccine manufacturers, due to lower shelf life, produce less excess, thereby creating periodic shortages of common vaccines."
Bullshit tends to cause harm everywhere and always.
The legitimate pharma companies also change their production methods without informing FDA who approved prior methods.
Their bodies, their choice?
How else can it be?
Well, for a *vast* majority of human history, human body sans meth was the norm. I'm not saying all of them always should be sans meth, but unlike other drugs, which have been prevalent throughout human history, meth is exceptionally recent and, relatively, does kinda take a village (or Reich as the case may be).
That was more intended as a wry observation that the meth heads have made their life choices and are bearing the consequences.
I'll assume that super meth gives you superhuman strength. Because superhuman strength is why cops shoot first and shit their pants later when an impoverished person doesn't understand what they're yelling.
Someone could write a book about all the things the Times is credulous about.
The New York Times Credulously Embraces the 'Super Meth' Theory
Wait'll you see their reporting on Trump!
I’ve been assured, by Lying Jeffy no less, that the NYT sticks to the facts, particularly in their reporting on Trump.
Why don't you show us all a specific article where their news article is factually incorrect based on what was known at the time.
I don't know why we don't just make this stuff super in the first place.
Superultramegaextrahypermeth. And then make that the only drug available to the junkies so that their first high is also their last.
“the only difference is the production method” is a specious argument. Tonight I dined in an Irish pub, and ordered the corned beef. Afterwards I told them while it was the same cut of meat, and while it was delicious in its own way, their barbecue-smoked brisket could not reasonably be called corned beef under any definition of the term.
barbecue-smoked brisket
JFC, at least the Irish managed to avoided putting "salt-cured corned beef" on the menu.
That’s the point. They put sweet, juicy, corned beef on the menu, but provided sauce—less, dried-out barbecue instead. The same as these supposed P2P meth dealers promising one thing while delivering something entirely different made from different ingredients from a different method. The issue at the center of this article and my meal tonight was false advertising. Reason used to pretend that nobody wanted Fentanyl, that it was merely an adulteration caused by prohibition, but that too was a lie.
That’s the point.
Maybe your point, not mine. I don't care what the Irish put on the menu, if you called it "barbecue -smoked brisket", I blame you.
Speaking of false advertising, there's a fine line between clever and dumb and you're nowhere near the clever side. Come back when you get a clue.
Wasn't Jeffy and Sarc insisting the NYT is a perfectly acceptable outlet for hard news earlier today? I even pointed out that their science reporting is absolute trash.
When are they going to get tired of posting something in the morning only for subsequent stories published in the afternoon on Reason discounting their earlier defenses?
Lying Jeffy is a shameless liar who doesn’t care if he’s later shown to be wrong. Sarc doesn’t remember what he ate for breakfast, if he did, in fact, eat breakfast.
lol it is hilarious how falsely you portray me. You are a troll and a provocateur who is still angry that I thoroughly embarrassed you the other day.
Another lie. It’s what you do.
Not a lie. In fact I've noticed that ever since a few days ago, when I thoroughly trounced you, you have been getting more testy and more aggressive against me.
https://reason.com/2023/11/07/10000-dead/?comments=true#comment-10307777
you're a sad little man
The defense in the morning was never "the NY Times is always right every time". It was simply that it shouldn't be automatically discounted as a news source. Of course the NY Times, like every newspaper, like every institution, is going to be wrong sometimes. But if it is going to be wrong, it should be so judged on its merits.
They are an acceptable news outlet. But none of the mainstream media outlets, NY Times included, are good in general with science reporting. You are right on that score.
The discussion this morning wasn't about a science article. The discussion was kicked off by this comment by human turd ML:
Haven’t read it., but does anyone actually believe that the New York Times politruks and commisars will be even remotely honest?
He is loudly and proudly declaring his ignorance on the content of the article while concluding that it is dishonest. That is not at all what Sullum did.
The way things are going, in 10 or 20 years, nicotine will be the new “super drug” as more states and countries implement their end game regulations. You will be able to get the equivalent of 10 packs of Marlboro reds in one hit from super nic. Of course, nobody will ever admit that our betters with their “well-intentioned” laws helped create it.
Available at better insecticide stores near you.
the equivalent of 10 packs of Marlboro reds in one hit from super nic
Pretty sure that would kill you. Nicotine is pretty acutely toxic in high doses.
I'm surprised Reason doesn't fully embrace the idea; after all, Reason embraces pretty much all other absurd theories as long as they support drug legalization!
Power BI Course in chennai | Power BI Course Near Me
Discover the Power BI Course in Chennai at BITA Academy - unlock the true potential of data analysis. Learn from expert instructors. Enroll now!
https://traininginstituteinchennai.in/course/power-bi-course-in-chennai/
Let me guess: "Super Meth" is when Captain Cook cooks it with some chili powder for an extra kick?
Evidence? You are talking about the NYT. Regime media doesn't believe in evidence unless it supports their narrative.
Duranty got paid quite a bit to spread lies and the NYT printed them