The main thing about P2P meth is that there's so much of it (2021)
203 points
• 3 days ago
• Article
Link
这篇文章调查了关于"新型"甲基苯丙胺（冰毒）的说法：有人认为用苯基丙酮（P2P）合成的冰毒在化学上不同，会引发更严重的精神问题，如偏执和精神分裂症。 Sam Quinones 等人曾提出 P2P 冰毒比早期以麻黄碱为原料的版本更为险恶。作者审视了有关化学差异的证据，着重分析了异构体和杂质，但最后认为真正的问题在于供应量的急剧增加。
由于对麻黄碱和伪麻黄碱的管制，2009—2012 年间美国的冰毒生产转向 P2P 合成。朴素的 P2P 合成会产生等量的 d- 甲基苯丙胺（活性强）和 l- 甲基苯丙胺（几乎无精神活性）。 DEA 的数据显示，尽管早期 P2P 冰毒含有大量 l- 异构体，但到 2019 年几乎已接近纯 d- 异构体。这一点削弱了将 l- 甲基苯丙胺归咎于精神病增加的观点，因为精神病报告是在 l- 成分下降之后才增多的。
文章还考察了不同 P2P 合成路线可能带来的杂质，比如使用醋酸铅或经硝基苯乙烯（NTS）路线的产物。然而，冰毒的纯度实际上随时间提高，平均达到约 95% 的 d- 甲基苯丙胺。合成方法从 PAA 到 NTS 再回头的变化，与精神分裂症报告并无明显关联，这进一步削弱了"杂质致病"假说。
相反，作者强调的是冰毒供应量的巨大增长。边境缉获量、 Seattle 的污水检测和各类使用调查都显示，尤其是重度使用者中，冰毒消费大幅上升。 2015 到 2019 年间每日使用者人数增长了三倍。价格暴跌也表明市场供应充足。
冰毒相关的死亡人数激增，每年有数万人死亡。虽然部分死亡与芬太尼有关，但很多并非如此。作者指出，冰毒效力极强，使用者常摄入相当于临床 Adderall 剂量百倍的量。高纯度、低价格和重度使用的结合，能解释过量死亡和严重精神症状的上升，而无需诉诸药物本身在化学上存在不同。
总之，现有证据并不支持 P2P 冰毒在化学上以某种方式更具危害性的说法。精神病与过量死亡的增加，更可能源于高纯度冰毒的前所未有的大量供应，导致更多人重度使用、累计剂量更高。关于 P2P 冰毒，最关键的变化就是供应量大幅增加。
The article investigates claims that "new" methamphetamine, synthesized using phenylacetone (P2P) rather than ephedrine, is chemically different and causes more severe psychological effects like paranoia and schizophrenia. Sam Quinones and others have suggested P2P meth is more sinister than the older ephedrine-based version. The author examines the evidence for chemical differences, focusing on isomers and contaminants, but ultimately argues the primary issue is the sheer increase in quantity.
Meth production in the US shifted to P2P synthesis between 2009 and 2012 after regulations restricted ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. A naive P2P synthesis produces an equal mixture of d-methamphetamine (the potent form) and l-methamphetamine (which has little psychoactive effect). DEA data shows that while early P2P meth contained significant l-meth, by 2019 it was nearly pure d-meth. This undermines the theory that l-meth is responsible for increased psychosis, as reports of such effects rose after l-meth levels had already dropped.
The article also considers contaminants from different P2P synthesis routes, such as those involving lead acetate or nitrostyrene (NTS). However, the purity of meth has actually increased over time, reaching around 95% d-meth on average. Changes in synthesis methods, like the shift from PAA to NTS and back, do not correlate with reports of schizophrenia, further weakening the contaminant hypothesis.
Instead, the author emphasizes the dramatic increase in meth availability. Border seizures, sewage measurements in Seattle, and usage surveys all indicate a massive rise in meth use, particularly among heavy users. The number of people using meth daily tripled between 2015 and 2019. Prices have plummeted, suggesting a robust and abundant supply.
Meth overdose deaths have skyrocketed, with tens of thousands of fatalities annually. While some involve fentanyl, many do not. The author notes that meth is extremely potent, with users often consuming doses equivalent to 100 times a clinical Adderall dose. The combination of high purity, low price, and increased heavy use explains the rise in overdoses and likely the increase in severe psychological effects, without needing to invoke chemical differences in the drug itself.
In conclusion, the evidence does not support the idea that P2P meth is chemically distinct in a way that causes more harm. The rise in psychosis and overdoses is better explained by the unprecedented quantity of high-purity meth available, leading to more heavy use and higher cumulative doses. The main thing about P2P meth is simply that there is so much more of it.
258 comments • Comments Link
• 使用磷 / 碘还原法从麻黄碱合成甲基苯丙胺的工艺非常简单，仅需一次酸碱萃取和一组非极性溶剂，比多步替代方法更为洁净，后者更容易引入有毒杂质。有观点认为，在受监管的前提下获取少量纯甲基苯丙胺比现有黑市更安全，且会削弱贩运集团的势力，并指出该药物在被刑事化之前有着长期的使用历史。
• 阿片类药物危机常被用来反对合法化：有人认为，即便是医生开具、受监管的制药级阿片类药物，也可能引发灾难性的成瘾问题，导致的年度死亡人数超过越南战争的死亡人数。这些人声称，容易获得毒品会导致大规模成瘾、过量用药并促使用户转向更强效的物质，并认为在现代没有国家成功实现对"硬性毒品"的非刑事化。
• 也有人认为阿片危机源自一种伪利润结构，而非合法化本身。因为阿片类药物需处方且利润丰厚，生产商和医生都有不当激励去推广这些药物而不是更廉价的替代品。如果阿片类药物能廉价且无需处方获得，这些由利润驱动的过度处方动力将会消失。
• 将阿片类药物的情形直接与甲基苯丙胺的监管相比并不恰当：阿片问题被工业化的利润驱动机器所俘获，通过回扣和各种激励手段影响医生，将其包装为安全且不易成瘾的产品。从毒品分销中去除利润动机，会消除许多问题；政府提供的受控物质将根本不同于掠夺性的制药公司操作方式。
• 社会经济因素常被视为成瘾的根本原因，理论指出人们以自我药疗来应对社会体系未能提供足够支持的现实。在这种观点下，简单地拒绝提供人们认为需要的物质，比起先解决驱动成瘾的社会和经济根源，往往是更容易但效果更差的做法。
• 瑞士和荷兰实施了海洛因辅助治疗项目，为重度成瘾者在医疗监管下提供制药级海洛因，荷兰项目服务约 4000 人。这类项目包括现场监督用药、剂量管理和定期体检，与仅使用美沙酮的做法相比，出现的问题更少。
• 美沙酮维持治疗也面临挑战，因为美沙酮本身对部分使用者仍有吸引力，导致转售——参与者把多余剂量卖给非参与者。在挪威，某些年份美沙酮过量死亡甚至超过海洛因，这说明用一种阿片类药物替代另一种而不引入新问题并不容易。
• 禁毒战争普遍被认为是一场重大失败：在执法层面或许见效，但并未消除毒品或显著降低长期危害。美国的药物过量死亡人数已经超过枪支和交通事故死亡人数之和，这表明禁令所造成的危害可能大于不加控制的风险，零容忍政策和长期监禁往往适得其反。
• 减害被认为是更可取的方向。禁止措施迫使使用者转向黑市、将使用者和其支持者绳之以法、压制减风险信息并通过恐吓宣传，使使用者忽视真正的警示。相反，监管生产与销售、鼓励责任使用、如实警示风险并提供可靠来源，更有利于公共卫生，同时仍可针对需要帮助的人提供支持。
• "禁令铁律"解释了更严厉执法为何会催生更高效力的毒品，正如海洛因被芬太尼取代一样。伪麻黄碱限制促使甲基苯丙胺的生产从基于麻黄碱转向 P2P 路线。近期甲基苯丙胺纯度与《绝命毒师》播出时间的相关性也表明文化因素会影响毒品生产质量。禁令激励生产更高效力的产品，因为贩运者倾向于最小化体积，但历史上这些高纯度产品的实际成分常有疑问，常含有来自蒸馏器或不当蒸馏的杂质。
• P2P 路线的甲基苯丙胺生产可能涉及有毒还原剂，包括汞齐和铅，一些 DEA 检测的样品显示出甲酸和汞的标记物。重金属暴露具有累积性，可能导致神经损伤，尤其是吸入或注射的使用者会最大化对这些杂质的接触。即使少量重金属长期积累，也可能产生显著影响，尤其当与大量使用兴奋剂引起的多巴胺系统损伤叠加时。
• ADHD 药物短缺与非法甲基苯丙胺生产激增并存，有观点认为政府对生产配额和供应的管控造成了人为短缺。处方安非他明类药物的年产量由政府控制，而社交媒体推动的 ADHD 诊断激增使需求超过受监管供应能力，显示中央化的产量控制难以有效应对需求波动。
• 伪麻黄碱限制被批评在减少甲基苯丙胺供应方面无效，反而让需要感冒药的合法使用者更加不便。尽管为此投入了数十亿美元执法资源，甲基苯丙胺仍然廉价且广泛可得，这些限制更多地将生产从小规模的本地作坊转移到卡特尔经营的大型工业实验室，实际增加了总供应并压低了价格。
讨论揭示了两类观点之间的深层张力：一方面有人认为禁毒政策已经失败，应当寻找替代方案；另一方面有人以阿片危机为例，警告即便是受监管的合法获取也可能带来灾难性的公共卫生后果。一个反复出现的主题是，无论合法还是非法，分销过程中的利润动机都会带来对使用者有害的不当激励。多位参与者认为社会经济因素与不足的社会支持才是成瘾的根本原因，单靠毒品政策无法彻底解决。对话也强调了减害方案的复杂性：瑞士的海洛因辅助治疗显示出希望，但规模仍然有限。总体而言，人们普遍认为现行政策在许多方面已失败，但对何种替代方案更有效几乎没有共识，提案从严格监管下的全面合法化到改善治疗项目，再到优先解决驱动成瘾的社会条件不等。 • The ephedrine-to-methamphetamine synthesis using phosphorus/iodine reduction is notably simple, requiring only an acid-base extraction and one set of non-polar solvents, making it cleaner than multi-step alternatives that risk introducing toxic contaminants. The argument is made that regulated access to small amounts of pure methamphetamine would be safer than the current black market, would undermine cartels, and acknowledges the drug's long pre-criminalization history.
• The opioid crisis is cited as a cautionary tale against legalization, with the argument that even regulated, pharmaceutical-grade opioids prescribed by doctors caused a devastating addiction crisis killing more people annually than the Vietnam War. The claim is that making drugs easily accessible leads to mass addiction, overdoses, and escalation to harder substances, and that no country has successfully decriminalized hard drugs in the modern era.
• The opioid crisis is argued to be a result of pseudo-profit structures rather than legalization itself. Because opioids still required prescriptions and had high margins, manufacturers had perverse incentives to push them over cheaper alternatives, and doctors had financial incentives to prescribe them rather than recommending over-the-counter options. If opioids were available cheaply without prescriptions, these profit-driven incentives to over-prescribe would disappear.
• The comparison between opioid legalization and methamphetamine regulation is flawed because opioids were marketed as safe and non-addictive through a profit-driven industrial addiction machine that captured doctors through kickbacks and incentives. Removing the profit motive from drug distribution would eliminate the bulk of the problem, and government-provided controlled substances would be fundamentally different from the pharmaceutical industry's predatory practices.
• Socioeconomic factors are identified as a root cause of drug addiction, with the theory that people self-medicate because societal systems fail to provide adequate social supports. Denying people harmful substances they feel they need is easier than addressing the underlying social and economic conditions that drive addiction in the first place.
• Switzerland and the Netherlands have implemented heroin-assisted treatment programs where heavily addicted individuals receive pharmaceutical-grade heroin under medical supervision, with the Dutch program serving about 4,000 people. These programs include supervised consumption, dosage control, and medical checkups, and have resulted in fewer issues compared to methadone-only approaches.
• Methadone maintenance programs face challenges because methadone itself remains attractive to users, leading to diversion where users sell excess doses to non-participants. In Norway, more people died from methadone overdose than heroin for some years, illustrating the difficulty of substituting one opioid for another without creating new problems.
• The War on Drugs is widely viewed as a colossal failure that was effective at enabling enforcement but ineffective at eliminating drugs or reducing long-term harm. Overdose deaths in the US have overtaken gun and traffic deaths combined, suggesting that the harms of not controlling drugs are worse than the harms of prohibition, though zero-tolerance policies and long prison terms were counterproductive tactics.
• Harm reduction is proposed as the answer, arguing that banning substances forces users to the black market, locks up users and those who help them, censors risk-reduction information, and engages in fearmongering that causes users to disregard real warnings. Instead, regulating production and sale, encouraging responsibility, warning of real risks, and offering reliable sources would better serve public health while still allowing help for those who need it.
• The "Iron Law of Prohibition" explains that stricter enforcement leads to harder drugs, as seen with heroin giving way to fentanyl. Pseudoephedrine restrictions drove meth production from ephedrine-based to P2P-based synthesis, and the recent correlation between meth purity and Breaking Bad's airing suggests cultural influences on drug production quality. Prohibition incentivizes higher potency because traffickers minimize volume, but purity was historically questionable with contaminants from stills and improper distillation.
• P2P meth production can involve toxic reducing agents including mercury amalgam and lead, and some DEA-tested samples have shown markers for formic acid and mercury. Heavy metal exposure is cumulative and could contribute to neurological damage, particularly for users who smoke or inject, which maximizes exposure to these contaminants. Even small amounts of heavy metals over time could have significant effects, especially when combined with the dopaminergic disruption caused by heavy stimulant use.
• ADHD medication shortages exist alongside growing illegal meth production, with the argument that government-regulated production quotas and supply restrictions create artificial shortages. The annual production of prescription amphetamines is controlled by the government, and the explosion in ADHD diagnoses driven by social media trends has increased demand beyond what the regulated supply can accommodate, demonstrating how central command and control of production doesn't work effectively.
• Pseudoephedrine restrictions are criticized as ineffective at reducing meth supply while making life harder for legitimate users who need cold medicine. Meth remains cheap and widely available despite billions of dollars spent on enforcement, and the restrictions only succeeded in shifting production from small-scale domestic operations to large-scale industrial laboratories run by cartels, which actually increased overall supply and drove prices down.
The discussion reveals a deep tension between those who view drug prohibition as a failed policy that exacerbates harm through black markets and contamination, and those who point to the opioid crisis as evidence that even regulated legal access to addictive substances can cause catastrophic public health outcomes. A recurring theme is that profit motives in drug distribution, whether legal or illegal, create perverse incentives that harm users. Several participants argue that socioeconomic factors and inadequate social supports are root causes of addiction that drug policy alone cannot address. The conversation also highlights the complexity of harm reduction approaches, with examples like Swiss heroin-assisted treatment programs showing promise but remaining limited in scale. Ultimately, there is broad agreement that current policies are failing, but little consensus on what替代 approach would work better, with proposals ranging from full legalization with strict regulation to improved treatment programs to addressing underlying social conditions.