NIH Public Access

Author Manuscript
Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 27.
Published in final edited form as:
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Int J Drug Policy. 2009 September ; 20(5): 438–443. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2008.12.007.

Cold Cook Methods: An Ethnographic Exploration on the Myths

of Methamphetamine Production and Policy Implications
Miriam W. Boeri,
Kennesaw State University
David Gibson, and
Kennesaw State University
Liam Harbry
Kennesaw State University

Abstract
Background—Urban legends and myths are prevalent in drug-use environments. However, the
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

distinction between myth and fact is not always clear. We found contradictory claims regarding
the emergence of cold cook methods for producing methamphetamine when contrasting user-
generated reports with official reports repudiating such methods as myths. Our aim is to open the
topic for more academic discussion.
Methods—We examine cold cook methods of methamphetamine production revealed in our
ethnographic study and interviews with former (n=50) and current (n=48) methamphetamine
users. Data were collected in the suburbs of a large southeastern city in the United States. We
compare the data with reports from law enforcement professionals and public health officials.
Results—Official reports claim the cold cook method described by users in our study is a myth
and does not produce methamphetamine. Small-scale producers sell it as methamphetamine and
users claim it has the same effect as methamphetamine. They are charged for possession and
distribution of methamphetamine when caught with this drug. It appears the unintended
consequences of recent policy aimed to reduce production and use of methamphetamine may be a
user-friendly production method. We do not know the health implications at this time.
Conclusion—We do not make any definitive conclusions on the legitimacy of the stories or
myths discussed here but instead suggest that labeling drug stories as myths might lead to
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

dismissing facts that hold partial truth. The subsequent dismissal of cold cook methods among
policy and public health officials risks a range of unintended consequences among vulnerable
populations. We present our case for more research attention on the myths of methamphetamine
production.

Keywords
ethnography; methamphetamine; cold cook methods; policy

In 2007 we began a study on methamphetamine use in the suburbs of a large southeastern

city of the United States. We conducted ethnographic research among diverse drug networks
and interviewed methamphetamine users who lived and used methamphetamine in the
suburbs. Respondents reported “growing methamphetamine.” Upon further questioning we
learned that growing methamphetamine crystals on a string suspended over a container was

Direct all correspondence to: Miriam Boeri, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Kennesaw State University 1000 Chastain
Road MD #2204 Kennesaw, GA 30144-5591 mboeri@kennesaw.edu Phone: 678-797-2069 Fax: 770-499-5591.
 Boeri et al. Page 2

a common method for producing methamphetamine in the area. Respondents recounted

similar but slightly different accounts of how to grow methamphetamine crystals on strings.
The ingredients included pseudoephedrine, red phosphorus, charcoal, gun bluing and
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

aluminum shavings. Other recipes involved various cleaning fluids such as acetone and
ammonia or chemicals such as iodine. Ingredients were mixed or layered in a container,
typically a fish tank or five gallon bucket, and the container was buried in the ground or kept
in a dark closet for up to 28 days until crystals grew on strings suspended above the
chemical solution. Growing methamphetamine was reported as a safer “cooking” method for
the producer (“cook”) since it did not involve heating ingredients and was less likely to
cause an explosion. The process also allowed the production to be hidden from view, either
underground or in a dark closet or basement. Respondents referred to this method as the
“fish tank” or “cold cook” method. The drug was called “string dope” and sold as
methamphetamine. We decided to investigate this method further.

We used a field trial design to expedite the background research. A field trial design is
derived from ethnographic work in which the researchers “review a variety of field sources
and look for emergent patterns that replicate this material from a street addict point of view”
(Agar, Bourgois French, & Murdoch, 2001, p.70). Our basis of information beyond the
suburban methamphetamine users interviewed for our study included: (1) official sources,
such as criminal justice websites and public health reports; (2) correspondence with the local
forensic laboratory chemist; (3) Internet websites found by using word search engines; and
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

(4) conversations with professional colleagues. Our goal in this paper is to disseminate the
claims from disparate sources regarding cold cook methods of methamphetamine production
and open this topic to academic discussion and research attention.

Background
As more of our respondents referenced the cold cook method of producing
methamphetamine we began our field trial investigation to distinguish the legitimacy of their
claims. Our previous understanding on methamphetamine production involved processes
requiring a viable heat source and having the potential of violent explosions, as well as the
dispersion of noxious chemicals. The environmental dangers resulting from
methamphetamine laboratories (“meth-labs”) have lead to increased public health concern
(Connell-Carrick, 2007; Hannan, 2005).

Our lack of knowledge on the cold cook method referenced by our respondents prompted us
to conduct an on-line investigation. A term search on the Internet produced a number of
recipes similar to those we heard from our respondents. We also found government sources
that call this cold cook method a “myth.” For example, using the search terms “fish tank and
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

methamphetamine,” or “gun bluing and methamphetamine” led us to the Drug Enforcement

Agency (DEA) website on “Meth Myths” (DEA, 2005).
Methamphetamine myths often involve methods of obtaining precursors, such as
extracting chemicals from common retail items, as well as methods of producing
methamphetamine using ordinary products as precursors. Some methamphetamine
abusers may be trying to contend with practical issues—such as faster and cheaper
ways to manufacture the drug—when they stumble upon what they believe to be a
new method of production or an easier way to obtain a precursor. Consequently,
abusers attempting to manufacture methamphetamine often are the source of
unfounded information concerning methamphetamine production. (DEA, 2005)
We contacted law enforcement and public health professionals in our area regarding cold
cook production of methamphetamine. At first, all dismissed these methods as a myth and
referred us to the DEA website referenced above.

Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 27.
 Boeri et al. Page 3

It appeared that this cold cook method was an attempt to obtain precursors needed for
methamphetamine production. Sources for new precursors were on high demand in the U.S.
since the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act (CMEA) of 2005. While the majority of
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

states passed laws curtailing the sale of some precursors, the restrictions varied by state
(Goetz, 2007). The CMEA was incorporated into the Patriot Act and was enacted at the
federal level on March 9, 2006. Under this Act, over-the-counter products containing
ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine are subject to strict purchasing
regulations (DEA, 2006). Furthermore, all retail distributors of chemicals specified in the
Act must keep records of purchaser information and undergo a self-certification on retail
protocol. These “anti-meth” provisions introduce safeguards to make certain ingredients
used in methamphetamine manufacturing are more difficult to obtain in bulk and easier for
law enforcement to track (Bren, 2006).

Those striving to produce methamphetamine are attempting various ways to concoct

precursors due to increased regulation. The emerging popularity of the fish tank method
appeared to be the result of recent legislation. However, the stark contrast between our
respondents’ confidence in the methamphetamine produced in a fish tank and the DEA’s
admonition that this product is a myth concerned us. We took our investigation further.

We came in contact with a public health official who confirmed a cold cook method he
heard while working in California. He referred us to a National Drug Intelligence Center
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

(NDIC, 2001) report found on the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) website.
The report described what we heard from respondents we interviewed:
Cold Cook Method: Ephedrine, iodine, and red phosphorus are mixed in a plastic
container, and methamphetamine oil precipitates into another plastic container
through a connecting tube. The oil is heated, typically by sunlight or by burying the
containers in hot sand, to produce small quantities of highly pure d-
methamphetamine. (Retrieved on June 9, 2008 from
http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs0/670/meth.htm)
The similarities between USDOJ verified cold cook methods and those reported by our
respondents were revealing. “Burying the containers in hot sand,” mentioned in the excerpt
above, almost parallels burying a fish tank (container) in the ground. The cold cook method
was mentioned again in a NDIC (2003) report from Arizona. We realized that the addition
of gun bluing to the cold cook method was a primary factor for this method being labelled a
myth by the DEA. Gun bluing and charcoal, items often mentioned by our respondents, are
the two ingredients listed in the DEA website on methamphetamine myths. According to the
DEA: “None of these items contain precursors necessary for methamphetamine production”
(DEA, 2005).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The USDOJ website also reported that producers often mix different ingredients that are
easily obtained to produce an ingredient that is highly regulated:
Small-scale methamphetamine producers who are unable to obtain iodine crystals
occasionally produce them from iodine tincture by mixing iodine tincture with
hydrogen peroxide. Iodine tincture is not regulated by law and is sold in retail
stores, pharmacies, and farm supply stores. It can be obtained easily via the Internet
from horse and farm supply sites and online pharmacies. (Retrieved on June 9,
2008 from http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs0/670/meth.htm)
It is our understanding that gun bluing, often referenced in the cold cook method by our
respondents, is not the precursor ingredient but is intended to obtain a precursor or to act as
a catalyst in the chemical process. However, we soon discovered that while using gun bluing
produces something similar to methamphetamine, it might not be the real thing.

Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 27.
 Boeri et al. Page 4

To gain a better understanding of what this drug might be, we contacted the state forensics
laboratory (crime lab). The bench chemist who analysed drugs seized by law enforcement
indicated that much of what is analysed under suspicion of being methamphetamine does not
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

test positive. Such unidentified substances are not analysed further:

The [State] Crime Laboratory will test items to determine whether or not those
items contain controlled substances (drugs). If no controlled substances are
detected in an item, the analysis will routinely stop without any further
investigation to determine the identity of the non-controlled material submitted.
(Email communication received on August 12, 2008).
The crime lab chemist referred us to a report called “Methamphetamine Urban Legends”
(Escamilla, 2004). In the report, recipes similar to those reported by our respondents,
including one using gun bluing in the “aquarium method” [fish tank] were described in
detail. The author indicated that these were myths and did not produce methamphetamine:
In an effort to stay one step ahead of law enforcement, methamphetamine
manufacturers are finding creative ways to obtain the precursors and reagents that
are needed for their manufacturing processes. In most cases these efforts have been
successful, but others have become what can be called "methamphetamine urban
legends." …Each time a method involving gun blue is discovered, it fades away
just as quickly as it appeared. This may be due to the fact that the method does not
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

produce methamphetamine and may even have some disagreeable side effects”
(Escamilla, 2004, p. 2).
We utilized the Internet throughout our investigations on cold cook methods and easily
found recipes for methamphetamine. Many blog sites referred to the book of
methamphetamine recipes written by “Uncle Fester” (also mentioned by our respondents),
which describes various cold cook methods. One series of postings by “anonymous” cited a
recipe that was similar to those we heard. When his recipe was called a fake by another
blogger, he responded:
As I have said in a previous posting, meth is not produced from this cooking or
growing process but it gets you high just the same. Tell the $2800 in my pocket that
it doesn't, that's what I just made for this bunk crap. For about $14.00 in household
chemicals. (posted June 15, 2007, retrieved from
http://gideonsguardians.blogspot.com on July 15, 2008)
Another Internet search using the term “string dope” resulted in a number of links to
additional cold cook recipes: “String Dope is generally cooked using activated charcoal, gun
bluing, and sudsless ammonia in an airtight cooler, where the methamphetamines will grow
on unwaxed strings like stalactites over a period of 14–31 days” (retrieved 15 November,
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

2008 from http://www.urbandictionary.com/). A similar recipe posted on another blog

claimed that string dope made with gun bluing was not methamphetamine; however, “its
effects are supposed to be physiologically identical to meth, but the substance will not test as
meth.” This prompted another blogger to respond: “this recipe is all a bunch of crap; even
the DEA knows it” (posted July 18, 2007, retrieved from
http://gideonsguardians.blogspot.com on July 15, 2008).

Whether or not this product has the exact chemical composition as methamphetamine seems
to be where the “myth” lies. It is apparent that people are getting high using this substance,
but other health consequences are unknown. Furthermore, several of our respondents
reported being arrested for possession of this cold cooked product under the assumption it is
methamphetamine; yet, law officials report the method is a myth does not produce a
controlled substance. Our crime lab correspondence appears to support this claim.

Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 27.
 Boeri et al. Page 5

In sum, referencing government sources to validate stories we heard in our study did not
clarify the question of whether or not a cold cook method involving a fish tank produces
methamphetamine. While the USDOJ claims that various ingredients in a container and
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

buried in warm ground for a few weeks produces methamphetamine, the DEA classifies a
similar method as a myth. Their argument is that “these ingredients” (only charcoal and gun
bluing are named specifically) do not produce the necessary precursors. We interviewed
numerous respondents who claim to be either manufacturing or using what they believe to
be methamphetamine that is manufactured through this cold cook method, which includes
gun bluing. We informed one of our respondents that the substance she was using may not
be methamphetamine and was considered a myth according to the DEA. Her response was:
“Well what is it?” We could not answer her question. Further inquiries led to indication that
the emergence of “string dope” growing in fish tanks is an unintended consequence of recent
regulation. Labelling it a myth calls into question potential policy and health implications.
Our goal is to open these questions to academic discussion. The voices of our respondents
provide the contextual setting.

Methods
In our ethnographic study on methamphetamine use in the suburbs we used qualitative
methods that are particularly applicable for studies among hidden populations (Carlson et
al., 2004; Lambert, Ashery, & Needle, 1995; Shaw, 2005; Small, Kerr, Charrette, Schechter,
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

& Spittal, 2006). The data collection included: (a) participant observations (b) drug history
and life history matrices, and (c) audio-recorded in-depth interviews. We spent at least 20
hours a week over the course of a year in the field to become familiar with the environment
of the study population and to develop community contacts (Agar, 1973; Bourgois, 1995;
Sterk-Elifson, 1993). A combination of targeted, snowball, and theoretical sampling
methods were used to recruit respondents for the study (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Watters &
Biernacki, 1989). The typical method of establishing contact with methamphetamine users
involved talking with people at public places, such as coffee houses, bars, clubs, grocery
stores, tattoo shops, or other shopping areas. We gave our contact card to people who
expressed interest and posted fliers in public areas and private establishments, with
permission. Often, rapport was established with a potential respondent on the field and
arrangements were made to meet for an interview. Otherwise, a user who heard or read
about the study called our cell phone and arranged a meeting. At that time, we discussed the
time commitment, interview process, confidentiality concerns, and $25 reimbursement they
would receive for their participation. Oral consent was obtained before collecting
information. A screening process was used to ensure that participants pass the eligibility
criteria to participate in the study. Criteria included being age 18 or older and having used
methamphetamine in the suburbs. No identifying material was collected. The research team
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

consisted of the principal investigator and two trained research assistants. All were involved
in the recruitment, interviewing and analysis for this paper.

Interviews were conducted in a safe location agreed upon by the interviewer and respondent.
Typical interview sites included the respondent’s home, library rooms, hotel rooms, the
interviewer’s car, and private university rooms. The respondent’s drug history and life
history events were recorded with paper and pencil, followed by an audio-recorded, in-depth
interview. Ethnographic field work and interviews were conducted between July 2007 and
August 2008.

The drug history data were entered into an SPSS computer program and the recorded
interviews were transcribed and entered into the computer program NVivo. These programs
were used for data management. For this paper, the qualitative interview data were read and
coded by all three authors for any mention of methamphetamine production methods. The

Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 27.
 Boeri et al. Page 6

data were analysed using an iterative model of triangulation for ongoing analysis (Boeri,
2007; Hansen, Maycock, & Lower, 2001; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). We compared the results
of our coding with the drug histories and observational field notes. We collected 100
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

interviews and two were excluded after triangulation of the data revealed too many
discrepancies. The findings in this report represent the preliminary analysis of cold cook
methods as reported by our respondents. In the findings presented below we selected the
quotes that best represent cold cook methods described by more than one respondent.
Quotes are edited to stay on topic. For example, extraneous words (“you know”), interview
questions, and repeated comments are substituted with three dots (…).

Voices from the Field

The sample (n=98) includes 64 males and 34 females ages of 18–65. Fifty are former users
and 48 are current users, defined as having used methamphetamine in the last month. Five
are Hispanic, 11 African American, and 82 are Caucasian. Over a third of current users
reported using methamphetamine more than once a week.

Due to the emerging nature of the knowledge on this topic, most of the early respondents
were not asked if they had heard of string dope or cold cook methods. After several
mentioned similar stories without prompting from the interviewer, we began to explore this
area in subsequent interviews. Of the 27 people directly asked about string dope or cold
cook methods, 7 reported first-hand knowledge, 8 reported second-hand knowledge (i.e.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

having heard of the fish tank method but never seen it directly), 11 had never heard of it, and
only 1 respondent claimed that the fish tank method was a hoax.

Nearly all of those with first-hand knowledge of string dope or a cold cook method indicated
it was produced in a suburban area. For example, the first respondent who reported
“growing meth” in a fish tank buried in the ground revealed: “You grow it anywhere, but
generally from what I’ve seen — the people that I’ve known that have grown it and dealt it,
has been in the suburbs.” Another respondent confirmed that the product obtained using this
method resulted in a drug that served its purpose: “I’ve seen them on the string before. I’ve
seen a man go in his backyard, dig it up. We did it, and I got really high.”

Those who referenced the cold cook method emphasized its benefits, indicating that it did
not produce a noxious odor, it was less likely to cause an explosion, and it was hidden from
sight in suburban neighbourhoods. One enthusiastic respondent reported: “And it doesn’t—
when you’re cooking it, oh it stinks terribly. Underground you’re safe.” Another respondent
remarked: “You can grow methamphetamine by using charcoal and a number of chemicals
that will grow instead of chemically cooking it and possibly blowing something up.”
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The majority of respondents reported slightly different processes and ingredients, but all
recipes resulted in a methamphetamine-like substance that crystallized on strings. Typically,
this was referred to as “string dope” or “shards,” a popular term used for methamphetamine
in our study area. For example, one respondent described his version of a cold cook method:
Or you can get a fish tank if you want to. What you do is you got your cover and
your hanging filament line and you got your chemicals at the bottom, you seal it,
and what happens is it grows from the chemicals in the bottom up the filament line
to the top. And you have to seal it. You let it sit for forty-five days without
touching it. You open it up and you got quarter pound shards. (34-year-old former
user)
Even though many called it a cold cook method, some claimed that heat was required in the
preparation of the ingredients:

Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 27.
 Boeri et al. Page 7

You have to prepare each individual ingredient to get it to where when you mix it
together it will be right. When they use, like, gun blue or something, they have to
light it on fire and melt down. They put iodine tincture in there and they have to,
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

they have to fix it but they don’t cook all…It’s not being cooked when they’re
making it. They might cook an individual ingredient over here to make and then
they’ll put all the ingredients together. It’s still going to be cold. And once they get
every ingredient together, they put the strings over it or they do whatever they’re
going to do. (24-year-old current user)
Others mentioned that pseudoephedrine was used in the mixture:
I know he’s using ammonia. I know he’s using gun blue. He’s using charcoal. He’s
using five gallon buckets. I’ve seen him pull it off with the shards on the strings…
He’s still looking for Sudafed but instead of being able to go into drug stores and
buy a whole bunch anymore he’s got all his customers going out and buying the
max of two or three or whatever they can… I’ve seen metal shavings. I don’t know
if it was aluminum…He takes in five gallon buckets and puts them in the ground
and leaves them there, and he don’t mess with them for twenty-eight days, and
when he pulls those lids off, unscrews those lids, he’s got the shards hanging from
the strings and it’s all there. And it’s damn good. (50-year-old current user)
As seen in the selected recipes quoted above, the primary cold cook method involved mixing
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

ingredients in a fish tank or bucket, covering it with a lid that held suspended strings, and
burying it in the ground. However, one respondent who was recently introduced to
methamphetamine in the suburbs described a noteworthy variation:
Looks like little ice crystals…on a mop head. He had it in this little room. It was
like a little dark room. And he just flipped on a light and I just saw it… it was over
a bucket. It had a piece of aluminum foil on the top of the bucket and it would just
drop down on the bucket. You could just shake the mop and it would fall down
onto the aluminum foil… He just told me some of the things he’d put in it… Red
phosphorous is one of ‘em. He used Sudafed and then he used something from a
cough syrup…But, it’s a lot of ingredients. It’s not just one or two ingredients. (49-
year-old current user)
The mop head variation was supported by a 35-year-old female from a completely different
social network who reported the production method she saw: “It’s done on a one hundred
percent cotton mop string with charcoal, gun blue, and there’s pure ammonia, purified
ammonia. And that’s it. Now the amounts I’m not quite sure.”

The price of locally grown/produced methamphetamine was low in comparison to national

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

averages for methamphetamine. A government website reported methamphetamine costs

$141.42 to $244.53 a gram (www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov). Respondents in our study
reported paying between $80 and $100 for a gram during the last year. We know that the
price and purity of drugs are related. Methamphetamine purity fluctuates more than most
other drugs, and as regulation of precursor ingredients increase, we expect prices to increase
(Office of National Drug Policy Control, 2004). However, our preliminary findings indicate
that after increased legislation regulating precursor ingredients, methamphetamine was
being sold at drastically reduced prices compared to official reports. Our more experienced
users in the study offered one reason for the reduction in price. They indicated that all the
large-scale producers of high quality methamphetamine in the area were in jail or prison.
Moreover, with pseudoephedrine products difficult to obtain in large quantities, users were
producing their own small batches of methamphetamine and selling it at lower prices. They
added that newer users would not be able to tell if it was poor quality methamphetamine or
another drug.

Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 27.
 Boeri et al. Page 8

According to our respondents, the purity of string dope ranged from being “fake” or “crap”
to being the “best dope” available. For example, a 33-year-old female who had been using
methamphetamine for many years proposed: “It’s not as potent. You don’t get as high….
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Probably because you can’t make it in the labs, it’s not a good form of the drug. I do think
it’s still addictive, and I do think it’s still meth.”

Likewise, a current user who injected methamphetamine said the new drug called string
dope was the result of recent regulations that made it more difficult to produce
methamphetamine in large quantities. He suggested that only intravenous (IV) users would
know the difference:
They banned pseudoephedrine pills in the nation and everything for a little while.
It’s back now, but it all went to shit, and then you’d see stuff around here and there
but it really wasn’t the real stuff…they had like a fraction of some other kind of
ingredient in it. And like snorters and smokers were getting off decently fine but
any IV people, they wouldn’t do shit. You’d feel ripped off. I’d gotten a friend a
half ounce of the stuff and it was crap for what I’d spend for it. And that was just
like the start of all the bad stuff.
More experienced users claimed the new methamphetamine produced by cold cook methods
was the result of recent regulations banning precursor ingredients and was less potent. In
contrast, newer users claimed that string dope was as good or better than previous
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

methamphetamine. Many users had little experience with methamphetamine produced

before the growing process became popular.

Typically, the younger users (18–29) in our study who reported primarily using string dope
produced in fish tanks, buckets or jars. One 24-year-old current female user maintained:
“String dope—you don’t cook anything. That’s the main way they do it now.” Most of these
younger users claimed that string dope was methamphetamine, but even if it was not, it
made them high. A 21-year-old current user proposed: “Okay, well it may not produce
methamphetamine but whatever it produces will fuck you up.”

A few respondents indicated that while the drug sold as methamphetamine might be another
drug or a less potent form of methamphetamine, it could also be a more toxic form of
methamphetamine with unwanted or dangerous effects. Without analysis of the drugs
produced by different cold methods of methamphetamine production, we do not know. What
we do know is that methamphetamine users in our area are smoking, injecting, inhaling and
ingesting a drug that they think is methamphetamine. We know the crime lab reports that
many of the materials tested for methamphetamine are not methamphetamine. We also know
that some users said they were arrested and convicted for possession and/or distribution of
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

methamphetamine for a product derived from a fish tank recipe that many government
sources state is not methamphetamine. For example, one young man who claimed that string
dope was the only methamphetamine he ever used recounted the story of his recent arrest:
I got caught shoplifting they found a baggie that had residue in it is what they said.
They called it residue, and that was my first time ever being in jail longer than like
three days. I was scared to death. My lawyer told me, she said look, you know
there’s no chemical test for this so they can’t test it and tell you that it’s
methamphetamine, but they’re going to say that it’s methamphetamine because of
what it looks like. But at the same time though you can either spend like all this
time going through all this stuff to find out that it is meth—and it was meth, at least
it was my meth, what I called meth—or you can just plead out right now, get five
years probation and have a felony on your record.

Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 27.
 Boeri et al. Page 9

The legal process reported in the story above was later confirmed through conversations
with professional colleagues who work in the criminal justice system. It appears that, for
various reasons, people charged with methamphetamine are advised to plead guilty before
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

the confiscated substance is analysed. For many, such as this young man, a felony record
means he will never be able to attend college on federal scholarships and may not work in
some jobs.

Discussion
Urban legends and myths are prevalent in drug-use environments, and dispelling myths is an
important function of some drug research (Hammersley & Reid, 2002; Hughes, 2007).
However, the distinction between myth and fact is not as clear as some myth busters
suggest. Using a field trial design (Agar et al., 2001) we investigated the myths of
methamphetamine production found on the Internet and reported by government sources.
Our investigation into cold cook methods of producing methamphetamine emerged from an
ethnographic study on suburban methamphetamine use. Sterk (2003) proposes that
“ethnography is a process as well as a product.” (p. 127). We are still in the process of
investigating the dynamics surrounding the myth of cold cook methods. Our inductive
investigation is influenced by growing concern regarding the unintended consequences of
increased methamphetamine precursor regulation (McKetin, 2008; Sexton, Carlson,
Leukefeld, & Booth, 2006).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Recent research shows that while the number of “meth labs” seized has decreased since
regulation of precursor ingredients, the number of methamphetamine users has not declined
(Cohen, Sanyal, & Reed, 2007). An ethnographic study on methamphetamine production in
the rural south reported that methods called “throw down batches” produced a poorer quality
of methamphetamine with problematic health effects (Sexton et al., 2006). Our current
ethnographic study supports these findings. According to the younger users, this new
inexpensive and potentially more toxic form of methamphetamine has become normalized in
their drug networks. The risks associated with the use of this form of methamphetamine,
called string dope, are not yet known or well-documented.

As of the writing of this report, the law enforcement officials we contacted indicated that the
drugs produced by these methods are not being analysed and the production method is a
myth. Myth or no myth, when individuals report that they are using this drug and the so-
called urban legend is spreading across the Internet, a more thorough investigation focused
on policy and health implications is warranted. Sexton et al. (2006) call for further
investigation into various forms of methamphetamine production methods, proposing that
more detailed knowledge of new production methods is more useful than secondhand
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

discussions. We might add that calling these methods a myth does not help in establishing
what is being sold and used as methamphetamine. Our findings on new cold methods of
production also call for more attention on suburban areas, particularly suburban youth who
are new users.

In this paper, we open the topic for more academic discussion. We do not make any
definitive conclusions on the legitimacy of the myths discussed here but instead suggest that
labelling drug stories as myths might lead to dismissing facts that hold partial truth. Official
decisions on policy and public health are influenced when facts are labelled as myths, which
could result in adverse health repercussions for those affected by such decisions. It appears
that the unintended consequences of recent policy aimed to reduce availability of
methamphetamine may be cheaper and more user-friendly production method. We do not
know if the drug produced by the method described in this study is methamphetamine, but
we know it is sold and used as methamphetamine. This discussion raises important questions

Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 27.
 Boeri et al. Page 10

regarding public health consequences and legal repercussions that call for further
investigation. The implications for harm reduction policy, public health awareness, and
myriad issues surrounding emerging patterns of methamphetamine use in the suburbs will be
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

further explored in our study, drawing on relevant theory. We present our preliminary
analysis and field trial findings regarding the myths of cold cook methods and string dope
methamphetamine to open this inquiry to increased research attention.

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (1R15DA021164-01A10).

References
Agar, M. Ripping and running. New York: Seminar Press; 1973.
Agar M, Bourgois P, French J, Murdoch O. Buprenorphine: “Field trials” of a new drug. Qualitative
Health Research. 2001; 11:69–84. [PubMed: 11147165]
Boeri MW. A third model of triangulation: Continuing the dialogue with Rhineberger, Hartmann and
Van Valey. Journal of Applied Social Science. 2007; 1:48–52.
Bourgois, P. In search of respect: Selling crack in El Barrio. New York: Cambridge University Press;
1995.
Bren L. Some cold medicines move behind the counter. FDA Consumer Magazine. 2006; 40(4):18–19.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Carlson RG, McCaughan JA, Falck RS, Wang J, Siegal HA, Daniulaityte R. Perceived adverse
consequences associated with MDMA/Ecstasy use among young polydrug users in Ohio:
Implications for intervention. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2004; 15:265–274.
Cohen K, Sanyal N, Reed GE. Methamphetamine production on public lands: Threats and responses.
Society and Natural Resources. 2007; 20:261–270.
Connell-Carrick K. Methamphetamine and the changing face of child welfare: Practice principles for
child welfare workers. Child Welfare. 2007; 86:125–144. [PubMed: 17722684]
Drug Enforcement Agency. Methamphetamine myths; NDIC Narcotics Digest Weekly. 2005. p. 2p.
1retrieved on August 4, 2008 from
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/programs/forensicsci/microgram/mg0205/mg0205.html
Drug Enforcement Agency. General information regarding the combat methamphetamine epidemic act
of 2005. Title VII of Public Law 109–177. 2006. retrieved on November 28, 2008 from
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/meth/cma2005_general_info.pdf
Escamilla, B. CSA Newsletter. The Clandestine Safety Academy, a Division of Network
Environmental Systems; 2004 March. Methamphetamine urban legends; p. 1-2.
Goetz AC. One stop, no stop, two stop, terry stop: Reasonable suspicion and pseudoephedrine
purchases by suspected methamphetamine manufacturers. Michigan Law Review. 2007;
105:1573–1596.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Hammersley R, Reid M. Why the pervasive addiction myth is still believed. Addiction Research and
Theory. 2002; 10(1):7–30.
Hannan D. Meth labs: Understanding exposure hazards and associated problems. Professional Safety.
2005; 50(6):24–31.
Hansen D, Maycock B, Lower T. ‘Weddings, parties, anything…’; A qualitative analysis of ecstasy
use in Perth, Western Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2001; 12:181–199.
[PubMed: 11399420]
Hughes K. Migrating identities: The relational constitution of drug use and addiction. Sociology of
Health & Illness. 2007; 29(5):673–691. [PubMed: 17714337]
Lambert, EY.; Ashery, RS.; Needle, RH. NIDA Research Monograph. Vol. 157. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office; 1995. Qualitative methods in drug abuse and HIV research. NIH
Publication No. 95-4025
McKetin R. Methamphetamine precursor regulation: Are we controlling or diverting the drug
problem? Addiction. 2008; 103:521–523. [PubMed: 18339098]

Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 27.
 Boeri et al. Page 11

National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC). Pennsylvania drug threat assessment. 2001 June. Retrieved
June 9, 2008 from http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs0/670/meth.htm
National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC). Arizona Drug Threat Assessment. 2003 December.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Retrieved August 30, 2008 from http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs6/6384/meth.htm

Office of National Drug Control Policy. The price and purity of illicit drugs: 1981 through the second
quarter of 2003. Washington DC: Executive Office of the President; 2004. (Publication Number
NCJ 207768)
Sexton RL, Carlson RG, Leukefeld CG, Booth BM. Patterns of illicit methamphetamine production
("cooking") and associated risks in the rural south: An ethnographic exploration. Journal of Drug
Issues. 2006; 4:853–876.
Shaw VN. Research with participants in problem experience: Challenges and strategies. Qualitative
Health Research. 2005; 15:841–854. [PubMed: 15961880]
Small W, Kerr T, Charrette J, Schechter M, Spittal PM. Impacts of intensified police activity on
injection drug users: Evidence from an ethnographic investigation. International Journal of Drug
Policy. 2006; 17(2):85–95.
Sterk C. Drug research: Ethnographies or qualitative works? International Journal of Drug Policy.
2003; 14:127–130.
Sterk-Elifson C. Outreach among drug users: Combining the role of ethnographic field assistant and
health educator. Human Organization. 1993; 52:162–168.
Strauss, A.; Corbin, J. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Watters J, Biernacki P. Targeted sampling: Options for the study of hidden populations. Social
Problems. 1989; 36:416–430.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Int J Drug Policy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 July 27.