Abstract
Recent media portrayals of methamphetamine (meth) suggest that its use is relatively rare among Black drug users. Our aim with the current research is to explore the reasons why Black women stimulant users abstain from using meth. We rely on semi-structured interviews with 33 Black women whose drug of choice was cocaine and who had never or rarely used meth. These women said that they did not use meth because they had limited access to the drug, feared the chemicals used in production, disliked the immediate sensations, and feared the long-term consequences on their health. The limited access to meth led these stimulant users to rely on stereotypes of meth that the drug is made from toxic materials and that it causes rapid deterioration in users’ appearances. We argue that these factors contribute to meth use being stigmatized in Black communities, thereby acting as a protective factor in discouraging use among Black stimulant users.
Recent media reports have claimed that the United States is in the midst of a methamphetamine (meth) epidemic. These reports suggest that chronic meth use is spreading across rural areas of the country, particularly in the Southern and Western regions (Linnemann & Wall, 2013). The veracity of these claims is unclear given that assertions about the spread of meth have been around for over two decades, leading many experts to assert that the “meth epidemic” is really a “moral panic” (Armstrong, 2007; Jenkins, 1994; Linnemann & Wall, 2013). Regardless of the accuracy of the claims, most members of the general public have accepted that meth use is on the rise in the United States and that users increasingly make erratic decisions, as well as experience rapid and severe harm to their mental states and physical appearances. These beliefs might exist because of anti-meth campaigns that are popular throughout the United States. Current perceptions of meth users have been influenced by the Faces of Meth campaign, which provides visual representations of the dramatic physical deterioration of meth users through police mug shots (Linnemann, 2010; Linnemann & Wall, 2013). Similarly, the widespread belief that meth users make poor decisions is exemplified by the anti-meth campaigns that showcase a series of bad situations with the tagline, “This isn’t normal, but on meth it is.”
In addition to highlighting the deleterious impact of meth on the physical and mental health of users, media campaigns also imply that meth is consumed primarily by rural Whites. Indeed, most assume that meth is a “White drug” (Murakawa, 2011), and media reports often refer to it as being “redneck cocaine” or as a “trailer trash drug” (Armstrong, 2007). Even the name of a popular cooking method—the Nazi method—connotes Whiteness. Of course, this is not the first time that an illicit drug has been linked with a specific race. Crack cocaine typically is linked with users who are a part of the Black, urban underclass (Reinarman & Levine, 1997), early perceptions of opium were associated with Asian immigrants (Hartman & Golub, 1999), and OxyContin is often linked with “Hillbillies” from the rural South (Tunnell, 2005).
Given these assumptions about the typical consumers of meth, our aim in this study is to explore how Black women who consume illegal stimulants (such as crack cocaine) perceive meth. We seek to determine why Black stimulant users largely abstain from consuming meth. We do this by speaking directly with Black women who were chronic crack cocaine users, but who never or only infrequently used meth, about their perceptions of meth and those who use it. The results provide insights not only into the reasons these women abstain from meth but also into how the perceptions of those who are socially distant from the drug are shaped by media portrayals.
Race and Meth Use
Despite widespread fears about the growth of meth production and use in the United States, from current data, we observe that meth is no more popular now than it has been in the past several decades. According to data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA, 2010), meth use in the United States has declined by about one third since the early 2000s. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA, 2010), the percentage of people aged 12 to 17 who have used meth in the past month has declined from 0.3% to 0.1%. From multiple data sources, it is clear that there are fewer meth users than crack cocaine, nonmedical psychotherapeutic drugs, or marijuana users (SAMHSA, 2009). Although the number of chronic users has remained stable over the past decade, it appears that the total number of new meth users has declined during this same period.
Official reports on the growth of meth use in the United States do not support the claim of it being an epidemic. These reports do, however, support claims that Whites are the primary consumers and manufacturers of meth and that Blacks represent only a small proportion of users. Data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (SAMHSA, 2005) suggest that 71% of people who seek treatment for meth abuse are White, whereas only 2.6% are Black. From a survey of inmates in state and federal correctional facilities, it was found that White inmates were 20 times more likely to use meth than were Black inmates (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006). Similarly, using data from the Juvenile Justice Drug Abuse Monitoring program, Cooper, Fox, and Rodriguez (2010) found that Black arrestees were nearly 15 times more likely to test negative for meth than were Whites. From these various sources, it seems clear that the overwhelming majority of meth users and manufacturers are indeed White. What is less clear is why meth use is relatively uncommon among Black stimulant users.
Sexton and colleagues (2005) conducted one of the only studies to address this question. Specifically, they explored the perspective of Black drug users about their relative lack of meth use by interviewing 86 rural meth users from Arkansas and Kentucky. Based on the accounts of 14 meth users, they discussed barriers to meth diffusion among Black stimulant users in those areas. One of the key barriers for the interviewees was concern about the drug’s ingredients. The toxicity of the products and the dangerous production process were cited as reasons why Black meth users believed that the drug was inherently dangerous. Another major barrier to meth use for Black stimulant users was gaining entry into local meth markets. Participants in the study claimed that it was difficult for them to locate meth on a regular basis. Unlike for crack cocaine, meth sales typically take place inside private homes rather than on streets or other public places. Moreover, meth cooks, who typically are White, divide what they make among those who helped make it, and little is left over to sell to others, especially to those in other social networks. The interviewees also reported that crack cocaine was widespread in their local communities long before meth entered the scene. Thus, the Black stimulant users said it seemed natural for them to turn to a drug already embedded in their local communities rather than to a new one used predominately by Whites (Sexton et al., 2005).
Here, we build on research by Sexton and colleagues by exploring with greater specificity the reasons Black women stimulant users abstain from using meth. Our goal is to understand why a group who chronically uses illegal stimulants typically abstains from the use of meth. Such insights will help us to determine whether the relative lack of Black meth users is because of structural factors (i.e., access) or cultural beliefs (i.e., meth is a “White drug”).
Method
Our findings are based on the analysis of semi-structured interviews with 33 Black stimulant users who were residents of a women’s halfway house in Birmingham, Alabama. Birmingham has a population over 200,000 as of the 2010 U.S. Census (with over 1.12 million in the larger metropolitan area). Nearly three fourths (73.4%) are Black and one quarter (22.3%) are White. Birmingham has a relatively high crime rate. It was ranked the third most dangerous city in the United States by the U.S. News & World Report in 2011. Our research team worked with staff members at the facility to recruit volunteers for the interviews. Specifically, we asked staff members to make announcements during classes and to post notices that volunteers were sought who were willing to discuss their perspectives about meth. Our study criteria were that volunteers were Black, had a history of illegal stimulant use (e.g., crack cocaine), were at least 19 years old at the time of the interview (i.e., the minimum age for adult status in the state), and had little or no experience using meth. We paid them US$20 for their participation. We chose this amount because we believed it was enough to encourage participation but not create undue influence for participation.
In compliance with Institutional Review Board guidelines, we informed all participants that the interviews would be conducted with a researcher not affiliated with a prison or the state department of corrections and would be voluntary and confidential. Thirteen women were interviewed in July 2012, and another 20 women were interviewed in July 2013. We interviewed a total of 33 Black women who were chronic crack cocaine users. Twenty said they never used meth, 8 said they used it 3 or fewer times, and 5 said they used meth regularly. We included the 5 regular meth users to gain their perspectives regarding how others reacted to their frequent use of meth. The median age of interviewees was 36 years, and ages ranged from 21 to 65. Similar to others at the halfway house, the 33 women we interviewed were reared in households where limited educational opportunities and concentrated poverty were the norm. All of the interviewees had extensive criminal histories. Given that our sample consisted entirely of former stimulant abusers, these results are not surprising.
The interviews averaged between 45 and 60 min and were audio-recorded with the permission of each participant. The purpose of the interviews was to investigate their thoughts about meth and those who use it, access to meth if they did want it, and their reasons for abstaining from using it. We transcribed all interviews and replaced identifying information (e.g., names) with aliases, which we use here to maintain confidentiality. To ensure interrater reliability, all investigators read each transcript to identify common themes. The team then convened to determine the overarching patterns in the way participants perceived meth. This broad coding scheme left a great deal of scope for a more detailed analysis directed toward establishing “within issue” variations from one concept to the next. We completed this analysis by reading the text for each category and, for each one, creating subcategories that captured distinctions recognized by the participants as important reasons for their decisions not to use meth.
Reasons Black Stimulant Users Abstain From Meth
We asked participants to describe a typical meth user. It was clear from their answers that they believed meth to be symbolically linked with White people, which is consistent with previous research on the issue (Sexton et al., 2005). Lindsay expressed this belief succinctly: “Meth is for White folks.” She followed this by saying that any Black meth users “must got a whole lotta White friends because them the only ones who does meth.” Reinforcing this claim, Hattie said, “Black people’s not interested in meth. It’s one drug that they’re not going to copy. . . . I don’t know no Black people on meth.” Penny said, “I’ve never heard of a Black person being addicted to meth. Like, never.” Anastasia said, “Maybe that’s a stereotype, but I don’t know. I just always consider it to be a White drug. I never associate it with the Black community.” Despite some of the participants having used meth, they still perceived it to be associated with White drug users. To these women, meth was used by those far removed from their worlds where crack cocaine was common.
These women believed that meth use was relatively uncommon in Black drug-using communities. To shed more light on why this was the case, we asked participants why they did not use meth with regularity. They provided four primary reasons for their abstinence: limited access to meth, fear of chemicals used in production, dislike of the immediate sensations, and fear of long-term physical and mental health consequences.
Limited access to meth
The women interviewed claimed that they had easy and near-constant access to their drug of choice (i.e., crack cocaine). Few had to look hard to find someone willing to give or sell them crack. Such was not the case for meth. In fact, they universally agreed that meth was not easy to come across in the areas they frequented, and it was only those who associated with White drug users who had consistent access to the drug (see previous quote by Lindsay). Stacy described the juxtaposition of access to crack cocaine versus access to meth: Well, it was just [meth’s] access. [People] in the neighborhood I’m from don’t affiliate with meth. You can go down the street and somebody sellin’ crack, somebody sellin’ cocaine, somebody sellin’ pills, but it’s not like that with meth. You just get that from a rural area and I’m from the city.
As Stacy pointed out, many of the women believed that the primary reason they could not get meth was because they lived in the city, and meth was confined primarily to rural areas. Supporting this claim, Penny said, I think people in the country know more about meth because they in the rural [areas] and they cook different kind of stuff. We know about weed and you can go get the cocaine, we know how to cook it up and rock it up, that’s all the things we know. I don’t know nothing about meth.
Rayna claimed, rather emphatically, that “meth is not on the Black side of town,” and thus, it was difficult for her and other Black women to gain access even if they wanted it. Indeed, it was rare for these women to have any contact with those who sold meth, and almost none of them had direct relationships with those who manufactured it.
The women believed that meth was manufactured or “cooked” almost exclusively by White individuals who lived far away from the inner cities. Reports that meth lab seizures are more common in areas that are racially homogeneous (i.e., White and native-born) support such beliefs (Weisheit & Wells, 2010). Very few of the interviewees said they had ever met anyone who cooked meth. They believed that few Black individuals cooked meth because they were too weary of the explosive nature of the cooking process. Many heard stories of people who died or were severely injured because of mishaps during the cooking process. Such hazards made them question why anyone would get involved in production, especially with crack being so readily available. As Stacy pondered, I always wonder why in the world would you wanna make something that could possibly kill you or blow you up? Because you don’t have to do all that when you cook crack, you know, it’s just baking soda and cocaine. That’s it.
Echoing this notion, Gina said, “I can’t see goin’ through all the steps that you would have to in order to create somethin’ that would kill me right off the bat. I won’t be able to enjoy it.”
The participants believed that race was the key factor in the decision to engage in the risky business of cooking meth. They relied on cultural stereotypes of White individuals engaging in risky behavior (e.g., skydiving, wilderness camping), while Black individuals avoided such activities. In fact, some interviewees, like Makayla, concluded that apprehension about meth use might even be innate among Black individuals.
There’s something in the White person that makes them not as weary of danger. For some reason none of my [Black] friends would ever consider something that might blow up in their face. That’s ridiculous, that’s just ridiculous! A lot of them [White people] have this cowboy fearless mentality where they’re not scared of it [the chemicals]. [It is the] same thing with bears and sharks. We [Black people] tend not to go into certain conditions. We tend not to go places where there might be a shark that can eat us, because that’s ridiculous. But to White people it’s not as ridiculous. They think that’s more normal.
Putting aside that her argument involved the use of biological determinism, Makayla’s argument is interesting. She compared using meth to swimming with sharks and to running with bears, which are behaviors she believed only White individuals would consider doing because of their “cowboy fearless mentality.” Another interviewee, Quinn, had similar views regarding race and meth. When asked why she thought few Black people cooked meth, she said, “Because I’ll tell you something about a Black man, a Black person, they scared of bombs. They scared they can blow up.” The women, like Makayla and Stacy, believed that, in general, Black individuals are more cautious than White individuals, and this caution led them to refrain from cooking meth, which reduced the availability of meth in their areas. The lack of meth cooks in their communities was a significant factor in the low prevalence of meth use among Black stimulant users.
Fear of chemicals in meth
Those who abstained from meth use were often concerned with the various chemicals and compounds required to convert pseudoephedrine into meth. While they acknowledged that crack production involved a cooking process, it required fewer ingredients and posed less risk than meth production. According to Barb, Some things they put in meth, you don’t put in crack. All you need is baking soda and some water, and see meth you need all that other stuff, battery fluid, acid, all that, you know. I think it’s more deadly than crack.
The general belief among these users was expressed clearly by Stella: “Cocaine is cleaner than meth . . . because of the chemicals they put in meth.”
It was unclear where participants obtained knowledge of the meth cooking process given their lack of exposure—perhaps media sources played a role—but they were emphatic that meth contained too many dangerous ingredients for them to consider trying it. Renee believed that meth production involved “Drano, battery acid, and strips from matches.” She continued, “I mean, that’s too many chemicals. That is entirely too many chemicals.” The fear that these chemicals would leak out into their body was a primary reason that kept them from ingesting meth. Hattie said, “Meth scared me. [I] always hear about the ingredients, that rat poison.” Lindsay was most afraid of the drain cleaner she believed was key to producing meth: They do Drano [laughs] . . . It just eatin’ up they whole body ’cause I feel like . . . if you put it in a toilet it ain’t nothing but acid. If you put it in a toilet, what are you putting in your body?
Linda and Jackie made references to the devil in their descriptions of the making of meth. “All drugs are bad, but to create meth you have to have Sudafed, fertilizer, lithium, and all types of devil eye stuff like that,” explained Jackie. Linda was even more explicit in referencing the devil, “See now, meth stuff is made from the devil.”
Dislike of immediate sensations from meth
Although meth and crack cocaine are both stimulants, the interviewees said that the physiological effects of the two differed. Crack provided a shorter duration and greater intensity high that users often described as euphoric. Our interviewees claimed that meth did not produce such euphoric states, and instead the sensation seemed “abnormal” and “unnatural.” Instead of being pleasurable, meth made them feel uncomfortable, anxious, and tense, often for several days after a single use. Makayla described her experience with meth use for the first time: “I felt like I was going to have a heart attack. My skin was tingly; it felt like there was a bunch of ants crawling all over you. It’s uncomfortable at the least.” Others, like Olivia, thought that they were “having a heart attack from [their] heart beating so fast.” Renee was even more explicit in her dislike for the effects of the drug: “It was like the back of my head had been blown off, and that was the worst drug I ever tried. It was the worst drug I ever tried.” Such statements counter many claims that nearly all meth users find it pleasurable (Weisheit & White, 2009).
The women who tried meth previously also said that coming down from meth was more painful than coming down from crack cocaine. Jackie related it to having a substance expelled from her body via perspiration: “I didn’t like the way meth sweated out.” Rayna said that the chemicals in meth, “made my whole body be aching. I would think that I was coming down with the flu.” Hannah believed that “powder [cocaine] doesn’t give you physical sickness [but] meth does. Your body aches, you throwin’ up, you sick.” Previous ethnographic research supports the claim that meth use can lead to physical aches and ailments when the product is not cooked properly (Sexton, Carlson, Leukefeld, & Booth, 2006).
Some said that the energy so many people praise meth for providing was far too much for them to enjoy. Although she had not tried meth before, Hattie believed that “it’s a different kind of high and it lasts longer from what I understand. They [meth users] stay up. They don’t nod out.” For these women, meth made their hearts beat too fast for too long of a period, which led to a sense of panic and tension. Danielle described why she preferred crack cocaine: You stay awake for both [crack and meth]. You get full of energy with both of ’em. Both are the same, but with cocaine, you get a numbness that you don’t get with meth. This numb, I mean, it’s all good. With meth, you in a panic. You in a frenzy. It’s not all good. But with cocaine, it’s like, it’s all good. But meth ain’t like that.
It is not uncommon for crack users to say that they use crack to help them “numb out” in response to excessive stress (Daniulaityte & Carlson, 2011). Overcoming their stress was a major motivator for crack users. These women believed that meth did not relieve stress. Instead, meth brought on more.
One of the attributes of crack cocaine these women liked was that after using it, they did not stay awake involuntarily for extended periods. They thought meth would make them stay awake much longer than they wanted to, which again made them feel anxious. Jackie was explicit in describing her dislike of the perceived sleeplessness caused by meth: [Meth] it keeps you up, way longer than crack does. And the more that you stay with any drug it kills the brain cells, it can’t be replenished, that won’t come back. Meth, it would keep you up 7 to 14 days, when crack you can’t stay up. With meth it has more speed in it than the crack. So you stay up more, because you can’t never get back down. With the crack, you have to go chase it, and smoke it, chase it and smoke it, so you doing a lot more activity to get the crack cocaine than you did the meth . . . I can’t talk for anybody but myself, but when [friend] started using meth, it was like ten times worse than the crack was. She didn’t have to go get it, but the periods of time that she stayed up was just unbelievable: 14 days! You can get you some and smoke it, shoot it, chew it, snort it, and you up for days, where crack you got to lay down, or your body would just shut down.
It was not just staying awake that participants found unappealing. It was that in addition to forcing them to stay awake, meth made them feel like they had to stay busy. Nicole described why she chose not to use meth after seeing others on the drug: I just didn’t like the way they acted. I wasn’t down with going to mow the yard at 3:00 in the morning and taking stuff apart and it was just like no. That’s not my cup of tea. Like I said, when I’m on my cocaine I am mellow, I just want to chill out and enjoy this little high. I wasn’t going to tear some stuff apart, go mow the yard at ungodly hours in the rain.
Hattie’s experience with others who had used meth also led to her decision to avoid the drug. In describing her meth-using friend, she said, “She walked around like a zombie. Her eyes were so red and her feet was barely moving, her hands moved but she was really spaced out.”
The rapid heart rate, the tingling skin, and the inability to sleep made using meth unpleasant for these women. In fact, some turned to other drugs to curtail the negative feelings of meth. Makayla said she drank alcohol and smoked marijuana in an attempt to nullify the effects of meth. Several turned to prayer to end the effects of meth (Sexton et al., 2005). According to Gina, “Meth, you can hit that stuff one time and you stay high for days. It’s like a crazy high. Like, ‘please Lord take it and I’ll never do it again.’” Whereas many meth users point to the functional uses of meth (e.g., weight loss, extra energy; Lende, Leonard, Sterk, & Elifson, 2007), these women believed the negative feelings of use outweighed any potential benefit of increased performance.
Fear of the long-term consequences of meth
Many of the women said that they avoided use (especially long-term use) of meth because of the devastating effect it could have on their physical appearance. They acknowledged that crack cocaine can also harm their bodies and minds but not with as much fervor and not as rapidly as meth. Carrie believed that “[meth] is bad for your health. It tears your body down quicker than other drugs because of the ingredients that they use in meth.” Echoing this sentiment, Evelyn said, “I know that meth users have a whole new face. It looks more demonized. And it takes them real quickly.” Such claims are consistent with reports from meth users showing that almost two thirds said they experienced skin and dental problems while using (von Mayrhauser, Brecht, & Anglin, 2001). It was the fear of experiencing these effects that led the short-term users to quit all use of meth (Kerley, Leban, Copes, Taylor, & Agnone, 2014).
The women seemed well aware of anti-meth campaigns in the United States (e.g., Faces of Meth, Meth Not Even Once) and pointed to the harsh impact that meth had on the bodies of its users. They pointed to conditions such as meth mouth (the rotting of teeth), open sores, and sunken facial features as reasons to avoid using meth (Kerley et al., 2014). Tina’s description of chronic meth users was telling: They get sores and stuff on they face, they break out. I don’t like that . . . They [meth users] are more gaunt. Y’all ever watch Tales from the Crypt? . . . Their face actually gets like that from using so much.
Gina also believed that meth use was harder on the body than crack cocaine use. According to her, I think meth’s worse. I mean, it takes everything, the teeth, the skin. I mean, it just, like it dim lights you or something. Worst thing I ever seen. It really is. But then when they start gettin’ healthy again, you can see the skin struggling, trying to get rid of the scarring, and the teeth are gone. It literally messes with the brain. It’s horrible . . . I noticed meth users was ugly. Some of them had potholes all in they face, teeth gone, just ugly. That’s not a pretty picture that’s not a good look.
The women were especially weary of the damage meth could cause to their faces. Carrie said, “I never wanted to try it, . . . it’ll rot your teeth out.” In contrasting the long-term effect of crack use and meth, Barb said, “Crack don’t eat your face up like meth do. [Meth] put holes in your face. Crack don’t do that.” According to Stella, “Meth users they skin color go, their teeth rot, their face get a lot of sores all over.” Anastasia’s fear that meth would cause her “skin to mess up and teeth to mess up” is why she decided “I better stop that.” While the majority of the women did not know personally any long-term meth users, they still referenced the physical deterioration associated with chronic users. It was the fear of losing their physical attractiveness that encouraged many to avoid the drug altogether. Hattie offered this explanation as to why Black women abstained from meth: It’s scary. They know too much about it, the ingredients and what it does to your body and your skin, makes it look like you got sores on your body. We’re all aware of that and you’re not going to take a chance on that happenin’.
Overall, the interviewees believed that the chemicals in meth, the effect it has on users’ mental states, and the deterioration it caused to users’ bodies made meth use dirtier and less respectable than other drugs (including crack cocaine) in their communities. They believed there was a heavy stigma on all users of meth, especially Black users. Makayla said, “A lot of us feel that what crack is to the Black community, crystal meth is to the White community. Creating a whole separate class.” Olivia reinforced this statement by noting that in the Black community you don’t find a whole lot of Black people that do meth. That is like a down, like ew, even though cocaine is not any better. Yeah, you don’t find meth too much in Black communities
Taryn suggested that “[meth] is just like the scum of the earth. That’s the way some people look at it, [the way] Black people do.” It was clear from their stories that these women did not think meth was common among Black stimulant users and that there was a stigma associated with using the drug, perhaps even stronger than the stigma associated with crack use.
Conclusion
The growth of meth use among rural Whites in the United States has led to the drug being symbolically linked with this group (Linnemann, Hanson, & Williams, 2013; Linnemann & Wall, 2013). It is not uncommon for U.S. media reports about the drug to refer to typical users as being lower-class, rural Whites. The 33 Black residents of a halfway house with whom we spoke supported such beliefs of meth being symbolically a White drug. Despite the fact that all of the interviewees were chronic stimulant users, they had limited experience using meth. When asked to explain why they abstained from meth, the women cited the lack of access, fear of the chemicals in the drug, the dislike of the immediate physiological effects of the drug, and the desire to avoid perceived long-term effects to their physical and mental health. Taken together, the women believed that these reasons contribute to meth use being more stigmatized than crack cocaine use in their communities.
Many of the reasons these women gave for avoiding meth were rooted in stereotypical beliefs and misinformation about the drug. They were adamant about not getting “meth mouth” from the drug. They were convinced that meth caused irreparable harm to the user’s teeth. Indeed, the potential threat to oral health might be the most pronounced fear among meth users and those who avoid it (Copes, Leban, Kerley, & Deitzer, 2014). According to Murakawa (2011), oral health complications are more than simple individualized harms to meth users but instead represent a shifting conception of Whites and of White drug users. Loss of teeth has become the symbol of the stigma of meth use. In addition, recent research does not support the claim that meth causes any more damage to teeth than other forms of amphetamine. All amphetamines create a lack of saliva and bruxism (grinding of teeth), which then promote rapid dental decay among users (Padilla & Ritter, 2008; Shetty et al., 2010).
In a similar vein, many participants in our study reported that they believed meth would cause them to stay awake for several days or even weeks, leaving them committed to menial and pointless tasks during that time. While it is true that meth is a strong stimulant, reports of staying awake for 2 weeks from a single use are rare. Thus, it appears that the participants’ lack of exposure to meth (likely because of geographic and socioeconomic factors) caused them to rely on cultural stereotypes or “urban myths” about the drug. Those meth myths are likely created via media campaigns designed to stigmatize meth users and are then reinforced through interactions in their social worlds.
For these women, meth was symbolically linked with White users. Specifically, it was associated with poor, rural Whites, which is a category of people they saw as being far removed from their own social worlds. We believe that such symbolic perceptions of the drug acted as a deterrent for these women. To these participants, meth was made by White people, for White people. For example, one interviewee recounted how her sister advised her to avoid meth because of the direct racial ties to the drug. She believed that Adolf Hitler created the drug and that Black people were not supposed to use meth because of this. The powerful nexus between meth and lower-class Whites likely acted as a protective factor for these women to forego meth use. In fact, the stigma of using meth among Black stimulant abusers appeared to be stronger than for using crack cocaine. The interviewees believed that they could use crack, just not “White people’s crack.” Again, we believe that this stigma likely developed because of the relative lack of access to meth in their communities, which forced them to rely on cultural myths about the drug (largely spread through anti-meth media campaigns). In this sense, the anti-meth campaigns might have been effective in preventing many Black individuals from beginning meth-using careers or were used as the rationale for their abstinence in light of limited access.
Another question to consider here is whether the racial distribution of meth users might change over time. Despite the stigma associated with use, there has been a slight increase in the number of Black meth users in the United States, thus suggesting that access to the drug might be increasing (Sexton et al., 2005). We suspect that if meth eventually becomes more widespread in Black drug-using communities, the fears and stigma associated with the drug might subside. For example, when crack cocaine first became popular in the United States, there were numerous accounts of its highly addictive nature (even more so than for powder cocaine) and the harm it caused to physical appearance (Reinarman & Levine, 1997). Stereotypes of crack users having white lips and nervous body movements led to pejorative nicknames such as “chicken heads” and “cluckers” to describe them, which was because crack abusers’ behaviors resembled those of chickens searching for food. However, as crack use became more common, users and non-users alike recognized that it was possible to consume crack regularly and still avoid the stereotypical look of the “crackhead” (Copes, Hochstetler, & Williams, 2008). That is, people recognized the possibility of being a functional crack user. Such transformations of perceptions are also likely to occur with meth users. As meth becomes more readily available in Black communities, others will see that it is possible to use meth and not stay awake for days, become increasingly erratic and paranoid, or experience dental problems. They might then define themselves as “functional” users as is often the case for active meth users (Copes et al., 2014; Lende et al., 2007). Thus, the stereotype of the typical meth user might change over time and be linked less closely with race.
We believe that the stigma of meth use in Black communities (even among drug users) can create additional barriers to those seeking drug abuse treatment. Researchers from numerous health-related disciplines suggest that stigma can have an adverse effect on those needing medical help (Copeland, 1997; Radcliffe & Stevens, 2008; Sher, McGinn, Sirey, & Meyers, 2005). The fear or shame associated with being an addict can make it difficult for drug users to get the help they need. For example, Radcliffe and Stevens (2008) found that many heroin users avoid formal treatment because they believed that such help was only for “junkie scumbags.” Such might be the case as well for Black women meth users. The low number of Black meth users in treatment might be due partly to them wanting to avoid being seen as meth addicts. Thus, it is important from a treatment standpoint to find ways to target Black meth users who need help in a way that does not stigmatize them.
From our findings, we suggest that recent media campaigns—those that highlight the mental, physical, and emotional deterioration of meth users—might be effective in deterring would-be users. Frequent users, or those around them, often point to their ability to overcome the negative consequences of meth use and claim they are functional users. For these users, media campaigns showcase only the extreme users (i.e., meth heads). As such, they might increase use. But those who are farther away from meth see these campaigns as portraying typical users. As such, these campaigns might reduce use among certain populations. At the very least, this appeared to be the case for Black stimulant users in our study. While the accuracy of the anti-meth campaigns is questionable, these campaigns have been successful in painting a vivid portrait of users. It is a portrait few want for themselves. Those distant from actual meth users rely on these campaigns as their primary source of knowledge about meth and its users. It is striking that in the United States, the image of the typical meth user is consistent with that portrayed in anti-meth advertisements. Such does not seem to be the case in other countries (but see Ayres & Jewkes, 2012). For example, amphetamine use in Northern European countries is growing, and media depictions of the “gaunt” user who has lost his teeth do not exist there (Bramness, 2009). The damage of such strong stigmas toward a behavior is that they might prevent many users from seeking treatment as they do not want to be associated with meth abusers or “junkie scumbags” (Radcliffe & Stevens, 2008). Certainly, the goal of reducing the spread of meth is a worthwhile pursuit. The issue is how best to do this without developing a stigma to the degree that it alienates users and thwarts efforts to get treatment for substance abusers.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this study was provided by the National Science Foundation via the Research Experiences for Undergraduates program (Award 1261322).