The “Super Meth” Myth: A Tainted Campaign Promise

Spencer Pratt’s mayoral campaign in Los Angeles has been marked by a series of bombastic claims, but few have been as egregious as his invocation of “super meth,” a supposedly new and terrifying scourge on the city’s streets. His opponents have pointed out that this crisis is largely manufactured, but it’s worth examining why he’s pushing this narrative – and what it says about his approach to public safety.

Pratt’s claims rely on a misinterpretation of recent developments in methamphetamine production. Claire Zagorski, a paramedic and harm reductionist, explains that the term “super meth” is often used informally to differentiate between two types of meth: those produced with pseudoephedrine (the more common type) and those made using phenyl-2-propanone (P2P). However, this distinction is largely semantic – both types are still methamphetamine.

The real issue is the growing presence of high-purity, low-cost meth on the streets. Zagorski notes that a new refining process developed in Europe has allowed manufacturers to increase purity and lower prices, making it more accessible to users. This may be contributing to an uptick in use, but it’s a relatively minor factor overall – economic precarity and housing instability do far more to drive the crisis.

Pratt’s narrative is not only scientifically inaccurate, but also morally reprehensible. By framing this as a “super meth” crisis, he’s obscuring the root causes of addiction among people experiencing homelessness. Mehtani notes that functional use (i.e., using stimulants to stay awake and survive on the streets) is often the primary reason for meth use in these communities.

Moreover, Pratt’s campaign is built on a foundation of moral panic and punitive rhetoric – a classic War on Drugs language that has proven disastrous time and again. By calling it “super meth,” he’s reducing a complex public health problem to a simplistic narrative of good vs. evil, obscuring the need for evidence-based interventions and pushing voters toward punitive responses.

This use of propaganda is part of a broader pattern among right-wing politicians who push misguided policies. In areas like San Francisco and Portland, such rhetoric has led to worse outcomes – increased recriminalization and punitive measures have done little to address the root causes of addiction.

If elected, Pratt will likely continue down this path of moral panic and punitive rhetoric, ignoring the real issues driving this crisis. His campaign is built on a foundation of misinformation and fear-mongering – and it’s up to voters to recognize the danger he poses. As Los Angeles faces one of its most pressing public health challenges in decades, leaders are needed who will tackle it head-on with evidence-based solutions – not those who peddle simplistic, science-free narratives.

The “super meth” myth may have originated as a misinterpretation of scientific developments, but Pratt’s campaign has eagerly amplified this rhetoric. It’s time to call out this language for what it is: a thinly veiled attempt to obscure the real issues driving addiction among people experiencing homelessness – economic precarity, housing instability, and punitive policies.

The stakes are high in this election, and Los Angeles voters must not be swayed by Pratt’s false promises of a “super meth” crisis. Instead, they should demand evidence-based solutions and leaders who will tackle the root causes of addiction with compassion and nuance. Anything less is a recipe for disaster.