Amphetamine users in Amsterdam: Patterns of use and modes of self-regulation

Abstract

After identifying some omissions in existing literature on research on amphetamine use, this article sets forth to answer some questions with respect to (1) use patterns, (2) advantages and disadvantages of amphetamine use as experienced by users, (3) the formal and informal modes of control that users employ to reduce or negate negative side effects of amphetamine use, and (4) the role of context variables in fostering in facilitating these modes of control. The article draws on a sample of 109 experienced and recent amphetamine users in Amsterdam and a follow-up sample of 67 respondents of the original 109. Through a discussion of use patterns over long periods of time, a longitudinal perspective is provided. In a large majority of cases, respondents reduced their levels of use or stopped using amphetamine altogether after a relatively brief period of time. Data from our follow-up survey suggest that users tend to develop mechanisms of self-regulation, even those who at some point showed signs of ‘losing control’; respondents either quit or diminish their use or, in rare cases, accommodate high-level amphetamine use within their daily lives. We discuss the numerous explicit and implicit rules that regulate drug consumption and prevent escalation of problems related to amphetamine consumption. These results inform a discussion about policies toward the consumption of amphetamine.

• Amphetamine
• Amsterdam
• consumption
• drug policy
• self-regulation
• The Netherlands

Notes

Notes

[1] For example, Vincent et al. (1998) report on a sample in which 89% of the respondents were unemployed and 77% used intravenous injection as their most frequent method of ingestion. Intravenous injection is a rare exception in our sample. Most users snort or swallow amphetamine, hold jobs or are enrolled in school, and show few signs of marginalization.

[2] For instance, monitoring data shows that at the end of 1999, the amphetamine purity levels were temporarily reduced almost to zero (Stichting Adviesburo Drugs, 2000). This means that many respondents may have consumed amphetamine surrogates in this period. However, we do not believe that the chemical properties of a drug fully determine the experience of users but that user expectations and context variables are also important (see Becker, 1953; Zinberg, 1984). For example, users can experience similar effects with amphetamine of varying potency or even with drugs that share some similarity with amphetamine (like cocaine or caffeine).

[3] A warm thanks is due to Sanne Kamp for her unrelenting efforts in locating and interviewing the respondents in the follow-up sample.

[4] Data is missing for one respondent.

[5] We gave the respondents the opportunity to define what they considered their period of ‘regular’ and ‘heavy’ use.

[6]  n = 93, only respondents who reported their use in grams (not in pills) were taken into account.

[7]  n = 82, only respondents who reported their use in grams (not in pills) were taken into account.

[8] While this means that we do not claim that our policy recommendations have full validity everywhere and are derived from our understanding of the Amsterdam case, we hold that some general principles discussed below could also be applied to other types of drugs and in other places.