Here is a fine '68 Maui Wowie

January 1, 2008 11:51 AM

Do drugs like cocaine have a shelf life?

If drugs were stored in ideal circumstances, what would their shelf life be? So, let's say that they are in air tight packaging, kept in low humidity vaults, with very low levels of light.

Would they need "preservatives" to make them last longer?

Part 2 of the question: Is there any law that says that seized drugs must be destroyed?

My crazy thought is this: what if the government kept all of the drugs that it seized? Could they flood the market with product and drive people out of business?

posted by zerobyproxy to food & drink (10 comments total)

Do drugs like cocaine have a shelf life?

It depends, cocaine hydrochloride, with all moisture removed and in perfect conditions, would probably have a very long shelf life. I would guess 10 years or more if it was done correctly.

Would they need "preservatives" to make them last longer?

No. Cool temperatures, keep the humidity down and out of darkness. It would probably be more economical to buy cocaine every 10 years than store it. The price of cocaine, and the quality, has risen greatly. Storage costs (in terms of risk of getting caught) outweigh any benefit in storing cocaine for long periods of time.

Is there any law that says that seized drugs must be destroyed?

No, they are often kept as evidence in storage lockers for a long time. A while ago they tested marijuana from the 70s that had been sitting in lockers in less than ideal conditions, received something like 2-3% THC levels on the degraded weed. The tested recent seizures and of course got more accurate levels of along the lines of 8-10%. They then concluded that marijuana must be getting more potent, rather than their testing procedures being flawed.

Again, I think the average quality of marijuana has increased, but top buds from the 70s are comparable, if not as widely available, as top buds today. There hasn't been a great breakthrough in genetic engineering, but commercialization of high quality strains.

what if the government kept all of the drugs that it seized? Could they flood the market with product and drive people out of business?

It would be much simpler than this, but yes, they've done this. Particularly heroin in NYC during the 70s. Of course NYC cops were competing with dealers and were part of the chain. They probably drove low and mid-level dealers out of business. Also I'm fairly convinced that the CIA escorted cocaine planes across the border, keeping half and letting the dealers sell the other half. There are some good books on the subject, but I don't think it had really pure profit motives that you are inquiring about.
posted by geoff. at 12:01 PM on January 1, 2008

MDMA (ecstasy) has a long shelf life - "will last longer than you" according to Erowid. I've seen a quote attributed to Alexander Shulgin that "if they'd stored MDMA in the pyramids, it would still be usable".

No idea about other drugs, or the second part of your question.
posted by Infinite Jest at 1:17 PM on January 1, 2008

My organic chemistry professor once worked in a lab which adapted a total synthesis of Lysergic Acid (precursor of LSD). I think he was there in the late 60s, and the synthesis was discvoered at least 30 years prior---and there was a huge container of the stuff sitting in their storage. He said at street value it'd be worth a few million dollars.

I would wager a jar of acid, crystallized, could last for a real, real long time. Like, over 100 years.
posted by BenzeneChile at 2:04 PM on January 1, 2008

Could they flood the market with product and drive people out of business?

By flooding the market with low or zero-priced goods, the price and profit margin would drop, yes. There is no such thing as a zero-priced good -- it will have some cost to the seller, such as storage, marketing, distribution. Let's say that laws do not change (which means that remains a risk cost, too), but regardless, let's say the relative price has an enormous drop.

A few things would happen:

* With price down, demand and usage would shoot up, with all of their inherent problems.
* Some distributors would see their profit margins dry up. Some, but not all, would go out of business (or rather, they would turn their attention to other goods and services with a high profit margin, such as other types of drugs, and those types of drugs may become more accessible).
* Some might even set themselves up as resellers of the low-priced goods, competing on other factors, such as service, access, branding, etc.
* With demand up, there would be greater incentive to generate greater inventory to meet the growing demand. In other words, more, not less, coca would be planted and harvested.
* The low-priced supply would eventually run out.
* But demand would remain higher than previous levels, because this is, after all, an addictive drug.
* Prices would then normalize based on supply/demand curves.

In other words, the market would rapidly return to a version of status quo, and quality of life would be worse, not better.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:20 PM on January 1, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Seconding Cool Papa Bell, but with an interesting twist:

I seem to recall (but may well be wrong) hearing that Switzerland or somewhere had clinics for drug users. Addicts could get a 'pure' fix for free... Being a treatment clinic, they only took actual addicts. This effectively killed the market for drug dealers, and those that participated in the clinics received help in breaking their addictions. (As opposed to throwing them into prisons...)
posted by fogster at 3:04 PM on January 1, 2008

I rescind my earlier comment: it looks like I was given an idealized version of Switzerland's policy. It seems they're having major drug problems.
posted by fogster at 3:10 PM on January 1, 2008

I do recall reading an article saying that most drugs don't go bad, they just lose strength. The same article said drugs such as aspirin wouldn't degrade at all over your life time, the only reason they put expiry dates on it was that people wouldn't like to see their doctor with a 50 year old bottle of tablets.
posted by tomble at 4:12 PM on January 1, 2008

Acid, once it's on a blotter, decays pretty rapidly - it's best practice to keep your tabs in the freezer.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 5:05 PM on January 1, 2008

These guys give out free heroin to enrolled addicts on Vancouver's Downtown East Side (DTES). I would be interested in seeing some results of the program, but there is still crime, and there are still dealers on the street, that much is obvious...
posted by chromatist at 6:29 PM on January 1, 2008

Most pure substances, if stored in truly air-tight, light-free, moderate temperature conditions, would be stable for a long period. Under realistic circumstances, temperature extremes, light, air, and moisture will degrade most substances in the realm of months to years. Chemically some substances are just intrinsically more stable than others, and some substances will react with themselves over time almost no matter what you do to preserve them. Most "preservatives," as I think you are thinking about them, are to prevent degradation by microorganisms.

My crazy thought is this: what if the government kept all of the drugs that it seized? Could they flood the market with product and drive people out of business?

Please run for office on this platform so I can be amused by your campaign. There have been programs in other countries to provide drugs in controlled settings to registered addicts. The success in reducing the harm of dealing and using in uncontrolled settings is debatable, but in the U.S. you would never, in the current political climate, even get this sort of moderate approach to cutting dealers out of the drug equation can't get any traction.

Finally, even in an optimistic scenario, what happens when all the dealers get driven out of business? As soon as you stop supplying free drugs it would all just start up again.
posted by nanojath at 7:40 PM on January 1, 2008