On the other hand, as usual, the "dangers" of meth are blown wildly out of proportion and nowhere near as dire as our government would have us believe. Meth use really isn't an "epidemic" running rampant in our society, and making us sign for our cold pills will do absolutely nothing to alter the fact that some small number of people will use methamphetamines for the fun of it.
By now, you should be more than familiar with the litany of government claims about the "threat" that meth poses to our society, but if not, go visit this page on the drug czar's site to refresh your memory. And then continue reading this so you can see how stupid and useless it really is to make believe that any of us are "threatened" by methamphetamines.
Would You Use It?
I don't know what the magic number is that qualifies something as an "epidemic," but if meth use qualifies for that attribute, then the number is incredibly small. You see, the number of people who use methamphetamines is in reality quite low. According to the latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2005), there were only 1.4 million past year users, and 600,000 past month users of methamphetamine in 2004. And only 318,000 were said to have used it for the first time within the 12 month period prior to the survey. That's out of a total potential customer base of 240,515,000 people aged 12 or older. Meth use is on par with adult use of ADHD drugs -- an estimated 1.5 million adults use them along with with 2.5 million children aged 4 (FOUR!!????) to 17. I haven't heard about the "ADHD drug epidemic" have you?
And for the record, initiation of meth use peaked in 1979 (at 465,000 new users) and it's certainly not a new "menace" -- merely one of a recurring merry-go-round of several. So let's do the math. Approximately one-tenth of one percent (0.1) of Americans tried meth for the first time, some one-quarter of one percent (0.25) of Americans are past month users, and some sixth-tenths (0.6) of one percent of Americans used it in the past year (verify). Epidemic? That's not even enough people to keep a crappy television show on the air.
Even People Who Like Drugs Don't Like Meth!
While the numbers above may strike some as a reason to continue the madness of drug war, I have to wonder why we don't hear about the "epidemic of hallucinogen use." Afterall, if meth qualifies, then hallucinogen use must be nearing "pandemic" proportion, since nearly three times as many people (934,000) tried them for the first time in 2004, and nearly 4 million used them in the past year. And marijuana use must surely be some kind of super-cosmic mega-pandemic given its popularity among Americans. For the record, in 2004 there were 34.8 million users of illicit drugs, 1.4 million of whom used methamphetamine, and 25.4 million of whom used marijuana. So even among people who like to use "illicit" drugs, only four percent were involved in the meth epidemic. Hmmmm, so 96 percent of the people who use illicit intoxicants did not use meth. So why am I standing in line and signing for the cold pills I could freely buy over the counter just last year? I say we make the meth users stand in line!
What About Addiction and Various Other Forms of Mayhem?
Given the general air of hysteria surrounding meth, it seems prudent to assess the actual measures of the havoc meth is said to wreak. Especially since mere use, in and of itself, is certainly not a measure of anything other than its (lack of) popularity. But the drug czar tells us that "mentions" of meth in hospital emergency rooms tallied up to 14,696 in 2002 (latest complete data available). Is that an "epidemic" measure? To answer the question we need to do some more simple math.
If every "mention" came from a different meth user then that means that just under one percent (0.95 percent) of past year meth users (2002 past year users: 1,541,000) made a "mention" of it in a hospital somewhere. Huh? That means that 99 percent of past year meth users didn't mention it in a hospital. Hmmmmm. Okay, what about drug rehab?
In 2002, there were 104,481 admissions for methamphetamine out of a user base of 1,541,000 past year users. That works out to about 6.8 percent of the past year users. So once again, an extremely large majority of meth users (93.2 percent) seem to be able to use the drug without ending up in rehab. These numbers simply can't qualify meth use, addiction, etc as anything other than a minor public health problem.
So Now Let's Look At A Real Public Health "Epidemic"
While the numbers above are the fuel for the government inspired and media-hyped boogeyman of the "meth-epidemic," another evil spectre goes largely unremarked. This particular disease afflicts nearly 21 million Americans, some 6 million of whom don't even realize they are "infected." This particular epidemic is said to have cost the United States $132 billion (yes Billion) in 2002, $40 billion of which was "indirect" costs (like lost worker productivity, premature death, etc) and a whopping $92 billion in direct medical costs. In addition, this particular epidemic was the underlying cause of death for 73,249 Americans in 2002, and implicated in the deaths of a total of 224,092 Americans that year.
The epidemic in question? Diabetes. If our nation is willing to engage in the war on drugs to address the "meth epidemic" to what extent will it act to curb the diabetes epidemic? Some 95 percent of all new diabetes cases are "Type 2" diabetes -- which is caused primarily by eating too much and exercising too little. If we win the war against meth, will we next fight a war on diabetes? Will we tolerate pre-dawn no-knock raids in which SWAT teams trash your house looking for sugar? Will there be mandatory exercise and dietary laws passed? Why not? On what grounds do we challenge the government's power to dictate our lives and our health?
If we are willing to accept what is done to combat the "meth epidemic" then we certainly ought to accept the same to combat the "diabetes epidemic" -- shouldn't we? One final note: do a couple of google searches -- one for meth epidemic and one for diabetes epidemic. Meth epidemic returns 883,000 hits, while diabetes epidemic returns 5,320,000 hits. Better drop that donut!
15 comments:
Excellent, Brian. Excellent. This blog flowed nicely, and as always, a solid argument.
I got really pissed the other day when I went to buy some OTC Claritin-D 24 hour and had to show my ID, wait for fucking EVER for the pharmacist to type in my vitals, and then sign. I almost made a smartass comment about the government being nosy bastards over something trivial. But she didn't seem like a very friendly lady who would appreciate my mutterings...
hi carla,
thanks for weighing in. actually, you probably *should* make such remarks and make them loud and often. our government is clearly out of control.
collecting purchase information on the 99 percent of the population who are *not* meth users will do absolutely nothing to stop anyone from using meth. all it will do is give our government the power to further intrude into the regulation of our lives.
this will continue until enough of us get fed up enough to put a stop to it. 94 percent of the population *do not* use illegal drugs (or so the stats indicate), yet so-called "Americans" gladly line up, cups in hand to contribute to the national piss shortage, and now the 99 percent of us who don't use meth are being tracked by an overly paranoid government pretending to "protect" us. the attorney general has declared that “meth is now the most dangerous drug in America.” Huh!?!?!???? i wonder if he says that with a wine glass in his hand.
meanwhile, methamphetamine production has been ramped up in mexico to continue supplying the incredibly small number of tweakers who walk among us. according to the national drug "intelligence" center:
"Methamphetamine availability will most likely increase in the near term, particularly in eastern states. Significant decreases in wholesale production in domestic laboratories have not reduced domestic availability of the drug; these reductions have been offset by methamphetamine produced by Mexican DTOs at laboratories in Mexico and transported to domestic markets via the U.S.-Mexico border. Moreover, intelligence reports indicate that Mexican DTOs most likely will be able to offset any further declines in domestic methamphetamine production by increasing production levels at laboratories in Mexico, which have not yet reached full capacity."
source:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs11/18862/meth.htm
remember, this is the take from the national drug "intelligence" center -- that bustiong meth labs and implementing these asinine purchase tracking requirements "have not reduiced domestic availability of the drug." so why am i standing in line like a good little puppet of the state to buy cold pills?
i feel no threat at all from meth or its users. my government, on the other hand, is the single greatest threat to everything "america" is supposed to be about. clearly, it's time to tighten the noose on the bastards in charge.
if these chicken-shit "leaders" of ours are that frightened by this non-issue, i can only imagine the horrors in store for the common man as the mighty government wages its "war" on terror.
be afraid, be very afraid -- better yet WAKE UP. freedom itself is at stake -- and here we are literally pissing it away.
b
Well said, B, well said. My only qualm is where you said 'I haven't heard about the "ADHD drug epidemic" have you?' While it's true there's not mass hysteria about it (certainly not on the scale of the drug war) most people agree that adhd drugs are grossly overprescribed to the point of becoming problematic. I've seen news features to that effect crop up from time to time. Of course that's a fairly irrelevent side point, the meat of the post is quite solid. Keep fighting the good fight!
-D9
(I haven't been on adp lately 'cuz my news server hates me. Tell the folks I said hi!)
yo d9!
great to hear from you man.
i agree that adhd drugs are overprescribed. i only put that in there as a way to create a framework for comparison. since adhd drugs are themselves also abused and because they are a form of "speed" i thought it was both poetic and ironic to include them.
in the course of my research, i've come across a repeated pattern (what a shock!) of news articles decrying the over prescribing of adhd drugs -- believe it or not, all the way back to the 1970's! the biggest surprise to me was that one of the articles from the mid 70's or so actually included a picture of a bottle of *ritalin* in it!
needless to say, an excerpt from that article will find its way into the "history" part of my site.
at any rate, i noticed your absence on a.d.p. and will convey your regards. i had to start using google (*gag*) to keep posting when i changed isp's (long boring story -- come down for a visit and i'll tell it to you over a few beers and bong loads).
b
it will always be a drug that is not widely abused simply because it really is "dangerous."
There's something other than the real dangers of meth that deter its widespread use. I don't think the dangers of various drugs have much to do with how popular they are. Alcohol and tobacco each produce much higher death rates than crystal meth, but these are two of the most popular drugs.
A bigger factor in meth's relative unpopularity might be that most users don't find its effects pleasant.
hi rachelrachel,
that's a great point to bring up. which drugs are used by whom is actually the result of a complex interplay of many different factors.
the "dangers" of alcohol and tobacco, while present, are generally long-term damages that don't evidence for awhile. thus people tend to regard them as "safer."
but too much alcohol at one time can make you puke -- hardly a "pleasant" effect being sought by users. and the first hit on a cigarette should be enough of an unpleasant effect to dissuade people from doing it again.
and death is only one measure of "danger" -- the odds of addiction is another danger that a user may or may not consider. however, there is apparently some contingent of mankind that is attracted to the effects of stimulant type drugs.
bottom line: meth is both crappy *and* dangerous -- so not too many people will actually use it. my guess is that for most of the tweakers, cocaine would be the preferred alternative -- if it wasn't so damn expensive.
b
to the poster from the addiction treatment site:
yes, some people can become addicted to various substances, and when that happens, they should indeed seek help.
but addictions are the exception rather than the rule, and a given persons' particular addiction is not a reason to wage the drug war against them.
addiction is a medical problem: and as it turns out, a rather minor one affecting usually less than 15 percent of the users of *any* drug (nicotine being the big exception). perhaps it isn't actually the drugs that are at the root of the persons' problems.
try again without the advertising for your site and i'll let your comments be posted.
and, of course, i will insist that addiction is both the exception and certainly not a justification for waging the drug war.
b
[devil's advocate]
By stopping domestic production of meth we make our cities safe from dangerous meth labs which are known to explode and kill people. Also, once production has shifted primariliy to Mexico, it's just a matter of sealing up the border and we'll all be able to live happy meth free lives.
[/devil's advocate]
alright dave, you asked for it ;^)
[voice of reason]
first, the good news: meth lab explosions are talked about a lot but are actually kind of rare
so, how many people die from meth lab explosions? here's the data for death caused by various forms of explosions from 1999 to 2002 (latest available).
meth lab explosions don't have their own entry, but it is likely safe to assume that such deaths would be included in the tally for code W40: Explosion of other materials -- and the 4 year tally for that is 608 (or an average of 152 per year). meanwhile, over those 4 years, a total of 9,654,558 people died. so, those 608 deaths by explosions add up to approximately 0.0063 percent of all deaths.
that's a death rate on par with deaths by:
W07 Fall involving chair 722
and way lower than death by the human version of mad cow disease:
A81.0 Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease 882
and remember: all of those miscellaneous explosion deaths were not caused by meth lab explosions specifically or exclusively.
better yet, there's an easy way to eliminate meth lab explosions: let these guys do the manufacturing.
make it legal -- make it safe. plus that would make it so the 99.4% of americans who are not past year meth users wouldn't have to stand in line for "over-the-counter" cold pills.
let's recap:
hardly anybody uses meth in the first place.
of those who do, most do not create explosions in their labs -- indeed, far more people die from "mad-cow disease" than from miscellaneous explosions
neighborhood meth lab explosions could be eliminated by letting the people who already manufacture "dangerous" stuff from dangerous chemicals make it and sell it to the tiny number of meth users.
the rest of us (99.4% of americans) shouldn't be standing in line showing ID for a pack of cold pills -- let's have the meth heads stand in line at the drug store instead (what a concept!).
[/voice of reason]
don't get me started on the border issues -- but i do love sarcasm!
b
hi rita,
thanks for weighing in. the people fanning the flames in the drug war have no shortage of claims that are simply not true. yet they persist despite the readily available evidence proving otherwise.
hysteria about drugs other than alcohol causes way more problems than the drugs do -- as you know.
but this crap will continue until enough people learn the truth. and, of course, that is very difficult to do when the mainstream media perpetrate the exaggerations and fears of the entirely too vocal (and vapid) fear mongers.
100 years of brainwashing is a tough thing to reverse, but we're making progress.
b
The problem with bringing people to light on these issues is whether they really care. Most could care less about an exaggeration on meth statistics because they can't comprehend the reasons they are exaggerated for in the first place. And besides, who cares about a bunch of drug addicts anyway? People are busy with everyday life and the things they feel immediately affect them personally. Most categorize anyone disputing the government as a conspiracy theorist. The reality of the things the government has actually done and continues to do are too unbelievable, too "far fetched". Even when the proof is redily available. Or it's not something they can do anything about so they let it go. They are too tired after work to expend the extra energy it takes to find out. We are being conditioned everyday to accept more and more invasive actions by our government. Television programs like SWAT and Cops make main stream America believe that Federal, State and local agencies are doing their part to combat the "drug epidemic" that "infects" our country, as well as representing law enforcement as an exciting career choice. If this country really wanted drugs off the streets, it could be done. By keeping it there the U.S. benefits in more ways than if it were not. John Q public isn't the beneficiary, but big business is. And before too much longer, when it is too late, John Q public is going to see how ignoring the things he felt he could not do anything about at the time, has left him with no recourse at all at any time. It's too late. "But hey, why fight it? I'm John Q public and I don't break any laws. They have no reason to use any against me, right?" Not everyone being held in our prison system is there because they actually committed the crime(s) they were convicted of. Many were at the wrong place at the wrong time or falsely accused by someone trying to save their own hide and were commissioned by a government agency over-eager to have anyone volunteer assistance in making them appear like they "got their man". No matter that person's credibility.
When will we wake up? When will something be done?
hi anonymous,
thanks for weighing in. you are right on the money -- not enough people care (we can't say that nobody does as that is clearly not true). so the key to getting more them to pay attention is that either something happens where they are suddenly involved directly, or someone close enough to them gets them to start paying attention.
we have reached the point where school kids are held on the floor at gunpoint, completely innocent people are killed in botched drug raids at the wrong address, and it is only a matter of time before we have to provide body samples for everything we do in life.
the killer is that while everyone is being cowed into going along with bullshit like drug testing, they fail to understand that their body products can be tested for anything -- so it's only a matter of time before stuff like collecting pensions and obtaining health care coverage will be denied to people under the guise of a "positive drug test" when the reality will be that it had nothing to do with drugs whatsoever. it all fundamentally has to do with money -- and pensions and health care for the elderly are expensive. far better to declare them "criminal" and let the shareholders ride around in their yachts.
so, to get more people to start caring enough to pay attention can be greatly facilitated by all the completely harmless pot smokers out there to start playing a more active role -- first by simply speaking to those closest to them.
and it can't take the form of the piecemeal bullshit being championed at the moment by far too many otherwise well meaning reform-minded people. for every one "reform" initiative being passed, there are ten or twenty new repressive laws enacted. that's a sucker game if there ever was one. we can change the minds one at a time, but the laws need to be removed en masse, like the cancerous tumor they are.
it's also important to simply listen to people to find out what their genuine concerns are in life and then slowly introduce them to the idea that if we weren't wasting so much time and money chasing drug users we'd have more money to cure whatever they are concerned about: health care, education, cancer, birth defects, etc.
but the most important facet of the whole mess is getting people to recognize that this really isn't about drugs at all -- it's about tyranny. i cannot name a greater tyranny currently being practiced than that of punishing people for doing things to themselves.
so, most of our fellow citizens are just being frogs -- completely unaware of the slowly increasing temperature of the water in which they sit.
more and more of us are screaming at the frogs to wake up.
keep screaming!
b
Excellant. And so true. Why do we tolerate such an out of control govement. The real. Epidemic that's out of control is "the so called war on drugs". Which destroys lives permantly if possible destroys families ,liberties it will continue because its a financial case cow .
I'll tell you why you have to stand in line to buy cough medicine because when people do use meteh it destroys everything, families, will, drive, hope, and i have known good people who will never be the same even after they have kicked it furthermore it destroys everything it touches... Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if i had not watched my entire life destroyed by a user who was my world at one time and now is scum who steals and lies and cheats and has no soul left i might have agreed with you but never will i ever be able to listen to anyone ever validate that meth isnt a HUGE problem cuz it is
Oh puh-leeze! go look at the numbers -- then look up the definition of "HUGE"
Post a Comment