My Addicted Son

February 6, 2005 12:38 PM

My Addicted Son.A father's story of his son's addiction to methamphetamine.
I used the NY Times permalink generator, so hopefully no one will have to BugMeNot to login
or go searching for this in their pay-per-archives...
posted by togdon (81 comments total)

Thanks for posting this. Great read.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:04 PM on February 6, 2005

I saw that this am. It's horrific. Where I live in Oregon, meth is a cottage industry that rivals independent breweries. Recently a series on the news showed several dozen mug shots of people following their first and subsequent busts for meth. The universally skeletal, vacant, pocked and scarred visages was eerie, not just because of how god-awful they looked, but the unique effect that was consistent from person to person.

I now find that everywhere I go I notice the same look and suspect that no amount of bad living, poverty, or genetics could reproduce that look and that this is incredibly common.
posted by docpops at 1:07 PM on February 6, 2005

I feel for the father, but he sounds like kind of a prick. Why are you drug testing your kid at 19? What good is that going to do? It doesn't seem like he ever actually sat down and talked with him after he started using drugs heavily - not that it would have solved the problem - but I can't believe that the dad is totally innocent.
posted by borkingchikapa at 1:15 PM on February 6, 2005

borking, it is part of breaking codependence to not give unconditional trust to an addict.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:17 PM on February 6, 2005

I feel for the father, but he sounds like kind of a prick. Why are you drug testing your kid at 19?

because he's an addict ... and the only way an addict gets into recovery is if the world and life in general becomes such a prick to him that he can't take it anymore

I can't believe that the dad is totally innocent

he's not the one who's using ... and yes, it IS that simple
posted by pyramid termite at 1:20 PM on February 6, 2005

docpops: that would be the Face s of Meth website, previously discussed here more than once.
posted by dhartung at 1:30 PM on February 6, 2005

dhart,
thanks. Culled straight from OregonLive, as it turns out. Christallmighty, what a fucking hideous drug. That's all the PSA I'd need if I were at the age of experimentation.
posted by docpops at 1:45 PM on February 6, 2005

Methamphetamine triggers the brain's neurotransmitters, particularly dopamine, which spray like bullets from a gangster's tommy gun.

Oh my God. If my father wrote such awful, wooden prose, I'd hit the hard drugs too.

Why are you drug testing your kid at 19?

Good question. I think the way the father dealt with the situation is almost as clumsy as his polystyrene writing style. Drug addicts feel guilt and shame already. They've been made into criminals. He just further humiliated his son and drove him away. Drug addicts can go anywhere to get chastised and reprimanded, but they have very few places to go that will accept them without passing judgement once they realize they need help.
posted by ori at 1:45 PM on February 6, 2005

thanks for posting this.
posted by quonsar at 1:50 PM on February 6, 2005

Troubling. For some added perspective, here's Nick's 199 Newsweek "My Turn" article his father references in the story.
posted by emptyage at 1:52 PM on February 6, 2005

Sorry, 1999
posted by emptyage at 1:52 PM on February 6, 2005

It's impossible to get a full picture of someone's life from a single magazine article. The dad seemed alright to me.
posted by Tlogmer at 2:10 PM on February 6, 2005

This story chills me to the bone. Is there any way to protect your child from becoming an addict, without being a complete dictator? Do we have to accept that a few kids will become addicts in the course of "normal" experimentation and rebellion? Or would it be better to have a zero-tolerance approach to drug use because the risks (to the ones who are addicts) are greater than the benefits (to the ones who are just "normal" experimenters...)??? Or is the risk of freaking out on a kid who's just being a kid greater than the risk of him becoming a drug addict?

Arrrgh, I think I'll just get a dog instead of a kid.
posted by insideout at 2:14 PM on February 6, 2005

I'll second docpop's experience here in "Orygun". A local paper just ran an article on the costs of meth manufacture to those who own the manufacture sites later. If you buy a building made "unclean" by previous owners, you are stuck with the multiple-thousands of dollars in cleanup costs. If you don't get a certified decontamination, you (the owner) cannot legally enter the contaminated building. A charming, charming drug. And so prevalent here that Medford is known alternatively as "Methford".
posted by everichon at 2:32 PM on February 6, 2005

It's amazing the devastation crystal meth can have on so many people's lives. And its spread continues ...

Meth Becoming a Threat in Some Cities (AP | January 28, 2005)

Methamphetamine Scourge Sweeps Rural America (Reuters | Jan. 27, 2005).

Crank: Made In America, an HBO documentary, "follows three Iowa families of drug users through the wretched realities of crystal meth and the gruesome subculture of self-destruction that accompanies the drug."
posted by ericb at 2:34 PM on February 6, 2005

Certainly seems to be more behind the background here then a normal eye would see. I felt compassionate a third the way through, really upset with the fathers management of his life and the system midway, and somehow disappointed but relieved at the end. I know this isn't a story book, but it appears that might be the way the father was trying to portray his part in this activity.
posted by sled at 2:36 PM on February 6, 2005

Thanks for posting this. I'm not sure if this story, from a different perspective, has been linked to before, but I thought it was excellent.
posted by JeffL at 2:42 PM on February 6, 2005

the story isn't about the father. it isn't about the fathers mistakes. it isn't about whose fault nick's addiction is, or what part dad may have played in it. the loud popping noise near the end was nick's head coming out of his ass as he finally faces up to what he had become and begins to address it. the loud whooshing sound in this thread is the sound of the point flying above and beyond a few heads.
posted by quonsar at 2:48 PM on February 6, 2005 [1 favorite]

In answer to insideout, I think we know already that "zero-tolerance" is a sham; for it to really work, we would have to monitor everyone, everywhere, all the time; even if we didn't see that as violation of civil liberties, we don't have the resources. Zero-tolerance is code for tougher penalties that usually do nothing to address the causes of addiction. Drug addicts already live in a dream world; threatening them with more real-world costs really isn't going to reach them. A real addict is beyond the reach of shame, or concern for the future, much of the time.

There's no simple answer, no guarantee. If poverty (especially in a lot of meth-producing areas) were less, it would help. If everyone had better access to health care, especially mental health care, it would help. If we had more qualified, trained, social workers who weren't overworked and underpaid, it would help. All of these are expensive options (and smack of "liberalism" to some). Whereas spouting zero-tolerance catchphrases while doing nothing is relatively cheap.
posted by emjaybee at 2:50 PM on February 6, 2005

Is there any way to protect your child from becoming an addict, without being a complete dictator?

Are you on drugs? No? Okay, then raise your children the way you were raised.

I hate hearing that how can we stop the children line from all together normal people. Stop reading parenting books or asking others how to raise your kids, and talk to your own parents.

You know how my mom kept us off drugs? First, she didn't do them so we'd have a positive example to follow. Then as a single mother in a time when it wasn't cool, and there was no Murphy Brown, she worked two jobs and still made the effort to know who our friends were, the books/movies/tv/magazines we were reading, where we were and had the numbers to contact us, and went into the school to meet with our teachers whenever she could.

I've yet to read any book or talk to anyone else who gives better parental advice than my mom, and that's how you keep your kids off drugs.
posted by FunkyHelix at 2:51 PM on February 6, 2005

Kid should have stuck to the chronic.
posted by grytpype at 2:53 PM on February 6, 2005

In my family, meth has left five children functionally motherless; and my brother lost his beautiful, generous, sweet-natured girlfriend of seven years. His ex-wife, the mother of the kids he and one other man are now raising, called from somewhere yesterday, the first we've heard from her for months. She wouldn't say where she was or if the kids could see her.

So all this hits home. Meth is a horrible, horrible drug. You are far better off, far more functional, far more sane, using heroin. Heroin addicts can, if they have a reliable source of the drug, hold down jobs and more or less manage (I say can, not always will). But nobody can do meth for long and not become crazed. I wish the writer's son well, and hope for the best. In response to the people who thought the father was being a prick: what on earth would you do in this situation?
posted by jokeefe at 3:01 PM on February 6, 2005

The overheated rhetoric in some of the linked news articles ("The Methamphetamine Scourge") makes me wonder if this will just become the newest hysterical chapter in the War on Drugs? Meth addiction is a horrible illness, and I hope it gets treated that way instead of as a crime.

Also: "It's the first drug in the history of the United States we can make, distribute, sell, take, all here in the Midwest," said Detective Jason Grellner, of the Franklin County Sheriff's Department in Missouri, who seized 120 meth labs last year."

Oh, really?

The Missouri meth lab operator gets a mandatory minimum sentence in the state pen; the Anheuser-Busch brewery worker in St. Louis gets Social Security benefits...
posted by insideout at 3:02 PM on February 6, 2005

In answer to insideout, I think we know already that "zero-tolerance" is a sham; for it to really work, we would have to monitor everyone, everywhere, all the time; even if we didn't see that as violation of civil liberties, we don't have the resources. Zero-tolerance is code for tougher penalties that usually do nothing to address the causes of addiction.

posted by emjaybee at 2:50 PM PST on February 6

I guess my question was more along the lines of private parenting (as you can see from my above comment, I'm not in favor of governmental zero-tolerance)--and I'm also wondering more about what to do before a kid gets addicted--do you take a really tough stance when you find that first joint in their backpack, because even though you know he's probably going to be fine, there's a possibility he could end up addicted?
posted by insideout at 3:09 PM on February 6, 2005

the only way an addict gets into recovery is if the world and life in general becomes such a prick to him that he can't take it anymore

The only way anyone successfully recovers from any addiction is if they want to. No amount of assholery will accomplish this feat, nor will any amount of pampering, nor will any recovery "program." Until the addict wants to change, nothing will change.

I say this as an alcoholic. "Tough love" can have some benefits, but it's not a cure all, and in fact nothing is. In some cases it backfires and causes deep rifts in relationships.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:11 PM on February 6, 2005 [1 favorite]

thank you for posting this.
posted by soi-disant at 3:31 PM on February 6, 2005

Those who have expressed harsh judgement for Nick's father may one day come to understand the tone. In dealing with this sort of thing, a person usually ends up emotionally drained and numb. The details are recited in an almost rote fashion because he has been over them again and again both in his mind and to the various people involved - former spouse, current spouse, rehab counselors, etc.

Ask any one of the people who attempted to talk to me about my drinking and their responses would be so similar it would almost seem as if everyone had been reading the same script. They, like the father of this story, got to the point where any amount of care and concern for my well-being had to be relegated to the faint hope section of the brain and the energy formerly directed toward me diverted to getting themselves through or out of whatever situation I was involved in.

What caused me to use alcohol excessively? I liked the effect. However that effect eventually became elusive on a consistent basis, but this fact did not prevent me from trying to duplicate it on a daily basis.

Now, I get the pleasure to watch a few folks around me get caught up in meth. And, I get to see with the clarity 7.5 years of sobriety, the havoc I wreaked on a magnified level.
posted by sillygit at 3:32 PM on February 6, 2005

Oh, brother. For those of us who remember the 60's forward, this "scourge of meth" story is making yet another round. Really, the 60's were replete with the "speed kills" scare stories, as were the 70's, then the 80's switched to the cocaine fright (thanks to the CIA) and then on to the 90's when we went back to the perennial meth scare. And hey, it's 2005, this must be "speed kills" again.

docpops you say that no amount of ill-living could make people look like the "after" pictures in the "faces of meth" series. What about the other side of the coin? What about people who've done meth regularly for decades and look quite normal? What about all the people who went through a meth period of several years, quit and now look and feel just fine?

You know what scare stories do? Attract dare-devil kids. (which is just about all of them at one time or another.)

What I'd like to see: a "faces of alcohol" series from the local news. Just a few months of hard drinking and living can make one look every bit as bad as meth can.

Meanwhile, a whole new generation of "i'm tougher than that"-thinking kids just got a new challenge with all this propaganda around meth. I'd sigh, but I think I'd rather belch at this latest round of nonsense. Braaaaaaaaaaap.
posted by telstar at 3:43 PM on February 6, 2005

Kid has 10 month clean this time, after multiple relapses in the past. Anyone else hoping this isn't too premature of a post mortem of this kid's addiction and recovery?
posted by availablelight at 3:44 PM on February 6, 2005

Kid has 10 months clean this time, after multiple relapses in the past. Anyone else hoping this isn't too premature of a post mortem of this kid's addiction and recovery?
posted by availablelight at 3:44 PM on February 6, 2005

What about the other side of the coin? What about people who've done meth regularly for decades and look quite normal?

For sure. Maybe things are different in the States, but I cannot think of one single professional that I know in Sydney who does not use meth, e, coke, pot or whatever else on at least an occasional basis. The sad loser junkies that you see in stories like this are only the tip of the iceberg, and most of the iceberg is comprised of people like those in the offices and cubicles around you.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:58 PM on February 6, 2005

How do parents prevent their kids from becoming addicts?

It won't work in every case, but when they are little is when the preventative work is done. Spend lots of time with them - to let them know how valuable they are. Tell them several times a day how loved they are by you - until it bores them. Stay with them: the poignancy of Nick's tone in his article -

Some people love to fly, but I dreaded the trips...But flying was just part of what made long-distance joint custody so difficult...It was easier to put up a wall, to pretend I didn't care...I just didn't want to leave my friends...I've learned not to get too emotionally attached...they know what I know: it's not fair...maybe it should be a law: if you have children, you must stay near them. Or how about some common sense? If you move away from your children, you have to do the traveling to see them...I will put my children's needs first. I will stay near them no matter what happens.-

He's saying what caused it. Are we listening to him?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:07 PM on February 6, 2005

The sad loser junkies that you see in stories like this are only the tip of the iceberg, and most of the iceberg is comprised of people like those in the offices and cubicles around you.

Well put. Just try this little excercise the next time you go to the mall to do a little shopping. See all those people milling about? Some of them are on meth. (If you live in certain parts of the midwest, that some becomes many.) And without a blood pressure cuff or a urinalysis lab, there's no way to tell. Most of them will know when they've reached the point of diminishing returns and will stop using. A few won't. Name one substance, nay, one activity that doesn't have the same user profile. All the hand-wringing in the world isn't gonna change that.

Now, which do you want your kid to be? Someone who is taught balance, avoiding excess in all things (including moderation?) Or someone who, full of cop propaganda, sees meth as an all-or-nothing proposition, that is, "one line and you're hooked?"
posted by telstar at 4:31 PM on February 6, 2005

He's saying what caused it. Are we listening to him?

I, too, came from a divorced family, and I, too, had to commute between parents due to a joint custody agreement. There was indeed a lot of resentment because of this, and it caused some other problems, but all in all it was the best way to deal with a bad marriage with a child involved.

But it didn't cause my alcoholism. I would have had this tendency regardless. Not everyone who is predisposed to alcoholism will become an alcoholic, but emotional problems can contribute to addiction problems. Most people do not come from idyllic circumstances, and quite a few people who had much more difficult childhoods grew up to rise above it. You can point to these early incidents in therapeutic circumstances, but when you start trying to pinpoint "blame" in addiction, you'll come up without an accurate answer. The causes are mostly biological, and somewhat environmental. Parents who do their best to cope with a difficult circumstance cannot be held responsible for an addiction of someone involved, but they can take some steps to help, and it seems like this is what this family is doing. There might be a time when they have to let go of him entirely, if he continues to self-destruct, but with any luck this time will stick. Only the addict has the answer to that.
posted by krinklyfig at 4:36 PM on February 6, 2005

I came from a relatively healthy family, no environmental substance abuse- but I'm adopted, so there might be a genetic predisposition. I first tried drugs when I was younger, and the resulting effects are still reverberating throughout my life.

What caused the authors sons' addiction is completely random and arbitrary. It wasn't the parents' divorce, the parenting technique, &c. He may have tried drugs as a reaction to a combination of those things, but it didn't cause the addiction.

The bottom line is that, as a parent, there is nothing you can do to prevent a child from becoming addicted to drugs. There are things that you can do afterwards, including giving emotional support and being available emotionally, but there is also a point at which you might have to back away, if only to preserve your own sanity.

krinklyfig couldn't have said it better. Some addicts relapse once, twice, twenty times. Hopefully, it's gotten so bad that the son won't do it again, or if he does, he doesn't kill himself.

quonsar: I certainly hope that the kids' head is out of his ass, but it's really easy to forget just how bad it was. Everything gets better, and one starts to forget, and rationalize, and they end up "trying" it again. I know it sounds insane, but.... well, it is insane.

I speak as one who's gone through some rough times.
posted by exlotuseater at 4:56 PM on February 6, 2005

Telstar, it's possible that, just maybe, this isn't the hysterical fear-mongering work of a bunch of squares tryin' to spook the young-uns. But kudos to you for your devil-may-care, balls to the walls, been there, done that world-weariness.

I see plenty of drug abusers, and lots more functional alcoholics, year after year. To an individual, they are all assholes, if by asshole you mean someone that, for reasons of neurochemistry or otherwise, would put their own need to escape reality over their or their families welfare. I could give two shits about who is at the mall on meth. Frankly I practically have to drop acid to get through a shopping trip myself.

Certain drugs are more addictive by virtue of the potency with which they induce a high. A decade ago a nice designer drug was making the rounds that irreversibly destroyed the substantia nigra neurons, giving users a nice case of Parkinson's disease. Meth, as was pointed out, does a handy job of destroying neuronal dopamine uptake fairly rapidly. It's also cheap to produce, but unlike growing dope, the tools for it's production often render entire sections of housing unusable when the labs have to be dismantled, akin to a small superfund site.

So it seems from your posts as though, when discussing drug use, the key is balance and moderation. Nothing is so potentially toxic that a reasonable person of reasonable will can't dabble, which clearly sums up most kids under twenty, right?
posted by docpops at 4:59 PM on February 6, 2005

docpops: what was the designer drug which destroyed the substantia nigra neurons? Or are you referring to faulty synthesis of Meperidine? Just making sure you're not talking about ecstasy since the research into that connection was shown to be erroneous.
posted by Justinian at 5:08 PM on February 6, 2005

Justinian -
you are correct. thanks for clarifying that.
posted by docpops at 5:13 PM on February 6, 2005

I see plenty of drug abusers, and lots more functional alcoholics, year after year. To an individual, they are all assholes, if by asshole you mean someone that, for reasons of neurochemistry or otherwise, would put their own need to escape reality over their or their families welfare. I could give two shits about who is at the mall on meth. Frankly I practically have to drop acid to get through a shopping trip myself.

That's fair. Nobody is required to care about people who by virtue of their problem are very difficult to deal with, for the most part. But it's clear from your words that you don't understand addiction very well.

Certain drugs are more addictive by virtue of the potency with which they induce a high.

This is true, but the rate of addiction is about the same across the board, for all addictive drugs, even though have more addictive potential. What this would seem to indicate is that the drug is not nearly as important in the equation as the person, their biology and their psychology. Most people who experiment with even very addictive drugs like meth will not end up addicted, but some people will end up addicted to any addictive drug they take.

So it seems from your posts as though, when discussing drug use, the key is balance and moderation. Nothing is so potentially toxic that a reasonable person of reasonable will can't dabble, which clearly sums up most kids under twenty, right?

Well, my views on the subject are very libertarian, but I don't think it's wise to approach the subject like that. Parents must make their own decisions. I have done quite a bit of experimentation myself, and I did have one serious and destructive addiction, to alcohol. But I don't tell people not to drink. Most people who drink are fine with it. However, even though I've done my share of powders, I don't like being around coke or meth at all. I knew a long time ago I had the potential to be addicted to them, but in the end they really don't sit right with me. I had two semi-long term encounters with meth (months, not years), neither of which ended up with any long-term damage. I can't say the same for alcohol, although I stopped drinking young enough that the damage was minimal.

So, why did I stop taking meth when things got too crazy, but I couldn't stop drinking until I fell over time and time again? The answer is complex, but some of it has to do with the messages I've heard my whole life from freaks: if you're going to get high stick with cannabis and psychedelics (except PCP), speed kills, don't mess with powders, heroin is a long, bad trip, huffing is the lowest form of altered states and can make you messed up fast, coke promotes selfishness and greed, which is why it's popular on Wall Street, some stuff might not kill you but you might wish you were dead, etc. This is propaganda, to be sure, but there's wisdom in it. I mean, even as a kid, when I listened to Black Sabbath, I realized that their messages about drugs were mostly negative, except for marijuana and psychedelics. And even though I tried that other stuff, the message that certain drugs were dead ends made a lot more difference coming from people who weren't narcs, and who weren't part of some "scared straight" program.

So, what should parents do? Well, every kid is different, and some people will end up addicted anyway, and there's not a whole lot you can do about that. But, if anything, when you sit down to talk with your kids, don't act like a narc, and don't lie. This doesn't mean it's ok to tell kids they will be fine if they try meth, because they might not, and that's not good advice. But don't tell them if they use meth they'll positively end up addicted and/or dead, because it's just not true. You might as well say the same about alcohol, which by the way tends to be toxic if it's produced illicitly, including environmentally. I don't tell kids or curious people who are looking up to me to do speed. I tell them it's dangerous shit, and it's not worth it. But I also don't say that about pot, because that wouldn't be true. Most importantly, I don't harbor any illusions that my saying so will make a potential addict not be one anymore. So, as a parent, all you can do is express that such concerns are out of love, not control. Beyond that, there be dragons and therapists.
posted by krinklyfig at 6:31 PM on February 6, 2005

It's easy to say this writer is a prick and think of how you would do things differently, but watching a child destroy his life is absolutely unimaginable, and this guy was pretty honest about his own missteps. There really isn't a good way to react to a meth addiction.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:33 PM on February 6, 2005 [1 favorite]

krinklyfig ... you're right of course ... no one can make an addict face up to his addiction but himself ... sometimes, falling flat on his face without anyone to stop him can cause that to happen ... and sometimes not

it's a fine, fine line between support and enabling ... i know it, i've been there ... during and after, the SO of an addict will be constantly questioning themselves ... "did i do too much, did i do enough?" ... "am i being tough enough? ... am i being too tough?"... it's enough to make someone feel like they're going nuts, trying to figure out how to deal with an addict they have NO control over ... no one who ever goes through this feels they did exactly the right thing, because there probably is no right thing ... there's just the question of whether the addict wakes up or doesn't ... it's the most helpless feeling in the world ... and even a substance free period of years doesn't mean real recovery ... i found that out the hard way, too

and as far as dash_slot's saying "what caused it" ... no ... all that amounts to is ... "poor me, poor me, pour me a drink" ... we both know that

on preview ... they're not assholes, necessarily ... they're sick
posted by pyramid termite at 6:34 PM on February 6, 2005

Telstar, it's possible that, just maybe, this isn't the hysterical fear-mongering work of a bunch of squares tryin' to spook the young-uns.

docpops - I'm with you on this sentiment. In the past five years I have witnessed four friends' lives destroyed by crystal meth. And these are folks who I would have never considered candidates for extreme drug abuse/addicition.

Each of them lives/lived in L.A.

One friend - a Vice President of Marketing for a technology company (and Harvard-educated) lost his job - and spends his days/weeks isolated from family and friends. Our once weekly phone chats have evaporated despite my attempts to connect with him. Forget e-mail. He's stopped responding to me and his parents and siblings.

Another friend - a software developer - died last year after sliiping down a slope of self-destruction brought on by his crystal habit. Another friend - lost his home and small business - and is in a lock down treatment center. And finally, the other friend is incarcerated due to being caught driving under the influence of crystal meth - and the discovery of a significant quantity of the substance in his car - enough to be classified as "intent to distribute". This is all shocking to me ... as these friends are/were all well-educated with successful careers.

I hear many similar stories from friends here in Boston...just now emerging...as the "scourge" does seem to have taken hold here in New England. Something tells me that the grip and grasp of crystal meth may indeed be more insidious than other drugs and "epidemics" of the past.
posted by ericb at 6:39 PM on February 6, 2005

BTW - Larry Kramer recently spoke about the "sudden plague of crystal" in the gay community (i.e. my community) during his recent speech at Cooper Union in Manhattan.
posted by ericb at 6:53 PM on February 6, 2005

and as far as dash_slot's saying "what caused it" ... no ... all that amounts to is ... "poor me, poor me, pour me a drink" ... we both know that

As I said, it won't work for all kids. But I don't see how a strategy of loving your kids and spending time with them - essentially making them aware of their worth, inherently as humans and particularly as one's own children - can be called "poor me, poor me, pour me a drink". Does childhood experience not have any bearing on our self perception as adults? His story, written as a 16 year old, before he got into speed, already reeks of a hurt and damaged human.

Just my 2pence.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:53 PM on February 6, 2005

BTW - Larry Kramer recently spoke about the "sudden plague of crystal" in the gay community (i.e. my community) during his recent speech at Cooper Union in Manhattan.

This is a great read, by the way.
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:55 PM on February 6, 2005

dash_slot- - it's often a combination of nature and nuture that causes this ... some people just have an addictive nature ... being a better parent can't hurt ... but it may not prevent it

but the point of "poor me" is that the addict has to look at himself, not others, to deal with the problem ... if you only knew how much "blaming" i've heard, you'd understand
posted by pyramid termite at 7:04 PM on February 6, 2005

Individual reality is an extension of the universe. Sometimes it seems that addiction is as powerful as the most fundamental laws of physics-I am glad he was able to find a balance within himself.
posted by kuatto at 7:41 PM on February 6, 2005

it's often a combination of nature and nurture that causes this ... some people just have an addictive nature ... being a better parent can't hurt ... but it may not prevent it

Exactly. This isn't about who has the best mom or whether daddy screwed up. In my family, the same parenting produced two healthy happy kids and one addict. Once the child walks out the door for the first day of school, do we really know if parents can have a significant influence on their child's behaviour other than the genes they contribute? Reshuffle the genes in my family and perhaps I could say my parents had a perfect track record and were thus prefect parents and I could start doling out their fine examples.

I am glad he was able to find a balance within himself.
Perhaps not. This may be a life game. One bitten, twice shy. The father learned that a long time ago.
posted by missbossy at 7:51 PM on February 6, 2005

it's a fine, fine line between support and enabling ... i know it, i've been there ... during and after, the SO of an addict will be constantly questioning themselves ... "did i do too much, did i do enough?" ... "am i being tough enough? ... am i being too tough?"... it's enough to make someone feel like they're going nuts, trying to figure out how to deal with an addict they have NO control over ... no one who ever goes through this feels they did exactly the right thing, because there probably is no right thing ... there's just the question of whether the addict wakes up or doesn't ... it's the most helpless feeling in the world ... and even a substance free period of years doesn't mean real recovery ... i found that out the hard way, too

Yes, I am not trying to give anyone the impression that recovery is easy. It can also take many forms. I'm really averse to 12-step stuff, so I don't do that. This has been better for me, though some people will react negatively to my saying so. Oh well, I have to do what works for me. Recovery is not something you're done with at some point, either. It's something you deal with your whole life, though it gets easier with time and personal growth. A relapse doesn't mean that there has been no progress, but recognizing progress can be difficult. I think what's more important than anything is trust. Someone who truly loves someone else will put up with a lot of shit from them, but trust is the dealbreaker, time and time again, and it goes both ways. You have no obligation to care for an addict. You might have familial obligations, but the addict has to find his or her own way, ultimately, though they must also be responsible for their actions. A supportive environment can really help, but it's not enough for some people, and sometimes it's better to walk away - this can be a much more serious consideration if there are children involved. It's very painful to have to contemplate such things. There is no easy way out. But many, many people have gone on to live happy lives after serious, chronic addiction. Some don't. Along the way, the addict and their families usually end up hurting each other, mostly unintentionally. By some miracle, patience and time, some of them make it through together. It can happen, and many addicts will end up recovering anyway, but it's fucking hard on everyone. I do wish for the best for you and feel for you, because I know it's never, ever easy, but you can make decisions about what would be best for your life, which you do have control over, though you don't have control over other people. It's hard to remember sometimes, but it's so important.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:59 PM on February 6, 2005

Something tells me that the grip and grasp of crystal meth may indeed be more insidious than other drugs and "epidemics" of the past.

Speed is nasty stuff, but crack didn't cause the downfall of western civilization, and neither will meth. Crack has waned in popularity in the last few years. The same will happen with meth. It's too destructive to become socially acceptable, even among the anti-establishment. Meanwhile, we're putting more and more people in prison for drugs all the time, yet the "problem," as it were, hasn't changed at all, but our criminal justice system has become draconian and expensive, and more populated than any other on earth. We are throwing addicts in jail for being addicts, and the problem stays the same, except now more addicts are criminals.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:14 PM on February 6, 2005

Speed is nasty stuff, but crack didn't cause the downfall of western civilization, and neither will meth.

I agree that it won't "cause the downfall of western civilization" -- but meth still seems to me to be a cause for serious concern (even if you think addiction ought to be treated as a public health issue rather than a criminal one, which I do). I recall from watching the HBO documentary a year or two ago, and it had some info about how meth addiction seems to be a genuinely different animal because of the specific areas of the brain it eventually destroys -- there are measurable physiological and chemical reasons why its addiction and relapse rates are significantly higher than crack, coke, or heroin. I have to say I found it pretty eye-opening and chilling, and I say this as someone who generally supports legalization.
posted by scody at 8:34 PM on February 6, 2005

We are throwing addicts in jail for being addicts, and the problem stays the same, except now more addicts are criminals.

Yes ... in the States we are treating what is essentially a health issue as a criminal issue.

Hmmm ... how effective has our country's war on drugs been? (BTW - hasn't there been much speculation that our current President was a fan of cocaine in the past?)

I'm all for giving some credence to George Soros and his Open Society Institute in considering that the U.S. battle against drugs may indeed be a losing strategy. Maybe we should consider the challenges ahead from a health care perspective, rather than a criminal endeavor.
posted by ericb at 8:46 PM on February 6, 2005

I agree that it won't "cause the downfall of western civilization" -- but meth still seems to me to be a cause for serious concern (even if you think addiction ought to be treated as a public health issue rather than a criminal one, which I do). I recall from watching the HBO documentary a year or two ago, and it had some info about how meth addiction seems to be a genuinely different animal because of the specific areas of the brain it eventually destroys -- there are measurable physiological and chemical reasons why its addiction and relapse rates are significantly higher than crack, coke, or heroin. I have to say I found it pretty eye-opening and chilling, and I say this as someone who generally supports legalization.

Well, first of all crack is coke. It used to be called freebase before it hit the ghettos in the '80s. It's what Richard Pryor was doing when he set himself on fire. It's definitely more potent that way, but so is meth. There are some definite physiological implications with meth that aren't relevant with other drugs, such as brain damage, as you mention. This is also true for alcohol, which causes organic brain damage and physical addiction in some people, given enough time. Organic brain damage is irreversable, the kind that literally makes people dumber (although, I've met many alcoholics who drank long enough to do this, who appeared quite lucid and healthy when they sobered up - the body is more resilient than we think sometimes). Interestingly, meth is not physically addictive, but it is highly psychologically addictive. In this way it's similar to cocaine, but dissimilar to heroin and alcohol. Meth is given to figher pilots in the US and other militaries - this has been done since WWII. Hitler did meth, too, which is thought to have contributed to his fervency. It is a different animal, but it's not new. I do think that if drugs were treated less puritanically by the US, people might not turn to the most destructive way to get high as often. This is borne out of evidence of other nations which have decriminalized. A lot less people get into hard drugs when the soft drugs, or even all drugs, aren't sold through black markets.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:08 PM on February 6, 2005

Telstar, it's possible that, just maybe, this isn't the hysterical fear-mongering work of a bunch of squares tryin' to spook the young-uns. But kudos to you for your devil-may-care, balls to the walls, been there, done that world-weariness.

Heh. I'm sorry my diction gave you the impression that I was coming from that direction. But really, you hadn't noticed? You don't remember any of the "meth is coming to get us" waves of the last 50 years? I'm world weary of that sentiment, but not of the idea that meth is not such a great thing. And young-uns? Hey, plenty of meth-heads are quite mature, I think you'd find, and aren't getting any younger by doing meth. Did you know, for instance, that Jean-Paul Sartre loved to write on the stuff? So even grown-ups do it. Why? Hard to say, but brain chemistry and personal history is, IMO, a much better route to understand what's going on than anguish followed by draconian measures, the result of which we can see from meth-addled sea to shining sea.

I see plenty of drug abusers, and lots more functional alcoholics, year after year. To an individual, they are all assholes, if by asshole you mean someone that, for reasons of neurochemistry or otherwise, would put their own need to escape reality over their or their families welfare. I could give two shits about who is at the mall on meth. Frankly I practically have to drop acid to get through a shopping trip myself.

I agree. But why do they have to put their own neurochemical needs over that of their family? Could it be that their favorite drugs are prohibited and hence 10X the price of legal distribution? I rarely go to malls, myself. Acid surely would be a better way for the meth-heads to in touch with their shopping side. But good acid is rare in the US these days, as you may know. Unlike quality meth. Upon whose doorstep do we lay the blame for that tradgedy? Alcohol doesn't have the problem of illegality and scarcity hence extreme profitability, but then again, the "Noble Experiment" in the 1920's of prohibition of same greatly increased the number of people who were willing to go to alcoholic extremes.

Certain drugs are more addictive by virtue of the potency with which they induce a high. A decade ago a nice designer drug was making the rounds that irreversibly destroyed the substantia nigra neurons, giving users a nice case of Parkinson's disease. Meth, as was pointed out, does a handy job of destroying neuronal dopamine uptake fairly rapidly. It's also cheap to produce, but unlike growing dope, the tools for it's production often render entire sections of housing unusable when the labs have to be dismantled, akin to a small superfund site.

Yes indeedy. Meth is one of the most addictive to the novice. Let's look at what the novice feels upon snorting a rail. "Wow, I feel better than I've ever felt. This is what I want." But who is there guiding this experience? Is it you, docpops, who can tell the novice user what to expect down the, um, line? Or his dealer, who wants the kid and his friends to buy plenty more? Oh, I know. We'll crack down and throw all the dealers in jail and shut down all the labs. All we need is a few more laws and a few more prisons.

So it seems from your posts as though, when discussing drug use, the key is balance and moderation. Nothing is so potentially toxic that a reasonable person of reasonable will can't dabble, which clearly sums up most kids under twenty, right?

People under twenty are the most in need of adult wisdom in the area of addictive drugs. Here is a question I pose to the writer of the article on which this thread is based. Mr. Aggrieved Parent. You spent years anguishing about your son's meth use. But did you ever consider sitting down with him and doing a rail? Did you ever try to see what all the shouting is about? Or did you keep the drugs as something that your son could do as a separation from yourself, something that he could see as part of the rite of passage of separation from the familial unit as he grew into an adult?
posted by telstar at 9:48 PM on February 6, 2005

Well, first of all crack is coke.

Yeah, thanks, I'm aware of that.

Meth is given to figher pilots in the US and other militaries - this has been done since WWII. Hitler did meth, too, which is thought to have contributed to his fervency. It is a different animal, but it's not new.

Re fighter pilots: again, no particular argument there. (And as for Hitler: well, he was a crazy fucker, regardless of what shit he was on.) But also I think that's somewhat of a red herring. You know as well as I do that the meth we're talking about here is not the pure, pharmaceutical grade stuff they give pilots in controlled doses to keep them revved up -- the Air Force damn sure isn't giving pilots the backwoods fertilizer-and-battery-acid crank that's going to make their teeth fall out.

From what I understand (and of course, IANAPharmacologist), both the patterns and the severity of brain damage that scientists are seeing with crank are markedly different from what's been observed in users of purer speed; moreover, the rapidity with which this damage happens is also significantly higher.

I fully agree that a less puritanical attitude towards drugs is sorely needed in the U.S., but downplaying the objectively-measurable physiological damage that some drugs can do won't help achieve that goal. If addiction is to be treated as a medical issue rather than a criminal/moral one, we better get the medical science right.
posted by scody at 9:50 PM on February 6, 2005

Did you ever try to see what all the shouting is about?

If I read the article right, the father does admit to having tried meth himself once.
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:00 PM on February 6, 2005

For parents concerned about their child's experimentation, make sure to talk to your kids REALISTICALLY about drugs. The information they get in public schools is so twisted, wrong and incomplete that they often write it off completely when they actually start using and realize it wasnt true. Also, know their friends and encourage them to focus on activities such as sports, clubs,a job, art, writing, school plays, computers... anything that they have to make a commitment to and take responsibility for.

Yet another reason im in favor of drug legalization is so that people, if they do choose to take drugs, have access to clean, pharaceutical grade stuff. Meth is probably the worst drug out there because it is easy to make and involves bad bad chemicals. Most of the people out there making this stuff are just dumping a bunch of fertilizer / cleaning products / whatever else into a vat and have only amateur grade chemistry knowledge. As mentioned earlier, doing this type of stuff is waaay worse than doing pharmaceutical grade amphetamines.

As I mentioned in the "faces of meth" post a while back, it is also interesting to note how differently methamphetamines (black market) and other prescrption amphetamines (ritalin, adderall, dexedrine) are viewed by the public, considering how closely related they are pharmacologically.
posted by sophist at 10:08 PM on February 6, 2005

Well, first of all crack is coke.

Yeah, thanks, I'm aware of that.

Sorry to be a pedant, but if you said beer and alcohol in a similar example, I'd have to mention the same thing. People who refer to cocaine and crack as separate drugs often aren't aware that they are the same substance.

If meth addiction were treated as a medical problem, and if the stuff were available through legitimate channels, people wouldn't be making bathtub meth, and there won't be problems with purity. Bathtub gin is pretty horrible for you, too. I'm not downplaying the dangers of meth. Getting the medical science right can also mean harm reduction, which could be accomplished if addicts were able to get a clean supply. This would be difficult, probably moreso than with heroin, but other changes in the legal status of many drugs would contribute to an atmosphere where meth isn't as inviting.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:09 PM on February 6, 2005

The only solution to The Drug Problem is education. And not education of the D.A.R.E. sort, but true informative education. If you want to keep your kids off drugs, just tell them what you know. If you don't actually know about drugs, educate yourself. "Meth is bad for you" doesn't cut it. Kids like to ask "why," and if nobody is going to tell them they'll go and find out for themselves.

Personally, one of the greatest forces that drove me to experiment with drugs was sheer curiosity; these substances were surrounded with mystery. That'd no longer be the case if narcotics were legalized and regulated. Not to mention that half the dangers, if not more, of actually doing the drugs would be eliminated thanks to purity etc.
posted by mek at 11:08 PM on February 6, 2005

Did you know, for instance, that Jean-Paul Sartre loved to write on the stuff?

cite? What I can find from google with a few quick searches suggests that this claim is at best controversial. Possibly he was using something called Cordrane, which apparently was some kind of amphetamines (not meth) cut with aspirin?
posted by advil at 2:21 AM on February 7, 2005

Corydrane, that is
posted by advil at 2:22 AM on February 7, 2005

Is there nothing so self-destructive that legions of people won't be stupid enough to do it?

Thomas Edison said this:

"There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever."

I know it is a bit of a semantic and a logical leap, but OMFG, what has happened to these assholes that they ever think that meth is a good idea? You get up in the morning, you shit, shower, and shave. Lather, rinse, repeat. Not ad infinitum, because one day you die. You don't know when that day will be, so you fill your life with as many good things as you can before that day arrives. What is so hard to understand about that simple truth?

Some things are just dumb. Period. Masturbating with power drills is one of them. Gargling with bleach is another. And meth, using meth is always dumb. Who needs to be told this? Is there some sub-species of human that anthropologists haven't us about?

God save us from ourselves.
posted by Chasuk at 2:32 AM on February 7, 2005

UbuRoivas: ... but I cannot think of one single professional that I know in Sydney who does not use meth, e, coke, pot or whatever else on at least an occasional basis.

Seriously? Sydney, Australia? Its been several years since I worked in Australia, but I knew of no professional (in IT) that used any of those drugs more than a couple of times. And here in Japan amongst my IT colleagues, drug use is nonexistent. But I guess that is more than made up for by alcohol and cigarettes.
posted by Meridian at 4:10 AM on February 7, 2005

Yeah, Chasuk, but gargling with bleach doesn't make one feel "shiny".

Unfortunately, there is something in humans that drives them to search for altered states of consciousness. Always has been, always will be. When something quick and easy like crystal meth comes along, well, it's easy to see how it's going to end up.

You can tell someone how bad something is, but then when they try it, and it's the best feeling they have ever had, reason sometimes goes right down the tubes.
posted by exlotuseater at 4:14 AM on February 7, 2005 [1 favorite]

...amphetamines (not meth)...
posted by advil at 10:21 AM GMT on February 7

Whats the difference?

Amphetamines: The ABCs
The amphetamines (uppers, bennies, pep pills) are a group of artificial stimulants. The original drug is called amphetamine, but the group includes dextroamphetamine (dexies), methamphetamine (speed, crystal, meth, crank), and smokable methamphetamine (ice). These drugs all have similar effects. Even experienced users may be unable to tell which drug they have taken.

It sems to me that this meth stuff is way different to the odd lines of speed that a ..friend.. used to take in the 80's: whether it actually is chemically different, or has a different effect, I dunno. But that site (by the Alberta govt) seems to think not.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:07 AM on February 7, 2005

it's really easy to forget just how bad it was

indeed. i didn't intend to denigrate him, but to make a point that recovery was only an option once he wanted it badly enough. the "loud popping noise" thing is not original, and it's often related around the tables in these parts.
posted by quonsar at 5:40 AM on February 7, 2005

I did meth once, about seven years ago, or at least a little baggie of what I was told was meth. I got all of the up-for-three-days-without-eating/teeth-grinding/attention-span-shot-to-hell action, without the 30-orgasms-on-top-of-each-other effect. I spent the last two days walking around in circles in my bedroom, and it was by dar the worst experience I've ever had on drugs.

I guess I was lucky.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:29 AM on February 7, 2005

By far the worst experience. Dagnabbit!
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:31 AM on February 7, 2005

but crack didn't cause the downfall of western civilization

Been to Baltimore recently?
posted by OmieWise at 7:26 AM on February 7, 2005 [1 favorite]

Chiming in belatedly here to say that what sticks in my mind is how in high school, after being busted for buying pot, the kid was essentially rewarded for fucking up:

At 14, when he was suspended from high school for a day for buying pot on campus, Nick and my wife and I met with the freshman dean. ''We view this as a mistake and an opportunity,'' he explained. Nick was forced to undergo a day at a drug-and-alcohol program but was given a second chance. A teacher took Nick under his wing, encouraging his interest in marine biology. He surfed with him and persuaded him to join the swimming and water-polo teams. Nick had two productive and, as far as I know, drug-free years. He showed promise as a student actor, artist and writer. For a series of columns in the school newspaper, he won the Ernest Hemingway Writing Award for high-school journalists, and he published a column in Newsweek.

One wonders what would have happened if, instead, he had spent a night or two in jail.
posted by scratch at 7:58 AM on February 7, 2005

Any discussion of speed should probably include mention of Paul Erdos, one of the most brilliant, if bizarre, mathematicians of the 20th century. He lived the last 25 years of his life on benzedrine:

Colleagues worried that Erdos might have become addicted. In 1979, he accepted a $500 bet from his friend Ronald Graham. Graham challenged Erdos to abstain from speed for 30 days. Erdos met the challenge, but his output sank dramatically. Erdos felt the progress of mathematics had been held up by a stupid wager.

In an article by Paul Hoffman published in November 1987, Atlantic Monthly profiled Erdos and discussed his Benzedrine habit. Erdos liked the article, "...except for one thing...You shouldn't have mentioned the stuff about Benzedrine. It's not that you got it wrong. It's just that I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed."

It's one for the files, anyway, in support of UbuRoivas' theory that the most desperate addicts perhaps aren't representative of "most of the iceberg" of casual users.
posted by mediareport at 8:07 AM on February 7, 2005

Reports of recreational, functional meth use in the workplace, at malls, etc are highly exaggerated.

And by 'highly exaggerated', I mean absolute bullshit.
posted by DuoJet at 8:10 AM on February 7, 2005

And by 'highly exaggerated', I mean absolute bullshit.

Your singular anecdotal experience has been noted. Next?
posted by mediareport at 8:20 AM on February 7, 2005

mediareport, benzedrine != meth.

On the drug ladder, meth is a step above huffing gas. It was invented by a military-industrial complex, and is very good at helping people put up with hard, crappy jobs: truck drivers, late-shift Denny's workers, and soldiers.

Meth is like an endogenous neurotransmitter in the body of the Leviathan. Use it only if you want to be a piece of the monster.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:53 AM on February 7, 2005

I know they're not the same, sonofsamiam; that's why I used the generic term "speed." For what it's worth, I have known casual meth users - people who have enjoyed it recreationally, on occasion, and stayed away from long-term use. It's a dangerous drug, no doubt, perhaps one of the most dangerous, but I still think the possibility that there are users who fly below the "depraved addict" radar is worth noting.

Of course, the self-delusion of folks who think they're on top of their drug habit is worth noting as well.

Meth is like an endogenous neurotransmitter in the body of the Leviathan. Use it only if you want to be a piece of the monster.

See, now that's exactly the kind of overstatement that overshadows rational discussion of the pros and cons of experimental drug use. It doesn't get heard, and it doesn't help.
posted by mediareport at 9:10 AM on February 7, 2005

Oh, and dropping simplistic vertical metaphors like "the drug ladder" would also be useful if you really want to help clarify the line between substance use and abuse.
posted by mediareport at 9:13 AM on February 7, 2005

Meridian: Seriously? Sydney, Australia? Its been several years since I worked in Australia, but I knew of no professional (in IT) that used any of those drugs more than a couple of times.

Different circles, maybe...? I am talking genX/Y, inner-city professionals. Maybe the age and social circle makes my sample a little self-selecting, but pretty much nobody in that kind of circle gives much of a toss if somebody buys a few grams of one powder or other, or a few pills, eg for NYE, Mardi Gras or Sleaze Ball (etc).

The point is that controlled recreational users are effectively invisible, and remain so because of the stigma generated by the visible out-of-control end of the spectrum.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:25 AM on February 7, 2005

mediareport: See, now that's exactly the kind of overstatement that overshadows rational discussion of the pros and cons of experimental drug use.

I'm not oppposed to experimental drug use. I'm opposed to meth. If you like speed, there are plenty of safer alternatives: the aforementioned bennies, adderall, etc.

But you're right about "the drug ladder." Maybe "the drug poset?"
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:55 AM on February 7, 2005

but crack didn't cause the downfall of western civilization

Been to Baltimore recently?

Good point. Just because the hype in the papers has stopped and moved on to other trendy issues dosen't mean people have stopped using crack and that all the crap it brings with it dosen't continue.

As far as meth goes, I've never tried it, and just about everything I've heard about it makes me relatively glad of that fact.
posted by jonmc at 1:45 PM on February 7, 2005

legalize. remove taboo. prescriptions now available.

and duo jet, what do you know. t'art prudish i'll wager.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 8:39 PM on February 8, 2005

Hey! I knew a guy once who took meth and didn't end up an addict! That means its ok, right?

Right?

Recreational use?

People here, like in the other thread, who have no idea what they are talking about.

Reports of recreational, functional meth use in the workplace, at malls, etc are highly exaggerated.

And by 'highly exaggerated', I mean absolute bullshit.
posted by DuoJet at 10:10 AM CST on February 7

The truest statement in this entire thread.

Also, my state (TN) accounts for 75% of meth lab seizures in the Southeast.
posted by Ynoxas at 7:17 AM on February 10, 2005