If it's on the cover, it's already over

August 2, 2005 1:53 PM

Newsweek delivers a chilling tale of non-rural, non-gays -- affluent suburbia (the horrors!) doing methamphetamine. Not as sexy, or yuppie, as its cocaine counterpart, it leads to poor oral hygiene and super-AIDS myths. Some surprisingly good Wikipedia articles appeared (Crystal and Sex and Meth). Even the more drug liberal Viceland sums up the sentiment about meth, "Speed is the bastard child of the drug family, cocaine’s ugly retarded stepbrother."
posted by geoff. (122 comments total)

I was hoping the rest of Metafilter would enjoy the fact that Newsweek needs to lead each story with a comparison to the average reader in order to connect. The "it could happen next door, or to you!" is almost so cliche I can't believe the editors allow it.

That aside people I know that came from the more rural parts of Missouri say it really is the scourge that the media makes it out to be. They tell me, however, that the "feel good, take on the world" rush (and price) appeals a little too well to the cycle of poverty that is the drugs major clientele. Perhaps Newsweek should focus more on the causes for doing speed and less on just not doing it. What is this the 80s "just say no" again, have we really not come anywhere?
posted by geoff. at 2:01 PM on August 2, 2005

Here's deeper coverage of the topic from the Portland Oregonian, whose authors were Pulitzer finalists this year for the series.
posted by twsf at 2:11 PM on August 2, 2005

If i ever had any inkling of ever wanting to do meth, that viceland article completely obliterated it.
posted by Mach5 at 2:12 PM on August 2, 2005

Meth, or as it's called here in Cape Town 'Tik', is currently ravaging the poorer areas here as well. Hasn't reached the upper classed but given enough time I'm sure it will.
posted by PenDevil at 2:13 PM on August 2, 2005

They should use pictures of "meth mouth" to show kids why meth is bad... yikes!
posted by clevershark at 2:22 PM on August 2, 2005

My friends and I go camping pretty regularly, always at a state park about an hour outside of the city. There's a little town nearby that we stop in to take a break before the final leg of the trip. It's a pretty no-name, 200-people-per-graduating-class kind of town, and always seems kind of sad. The sort of town that starts to have big problems when Wal-mart rolls in. Anyway, we used to joke with each other that everyone we saw was on meth--we'd see a local teen walk by with a backwards baseball cap and a glassy-eyed gaze, say, and joke to ourselves that he just came from his dealer, etc.

A couple weeks ago, one of my friends was eating at a restaurant near that little town, and he asks his waiter what's the biggest drug problem the town has. The waiter stops, gets a pretty serious look on his face, and says, "Meth. Definitely meth. It's a huge problem, man. Most of the kids you see around the town, they're probably high." I was all set to think the waiter was pulling my friend's leg, but then I see this post and now I'm not so sure.
posted by voltairemodern at 2:23 PM on August 2, 2005

This isn't that new. Crank has been around for ages.
posted by Smart Dalek at 2:40 PM on August 2, 2005

voltairemodern, I hate to start playing moderator -- but that's a really, really similar story to what happened to me and my friends. The prevelance in the small towns is really amazing.
posted by geoff. at 2:41 PM on August 2, 2005

More details concerning Previtin.
posted by Smart Dalek at 2:44 PM on August 2, 2005

Having watched what a nasty little meth addiction did to my then-girlfriend's little sister, I've had zero interest in it to try for myself. It took a smart, capable and beautiful woman and turned her into a trashy fool earning her drugs by being a mule up and down the California coast.

clevershark, I know seeing a pretty nasty case of meth mouth would have kept me away from the crap if I'd ever had an interest! It is NASTY!
posted by fenriq at 2:51 PM on August 2, 2005

I'm surprised it took Newsweek this long (though as your title suggests ...).

The Louisville Courier-Journal had a weeklong series of articles last Christmas. I'd never heard of ice before.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:55 PM on August 2, 2005

SD - speed's been around for a while, but I think many would consider its usage expanding to epidemic proportions, with severe social consequences.

UCLA drug policy expert Mark Kleiman is pessimistic:

The horrible fact is -- as I was forced to confess to a reporter who called me last week -- there isn't actually much of anything worth doing about meth. Its risks are hardly a secret, so the potential gains from a big negative advertising effort now are hard to guess. Production demands no special skill or hard-to-get chemicals, is highly decentralized, and is concentrated in rural areas where enforcement is scarce. But even if more enforcement resources were available, there's no particular reason to think we could make meth much more expensive or noticeably harder to come by.

posted by allan at 3:01 PM on August 2, 2005

There are places out in rural CA where you can just smell the meth a-cookin' on the breeze, if you roll down your car window.

However, I lived in a tiny, 40-people per graduating class town when I was in high school... and I can understand why something that makes you feel great would be so popular.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:01 PM on August 2, 2005

Even Mormon Utah has a meth problem, with nearly half the women in Salt Lake City's jail testing positive for the drug in one study.

Oh, even Mormon Utah! Is that the same as the regular Utah that has the most antidepressant users per capita?
posted by mrgrimm at 3:02 PM on August 2, 2005

mrgrimm, you'd need Prozac too if no one smiled in your town. Its creepy!
posted by fenriq at 3:09 PM on August 2, 2005

Years of physical fitness have me permanently hooked on endorphines. I will probably die an addict someday.
posted by buzzman at 3:16 PM on August 2, 2005

There's entire towns in east Texas comprised of meth addicts. It's pretty scary.

As a gay man, I could add more, but suffice it to say that I'm a pretty uninhibited guy without the influence of "Tina" and with it ... well, um. It's the one drug that truly frightens me, and deeply, as far as personal-addicition-potential is concerned, and I steer well clear of it. I'm convinced that if I went down the path many of my friends in my clubkid days (we're talking the early 80s here folks, it's been a problem for a long, long time) went down I wouldn't be here talking to you about this. I'd be dead, either from the drug itself or AIDS.

Which is why I get so very angry with myself and some of my younger queer friends. Me for being unable to communicate how many people I lost to AIDS (and lord knows how many of them were also meth addicts) and them for thinking they're immortal or, worse, just utterly apathetic.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:20 PM on August 2, 2005

I was hoping the rest of Metafilter would enjoy the fact that Newsweek needs to lead each story with a comparison to the average reader in order to connect. The "it could happen next door, or to you!" is almost so cliche I can't believe the editors allow it.

I'm a subscriber because it gives nice synopses of news stories that I use to get a base on-- if I miss the continuing stories in the newspaper, Newsweek will get me up to speed so that I can start following the stories better in decent sources.

That said, every Newsweek cover story is:

a) about friggin' Jesus
b) a fluff piece on the Bush White House/the war on terror
c) a scare piece about the latest thing that suburban white people should be frightened of

Newsweek's editors would cream their pants if they could write a story about how Al Qaida was going to steal your identity from a meth lab run by kidnapped white women. And how the Bush administration is trying to stop it using lessons from early Christians.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:23 PM on August 2, 2005

a story about how Al Qaida was going to steal your identity from a meth lab run by kidnapped white women. And how the Bush administration is trying to stop it using lessons from early Christians.

I'm listening...
posted by NewBornHippy at 3:27 PM on August 2, 2005

It's encouraging to see that the DEA is basically saying "never mind meth, pot is the real problem."

Those morons couldn't find a clue with a map.
posted by clevershark at 3:30 PM on August 2, 2005

What I always thought was interesting was the perspective taken on recreational methamphetamine use by the health care community serving Haight Ashbury during the 60s and 70s. They were liberal and open minded, but confronted with the worst end of drug abuse problems on a daily basis, they developed a strong position against meth use. Speed kills.link link link

If you're impressionable, don't watch this film (2002), as it seems to glamorize the meth culture somewhat.
posted by nervousfritz at 3:32 PM on August 2, 2005

Ditto Wolfdaddy. With people living for decades with AIDS now, there is no 'specter of doom' lingering over the lifestyle, and Tina does for days what coke used to do for 15 minutes.
Sad stuff to see. And also, consider the rural stores that KNOWINGLY sell mass quantities (Can I order a case of pseudofed?) of cold medicines to people.
The sooner the medicines go behind the counter the better.
posted by buzzman at 3:32 PM on August 2, 2005

Meth problem on the rise here in Vancouver as well. I wonder what the long term social costs of this epidemic (and it is an epidemic) will be, especially given what this drug does to the brain.
posted by btwillig at 3:38 PM on August 2, 2005

Lots of talk about it here in Vancouver, and when they talk about it they do so in terms of the most prevalent addict: middle-class high-school teens.

The biggest push against it details the kids who go into full-blown psychosis after using the stuff. That doesn't happen to everyone, but it should scare the crap out of anyone who uses it. Showing them pictures of bad teeth is a good idea too, but showing them a raving lunatic psychotic would likely do better.
posted by Kickstart70 at 3:40 PM on August 2, 2005

"If we can get a child to 20 without using marijuana, there is a 98 percent chance that the child will never become addicted to any drug," says White House Deputy Drug Czar Scott Burns, of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
----------------------------------------------------------
Totally has his head up his own poopshoot in the worst possible way. I've never known anyone who has used pot who later went on to more intensive drugs. This is the worst and most damaging myth out there and is a direct cause of being unable to focus resources on far more dangerous and damaging drugs. If they're going after pot, they may as well go after drinking liquor too. At least with liquor they'll have taken down something truly dangerous. Absolutely pathetic.
posted by mk1gti at 3:43 PM on August 2, 2005

Meth is top drug problem for most counties [MSNBC | July 5, 2005]
posted by ericb at 3:44 PM on August 2, 2005

A related aside: Does anyone know how much of this is atually true? (Amphetamine's relieve symptoms of Parkinson's)

Someone on another, less intelligent, forum said "Maybe they're just shaking so fast they don't notice". I weep for this planet.
posted by Kickstart70 at 3:44 PM on August 2, 2005

Speaking of fact-checking, does anyone know if this quote from the "drug czar" (god i hate that moniker) from the Newsweek article is true?:

"If we can get a child to 20 without using marijuana, there is a 98 percent chance that the child will never become addicted to any drug," says White House Deputy Drug Czar Scott Burns, of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "While it may come across as an overemphasis on marijuana, you don't wake up when you're 25 and say, 'I want to slam meth!' "
posted by gingembre at 3:47 PM on August 2, 2005

What is this administration doing to actually combat meth addiction? And since I'm pretty sure the answer is "nothing," my next question is "why?"
posted by bshort at 3:47 PM on August 2, 2005

mk1gti: I started with pot at 12, hash and hash oil at 13, acid at 19, mushrooms at 20, and then quit everything including cigarettes at 24.

I think the 'gateway drug' claim is crap, because I could have started with any of the above. And I didn't start drinking alcohol until 14, in case someone thinks that led me to pot.
posted by Kickstart70 at 3:48 PM on August 2, 2005

It's the one drug that truly frightens me

Likewise. It has taken down three of my friends in L.A. - one to his grave. It is insidious in taking hold of people's lives. Truly scary.

The HBO documentary Crank illustrates meth's destructive path through a rural Iowa community.
posted by ericb at 3:48 PM on August 2, 2005

Kickstart> Amphetamine causes schizophrenic-like symptoms, so yeah, it's somewhat effective in treating Parkinson's. Parkinson's and schizophrenia, to simplify things a bit, are basically the effects of too little or too much dopamine in the brain, respectively. Amphetamine, by causing a rush of dopamine in the brain, is able to mitigate some elements of Parkinson's in the short term.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 4:01 PM on August 2, 2005

What is this administration doing to actually combat meth addiction? And since I'm pretty sure the answer is "nothing," my next question is "why?"

Meth users will self destroy and/or lend themselves to be destroyed by the authority -- you can use violence against them and they're not pollitical.

Pot users: different stories -- these guys usually don't self destruct and stick around for a while while usually being politically minded and anti establishment. A responsible pot users is any administration's nightmare, an alternative that doesn't fit in the system.
posted by NewBornHippy at 4:01 PM on August 2, 2005

It's the one drug that truly frightens me

Same here. I've done cocaine a few times and that was a dumb move, but absolutely noting I've heard about this shit makes me want to go anywhere near it.
posted by jonmc at 4:02 PM on August 2, 2005

This article explains the Parkinson's thing a bit better. It's not amphetamines, it's specifically MDMA which has been shown to mitigate symptoms of Parkinson's in mice. The odd thing is that it seems to do so without affecting dopamine levels, implying the existence of some other mechanism. In regards to the meth thing, this makes me wonder of there are safer alternatives which could be substituted. Meth is popular because it lasts long and is easy/cheap to make. Maybe there is a chemical which is more difficult to make that has fewer harmful effects?
posted by Astragalus at 4:05 PM on August 2, 2005

Pseudoephedrine : "Amphetamine, by causing a rush of dopamine in the brain, is able to mitigate some elements of Parkinson's in the short term."

That linked article says that MDMA relieved Parkinson's-like symptoms in dopamine-depleted mice.
posted by Gyan at 4:06 PM on August 2, 2005

Meth users will self destroy and/or lend themselves to be destroyed by the authority -- you can use violence against them and they're not pollitical.

Dude, I've known truckloads of apolitical potheads. And I doubt you can diagnose someones politics from their drug of choice. That's not just a logical leap, it's evil Kenievel territory.

My theory on why meth was ignored for so long is because of who was doing it: poor white trash, and gay men. Plus meth keeps people showing up for work, it started out as fuel for truckers.
posted by jonmc at 4:06 PM on August 2, 2005

I've been smoking pot off an on since I was about 18, tried coke a couple times, not interested, same for speed, not interested, same for LSD. I'm 45 now.
I like pot because there's no addiction, you're not overly out of control and it's just plain *mellow*.
I haven't had any in over a year now but I'm happy knowing I can pick it up or put it down much easier than if I were to be a chronic drinker, meth addict, heroin addict, etc.
Any dipstick, especially any *federal* dipstick that thinks pot is a gateway drug shouldn't be allowed in office because they are far more of a danger than a detterent to hard core drug use (i.e. wasting valuable resources on insignificant non-addictive drug use while letting hard-core drug use fall through the cracks. )
posted by mk1gti at 4:07 PM on August 2, 2005

I like pot because there's no addiction

I know it's not physically addictive, but I've known way to many wake-and-bakers to say that there's no risk of dependency.
posted by jonmc at 4:09 PM on August 2, 2005

just so we're clear: I'm in favor of legalizing pot, too. I'm just making an observation.
posted by jonmc at 4:09 PM on August 2, 2005

I've been down the 'wake and bake' road myself when I was younger, but the thing that pulled me out of it was: After awhile you're really not getting any higher, so what's the point? You may as well be smoking cigerettes for all the good it will do you, so that's why I wound down. Just wasn't doing anything for me, so what's the point?
Best to save it for an every now and again kind of thing
posted by mk1gti at 4:12 PM on August 2, 2005

nervousfritz: I had to stop watching Spun halfway through because it was so disturbing. Seeing a guy so addled that he leaves a girl tied up to his bed for days and works as an errand boy for a small-time manufacturer, all because of this drug, did not make it seem very glamorous to me. Plus Brittany Murphy is scary as fuck in that movie.
posted by mai at 4:12 PM on August 2, 2005

I've been down the 'wake and bake' road myself when I was younger, but the thing that pulled me out of it was: After awhile you're really not getting any higher, so what's the point?

Smart move. I still know plenty of guys who I used to party with in high school who sre stuck in the case-of-beer and eigth-of-weed a day rut. Me, I only enjoy the occasional toke or two, and then only when it's combined with alcohol. Otherwise I get paranoid.
posted by jonmc at 4:17 PM on August 2, 2005

I know it's not physically addictive, but I've known way to many wake-and-bakers to say that there's no risk of dependency.

...and the world has no shortage of people who drink 4-6 drinks *a night* but will talk your ear off about the evils of pot because alcohol made them too f*cking dumb to know better.

It's not a personal statement on you (since we've never met, as far as I know), just a general observation.
posted by clevershark at 4:26 PM on August 2, 2005

Meth isn't a new problem. It's just one that seems to keep getting worse and worse.

I lived out in the deserts of Mojave for a brief period around 96 or 97 or so. The local papers were already running stories about how the groundwater aquifers were becoming severely polluted from the vast number of meth labs dumping byproducts openly on the ground. Like zoogleplex said, you could literally smell it wafting on the air. I'm pretty sure my at least one of my parents thought I was living in a meth lab. No way Jose! But we were growing a small amount of pot.

I've had a number of friends and a few more aquaintances get eaten up by this shit.

One survived. He was (and is) an extraordinarily intelligent programmer. Somehow he managed to wrangle his job into a telecommuting position that lasted for a year or so while he stayed home and smoked glass for days on end, and staying up for days on end. He'd multitask like a fiend, but really, he probably didn't get that much productive work done.

Probably the only thing that saved him was the fact he was too smart for his own good, being able to at least partially mitigate most of meth's huge list of negatives through rock solid, godlike ethics and an innate real-world knowledge of brain chemistry - and what nutritional supplements to take to ward of meth's brain-ravaging tendencies. He was undoubtably one unique case amongst tens of millions of utter failures.

The psychosis that results from meth use is truly scary. That it didn't seem to really grab hold of said friend scares me a little more. That's just not natural, man.
posted by loquacious at 4:31 PM on August 2, 2005

"I know it's not physically addictive, but I've known way to many wake-and-bakers to say that there's no risk of dependency."

I know to many science-fiction readers who tear through books every day to say that there's no risk of dependency.

Still, by those standards, I'd say TV has the highest incidence of dependency (or maybe salt).
posted by Bugbread at 4:31 PM on August 2, 2005

No community is immune.

The documentary "Devil’s Playground" -- portrays "Rumspringa," the period of time when a 16 year old Amish kids leave their families to live as the "English," or as the outside world does.

"Faron is the primary focus of the film, and he struggles the most with going back to the church and staying with it. He moves in and out of his friend’s house and his father’s house. He struggles with a crank addiction, and he also deals to support his habit. He gets busted, narcs on other dealers to avoid jail, and moves back home (a death threat is out on him)."
posted by ericb at 4:33 PM on August 2, 2005

Gyan> If you read the paper, the mice are "dopamine depleted" in the sense that they lack the ability to recycle dopamine naturally, and are then given a drug preventing the synthesis of new dopamine. They are then treated with a variety of drugs - some are amphetamines (including, but not limited to, MDMA) and others with L-Dopa, and some with a combination of L-Dopa and other drugs.

The paper goes on to basically say "We thought there were a bunch of ways amphetamines can trigger the release of dopamine from production sites, one which we knew really well, and yes, it turns out there are others after all, but we don't know them all that well."
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 4:36 PM on August 2, 2005

I have to wonder how much of the meth problem is in the production, though. I've known a decent amount of folks who use(d) speed through my clubbing days, and haven't heard of any of the horror stories here. That said, we're probably not talking about home-cooked stuff, and "speed" appears to refer to both amphetamines and methamphetamines, so the difference may be which of the two it was.
posted by Bugbread at 4:37 PM on August 2, 2005

Astragalus> The article dumbs things down a bit from the paper. It's not that it doesn't affect dopamine levels - it's that it stimulates the production and release of dopamine in ways we don't know how to account for, and somehow affects cells related to motor-coordination in a dopamine-like way without requiring a transmission of dopamine from ordinary production sites in the brain.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 4:38 PM on August 2, 2005

The odd thing is that at its very beginning, meth was not a typically poor, rural, or gay drug. It was a drug for the busy Midtown businessman (as were many of the then-semi-legal uppers), helping them work on that ad agency project through the night. And it was prescribed to overweight urban and suburban women to help them lose weight--usually somewhat wealthier women, who could afford to see diet doctors.

In the latter category was my aunt. The FDA pulled meth off the market in the late 1970's when they realized what was happening to the patients, but it was too late for her, and for many others. She never got clean, despite many many attempts and the best rehab, doctors, and treatment available in the US. Either on some level she just did not want to get clean and sober--which is a possibility, as she had been known to occasionally use other drugs and alcohol when meth was not available--or even the best medical care possible could not undo a meth addiction.

I can't even begin to tell you what life was like for my uncle and cousins back when they were living with her--the cruelty, the paranoia, the stealing, the permanent emotional damage done to my defenseless little cousins. Towards the end she was literally insane. It's a horrible thing to say, but I think everyone, including her own family, was somewhat relieved when she was found dead in Puerto Rico earlier this year.

That's how bad meth addiction is.
posted by Asparagirl at 4:42 PM on August 2, 2005 [2 favorites]

it started out as fuel for truckers soldiers.

Am I wrong?

My gateway drug? Nicotene. As it was for most people I've known who've dabbled or worse in illicit substances. At least for people my age, smoking tobacco let you into one type of 'cool' crowd, and usually one of those 'cool' people had parents who openly used SOME kind of drug. That 70s Show notwithstanding, most parents back then were very open about drugs and sex ... they just pretended their kids weren't watching and listening ... and stealing from their stashes.

It's also the only vice I can't just drop. God dammit.
posted by WolfDaddy at 4:45 PM on August 2, 2005

All the ex-druggies who run the California press, eager to airbrush the decades spent high on speed and coke from their official biographies, are squirming to find some way to avoid the word. The San Francisco Chronicle even managed to find someone who quoted Thompson as saying, "Adrenaline is our real drug of choice."

Nice try. But let's try to be a little bit honest, guys, just for a few minutes, in his honor. His drug of choice was speed. Crystal meth. Amphetamines. You all know it. You've all taken it. And not one of you will admit that you love it, that you've written on it, that you've had the best times of your life on it.

That was his gimmick: telling the truth. It's something that would never occur to the people who run the San Francisco Chronicle. That's all Thompson's "new journalism" was: telling the truth about what it was like to be a reporter.
posted by jcruelty at 4:47 PM on August 2, 2005

Me, I only enjoy the occasional toke or two, and then only when it's combined with alcohol. Otherwise I get paranoid.
-----------------------------------------------
I only do the occasional beer or double martini every now and then, for me it's either alcohol or pot but not both. I guess I have an unusual physiology that initiates my gag reflex. Perhaps it's all for the good, keeps me from overindulging in things.
posted by mk1gti at 4:47 PM on August 2, 2005

Pseudoephedrine: This says something different, "By using this approach, we found that several amphetamine derivatives can counteract the behavioral manifestations of severe DA deficiency, suggesting that, in addition to well-known DA-mediated effects, amphetamine-like compounds can also affect motor functions in a DA- and DAT-independent manner." where DA = dopamine and DAT = the transporter.
posted by Gyan at 4:51 PM on August 2, 2005

WolfDaddy : "it started out as fuel for truckers soldiers.

"Am I wrong?"

Possibly. According to Wikipedia, meth was first synthesized in 1919, and World War I ended in 1918, so the first uses were probably non-military. However, it was probably first widely used as fuel for soldiers.
posted by Bugbread at 4:52 PM on August 2, 2005

it started out as fuel for truckers soldiers. Am I wrong?

No, WolfDaddy, you're right.

As Smart Dalek points out, Hitler's soldiers were on the stuff - Pervitin and Isophan.

Today Pervitin is the street name for locally produced methamphetamine in the Czech Republic and nearby areas.
posted by ericb at 4:56 PM on August 2, 2005

Great read jcruelty. Thanks.
posted by WolfDaddy at 4:58 PM on August 2, 2005

Dammit, preview used to be on the left not on the right before the live preview thing. Am I wrong? AM I WRONG? You guys get the the Lebowski reference now I hope ;-)

Also ... who's up for a 4-pack of Red Bulls and some Mini-Thins?
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:01 PM on August 2, 2005

"The major substance abused in the Czech Republic is Pervitin, a stimulant made from Ephedrine, which is believed to be produced in small clandestine laboratories and a limited number of larger ones. Consumption is primarily domestic, but Pervitin is also exported to Germany and Canada.

In a new development in 1997, Czech nationals reportedly were paid by illicit drug manufacturers to travel to other areas of Europe to prepare Pervitin on site, thereby reducing the risk of arrest for carrying illicit products."

[U.S. Department of State 1997 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report | March 1998]
posted by ericb at 5:01 PM on August 2, 2005

Gyan> Not to get into a semantic dispute, but they are suggesting that, not demonstrating it to be the case in the experiment. The drug is certainly doing more than was expected, but as I said above, only one of the various amphetamine-dopamine interactions is well-studied. There is inconclusive proof that this is dopamine-independent instead of involving merely one of the known, but not-yet-understood amphetamine interactions.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 5:04 PM on August 2, 2005

and the world has no shortage of people who drink 4-6 drinks *a night* ...It's not a personal statement on you (since we've never met, as far as I know), just a general observation.

Believe me, I know. No substance that produces a buzz can be completely without some consequences. It's merely a matter of degree. And that needs to be talked about without hysteria or defensiveness.

And it's not hysteria to leave stuff like meth and smack alone.
posted by jonmc at 5:05 PM on August 2, 2005

Pseudoephedrine, I'm just disputing this statement - "The paper goes on to basically say 'We thought there were a bunch of ways amphetamines can trigger the release of dopamine from production sites, one which we knew really well, and yes, it turns out there are others after all, but we don't know them all that well.'"

They may be wrong, agreed, but they are suggesting a DA-independent route. I'm not justifying that suggestion for them.
posted by Gyan at 5:08 PM on August 2, 2005

it's not hysteria to leave stuff like meth and smack alone.

I couldn't agree more (you can throw coke in there as well). However, to throw pot into that group of "addictive" drugs is to take huge liberties with the word "addictive".
posted by clevershark at 5:10 PM on August 2, 2005

Fair enough.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 5:10 PM on August 2, 2005

However, to throw pot into that group of "addictive" drugs is to take huge liberties with the word "addictive".

I didn't throw it in. I'm just saying that pot (like alcohol) is something that most people can use sanely but that some people can get in trouble with.
posted by jonmc at 5:18 PM on August 2, 2005

But pot *isn't* like alcohol. Alcohol does cause a physical dependency with long-term, heavy regular users, so much so that in some circumstances withholding alcohol from certain individuals may cause injury or death. This is simply not true of cannabis.
posted by clevershark at 5:31 PM on August 2, 2005

I acknowledged that in my first comment, but people can still develop psychological dependence. I still think it should be legal, I just thing we should be up front that it's not tapwater.
posted by jonmc at 5:33 PM on August 2, 2005

From the article:
It creates a potent, long-lasting high—until the user crashes and, too often, literally burns.

LOL. By "literally" we mean "not literally". Awesome.

Well anyway I don't really know anyone who's pro-meth. But I think meth use is mostly due to the War On Drugs. Who would take meth if they could take Morphine or Ecstasy? (Morphine, while addictive does not cause long-term damage beyond dependency. Ecstasy feels pretty nice and is not as habit forming). Meth is so simple to make, it can never really be taken away.
The best way to combat meth use, I think, is to continue to talk about how its the 'white trash' drug. You're not white trash, are you? No? Then clearly you'll never try meth.
Pot users: different stories -- these guys usually don't self destruct and stick around for a while while usually being politically minded and anti establishment. A responsible pot users is any administration's nightmare, an alternative that doesn't fit in the system.

Potheads are only anti-establishment because the establishment wants to take away their pot.

Still, by those standards, I'd say TV has the highest incidence of dependency (or maybe salt).

Actually, there's a higher correlation between television and violence then there is between cigarettes and cancer, or even unprotected sex and pregnancy. Or so I was told in a psych class in collage. It seems rather hard to belive.

---

By the way, did you guys know that Methamphetime is not a shedual one narcotic (like heroin, cocain, ecstasy or marijuana)? It can legaly be prescribed for treating ADD in the US. For both adults and children. It's sold as desoxin
posted by delmoi at 5:59 PM on August 2, 2005

it's not hysteria to leave stuff like meth and smack alone.

Meth, absolutely. But meth and heroin aren't quite equivalent in their effects: you're better off a junkie than a meth or cocaine addict, and people can and do function well for years addicted to morphine or heroin or methadone, as long as their supply is safe and consistent. But the stimulants will just flat out make you insane, if you use them long enough and often enough. That's partly why there are safe-injection sites here in Vancouver for heroin users, but I think even the most pro harm-reduction advocates would pause at the thought of safe smoking sites for crack or meth, because the behaviour of users is so unpredictable and/or irrational.
posted by jokeefe at 6:02 PM on August 2, 2005

The best way to combat meth use, I think, is to continue to talk about how its the 'white trash' drug. You're not white trash, are you? No? Then clearly you'll never try meth.

That'll get some people even more interested.

It can legaly be prescribed for treating ADD in the US. For both adults and children. It's sold as desoxin


Isn't Ritalin a kind of speed, too? I was a Ritalin kid (can you tell) back in the 70's before they started sprinking it on the cereal in the cafeteria.
posted by jonmc at 6:03 PM on August 2, 2005

But meth and heroin aren't quite equivalent in their effects: you're better off a junkie than a meth or cocaine addict,

That's a bit like saying it's better to have constipation than diarhhea. neither one is any kind of Mardi Gras.
posted by jonmc at 6:04 PM on August 2, 2005

jonmc speaks the truth–pot’s not physically addictive (unlike alcohol and heroin), but people can form fairly unhealthy psychological dependencies on it. Addiction is a pattern of behavior on the part of the user, not the drug. The fact that people can form psychological dependencies on other things as well is fairly irrelevant.

That said, I’ve had some weed which might as well have been tapwater for all the good it did me. Junior high sucked.
posted by Coda at 6:07 PM on August 2, 2005

"By the way, did you guys know that Methamphetime is not a shedual one narcotic (like heroin, cocain, ecstasy or marijuana)? It can legaly be prescribed for treating ADD in the US. For both adults and children. It's sold as desoxin"

1)Meth is not a narcotic. It's a stimulant. 2)Oral meth is Sched II, other forms are Sched I 3)It's only prescribed for severe cases of ADD. That could be because of a combination of DEA-intimidation, paperwork and public perception.
posted by Gyan at 6:07 PM on August 2, 2005

jonmc : "That's a bit like saying it's better to have constipation than diarhhea. neither one is any kind of Mardi Gras."

No, it's not. Read again what she wrote: "people can and do function well for years addicted to morphine or heroin or methadone, as long as their supply is safe and consistent. But the stimulants will just flat out make you insane, if you use them long enough and often enough." And opioid antagonists, like methylnaltrexone, have been developed that block the action of opioids in the peripheral NS, thus preventing or reducing the constipation and similar somatic side-effects, without interfering with the high.
posted by Gyan at 6:16 PM on August 2, 2005

Gyan, that may be true, but I've known my share of junk users, and none of them has ever said the'yre glad they did it. I'll certainly agree with your statement that meth is wore, but neither is any kind of picnic.
posted by jonmc at 6:22 PM on August 2, 2005

and the constipation thing was a metaphor.
posted by jonmc at 6:22 PM on August 2, 2005

jonmc : "and the constipation thing was a metaphor."

Yeah, I know.

jonmc : "but I've known my share of junk users, and none of them has ever said the'yre glad they did it"

Of course not, it's illegal and all that goes alongwith it. Again, you seem to have missed the point that jokeefe was making. The point is that opiate addiction need not be more insidious than sugar addiction viz. there are some bad side-effects but overall you'll get by, whereas even if meth was legal & pure, users still wouldn't be able to keep their shit together. That's the point.
posted by Gyan at 6:31 PM on August 2, 2005

there are some bad side-effects but overall you'll get by, whereas even if meth was legal & pure, users still wouldn't be able to keep their shit together. That's the point.

Yeah, but ultimately it's a small point. If I had a kid, I'd advise them fairly strongly against using either meth or smack. Call me crazy.
posted by jonmc at 6:35 PM on August 2, 2005

"Is meth the same thing as Amphetamines such as prescription drugs like adderall and ritalin?"

I once had a roommate who was prescribed Adderall for ADHD. He sold it to fellow college students who crushed it and snorted it. I tried a pill, because I'd never heard of it (my brother was a Ritalin kid back in the 70s when it was called "hyperactivity" and my mom's best friend is still on Ritalin for narcolepsy). Sure felt like speed to me.

And this kid had huge bottles of the shit. HUGE.
posted by WolfDaddy at 6:36 PM on August 2, 2005

(my brother was a Ritalin kid back in the 70s when it was called "hyperactivity" and my mom's best friend is still on Ritalin for narcolepsy).

Like I said above, I was, too. When I put two and two together as a teenager, there began my distrust of authority and government (since the shrink who prescribed it was the school shrink).
posted by jonmc at 6:41 PM on August 2, 2005

But Hollywood's embellishment of marijuana use is "irresponsible!"
posted by yhbc at 7:15 PM on August 2, 2005

I don't believe comparing d-amphatemine and methamphatamine is fair. They act on the brain differently and don't have the same properties at all. The high properites are the same in so far as they will produce the same effects all stimulents will, but that's where the similarities end. The methyl group allow the amphatemine to bypass the blood-brain barrier and get you high longer, faster, quicker. The pharmacological differences are significant (and I should add, for the sake of clarity, Adderall is actually 4 different amphatemines).
posted by geoff. at 7:29 PM on August 2, 2005

delmoi -

LOL. By "literally" we mean "not literally". Awesome.

nope, they meant literally. you know when you leave a pot on the stove accidentally? like that, but with more zing.

Who would take meth if they could take Morphine or Ecstasy? (Morphine, while addictive does not cause long-term damage beyond dependency. Ecstasy feels pretty nice and is not as habit forming).

that's a kind of simplistic approach to why people take any given substance. it might just agree with their body chemistry and/or mind set.

The best way to combat meth use, I think, is to continue to talk about how its the 'white trash' drug. You're not white trash, are you? No? Then clearly you'll never try meth.

i know many kids who are definitely not 'white trash' who have very real problems with meth. it depends on the social clime, stigmas and media attention associated with said environment.

in south america, for instance, coke is a dirty word amongst a lot of the upper classes. it's dirt cheap and would kill an ox. exorbitantly priced pills on the other hand are seen as the drug to do by the party kids.

it's much like meth here in australia - in indochina, where a lot of the locally consumed meth is made and imported from, it's (rightly) considered a nasty ghetto drug, but because it's just coming to the attention of a lot of users, it's a luxury and a novelty. they'll see soon enough though.
posted by soi-disant at 7:30 PM on August 2, 2005

geoff: I don't believe comparing d-amphatemine and methamphatamine is fair.

Have you tried both? Either? I can tell you that comparing them is absolutely fair. They're not exactly the same, but they are certainly far closer than most people - especially those who have their kids on Adderall or Ritalin - are comfortable admitting.

I'm not talking about hypothetical argument here. Without getting into details for obvious reasons I can simply assure you that they are very similar and comparisons are not out of line.
posted by Justinian at 8:10 PM on August 2, 2005

Oh yes, I've also seen a person virtually self destruct on meth. It isn't pretty and there isn't much you can do. On the other hand, I've also seen people who have used it once and never again, or who use it recreationally on occasion. Much like any other drug, in fact.

My personal impression is that meth is a scourge because of its ease of manufacture and thus ubiquitous nature. It isn't some sort of super drug that instantly turns you into a ravening meth zombie. But it is addictive... and dead simple and cheap to obtain.
posted by Justinian at 8:17 PM on August 2, 2005

Metafilter: some sort of super drug that instantly turns you into a ravening meth zombie
posted by squirrel at 8:37 PM on August 2, 2005

meth is a nasty, nasty drug ... i used to snort it occasionally in the 80s and it always made me feel wound up like an 8 day clock ... thank god i didn't like it that much

around sw michigan, it's getting really bad ... farmers are having their ammonia stolen from the fields or barns so people can make meth with it ... one person left the spigot on and caused the deaths of 30 or so cattle in a nearby barn

i look in the local paper, which is a small enough burg to actually list everyone who's been sentenced for something and a good part of them are being convicted on meth charges ... and who knows how many of the other crimes were inspired by the need for money for meth?

it's very reminiscent of the crack epidemic of the 80s, which i got to watch very closely ... except this time it's people in the sticks instead of the cities who are burning themselves out ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:49 PM on August 2, 2005

i know many kids who are definitely not 'white trash' who have very real problems with meth. it depends on the social clime, stigmas and media attention associated with said environment.

Well, like I said, they probably wouldn't take it if A) They could get better stuff and B) it was seen as 'uncool', trashy, pathetic.

I think all of this could be avoided if we told people the truth about drugs. I mean it's all "Weed will kill you" in highschool and then you find out it's practicaly harmless -- it makes people think it's all bullshit, even the stuff about meth.
posted by delmoi at 8:55 PM on August 2, 2005

Well, like I said, they probably wouldn't take it if A) They could get better stuff

delmoi, for some people it is the better stuff. For some people, the orgasm one has after having had the stamina (and the uninhibited imagination) to have sex for 24 or more hours straight, or gay, or any combination thereof is very much part of the reason some get addicted to meth.

I'll say it here: one of the reasons I like to smoke weed from time to time is that I've noticed it is an orgasm enhancer.

Meth is the orgasm enhancement of weed times infinity squared times a bajillion for many people, myself included, which is why I stay the hell away from it. It's too damned alluring, in a dirty sort of way.

Anyone remember "Brainstorm", Natalie Wood's last movie? Basic plot: scientists come up with a way to record one's experience's digitally and then play them back so another person can experience the same thing.

Here's what I remember the most from that movie: during the research process, they got a research assistant to strap a camera to his head and do things; go down a waterslide, parachute, ride a rollercoaster ... well of course the research assistant went and fucked his girlfriend and recorded it without telling the scientists.

One of the research team found that illicit tape, looped nothing but the orgasm and played it over and over and over for days.

For many people I know and have known...mostly guys, true...being a meth addict is like that.
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:14 PM on August 2, 2005

you're better off a junkie than a meth or cocaine addict

Given the way different drugs interact with different people's brain chemistry, I call bullshit on simplistic generalizations like the one above. Like lots of folks in this thread, I've seen some horrid examples of meth addiction, but I still remain somewhat skeptical of the "meth is the most-evil-of-all-time" rhetoric, particularly given the fact that lots of speed-derived drugs are routinely being prescribed to increasing numbers of patients. And only a fool would ignore the reality that different people react differently to different drugs.

That said, I'd definitely agree that meth is one of the most addictive drugs I've seen, along with heroin and, to a slightly lesser extent, cocaine. Heroin's the one that fucks up smart folks' lives the most, though, in my experience.
posted by mediareport at 9:17 PM on August 2, 2005

mediareport: yes, which is an awful shame as it is an almost total side effect of the so-called War on Drugs. It is perfectly possible to be hooked like a bastard on heroin and still live, including working a full time job, while being so hooked. Lots of doctors used to be hooked on it. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if many still are since they can get the medicinal grade stuff.

Drugs: often bad. War on drugs: worse than you can imagine.
posted by Justinian at 9:40 PM on August 2, 2005

This article sums up Missouri's brand new, completely worthless anti-meth legislation. I now have to sign my name to some national potential-meth-producer registry in order to get my Claritin-D at the pharmacy, but there's nothing stopping actual meth producers from crossing the river and doing their pseudoephedrine purchasing in Illinois. The DEA here in St. Louis admits that this legislation has nothing to do with treating addiction (surprise). I think all the officials involved are hoping it will at least rid Missouri of that nasty 'meth capital of America' label. It can't be good for tourism!
posted by makonan at 10:01 PM on August 2, 2005

delmoi -

Well, like I said, they probably wouldn't take it if A) They could get better stuff and B) it was seen as 'uncool', trashy, pathetic.

A) 'better' is always relative - if you could stay awake and sharp and (debatably) creative and motivated, and the comedown comprised hours upon end of nasty sex and then a big sleep - that could be perhaps be considered as 'better' than some things. for a while.

and what WolfDaddy said.

B) i don't think many people i know have ever taken drugs to be 'cool'. and trashy can be fun sometimes. and habits are pathetic. everyone knows that. yet people still do it. why?

I think all of this could be avoided if we told people the truth about drugs.

because there's unfortunately nothing much you can tell people about the 'truth' of drugs that is not more relevant if (judiciously) experienced first hand.

it's like trying to talk someone out of addiction if they don't want to stop of their own accord. they have to see the 'truth' of their situation with their own eyes.
posted by soi-disant at 10:07 PM on August 2, 2005

Who would take meth if they could take Morphine or Ecstasy?

I know someone who does meth every several weeks and says he likes it better than MDMA. (He's functional, though I suppose it remains to be seen whether he'll spiral into something or other; I know someone else whose meth use has made him nonfunctional at times, though he's doing a bit better.) It's a matter of temperament and brain chemestry.

But meth and heroin aren't quite equivalent in their effects: you're better off a junkie than a meth or cocaine addict

That's ridiculous. Have you ever talked to any former heroin users? I have (there's something missing in their facial expressions), and I've followed the blog of an anthropology student over the past several years as she's descended into heroin addiction and become an escort.

Every time a new drug sweeps across the country, people tout it as worse than anything that came before. No. Heroin and coke are still really fucking bad (and the fact that you've snorted it once in awhile, NY and LA professionals, doesn't change that). Meth is more harmful only because it's easier to get.
posted by Tlogmer at 10:15 PM on August 2, 2005

delmoi: The best way to combat meth use, I think, is to continue to talk about how its the 'white trash' drug. You're not white trash, are you? No? Then clearly you'll never try meth.

jonmc: That'll get some people even more interested.

O JMC, Oracle of Queens -- you are abso-fucking-lutely right here. (Not everywhere, mind you.)

Labeling meth as the "white trash" drug wiil thus inoculate all the "good kids" from trying it? No fucking way. Unless, maybe, you're talking about an upscale suburb connected to a major urban area. Scarsdale, or The Woodlands, where 99% of the student body is expected to matriculate in a four-year college, or someone will know the reason why. There's something real and tangible at stake there. Anywhere else (i.e., the world most people inhabit) the "good kids" are either compulsive conformists or compulsive contrarians. The conformists were never in any danger at all, and the contrarians will seize upon anything you tell them they shouldn't have.

"Drugs" are not fungible. Pot is like booze -- there's a finely graduated continuum between teetotaler and incapacitated sot, and we all know people who function (or don't) at various points on that continuum.

Apparently, meth is binary. You do it, or you don't. Not that I know from personal experience, so I'm speculating here. Apparently, people ingest it and it makes them feel orgasmically (if erratically) good. Apparently, the drug itself doesn't run a credit check and so the white trash who ingest it aren't reminded of their pallid trashiness as a price for experiencing this orgasmic (if erratic) experience. (This itself is a novelty. Apparently.) Apparently, if the recipe for this orgasmically nice thing is readily available, it's difficult to imagine why some enterprising (though erratic) soul wouldn't undertake to set up him- or herself in a cottage industry producing more and more, despite the toxic consequences. (Sort of a fast-forward version of the Houston Ship Channel -- but I digress.)

That's meth. Apparently.

Personally, I have no idea. Though I have read my brother's divorce papers, documenting Texas court decisions which not only denied a mother custody of her son but also refused to allow her unsupervised visits due to her bothersome meth issues.

And she grew up in such a nice subdivison...
posted by vetiver at 10:27 PM on August 2, 2005

It's probably not that representative of the whole phenomenon, but in the case of the one heroin user I used to know -- or perhaps he was just the only one I found out about -- he was perfectly functional when he was on the stuff. Brilliant programmer, even.

The wheels fell off the wagon when he decided to go clean though. He started doing a lot of X, and his whole life went downhill from there. So junkies at least can be functional members of society. Not that anyone could get me to touch the stuff with a ten-foot-pole, mind you.
posted by clevershark at 10:33 PM on August 2, 2005

Ex (very minor) heroin user here. I was going through a difficult and painful period in my life which it helped me get through, as painkillers do. When the time came, I quit with no problems. That said, heroin withdrawal, from what I've seen, is a hell I would wish upon noone. The fact is that there are much safer opiates out there which people would be using instead of heroin. were it not for the war on some drugs.
posted by Astragalus at 11:22 PM on August 2, 2005

Late to the party but this has been a very worthwhile thread to read. Great FPP geoff.

Amphetamine class drugs (I think that although the neurochemistry may differ as well as the length of action, all the variants on this generic class belong together) bring up a great big complex point of issue in the whole drug debate. I've been watching it simmer below the surface here in the discussion among a bunch of people whose predominant attitude is to decriminalize +/- legalize drugs, if I can be so assumptive.

I watched a tv program a few years ago in which a Professor of Addition Studies from Perth University opined that if you took identical twins and separated them at birth leaving one to live a normal life and the other was given access to pure heroin and clean needles which he would use 4-6 times a day and you brought those 2 siblings back together 60 years later, the only difference that would be identified is that the heroin user/addict would be predisposed to constipation.

So in my wide personal and professional experience I see no reason to disagree with that hypothesis (actually it's probably stronger than a hypothesis, given the length of time science has had to observe and document the effects of its use) and suggests that the great societal hazards and fallout or sideaffects, if you will, are due solely to the prohibition causing it to be cut to an average of 18% street purity with attendant high price, both of which are essentially responsible for all the deleterious effects we all know and lament so well.

If heroin was legalized and free we would have a lot less social problems attributable to it. I know it's always been regarded as the heaviest of the heavies but when you get right down to it, most of the hyperbole we've all been fed by MSM and parents and schools is based on an ignorant assumption that addiction itself (whatever that charged word means) is a bad thing whereas the truth is that what is decried as evil is in fact rather harmless. Any decent reading of the literature will conclude with that finding. Most learned people on the subject who are not politicians or Police will also conclude that we would be better off legalizing it.

But with the amphetamines it's different and this is where I think the lefty MeFi tolerance-to-drugs hits a snag in philosophy. It's been mentioned upthread and I just want to endorse the opinion that says that pure amphetamines are much much much more harmful both from a personal health, psychological welfare (arguably most importantly) and societal consequences point of view. Cut or uncut that stuff fucks people up. The only question is which of us is more sensitive to its effects and/or which of us becomes more compulsive in our attempts to obtain it. This is one class of drugs where the idea of legalization has to be considered very scary. That's why I'm suggesting that it is the great thorn in the side of a blanket attitude that would advocate legalizing all neuroactive drugs. It's not a left or right demarcation as with many things in politics.

One must really go back and look at the history of mankind in since were first able to cogitate at a higher level than apes (and in fact there's a wide variety of animals who engage in drug taking activity one way or another as well but that's a different story) we've been searching for and imbibing all and any substances that will alter our conciousness. This hindsight is necessary because it tells us that no matter what level of prohibition or enforcement we adopt as a society, we know absolutely that a significant number of people will go underground subverting the law in one way or another to obtain a high. And the stats show that if you restrict one class of drug then there will be increase in use of another. Smack production gets hit, coke use goes up and on and on.

I guess the real question to me is how you maintain a society given this overriding disposition for altering conciousness. I suppose I would love to see a trial of legalizing it all, save for the amphetamines. My hypothesis is that there would be no overall increase in numbers of users of drugs and there would not be that usual shift towards a class of drugs such as amphetamines that's mostly come about because all the other 'goodies' have been pretty well restricted.

Yeah, yeah....I'm rabbitting on. I guess I mostly wanted to highlight or second the thought that speed (and perhaps even coke should be viewed in the same way, given the psychiatric effects) really is out there in a class of its own in terms of how fucked up its effects are/can be in all ways of looking at it. (alcohol is still the worst and pot has a lot of bad side effects personally and for society as well but amphetamines particularly have the greater side effects overall)

And in my drughappy utopian empire we would educate school kids. A lot. Not to mention having more counselling and treatment facilities of course. Come the revolution, when I'm installed as OverLord...
posted by peacay at 2:28 AM on August 3, 2005

peacay : "This is one class of drugs where the idea of legalization has to be considered very scary."

I think you're overgeneralizing. MDMA isn't much of a problem, and frankly speaking, the oral forms of other amps can be tolerated. The problem is with the smoked, sniffed and pumped forms. Even cocaine in oral/sublingual form is pretty mild. Crack is, again, no-no, but powder form is almost like alcohol (lifetime dependence 17% vs. 16% for coke). The key point is that for hard drugs, injection, snorting and smoking as methods should be discouraged, basically any method that spikes the concentration of the drug.
posted by Gyan at 9:00 AM on August 3, 2005

Ritalin is methylphenidate, and having had a very good friend who was addicted badly to it for years, I can tell you it will mess you up at least as badly as cocaine will, over the long term.

In fact, it's probably worse than cocaine in the long-term for your body, because you have to snort so much of it to prolong the high.
posted by SweetJesus at 9:31 AM on August 3, 2005

peacay - you do good work mate. thanks as always for the considered and balanced opinion. my vote for Overlord is hereby cast. one question before the inauguration though.

"...pure amphetamines are much much much more harmful both from a personal health, psychological welfare (arguably most importantly) and societal consequences point of view."

if someone were to want to take amps, and could handle them, and their habit didn't affect anyone else adversely, would you propose limited legalisation based on some criteria, like guns for instance?


Gyan - the methylene dioxy group changes mdma too markedly for it to be considered an amp in my opinion. so i'm afraid i'm going to have to side with peacay on this one. amps are trouble and meth in particular is the badness.
posted by soi-disant at 11:29 AM on August 3, 2005

an ignorant assumption that addiction itself (whatever that charged word means) is a bad thing whereas the truth is that what is decried as evil is in fact rather harmless.

Absolutely true. Our society is addicted to addiction itself, and to pretend this is not absolute fact is to contribute, no, to be an active, card-carrying member, in the putrid lie. Without addiction, the tobacco merchants would not addict the teenagers while piously claiming that they "don't want kids to smoke".

Without addiction, the CIA would never have been able to perpetrate its terrible crack-fueled genocide on the black populations of America's blighted inner cities.

Without addiction, we might look up from our Starbucks and Bud Lights (or pretentious microbrews) and see through a few illusions at play in this so-called society of ours.

Addiction is necessary, to maintain the lie. We are wholly addicted to addiction itself.
posted by theorique at 11:33 AM on August 3, 2005

soi-disant : "the methylene dioxy group changes mdma too markedly for it to be considered an amp in my opinion. so i'm afraid i'm going to have to side with peacay on this one. amps are trouble and meth in particular is the badness."

Amphetamines are grouped chemically, not psychopharmacologically. So, basically, peacay seems to be against stimulants rather than amphetamines, considering there are psychedelic amphetamines, as well.
posted by Gyan at 12:59 PM on August 3, 2005

Gyan, it's not that I'm against stimulants - hell, I smoke and nicotine it's an upper (yeah, yeah...poor analogy &c) - it's more a philosophical assertion that society is kind of happiest when they have access to psychoactive chemicals and if we were to limit coke and amphetamines, I think that the subsection who will always want something, will be largely content with all the rest.

My thing is that amphetamines and ecstasy, if it must be separated, and cocaine are responsible for inducing psychiatric problems far and away ahead of any other substances - pot is a long way behind even. Thus, I see these compounds as having intrinsically nasty properties.

I'm not going to get into further reading to engage in a chemistry debate at this point but MDMA taken orally still fucks some people up. Sure, injecting and freebasing are the scourges but there's a certain (probably/possibly) double-digit % of regular party animals who will suffer long term depression and/or personality changes as a result of their ecky indulgences.

See this is where it's tricky - advocating an open slather for drug legalization is a philosophy geared towards allowing free expression, but I think it's a risky path for society as a whole to take. soi_disant, I don't know what I'd advocate for the uppers -- probably continue on the present course while legalizing everything else and relook at the underground 'upper' market to see what level of interest they really hold over society as a whole. These are big questions and don't lend themselves kindly to blind or naive tweaking of our regulatory attitudes IMHO. I'd be likely more in favour of allowing coke access than the amphetamine family if anything I suspect. I think the South American native chewers have demonstrated that it's a tolerable scenario. I suppose ultimately we need to find ways through education to deter people from going down the injecting/freebasing path.

I didn't touch on the psychadelics but I'd be unlikely to advocate a ban mostly because of the less addictive nature - and maybe I'm wrong to view it this way, given again the propensity of LSD, psylocibin et al to reek havoc on a brain. One day in the future I suppose we'll have a genetic test that will group us in terms of what drugs we are allowed access to, by virtue of our predispositions. For the psychiatrically inclined there may only be booze and they may be happy for it. Heh.
posted by peacay at 1:42 PM on August 3, 2005

I'm not going to get into further reading to engage in a chemistry debate at this point but MDMA taken orally still fucks some people up.

Sure, but so does Tylenol. What you're glossing over is that many, many substances still fucks some people up. Alcohol? Want to take a guess at the societal costs of alcohol versus MDMA? Tylenol kills quite a few people every year (as I said), and so do the NSAIDs. Don't even get me started on cigarettes.

Your position simply strikes me as logically unsupportable. Pretty much anybody who wants to take this speed shit is already taking it. What would legalization do except decrease the societal costs? Soi-disant praised your opinion for its balance but I must admit I see it rather as moral judgment wrapped in a veneer of balance.
posted by Justinian at 2:06 PM on August 3, 2005

peacay : "MDMA taken orally still fucks some people up."

MDMA use is much less problematic than stimulant amps. The only basis to lump MDMA and meth together is chemical et structural. If you follow certain precautions, MDMA use is virtually safe. Of course, most people don't, but that's a problem of education.

peacay : "advocating an open slather for drug legalization is a philosophy geared towards allowing free expression"

That's the libertarian approach. "I don't like drugs but let others do what they want as long as they don't hurt someone else." and "Stay outta my backyard". My rationale is not strictly libertarian. My view is that most (but not all) drugs and drug-taking can be tamed and integrated (eventually). The current zero-tolerance approach stems from fear, uncertainty and doubt (to use a Slashdot cliche). The antiquated cartesian dualism ("drugs take over free will"..etc) doesn't help either. The South Americans and Native Americans have shown that even psychedelics can be ritualized. Of course, the problem is, current Western society, depends on a certain ethos and base values, to keep the wheels of the economy turning. And I suppose, apart from the credibility-destroying about-face that would be needed, the "authorities" are never willing to incorporate changes where they don't have a good clue where things are headed, and how it will stabilize. If nothing else, just the current Prohibition gravy-train of narcotics budgets and asset forfeiture, treatment industry helped by court referrals..etc will keep the ball rolling.

BTW, even the DEA consider the psychedelics non-addictive. I believe it was you that linked to that Foresight report which contained a survey of British substance misuse specialists who ranked LSD as less harmful than cannabis, and which I commented on, in that thread. If you want a decent appraisal of LSD by someone from the 'other side', there's LSD : Still With Us After All These Years, written by a NIDA consultant and a NIDA officer. Review here.
posted by Gyan at 3:29 PM on August 3, 2005

Justinian writes "I must admit I see it rather as moral judgment wrapped in a veneer of balance."
But the effects I referred to in relation to amps are psychiatric/brain damage. Paracetamol and any other substance for that matter will have negative effects if taken inappropriately (and sometimes even when taken appropriately). But there's a lot of difference between a stomach ulcer from NSAIDs and chronic depression from abuse of uppers.

In any event, I sugget you're 'playing the man and not the ball'. And I also understand the grave consequences of alcohol/tobacco abuse and basically said so, at least in ref. to alcohol -- but today we are talking about the illegal drugs, or at least that was my frame of reference. I'm not a legislator and I really would have to go and study up to debate more deeply - I'm not sidestepping issues particularly or at least specifically - we're just a discussion site and not the people who decide. I'm not really advocating. I'm more musing.

I don't know that it's fair to characterize my thoughts as moral wrapped in a veneer of balance. I'm the first to admit that this subject matter is complex and there's no easy answer (but I probably side with Gyan's integration model, if anything). I'm sure as hell not against drugs per se - fwiw there's nothing on this page that I haven't at one time or another both indulged in and helped treat the effects of in other people. If I come across as disingenuous then I suggest you're reading me wrong. If I come across as a bit contradictory then that's because I am myself struggling through the issues. OK so I used some throw away logic to a slight extent but you can't discuss this stuff without hypothesizing and engaging in conjecture as to consequences and these can themselves be viewed both at the personal and societal levels. At the personal level - each to their own and as long as it doesn't interfere with other people, all good and well. But this post was about the widescale effects of meth and so contemplating that brings in other larger issues of our social makeup.

Gyan thanks for the ref. but I don't see how that book presents the 'other side' of the debate about LSD. I only implied that it's not addictive, but that property isn't mentioned in your review. Although they do note negative effects...

"While the authors aptly point out that we do not know the precise mechanism of LSD's action, they also state outright that the research thus far clearly shows that LSD does not cause "organic damage, chromosomal damage, cancer, or birth defects. It is not particularly toxic..." The authors conclude that, "viewed strictly in the context of traditional drug-induced health consequences (measured in injury and death), LSD is less dangerous than most other illegal drugs."

posted by peacay at 4:13 PM on August 3, 2005

Fair enough, peacay. I suppose the reason I have trouble reading your position as something other than moral is that we simply already allow people to do so very many things that are, in the long run, bad for them that singling out uppers makes no sense to me. We already let people drink too much, which is bad for them. We already let people smoke, which is bad for them. We already let people eat too much fast food, which is bad for them. And yes, it does cause all kinds of long term health problems which society, as a whole, bears the cost of.

We already let people do things that we know for a fact can lead to heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, liver damage, kidney damage, cancers including but not limited to oral cancer, bowel cancer, lung cancer, cancer of the esophagus.

How can one view a position that it should be legal to smoke cigarettes, gulp down the caffeine, drink booze, eat MacDonalds five times a week while sitting on one's ass in front of the TV while washing it down with corn-syrup laden soft drinks, etc etc.. but it should not be legal to take an upper because in some people it will cause health problems as anything *but* a moral position?

I realize this is a complicated issue. I'm not trying to attack you but only bringing up my thought process. I just don't consider "well, those things are already legal so they get a pass" as a satisfactory answer.
posted by Justinian at 4:33 PM on August 3, 2005

Justinian writes "I just don't consider 'well, those things are already legal so they get a pass' as a satisfactory answer."
Absolutely.
posted by peacay at 4:51 PM on August 3, 2005

By the 'other side', I meant the allegiance of the authors. Read the start of the review: "This is a remarkable book. Epidemiologist Leigh A. Henderson, as a consultant to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and NIDA Project Officer William J. Glass started with the government's own survey data, worked with the authors of a new, individual and community-level ethnographic study, analyzed and interpreted these half-dozen data sets very conservatively, and ended up concluding that LSD is relatively safe and the laws far too severe. Some would say that these conclusions are still too conservative. Perhaps that's the point: Even a conservative reading of government data will not support today's absolutist attitudes and draconian laws.". You would normally expect such a book by someone pro-LSD.
posted by Gyan at 6:35 PM on August 3, 2005

k...gotcha.

There's a bit of commotion in Russia aiming to get LSD legalized for therapeutic use:

Actress Barbara Streisand was one of those, who signed the above-mentioned petition. The actress confessed that it was LSD, which helped her survive the nervous breakdown, when the star discovered that her only son was a homosexual.

Heh.
posted by peacay at 8:03 PM on August 4, 2005

peacay, that's happening in the US, as well, spearheaded by MAPS. Psilocybin has already undergone FDA-approved study. LSD will take some time, given the public notoriety.
posted by Gyan at 9:20 PM on August 4, 2005

Thanks for that Gyan. That's a very interesting website. I'm going to go listen to the interview with Dr Albert Hoffman, aged 99. [mp3 - ~25Mb] He looked pretty good at 98.
The MAPS website must confuse cartographers.
Shame it's not particularly current. That study you linked was last updated 11 months ago.
posted by peacay at 10:24 PM on August 4, 2005

Actually, I'll withdraw the update comment - there's a spring '05 newsletter.
posted by peacay at 10:27 PM on August 4, 2005

To provide some balance:

DRCNet: The Methamphetamine Epidemic - Less Than Meets the Eye

NYTimes: Debunking the Drug War
posted by Gyan at 12:44 AM on August 9, 2005

"There is one indicator that continues a steady climb, and that is the number of people receiving treatment for meth use. That number has increased more than five-fold in the past decade. "While the overall use figures are pretty much flat, we are seeing meth account for more than 20% of all drug treatment in some states, and I suspect that is what is fueling this," said Leah Young, a spokeswoman for the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. In 1993, there were 21,000 meth treatment admissions; a decade later there were 116,000," she told DRCNet. "Meth is taking up treatment resources like it never did before, and the states are paying attention to it because it seems to have burst on them out of nowhere."

But even the steady increase in the number of people in treatment for meth over the past decade does not necessarily mean more meth users are seeking treatment. Instead, alone with marijuana among all other drugs, a majority of meth users in treatment are there because a judge sent them there in a criminal proceeding. Nearly 51% of all meth users in treatment in 2003 were there as a result of criminal justice system referrals."

OK...so you halve it (to remove the court ordered treatment) and you get ~58,000 people receiving meth treatment in 2003. That's a 3-fold increase over 10 years. That article has some interesting data but it's fallacious logic to dismiss treatment increases the way it seems to have.

I daresay the more useful indicator (does it exist?) of societal effects might be the relative change in diagnosis of chronic psychiatric disorder (say lasting more than 2 years) per 100,000 of population or a variation on that theme. That's a rough thought answering the overall question of 'Has there been an increase in use and what if any detrimental effects has it had on the population?' That would seem to me to be eminently more sensible measure versus this ethereal entity called addiction. Thanks again Gyan.
posted by peacay at 6:26 AM on August 10, 2005

peacay : "so you halve it (to remove the court ordered treatment) and you get ~58,000 people receiving meth treatment in 2003."

Courts aren't the only coercive force.

For 2003, total 113,310 people were reported as recieving meth treatment. Of which,

26,808 (23.7%) were referred by self or family.
5,782 (5.1%) by "alcohol/drug abuse care provider"
5,949 (5.3%) by "other health care provider"
442 (0.4%) by "school (educational)
484 (0.4%) by employer
14,668 (12.9%) by "other community referral"
59,177 (52.2%) by "court/criminal justics referral/dui/dwi"

Now, there's no breakup for the first category (self or family), so it's hard to know the exact proportion of self-referral.

But the key point remains. If the same number of people are using meth, why are so many more seeking treatment? The drug's the same and humans are the same, so to speak. Few possible options:

1)Same ratio of people needed treatment in 1993, as of now, but didn't seek it.
2)There's lot more coercion to join treatment.
3)nature of drug consumption has changed (oral -> smoking ..etc) thus creating the explosion.
4)The survey is inaccurate; lot more people are actually using meth.

What do you suppose?

peacay : "I daresay the more useful indicator (does it exist?) of societal effects might be the relative change in diagnosis of chronic psychiatric disorder (say lasting more than 2 years) per 100,000 of population or a variation on that theme. "

You would have to connect that increase or decrease, if any, to drug use, particularly meth There are numerous events and agents that can precipitate psychotic disorders. Remember that DSM-IV was published in 1994, and in general, there's been an increase in diagnosis prevalence (I'm not, here, implying or discarding any ulterior motives; just an observation), e.g. overall bipolar disorder prevalence is now estimated at 4% of population, up from 1% earlier. Is this the result of looser diagnostic criteria, higher incidence or both?
posted by Gyan at 1:18 PM on August 10, 2005

Gyan writes "For 2003, total 113,310 people were reported.."

What's the cite on this - I fossicked around but couldn't find the survey (save for the quote I posted from the first of your last links) ?
---
You give 4 possible explanations for the increase in users treated. Don't forget bed numbers. Have they increased? Whilst I doubt it, there's always the possibility that more people will have been treated in '93 if they could have got in. I say this with some anecdotal direct knowledge, having seen people (and I'm talking substance abuse, not a particular class) turned away (in Oz, but it's notionally illustrative) because there were insufficient facilities available together with prolonged waiting periods.

And is there a similar breakdown (courts etc) for the '93 figures? I ask because you speak of coercive pressures (outside of the justice system) and I sense, despite you're merely asking what appear to be rhetorical questions, that you conclude that public hysteria, political hyperbole and journalistic editorialship have combined to falsely panic a goodly number of people associated with amp abuse (be it users, family, social services..) such that there's been a 'pile on' forcing treatment on people. If I'm mischaracterizing your position it's because I'm having to guess.

I'm openminded about whether numbers seeking treatment have increased. From what I quoted above, it seemed dismissive when the court numbers were removed. I'm not necessarily accusing the Drug Reform Coordination Network of poor reporting but they are of course going to disseminate material and ideas that best supports their aims.

You're of course right about the need to correlate any psych data correctly. It's my knee jerk response to judging amp abuse. It's because of my observations that 'many' people develop diagnosable psych symptoms which to me are the fundamental negatives about amp abuse. It would be a hard slog to attach accuracy to any data I suspect, not the least reason being because of an increased propensity to hang a diagnosis on people these days as you've mentioned with which I probably agree (got a cite for those figures as well?). But if it is possible to generate some numbers to a reasonable level of surety I think it would add a useful measure to the overall picture.

Gyan can you put an email addi in your profile.
posted by peacay at 5:45 AM on August 11, 2005

peacay : "Don't forget bed numbers. Have they increased?"

This can be subsumed within possibility (1).

peacay : "And is there a similar breakdown (courts etc) for the '93 figures?"

Yeah, but that's a different file. I haven't opened those yet.

peacay : "that public hysteria, political hyperbole and journalistic editorialship have combined to falsely panic a goodly number of people associated with amp abuse (be it users, family, social services..) such that there's been a 'pile on' forcing treatment on people."

More or less.

There is an email addy, but the stylesheet obscures it. Look in the page source.
posted by Gyan at 11:05 AM on August 11, 2005

I'm not sure if we've seen this directly but I think these may have been either quoted or alluded to (pdf) - National Association of Counties. July '05
Two Surveys of U.S. Counties:
The Criminal Effect of Meth on Communities
The Impact of Meth on Children

I haven't had a good look (it's only 12 pages or so) but it's essentially a phone interview of cops and child welfare workers. I'm guessing the cops are both subjective and have been pointedly more assiduous in attacking meth and that that influences the child welfare figures as well.
posted by peacay at 12:35 PM on August 11, 2005

Here's a year-by-year breakdown

Key
Tot = Total patients
Self = Self/family-referred (%)
Year      Tot     Self
1992     14,381   33.6
1993     20,577   34.5
1994     33,084   34.9
1995     46,864   31.4
1996     40,221   28.5
1997     52,422   31.5
1998     54,469   27.0
1999     57,067   26.2
2000     64,883   27.0
2001     79,327   25.4
2002    101,490   22.4
2003    113,310   23.7

The source is the Treatment Episode Data Set from SAMHSA.
posted by Gyan at 1:00 PM on August 11, 2005