Meth myths

August 21, 2005 7:44 PM

The meth myth? New blog takes critical look at media coverage of meth; other skeptical observers also ask whether meth babies and meth mouth really exist.
posted by footnote (102 comments total)

Is meth the same as speed? Coz where I live in Oz we only seem to have speed.

(Oz has never had crack either... well not enough to get on the MSM radar, at least.)

And I'm gathering ice is the same as meth which is the same as crystal meth, yes? And if meth is different to speed then how come you crazy Americans aren't using speed any more?

Is there a link to definitions one knows of? Preferable with some sciency type descriptions.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 7:54 PM on August 21, 2005

I only have one friend in jail for meth production, but during his year in incarceration (so far) he's had to have four teeth extracted. I'm just sayin'.
posted by BoringPostcards at 7:58 PM on August 21, 2005

From the entry below the link.

It's only been a short time that I've been working on this blog and wringing my hands over poor media coverage of meth, but it's already led me to one conclusion: there needs to be more documentation for claims that are made about phenomena like meth use, drug arrests, and so forth. Give me footnotes! Give me hyperlinks! This is the 21st freakin' century, for God's sake. Why do I constantly have to read crap like "according to a study"?? What study? Who did it? Where is it? I want to see it for myself. Because after all the garbage I've seen passed off as news, I don't really trust Hacky Greenhorn from the Big City Bugle to get it right.

Testify.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 7:58 PM on August 21, 2005

Cool. I was going to AskMe about this.

Up here in Canada, we're heading toward a panic about meth. The Premier of Saskatchewan -- who, given that it's Saskatchewan^*, may have some actual cause for concern -- managed to rouse the interest of the other Premiers, and has set a date for an all-provinces meeting to learn about and plan for meth abuse. Already we're hearing mumblings about putting certain cough medicines behind the pharmacy counters. And this in a country where anyone can get T3s (tylenol+codeine)!

Skeptical me, it occurred to me this very week that perhaps it's all a lot of upset over very little. I mean, this is Canada, where pot is nearly legal while the US imprisons people for an eternity just for possessing it. It wouldn't surprise me the least were the horrible meth stories just a part of the inane US anti-drug mythology.

So... is it for real, or is it bogus? Is meth really something that anyone not fucked-up beyond redemption would use? Is it really a clear and present danger to our children?

'cause, seriously, if it's not any more of a problem than heroin, I fail to see what the fuss is all about.

^*I'm under the impression Saskatchewan has some serious issues with low-cost, hard-core, super-destructive drug use, ie. gas sniffing, aerosols huffing, etc., especially among its destitute native population. A lot of sad cases, especially up north.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:58 PM on August 21, 2005

Yes, speed is meth. And this
will answer any other questions.
posted by team lowkey at 7:59 PM on August 21, 2005

I was under the impression that meth was speed, but not all speed was meth. i.e. ephedra
posted by angry modem at 8:01 PM on August 21, 2005

Also up here in Canada, it's just been moved to Schedule I, making production, import/export and distribution a crime punishable (at the max) by life imprisonment.
posted by dreamsign at 8:04 PM on August 21, 2005

I've been under the impression that meth is a bit more "concentrated" than speed. Mates of mine scored speed the whole time, but boasted particularly when they got some good crystal meth.

Speaking from experience it's not a nice drug. It's not even a particularly fun drug, unless your idea of fun is being wired to teeth-grinding point for 48 hours unable to sleep, while at the same time being a selfish violent bastard to all and sundry. We all grew out of it pretty quick when we realized it was pointless and boring, and those people we knew who did it every day were become utter bastards.
posted by Jimbob at 8:13 PM on August 21, 2005

i can collaborate one thing the blogger mentions ... the kalamazoo gazette has been very heavy on the meth scare stories this year ... there does seem to be some basis for it, but they're playing it up for all it's worth

it didn't seem to be worth enough for the voters to vote for a new expanded county jail ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:15 PM on August 21, 2005

I've only ever heard the term speed used in reference to crystal meth. I'm sure it's regional like anything else, but in southern California, I had a friend who was a dealer, and several other friends who were his clients, and they only said speed to mean meth. There are other "speedy" drugs, but you wouldn't call them "speed".
posted by team lowkey at 8:18 PM on August 21, 2005

and then there's this awful addiction
posted by brandz at 8:21 PM on August 21, 2005

Speed is a generic term for (amphetamine) stimulants, like amphetamine, or just its dextro isomer, d-amphetamine, or methamphetamine..etc. Nowadays, even methylphendiate (Ritalin) might be included. Meth is short for err.. methamphetamine. Of course, on the street, the terms are fluid and probably change connotations seasonally.
posted by Gyan at 8:21 PM on August 21, 2005

I appreciate the meth-mouth link. It seems to me that the core population of meth users -- poor rural folks -- has always had bad teeth. Poverty is one common cause of dental problems. Poverty also causes addiction problems solved with cheap and especially toxic drugs. Toothless hillbillies (and a moral panic over them fixated on their toothlessness) go back a lot longer than meth.
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:22 PM on August 21, 2005

In my neck of the woods (Portland, Oregon, where FOX news would have you believe that the streets are paved with meth), "meth" and "crystal meth" both refer to methamphetamine. I've never heard anybody but Dog the Bounty Hunter call it "ice", but that'd be meth, too. "Speed" might mean meth, but might also mean amphetamine. "Crank" is low quality meth that is more powdery, and usually snorted rather than smoked.

The Urban Dictionary might help with various usages.

Regarding meth and tooth loss, while I can't comment on the cause, I can say that someone close to me has three meth-using siblings with terrible dental problems. The two other kids in the same family don't use meth, and have nice teeth.
posted by thinman at 8:25 PM on August 21, 2005

The Utah Attorney General's office has a page on meth terminology, which lists slang names including "Biznack," " Peanut Butter," "Rumdumb," "Shiznastica," "Spun Ducky Woo," "The White House" and " Tish - Shit Backwards (C.V. Calif. area)," and " Vanilla Pheromones." I am not making this up.
posted by footnote at 8:29 PM on August 21, 2005

uncanny hengeman, team lowkey et al. - they're not the same thing. speed is slang for amphetamine usually. meth, crystal and ice are slang for methamphetamine. it looks like shards of glass, as opposed to speed which is usually a powder. the difference is an additional methyl group attached to the nitrogen, like so. also, the d- isomer of meth is the active one.

being a sydneysider myself, u.h., i can tell you unequivocally that meth is available here. most of it comes from indochina, though some is locally made. and more than just being available, it's scarily prevalent.
posted by soi-disant at 8:31 PM on August 21, 2005

Meth? I give it to my kids.
posted by telstar at 8:32 PM on August 21, 2005

Frankly "meth babies" sounds more and more like "crack babies", a very popular public hysteria from the late 80s/early 90s which proved out to be baseless and basically thought up by the media eager to cash in on the whole "generating public outrage" craze which, I must surmise, hasn't abated in the slightest bit.

So meth addicts have rotten teeth. I would tend to suspect that so do smack, crack and coke fiends. Guess what -- when you're addicted to strong drugs you cheap out on things like dental care and spend the money on drugs instead. Do that for long enough and your teeth will soon be fugly. You're also likely to only hang out with fellow addicts who aren't too likely to be taking care of themselves either, and soon enough your blackened teeth look normal -- compared to the people you see regularly.

Personally, given the ONDCP and other anti-drug cartels' continued baseless, vicious lies about marijuana, I have absolutely no confidence in anything they say about other drugs, because I know that most likely it's as much bullshit as what they say about the drugs I have tried. The Drug Czar as "the boy who cried wolf" -- maybe he's right this time, but his credibility is so shite that he's just not believable, and nor is anyone associated with the ONDCP.
posted by clevershark at 8:35 PM on August 21, 2005

In about 1~3 months, media coverage of meth will hit 'crack-epidemic' porportions of sheer baseless ridiculousness. The media is pining for a story that involves meth, a teenage white woman in peril, rising gas prices, Islamic Terrorism, and a long search for the evil-doers.

It would culminate in a 274-hour three way standoff between the media, the police, and someone else. The third party actually doesn't really matter. Maybe someday they'll be able to fabricate some sort of news event that doesn't involve a victim or a bad guy at all.
posted by blasdelf at 8:45 PM on August 21, 2005

Personally, given the ONDCP and other anti-drug cartels' continued baseless, vicious lies about marijuana, I have absolutely no confidence in anything they say about other drugs, because I know that most likely it's as much bullshit as what they say about the drugs I have tried.

Well this is the whole argument against the kind of misinformation they spread. Kids see ads telling them marijuana will send them crazy. They try it anyway, don't go crazy, and wonder if the warnings about other drugs are bullshit as well.

Meth is common as muck where I'm from (again, Australia) and it has been for as long as I can remember. It's not a nice drug. But since about 50% of my friends have used it in the past, and now almost none of them do, and they've all gone on to live productive normal lives with decent standards of dental hygeine, I think the "menace" is a bit over-hyped.
posted by Jimbob at 8:47 PM on August 21, 2005

On the flip side, "meth babies" will have an easier time with teething. Sleep-deprived parents everywhere should be thrilled at the news.
posted by Rothko at 8:48 PM on August 21, 2005

i've met a few meth heads with really really f*cked up dental situations... which they readily admitted were due to the drug - what is the point of this post? the blog? and the thin salon article...
posted by specialk420 at 8:53 PM on August 21, 2005

specialk420, were they dentists? (there's a thought, dentists on meth) i've met a lot of poor rural folks with f*cked up teeth, some of whom were meth users, some of who just drank, and some of whom were hardcore christian fundies who didn't touch any of the stuff. i'm not saying i know one way or the other, but i take it from various links posted so far that the case for "meth mouth" as a specific syndrome is a little thin.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:02 PM on August 21, 2005

Meth is pretty popular in the hipster community here in New Orleans. Less taboo than heroin. More of a party drug.

One friend of mine had a serious problem with it (and heroin, from time to time), and he's in NA now. In general, however, most of the users I've met have been completely functioning individuals, generally with better jobs that me actually. Not that that says much.

I've seen no evidence of "meth mouth."
posted by brundlefly at 9:04 PM on August 21, 2005

The "Meth Epidemic" is mostly hysteria. Firstly, it's been around as long as I can remember, and I've had plenty of friends try it, toy with it, etc. None of my friends have ever had a serious problem with it, and overall, I wouldn't consider it a terribly addictive drug compared to say, nicotine. Unlike nicotine, however, a severe addiction to meth can destroy someone in a hurry. Whatever, I still use meth on occasion. I swallow it, when I need to stay up and alert. I prefer dexedrine though. Cleaner, not too strong and not so edgy.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:09 PM on August 21, 2005

As telstar noted, meth is for kids! Adderall is pretty good too, a veritable cocktail of amphetamine goodness. Maybe the pharmaceutical grade stuff is a little easier on the dental? And is not that bad for you? It's enough to make you wonder what the deal is sometimes.
posted by 31d1 at 9:10 PM on August 21, 2005

Adderall is pretty good too
...

Dextroamphetamine Saccharate
Amphetamine Aspartate

They make it sweet for crying out loud
posted by nervousfritz at 9:12 PM on August 21, 2005

I don't like the idea of making Sudafed hard to get for those of us who use it to kick the ass of a cold... Like in Oregon where you now need a prescription to buy Sudafed. Since I tend to buy Sudafed at 2 in the morning while suffering a cold, will I have to have visit a the emergency room to get the prescription?

The Walgreens here in Austin have the cold meds behind the counter at the pharmacy. You take a card up to the counter and get it. This makes more sense than requiring a prescription.

I do think much if this is to do about nothing. Yes, there is a drug problem. Yes, people -- mostly steal to acquire it -- use common cold and allergy meds to make the shit. But should that stop the majority of us that use the medication for its intended purpose? Should Nyquil get locked up because kids use it to get drunk? Should we ban gasoline and glue because people use them as inhalants?

What the people "fighting the war on drugs" don't seem to realize is that some people will get high. If meth disappeared tomorrow, people would get high on something else.
posted by birdherder at 9:24 PM on August 21, 2005

From the last link,

"Dr. John R. Richards M.D., who studied tooth damage among 49 users in the late 1990s and co-wrote a paper on his finding for the August 2000 issue of the Journal of Periodontology, says users could consume pharmaceutical-grade methamphetamine and still lose their teeth.

The paper, titled "Patterns of Tooth Wear Associated With Methamphetamine Use," recorded the most dramatic tooth wear among methamphetamine users who preferred snorting meth over other means of administration. Frequent snorting of the drug inhibits blood flow to the arteries that service the top front teeth, the authors found, which weakens them. Also, most of study's subjects smoked tobacco, and the connection between smoking and bad teeth is well-known.

"Not all that much tooth damage could be caused in the short time methamphetamine is in your mouth," Richards says. He adds that upper teeth are more prone to drying than lower teeth. When meth users binge and pass out, they may sleep for a day or longer with their mouths open, further drying their uppers.

Richards calls neglect of basic hygiene the biggest cause of dental damage among users. "It's a lifestyle issue," he says."

That indicates that teeth wear & tear is avoidable.
posted by Gyan at 9:26 PM on August 21, 2005 [1 favorite]

I think the jaw grinding, need for high sugar drinks are larger causes. If you put a monkey on meth and fed him healthy foods and gave him one of those things that stop people from grinding their teeth at night he'd be fine. It's not like amphetamines cause tooth decay.

And equating meth to adderall and other amphetamines is bad. That's similar to putting heroin and tylenol-3 in the same category. Yes they will both get a similar high but the intensity and subsequent effects are totally different. Meth has the methyl group which allows the speed to go straight to your brain. Adderall is formulated so that the different amphetamine salts keep you activated over a sustained period, instead of just being high and done with it.

Meth has been a big problem here for as long as I can remember. It's highly stigmatized, more so than heroin or any other drug (oddly, LSD is seen as the worse drug you can do and its probably one of the safest).

If it wasn't so hard to get some decent weed or mushrooms in middle america people wouldn't cook up crazy stuff like this. Of course I still think the popularity of meth has to do with WASP work ethic.
posted by geoff. at 9:44 PM on August 21, 2005 [1 favorite]

We get a lot of meth news here in Missouri, where we lead the nation in lab seizures (pdf). Production is particularly rampant in our National Forest where I live and work. A recent article on "meth mouth" appeared in the St. Louis Post (with photo).

I don't know if it's a myth or not, but it's certainly been getting hype around here the last few years.
posted by F Mackenzie at 9:45 PM on August 21, 2005

I was listening to NPR a week or so ago, and a prison dentist and some prisoners talked about meth mouth, they said it was at least partialy due to a intense craving for sweets that meth users had, and would be satiated by heavily sugared food.
posted by Snyder at 9:48 PM on August 21, 2005

These articles show up periodically that cleverly argue that addiction is socially constructed. Meanwhile a neighbor's son overdosed on heroin last week after getting out of rehab. He's dead. I think for his parents it's not an academic exercise.
posted by craniac at 9:52 PM on August 21, 2005

Poor dental health is poor dental health. Alcoholics are not known for brushing and flossing, and I doubt if a methhead brushed their teeth a whole lot before the addiction began.
I am certain the lack of nutritive food intake accelerates dental problems (gums are living tissue) and the user going for days without proper rest is hard on the body too. Just as alcoholism manifests itself in the liver, meth seems to hit the teeth the hardest. Brush and floss, even if it isn't the favorite way to end an evening of drinking and smoking meth.
posted by buzzman at 9:59 PM on August 21, 2005

Those who say the old crack hysteria was "baseless" are socially and factually right, but chemically wrong, crack being the "free base" form of cocaine. Or else guilty of the basest sort of punmongering...
posted by clicktosubmit at 10:00 PM on August 21, 2005

ok...lots of people know someone who "plays/played with meth" or has a habit and is now in narc-anon or jail...and they have great teeth. good for them, it's nice to be in recovery or jail and have a nice set of choppers. do you know anyone that has gone from an upstanding individual to a complete fucking whore or thief in a matter of weeks/months for the fucking stuff? playing or having a habit is a little different than being possesed by a drug. when i say possesed i don't mean a really bad habit...i mean FUCKING POSSESED, as in by a demon. $85k a year and a lexus to homeless and carless. lying, stealing, whoring, and losing everything that mattered to them in 3 months flat. i'm no fucking angel, believe me. name a drug and i've more than likely done it(or have done too much of it), but some people lose their shit, all of their shit very quickly. i'd be willing to bet 100k worth of crystal in a few months will make your teeth fall out...seems like a safe bet b/c i've seen it happen. sure, blame bad hygeine...c'mon. i'd also be willing to bet 3 months of not brushing and you'll a few cavities, but still have all of your teeth. whatever. some people can deal, some can't. you may see a friend lose their shit and think it can't get any worse. believe me, it can. it's those real over-achievers that are losing teeth. meth sucks...smoke weed or something.
posted by cloudstastemetallic at 10:22 PM on August 21, 2005

craniac : "These articles show up periodically that cleverly argue that addiction is socially constructed."

None of the articles above, claim that. Only that there's no meth epidemic now where there wasn't one before, for many, many years. As for the 'addiction as social construction', the closest advocate I can think of, is Stanton Peele. But even he's not close. No one seriously claims that addiction does not exist, Only that 1)most users don't get addicted, 2)addiction for all users isn't that overpowering, and 3)addiction by itself isn't good or bad. The detriments of addiction are dependent on the context in which the addiction is fulfilled. Take the case of your neighbor's son. When out of rehab, his tolerance to opiates must have diminished considerably. His subsequent dosing of a habitual dose would be lethal. In constrast, compare with this successful British initiative where heroin addicts are legally prescribed heroin, and also Switzerland and recently Vancouver.
posted by Gyan at 10:23 PM on August 21, 2005

Before anyone does any more pontificating on this topic, I respectfully suggest y'all read this week-long special report in the Portland Oregonian, for which the two lead authors were Pulitzer Prize finalists in national reporting this year.
posted by twsf at 11:21 PM on August 21, 2005

I've known several people kick nicotine. I'm under the impression that nic is about the most addictive drug out there: that one can become physically addicted having had just one smoke. And I've heard anecdotal evidence to the same: people who tried a ciggie just once as a teen, but craved another for weeks after.

I've known several people kick alcohol.

And I know the Vancouver Safe Injection House is proving a rip-roaring success, with many an addict seeking help to kick their bait.

My conclusion: many people don't want to be addicted, whether it's to smokes, booze, or smack. Offered the support to kick it, they often will.

I expect it's much the same with meth. And I rather strongly suspect that if the government were more honest about drugs, more people would choose to not do the most harmful ones.

Mind, being absolutely honest about it would mean legalizing marijuana, illegalizing cigarettes, not tolerating irresponsible drunken behaviour (ie. go ahead and get shitfaced [we'll still be here when you need help standing up again], but don't endanger others), and taking all that glorious megabuck DEA funding into safe injection sites, counselling, drug addiction treatment centres, and high-quality, honest educational materials.

I'm probably too sane for this era. I keep forgetting we're trying to do things the hard way.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:32 PM on August 21, 2005

"Yes they will both get a similar high but the intensity and subsequent effects are totally different."

They are not totally different, they are slightly different. The intensity depends on the dosage, and as for the "subsequent affects" you mention I am not quite sure what you are talking about. These drugs are similar the same way that drinking a cup of coffee similar to having a shot of espresso. If you chug your coffee black, the affects are the same. If you take 40mgs of adderall and sniff it up, it is pretty damn close to crystal. I tell you this from personal experience with Ritalin, Adderal, Dexadrine, (Pseudo)Ephedrine, etc and methamphetamines. There is a generation of kids on amphetamines, and their parents are panicing about the meth epidemic, trying to reassure themselves that methyl "slow release" group is making a huge difference...
posted by sophist at 11:39 PM on August 21, 2005

I'd hesistate to say methamphetamines are not addictive. I remember vaguely a PubMed search turning up a number of articles on the difficulty of breaking the habit. And I know from my own experience with taking prescribed Adderall that dependency is an issue. If I skip a few days I feel tired and listless, and when I took a few months off I still wasn't feeling back to my old self when I took it up again (for work-related, not dependency-related reasons). And Adderall's an amphetamine derivative and not as "hard" as meth, so I can't imagine coming off meth use is that easy, either.

So maybe my body's just extra-susceptible, but those I know who take it have experienced similar problems.
posted by Anonymous at 11:41 PM on August 21, 2005

I'm with cloudstastemetallic. The people I've known who got into meth went batshit crazy. Left their familys and lost everything they had.
What I think is sad is how many people say so-and-so drug isnt so bad, then come to find out they don't even know what the hell it is they are taking because, as we see above, the same names are used for different substances.
posted by Osmanthus at 12:00 AM on August 22, 2005

"Adderall is pretty good too
...

Dextroamphetamine Saccharate
Amphetamine Aspartate

They make it sweet for crying out loud"

Have you snorted Adderall? I did once, just to see what it was like. Sickeningly sweet. Truth is, take it from those who know: Crack mouth is real. I lived near a meth house when i was going to middle school and it's not "oh they are poor lol" it is "There is a correlation that multiple mefi members feel holds base, that meth heads typically have poor quality teeth".

What an idiotic argument in my opinion.
posted by Dean Keaton at 12:12 AM on August 22, 2005

Schroedinger: I am actually not taking my adderall at the moment, and its been a few days. I feel slightly more sluggish, but not terribly so. If I could never take it again I would be sad for a week and get over it, so I agree that different people have differing addictive reactions to any medication. As a sidenote, I do in fact have ADD and the medication has greatly helped me in my personal and professional life.
posted by Dean Keaton at 12:15 AM on August 22, 2005

Thanks for that, soi-disant!
posted by uncanny hengeman at 12:49 AM on August 22, 2005

Back in the day, the chemists on campus used to worry about using speed (as in good old fashioned amphetamine sulphate) because of the effect it had 'leaching' calcium from the body. Now if memory serves, teeth are made in a large part from calcium, so leeching of calcium would have the effect of knackering your teeth.

If all of this is true, then a campaign to encourage Meth-Addicts to drink more milk, might help to minimise this Meth-Mouth problem.

(Just a thought)...

(heh... Spellchecker just suggested Methodist for Meth-Addict)
posted by couch at 1:18 AM on August 22, 2005

Meth users dental problems are due to meth usage. To
say they are caused by poor hygiene is ridiculous. I've
seen plenty of users whose teeth are horrible and they
aren't even 30 yrs old. Poor dental hygiene can't account
for this rapid deterioration.

The percentage of meth addicts who successfully kick is
only slightly higher than it is for heron: 3% for heron 5%
for meth. I don't believe you can realistically group smokers with meth users as far as addictions go. Meth is far more insidious and life altering: it's very unlikely you will find a woman turning tricks to support her cigarette habit.
posted by bat at 1:34 AM on August 22, 2005

For those of us who remember the PCP scare of the late seventies there are many parallels and it's tempting to agree with this writer that ... drug scares have been a recurring feature of US society for the past 200 years.
posted by grahamwell at 1:57 AM on August 22, 2005

Bat: The reason you don't find a woman turning tricks to support her cigarette habit is because cigarettes are LEGAL, not because it is less addictive than methamphetamine. Were cigarettes illegal you can bet your booty that you could find women serving it up for cigarettes. So that's a rather unfair comparison to make.

Geoff. - You made the same exact statement about it being unfair to compare meth with adderall and other salts in the last meth thread. And I corrected you there too. It is absolutely fair. Adderall and Methamphetamine can both be taken orally in pill form or snorted. If you pour out the Adderall and snort it like you snort crystal meth, it gets you just as high. The effects are slightly different not "very" different. The idea that they are very different is a sop to parents who don't want to feel like they are giving their kids a hardcore drug.

Are you going to keep repeating that misinformation about Adderall -vs- meth every time a meth thread comes up?
posted by Justinian at 2:03 AM on August 22, 2005

bat, you say nobody turns tricks for nicotine (I'll add alcohol too), but that's only because it's legal, hence cheap enough that nobody has to.

In Germany at the end of WWII, tricks were indeed turned for cigarettes. Smokes are routinely traded for sex in US prisons today.

No reason for meth, heroin, cocaine, etc. to be different except they're illegal, hence hugely expensive. THAT arbitrary status is way more "life-changing" than the drugs themselves. They are all toxic and addictive (in fact the legal ones are worse), but only the historical accident of prohibition condemns some addicts to marginal lives as criminals while allowing others to be productive citizens.

Tobacco is the most toxic of all, and uniquely poisons not just the user but everyone nearby. It enjoys a privileged position in US law only because it's been a huge cash crop since colonial times.
posted by clicktosubmit at 3:19 AM on August 22, 2005

bat, you say nobody turns tricks for nicotine (I'll add alcohol too), but that's only because it's legal, hence cheap enough that nobody has to.

In Germany at the end of WWII, tricks were indeed turned for cigarettes. Smokes are routinely traded for sex in US prisons today.

Meth, heroin, cocaine, etc. are only different because they're illegal, hence hugely expensive. THAT arbitrary status is way more "life-changing" than the drugs themselves. They are all toxic and addictive (in fact the legal ones are worse), but only the historical accident of prohibition condemns addicts of the "wrong" drugs to marginal lives as criminals while addicts of the "right" ones remain productive citizens.

Tobacco is the most toxic of all, and uniquely poisons not just the user but everyone nearby. It enjoys a privileged position in US law only because it's been a huge cash crop since colonial times. The US was the Colombia of a couple of hundred years ago, founded largely on drug money--tobacco shipped to Europe.
posted by clicktosubmit at 3:28 AM on August 22, 2005

Oops, sorry all, "first timer privilege" invoked for the duplicated comment above. Yikes, how'd that happen...
posted by clicktosubmit at 3:45 AM on August 22, 2005

Anyone who believes that speed is more addictive than tobacco needs their heads checked. It simply isn't.

Poor dental hygiene can't account for this rapid deterioration.

Ever seen a smoker that never brushes their teeth? Disgusting. Ever see news stories about it? no

Ever see the effects of alcohol on babies? Disgusting. Ever see news stories about it? no

Of course addiction is bad for you. An addiction to shitty fast food will probably kill you. An addiction to Alcohol will probably kill you. Smoking, yep, you'll die from it. Hell, addictions to video games kill.

Why does the Government target the drugs it does? It isn't because they are the "most" dangerous. That's been proven countless times in the past.
posted by twistedonion at 3:48 AM on August 22, 2005

This story was on NPR Morning Edition a couple of weeks back -- if you think "meth mouth" is myth after reading/listening, I'm curious as to why.
posted by alumshubby at 3:49 AM on August 22, 2005

In Germany at the end of WWII, tricks were indeed turned for cigarettes. Smokes are routinely traded for sex in US prisons today.

Because they were/are the only available form of currency. That is to say, they didn't/don't get smoked by the first person who trades them. Just as Maine lobstermen don't eat lobster- too valuable.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:02 AM on August 22, 2005

Indigo, I guess an elusive point (it eludes me anyway) deserves an arcane example (lobstermen??), but I don't get what you're trying to say.

What do you suppose makes cigarettes "the only available form of currency" rather than ballpoint pens, nail clippers, or gummy bears?

Surely lobster must be cheaper to Maine lobstermen than to anyone else. Costs much more after it's shipped someplace. Is it used as a currency anywhere though?

What's the parallel with drugs, prohibition, prostitution, cigarettes, sex in prisons, or postwar Berlin?

I'm trying, really I am.
posted by clicktosubmit at 5:34 AM on August 22, 2005

It's possible for meth to be a horrible, addictive drug that harms people and babies and teeth AND for it to be the subject of an unwarranted moral panic. Worrying that the rhetoric is going lead to the wrong political reaction (punitive rather than treatment/harm reduction) is not the same as saying "'lol, meth isn't bad."
posted by footnote at 7:43 AM on August 22, 2005

clicktosubmit, the point is that the people who were turning tricks weren't doing it because they themselves were addicted, but because cigarettes were popular, and there was a shortage, meaning that they became a good trading commodity. Cigs could be traded for other things that the seller wanted. So it wasn't nicotine that they were turning tricks for, but a form of money.
posted by unreason at 7:56 AM on August 22, 2005

Sorry Justinian I didn't remember that. I stand corrected now.
posted by geoff. at 8:00 AM on August 22, 2005

ok. ok...i give in. you all win. meth ain't no big deal. no more addicting than anything else, doesn't fuck up teeth, doesn't mess up the lives(or teeth) of middle class folk...only whitetrash hillbillies, and it's just like that whole pcp/heroin/exstacy scare from the 70's/80's/90's. i think we should start a campaign in defense of meth...perhaps our motto could be "meth; it's 2% less addicting than heroin!". it's time for a new outlook on meth, because how can something so good be bad?


by the way...did anyone else get the mental picture of a thin sluttily dressed woman wearing a bib soaked in butter holding a sign that said "will fuck for lobster" while reading the whole "no one whores themeselves out for..." portion of this thread. no, ok...just me then.
posted by cloudstastemetallic at 8:40 AM on August 22, 2005

"If you pour out the Adderall and snort it like you snort crystal meth, it gets you just as high. The effects are slightly different not "very" different."

Prove it.
posted by Dean Keaton at 9:49 AM on August 22, 2005

More pro-drug use nonsense! Great! When Drug users are equally likely to be successful members of society as opposed to leeches on it, I'll consider the promotion of drug use as a viable position.
posted by dios at 10:18 AM on August 22, 2005

When Drug users are equally likely to be successful members of society as opposed to leeches on it

You mean like all those coked-up strockbrokers, businessmen on 3-martini-lunches, speed-freak truck drivers, and drug inhaling movie moguls?

There are plenty of good arguments against drug use, dios, but you picked a very weak one.
posted by jonmc at 11:22 AM on August 22, 2005

Jon.
You know as well as I do that for every one of those, there are three people who are complete wastes on drugs. Which is why I said "equally."

Drugs aren't inherently bad. But, for people who already have poor prospects, the drugs make conditions worse. Conversely, successful and talented people can afford to take drugs and whatever negative consequences follow it. Though, there are plenty of "successful" people whose lives were ruined by drugs, as well. But on average, if you drug someone up and make them an addict, there will be negatie consequences. I know you are fair enough to admit that point.

I'm not a Pollyanna. I know there are people who can take drugs and be fine, but that is the exception, not the rule. Most people can't handle them and maintain control. And rules should be made based on what happens to the average person; use by exceptional people which doesn't result in disater is not the criteria through which policy should be passed.

Also, a 3-martini lunch isn't a drug; its alcohol. I guess, this is where we get into the argument well if X is legal, then Y should be legal too. My response is that it is equally plausible that X should be illegal like Y is.
posted by dios at 11:35 AM on August 22, 2005

Also, a 3-martini lunch isn't a drug; its alcohol.

Alcohol is a drug. It's just a drug with a good lobby and less social baggage.
posted by COBRA! at 11:39 AM on August 22, 2005

Those of you who think you can do meth casually with no repurcussions are fooling yourselves. It is not like any other drug, except maybe crack. It is not the same as other recreational speed like Aderolls, either. It is much worse.

Having spent a decade among sometime meth afficionados, I feel plenty confident saying that meth turns otherwise decent people into bizarrely screwed-up people who will lie, steal, etc. as long as they are under the influence. Out of all the methheads I have known (around 50?), maybe two did not have these problems. None of you are those two.

It's original purpose was to make people into better soldiers. If your vision for your life is to engage in repetitive, obsessive activity (trucker or Denny's server), then meth is great.

Everyone stops doing meth one day, one way or another. It is seriously some of the nastiest shit going. Don't do it. Do other drugs if you want. Don't do meth.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:51 AM on August 22, 2005

I quit smoking in April 2000. If I can do that, anybody can quit anything.

Now if I could just lose this extra 20 pounds I got from my replacement addiction to food....

And in my long lifetime I've done just about every kind of illegal drug in one form or another -- smoked pot, hash and heroin, snorted meth, coke and heroin, raided medicine cabinets for whatever looked good, eaten "diverted" Preludin, Ritalin and opiate- derived "pain pills", etc. etc. etc. -- and the only drugs I ever got addicted to were caffeine and nicotine. If I knew how that happened I'd hawk infotainment videos on cable TV: "How To Use All Kinds Of Drugs But Get Addicted Only To Cheap Legal Ones". (Cigarettes must be $6 a pack in San Francisco, but that's still cheaper than crack.) I could really cash in! Maybe I could afford a Unahouse with plumbing!

And sonofsamiam, why did you spend a decade around speed freaks? What decade? Did you do any yourself or were you doing anthropological research?

I'm sorry, what were y'all talking about? Maybe I need some Adderall to improve my concentration.
posted by davy at 12:00 PM on August 22, 2005

Dios: Alcohol isn't a drug? Man, you may wanna stay out of these discussions if you have no fucking clue.
Cigarettes are drugs. Alcohol is a drug. Aspirin is a drug.
Yes, I know that you were talking about mood-altering drugs. But even then, you've got no leg to stand on.
Despite your lower user number: STFU, n00b.
posted by klangklangston at 12:04 PM on August 22, 2005

dios : "You know as well as I do that for every one of those, there are three people who are complete wastes on drugs."

According to the National Comorbidity Survey, 15% of alcohol users are dependent, 32% for tobacco, 17% for cocaine, 23% for heroin, 9% for cannabis. Even these numbers are a bit liberal, since you are counted as being dependent if you, say, get fired after failing a drug test, which has less to do with drug "problem" and more with drug use acceptance. The epidemiological risk of becoming cocaine dependent after 2 years of first use is 6%. Most users don't become addicts. The addicts are prominently visible because they fail. It's like looking at a homeless drunk and concluding that all alcohol use leads to that. The drug-using population is hidden, since there are social, economic and legal liabilities to flashing it in public.
posted by Gyan at 12:06 PM on August 22, 2005

More pro-drug use nonsense! Great!

Dios, are you talking about the comments or the links? Because the links certainly aren't "pro-drug use."
posted by footnote at 12:08 PM on August 22, 2005

*singing*
They call me 'meth-mouth' 'cause I don't brush!
Oh, I like my teeth like this!
I got some beef in my teeth
and some chicken too...
Ouch! That's a cavity!
Hey! That's new!
They call me Yuck Mouth
'Cause I don't brush,
How 'bout a little kiss?!

http://www.jacksheldon.com/school.htm
posted by Smedleyman at 12:16 PM on August 22, 2005

davy: friends and friends of friends have been dipping in and out of the hardcore meth scene ever since we were old enough to encounter drugs of any type.

I have not done it myself (and almost certainnly never will), because I have seen what goes into it (nasty), I have smelled it being smoked (nasty), and I read a lot of Bill Burroughs when I was young (cautionary).

People on meth cannot maintain. They WILL freak out. They WILL become paranoid. They WILL steal. They often will get violent. This is a generalization, but one based on a lot of personal experience.

I would venture that 70-80% of the non-consensual crimes committed by people I have known were meth-related. Most of the rest were probaby alcohol-related.

Meth has been a serious problem in this area of the midwest for years and the rest of the country is apparently not learning from our example.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:17 PM on August 22, 2005

Dean Keaton: Prove it.

(in reference to Sophist and my claim that snorting Adderall is pretty dang similar to snorting meth)

Prove it how? Sophist and I have both already said that the effects are very similar. That's based on experience. I know several other people who have said the same. What the heck else do you want?
posted by Justinian at 12:46 PM on August 22, 2005

You know as well as I do that for every one of those, there are three people who are complete wastes on drugs.

Well done, Gyan, though I probably could have hit that slow-pitch softball out of the park too.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:19 PM on August 22, 2005

sonofsamiam said: "friends and friends of friends have been dipping in and out of the hardcore meth scene ever since we were old enough to encounter drugs of any type."

Given the verb tenses there I'd guess y'all are pretty young; the first speed scare I've lived through had petered out by the time I hit puberty (mid-'70s). To be replaced in the late 1970s by PCP sprayed on parsley flakes and smoked (a yucky high, and I heard most of what went around was really embalming fluid or bug spray or something). Then came snorting coke in the early '80s ("the Yuppie drug"), then crack ("God's scourge on the ghetto"), then heroin again ("Kurt Cobain uses it!"), then Vicodin and Oxycontin and other "pain pills" ("hillbilly heroin" and Rush Limbaugh too), and now for the past couple years it's been Devil Meth. So thus armed with "long perspective" it seems to me that the big public drugs scares have worked as advertising too: "You can't be 'hip, now and with-it' unless you're on this shit!" So I'd have to say you've been surrounded by some pretty weak people with bad taste in "substances"; not that that's hard -- these advertising scares wouldn't keep working if people were taught more spine and less suggestibility -- and if these drugs were all that good they wouldn't be touted by Fox News and Newsweek as 'self-destruction equipment'.

(Contrast that with pot: how many people do YOU know who've died from marijuana OD, and when was the last time a "normal" high-school junior did a few bong hits and was instantly transformed into a killing machine?)

And I haven't myself done any extensive scientific research, but my personal experience and those of most drug-users I've known has shown me that Gyan's point makes sense: most people can try various drugs and not become junkies or crackheads. Not that there's anything special about these people and not that these drugs are all that great -- for both again I offer my own example -- it's just those cases where "Johnny tried meth once but didn't like how tense it made him" or "davy decided heroin was too seductive to keep playing with" don't get played up in the media. (I'll bet most people who try cigarettes don't get hooked either, as strange as that sounded to me in my 30s.)
posted by davy at 1:26 PM on August 22, 2005

And equating meth to adderall and other amphetamines is bad. That's similar to putting heroin and tylenol-3 in the same category. Yes they will both get a similar high but the intensity and subsequent effects are totally different. Meth has the methyl group which allows the speed to go straight to your brain. Adderall is formulated so that the different amphetamine salts keep you activated over a sustained period, instead of just being high and done with it.

BS. Snorting crystal meth will keep you high for a very long time. And that mumbo jumbo about "the methyl group" is more BS, adderall goes "straight to your brain" as well, else it wouldn't work. (Especially when the kids figure out that crushing up the pills and snorting them works even better than swallowing them.)

All the amateur pharmacology aside, I see very little attempt to link the mass drugging of elementary students with powerful stimulants for ADD as a cause of this so-called "meth epidemic". Children in schools are now trained very early to like the amphetamine high and to connect it to enhanced performance and social acceptance. Is it any wonder than when they graduate and do their first rail, that they love it? That they want more of it? That they form tight social groups in their quest of it and acceptance from each other? Of course, most American idjits will claim that the pills coming from the school nurse and the lines coming from the local crank dealer are completely different in every way, shape and form. They've been trained to believe such nonsense.
posted by telstar at 1:53 PM on August 22, 2005

telstar : "And that mumbo jumbo about 'the methyl group' is more BS, adderall goes 'straight to your brain' as well, else it wouldn't work."

geoff. probably meant the pharmacokinetics.
posted by Gyan at 2:03 PM on August 22, 2005

Did anybody else read this chilling New Yorker article on the rise of HIV due to anonymous sex arranged via the internet, with meth? New Yorker reporting usually seems pretty solid to me and living in the Castro, I think people are taking meth pretty seriously as a threat. Not to say the national media isn't prone to hysteria; just that meth is scary for reals.
posted by jcruelty at 2:32 PM on August 22, 2005

jcruelty, I think that subject might have been discussed previously on mefi here
posted by telstar at 2:57 PM on August 22, 2005

davy: I hope you are right, and the problems will blow over, but the difference between heroin/crack and meth is that meth does not require anything to be imported. It's very cost-effective to deal in and doesn't require any big-time crime connections.

jcruelty: I can also vouch for the seriousness of the problem described in that article. It is destroying someone I care quite a bit about.

---

None of what I said about the unhealthiness of meth contradicts the fact that People With Agendas use meth as a boogeyman. The fact that it is a drug that causes real problems does not mean that self-interested people with designs on your rights are not going to use the problem as a propaganda tool.

The drug warriors are not (nor can they be) incentivized to stop the meth epidemic. The war on drugs is a war on YOU and your autonomy.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:15 PM on August 22, 2005

Tobacco is the most toxic of all, and uniquely poisons not just the user but everyone nearby.

i dare say alcohol and illegal drugs have been more toxic to my family than all the cigarette smoke in the world. my brother is an addict and not only has he ruined his life but every family member around him. he smokes cigarettes too. he can't function very well nor can he hold a job but that has nothing to do with cigarettes or cigarette smoke.

i agree with sonofsamian. the war on drugs is a war on you and your autonomy.
posted by brandz at 4:34 PM on August 22, 2005

And that mumbo jumbo about 'the methyl group' is more BS, adderall goes 'straight to your brain' as well, else it wouldn't work

telstar: Actually the 4 different amphetaine salts in Adderall are metabolise at different rates, evening out the effect. So you're wrong there.

Justinian & telstar: The question is not whether it passes the blood/brain barrier to affect the central nervous system, as clearly both do. The question is how fast it does. That the addition of the methyl group permits much faster passage thus increasing the both the effect and the addictive properties (more effect - greater crash - more impetus to do more) seems widely accepted and not mere mumbo-jumbo. Your anecdotal evidence is relatively worthless - who knows what was actually taken! I think it's fair to say that while both 'regular' amphetamines and meth can lead you to amphetamine psychosis, meth is by far the shorter road. If they were functionally equivalent, why even make the distinction?

Most importantly - as well as making you so violent you attack people with swords and cut off their hands, meth does terrible things to your hair!
posted by Sparx at 8:02 PM on August 22, 2005

Sparx: Who knows what was actually taken!

Are you seriously arguing that if you open a capsule of Adderall and snort what is inside it, you can't say for sure that you've snorted Adderall? Come on. People don't buy "adderall" in powder form on the street, they get a legitimate prescription and dump out the goodies instead of taking them orally. Yes, you can be certain what's you're taking. It's Adderall. Just like the kiddies take.

But anyway, I wasn't referring to "amphetamine psychosis". The majority of people who use amphetamines of ANY type, including methamphetamine, do not experience any sort of psychosis. The point is simply that you can get really, really high on Adderall. It's a slightly different high than methamphetamine, but it's still "high". I'm not arguing that they aren't somewhat different, I was taking issue with Geoff's "they shouldn't be compared because they're so different."

Of course they can be compared. The difference between snorting meth and snorting Adderall is not like the difference between shooting heroin and taking a tylenol-3. It's more like the difference between snorting speed... and snorting a slightly slower acting speed. Remember, you can get a prescription for methamphetamine, too. It's called "Desoxyn".
posted by Justinian at 8:45 PM on August 22, 2005

if you open a capsule of Adderall and snort what is inside it

I was referring to the comparison substance, the meth. If the anecdotes concerned involved pure, uncut, pharmaceutical grade meth, I stand corrected on that point. But it's still anecdotal, involving unknown qualities, quantities, test subjects, and time periods. The science of the methyl group effect on the passage through the blood-brain barrier compared to other amphetamines and thus increasing the potency of the drug remains the same, regardless.
posted by Sparx at 9:05 PM on August 22, 2005

"It's possible for meth to be a horrible, addictive drug that harms people and babies and teeth AND for it to be the subject of an unwarranted moral panic. Worrying that the rhetoric is going lead to the wrong political reaction (punitive rather than treatment/harm reduction) is not the same as saying "'lol, meth isn't bad.""

footnote writes sense.
posted by OmieWise at 10:18 AM on August 23, 2005

dios : "You know as well as I do that for every one of those, there are three people who are complete wastes on drugs. Which is why I said 'equally.'"

I don't know that as well as you do. Or, rather, I should say, you don't know as well as I do that for every one of those people who are complete wastes on drugs, there are 2 or 3 people who are successful members of society.

So, in a sense, you're right: You said "When Drug users are equally likely to be successful members of society as opposed to leeches". They aren't equally likely, they're more likely.

dios : "But on average, if you drug someone up and make them an addict, there will be negatie consequences."

Wait, are we discussing drug users, or drug addicts? You can't jump trains midstream like that. If we are talking drug addicts, you're right, they're far more likely to be losers than successful. If you're talking drug users, they're far more likely to be successful than losers. (And, yes, I'm treating drug addicts as a subset of drug users, not as a separate set, so my "more successful" comment includes drug addicts).

dios : "I know there are people who can take drugs and be fine, but that is the exception, not the rule."

Evidence?

Note: None of the above is in reference to meth. Living outside of the United States/Canada area, all of my information regarding meth comes from MetaFilter and the sites linked to in MetaFilter. I have no opinion on meth itself, as the information and opinions provided by MetaFilter are in conflict. The above comments are all in reference to the generalized topic of "drugs"
posted by Bugbread at 3:11 AM on August 24, 2005

Mark A. R. Kleiman, a sensible drug-policy guy, describes meth as extremely dangerous.

Contrary to Tierney's assertion, the demon-drug status of meth isn't new. Back in the late 1970s, in the argument about how risky cocaine was, the hawks used to argue that cocaine might possibly be nearly as dangerous as meth. (As it turned out, the hawks were mostly wrong about snorting cocaine powder, but turned out to be right about smoking crack or freebase.) That meth and heroin were more or less the gold standards for drug dangerousness wan't even controversial: everyone knew meth as the drug that spoiled the "Summer of Love." (It wasn't the drug warriors who put up those "Speed Kills" posters; it was the hippie Deadhead docs at the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinics.) Meth was known to be much more toxic than heroin (all this was more or less pre-AIDS), but heroin generated a much more persistent addiction, partly because it wasn't nearly as rough on the body.

I have never heard anyone who knows anything about drug abuse assert that methamphetamine -- snorted, smoked, or injected not under medical supervision -- is anything but an insanely vicious drug of abuse.

As a snorted/smoked/injected drug, meth is highly addictive (which means a conversion rate of somewhere between a fifth and a third of those who try it more than casually) and highly toxic to lots of organs, including the brain. A couple of years' steady use of meth leaves marked and lasting cognitive deficits, which is not true for any other recreational drug, including even alcohol.
posted by russilwvong at 3:35 PM on August 24, 2005

russilwvong : "As a snorted/smoked/injected drug, meth is highly addictive (which means a conversion rate of somewhere between a fifth and a third of those who try it more than casually)"

That still contradicts dios. Even this 'extremely dangerous' drug when smoked/snorted/injected doesn't make addicts of 3 out of 4 non-causal users. Precisely opposite to dios's assertion that "You know as well as I do that for every one of those, there are three people who are complete wastes on drugs."
posted by Gyan at 4:49 PM on August 24, 2005

Even this 'extremely dangerous' drug when smoked/snorted/injected doesn't make addicts of 3 out of 4 non-casual users.

I can't comment on dios's argument. But personally, I wouldn't use the scare quotes. Odds of 20%-33% of wrecking your life do seem extremely dangerous to me--that's worse than Russian roulette.

The other point of Kleiman's that I found interesting is that the dangerousness of meth isn't some new hype; it's been well-known since the 1970s.

What to do about it?

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.

Right now, there's no treatment available but talk (by contrast with opiate addiction, where maintenance with methadone, LAAM, or buprenorphine works very well). Talk is better than nothing, as long as people with problems are willing to keep being talked to, but they mostly aren't.

Pharmacologically, the drug is about as nasty as they come: highly addictive and extremely rough on the body and the mind. (Meth can do in months or years the sort of brain damage that alcohol does only in decades.) On top of that, meth production is an environmental nightmare.

The one semi-promising idea around is making pseudoephedrine-based cold remedies less accessible by putting them "behind the counter." (The better alternative would probably be to make them prescription-only, as propsed in Oregon; Pfizer, having sat on it for some time, has finally decided to move forward with phenylephrine, a perfectly good substitute that isn't a precursor of meth.)
posted by russilwvong at 9:41 AM on August 25, 2005

russilwvong : But personally, I wouldn't use the scare quotes. Odds of 20%-33% of wrecking your life do seem extremely dangerous to me--that's worse than Russian roulette.

Russian Roulette is random. Kleiman is saying that of all people who have taken meth more than 5 times*, on average, a quarter are classified dependent. And the ratio of people who try it casually to those with usage 5+ times, is even more skewed. It's well-known that incidence of drug use is correlated to scores on the higher end of impulsiveness, venturesomeness and risk-taking. In other words, the odds of getting dependent on meth can't be numerically compared to the roulette. The personality, circumstances and the drug, all 3 must conspire to induce dependence. Transferring all those factors onto the drug, and calling it 'extremely dangerous' distorts the actual dangers and role attributable to the drug, and more importantly, establishes a false foundation for the framework with which to deal with drug addiction. This mistake is the main basis for the punitive and fear-driven WoD.

*that's what he means when he says 'try it more than casually'
posted by Gyan at 12:51 PM on August 25, 2005

Sounds like the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument to me. Yes, personality and circumstances make a difference, too. But I don't see why describing a drug as "extremely dangerous" implies that there are no other factors involved. An impulsive, risk-taking person who tries meth a few times is at much more risk of destroying his or her life than an impulsive, risk-taking person who tries marijuana a few times.
posted by russilwvong at 2:29 PM on August 25, 2005

russilwvong : "Yes, personality and circumstances make a difference, too"

What I'm saying is, that they don't play secondary roles.
posted by Gyan at 3:08 PM on August 25, 2005

Forgot to add something.

russilwvong : "But I don't see why describing a drug as 'extremely dangerous' implies that there are no other factors involved."

But transferring the effects of the combination onto the drug implies that the non-impulsive person is subject to the same magintude of risk as the impulsive person. Not even close.
posted by Gyan at 3:12 PM on August 25, 2005

That's nice for those of us who are non-impulsive. What about those less fortunate people who happen to be impulsive risk-takers?
posted by russilwvong at 3:31 PM on August 25, 2005

russilwvong : "What about those less fortunate people who happen to be impulsive risk-takers?"

They should have clear and honest information. Suppose you say to Impulsive Tom that meth is an 'extremely dangerous' substance and to stay away from it, and Tom sees that his friends Dick and Harry tried and maybe even used meth on a few occasions without trouble, then that'll only spur him to disregard the advice. You have to give Tom the information that'll let him understand why Harry and Dick aren't addicts and why he might become one. If you insist that Harry & Dick just got lucky, and since luck is a random thing, Tom might venture that he too could get lucky. Instead, you have to bite the bullet and just explain that impulsive personalities tend to get addicted, and it's best for Tom to avoid it. Drugs are a tricky issue, because they highlight our base personalities explicitly. An egalitarian approach is not possible since people are different. However, significant impulsivity is restricted to 7-10% of the population, which is why basing policy on how this segment gets affected, is irrational.
posted by Gyan at 5:30 PM on August 25, 2005

Reading through your last bits of conversation, Russilwvong and Gyan, it strikes me as being similar to discussions of the classical psychedelics (LSD, mushrooms, DMT). The convention there, among responsible folks who discuss the drug, is to phrase it along the lines of: "Psychedelics are harmless for most people. However, they are known to cause the onset of psychological problems among people with a family history of schizophrenia and other psychological disorders, and to exacerbate the symptoms of people who already have psychological problems." The drug is not described as "safe", or "dangerous", but "safe for most, dangerous for some". Trying to pick one word ("LSD is safe!" "No, LSD is dangerous!") seems like an overly simplistic approach.
posted by Bugbread at 8:33 PM on August 25, 2005

... you have to bite the bullet and just explain that impulsive personalities tend to get addicted, and it's best for Tom to avoid it.

Aren't you assuming that it's obvious who's impulsive and who isn't? It's not like people go around with "POOR IMPULSE CONTROL" stamped on their foreheads. What's the matter with telling Tom that the overall odds are between 1 in 5 and 1 in 3? (Not that this helps much, according to Kleiman--the risks of meth are well-known.) How are we supposed to know that Tom happens to be an impulsive risk-taker? Tom might not even know himself, if most of his peers have similar personalities.

By the way, what's your assessment of the dependency rate for non-impulsive personalities who use meth more than casually (say more than 5 times)? Based on your personal experience, anecdotal evidence, studies you've seen, evidence from other mind-altering drugs, whatever.

... among responsible folks who discuss [LSD] ... [the] drug is not described as "safe", or "dangerous", but "safe for most, dangerous for some".

Kleiman seems pretty responsible to me (he's co-director of the Drug Policy Project for the Federation of American Scientists), and he describes meth as being "really dangerous".
posted by russilwvong at 11:07 AM on August 26, 2005

Aren't you assuming that it's obvious who's impulsive and who isn't?

I'm talking about a general culture of honest information. Not some anonymous public health inspector dictating personalised information. If such a culture is established, then Tom's peers and family can recognize among themselves.

russilwvong : "What's the matter with telling Tom that the overall odds are between 1 in 5 and 1 in 3?"

Because those odds assume random assignment.

russilwvong : "what's your assessment of the dependency rate for non-impulsive personalities who use meth more than casually (say more than 5 times)?"

The longer you use, the higher the number, but I would guess 3-5% for non-impulsive personalities.

Kleiman seems pretty responsible to me

Exactly. Someone who doesn't want to appear to rock the boat. Not saying that he's necessarily insincere, but someone, like me, advocating controlled meth use, wouldn't be selected for such posts. Just like the "responsible mavens" at the White House who say that marijuana is a 'dangerous drug'. You wouldn't see the drug czar saying, "maybe pot's not so bad". In a way, meth is really dangerous. You need a certain mindset and the right information to be able to control a long-lasting stimulant like that. Barring that, scare tactics can instill the sufficient amount of caution and prudence. That's what bounds the dependence rate at roughly 25-30%. It would be much higher if people didn't know anything about meth. They wouldn't know what they're walking into. But honest and nuanced information and a public health approach is the answer, not prohibiton and scares.
posted by Gyan at 3:56 PM on August 26, 2005

Not sure Kleiman's views are so far away from yours, Gyan--he notes in one of his posts that meth is reasonably safe if taken orally (as opposed to being smoked, snorted, or injected), under medical supervision.

... oral methamphetamine, used under medical supervision, is a reasonably safe and highly useful drug for narcolepsy, ADHD, and increased alertness for people who absolutely must stay alert for long hours, such as combat pilots.
posted by russilwvong at 11:17 PM on August 28, 2005

Which is why calling meth 'extremely dangerous' is off the mark; what matters is how it's used. And the key to that is honest, clear information and education. And also availability of pure, known dosages. The lack of both is the result of prohibition and the general societal attitude.
posted by Gyan at 12:12 AM on August 29, 2005

Another major differenece between meth and prescriptions is that meth is a street drug, and a chemical street drug at that. If we were to compare pharma-grade meth to other amphetamines the differences would be small but clear. One of the major problems with meth is that those crazy basement chemists throw in a bunch of fertalizer and no-doze and sudafed and gasoline and who knows what the hell else and you end up with some seriously toxic shit. This is yet another argument in favor of government oversighted distribution of these substances.
posted by sophist at 1:13 AM on August 29, 2005

From Wiki:

Methamphetamine is a synthetic stimulant drug which induces a strong feeling of euphoria and is highly addictive. Pure methamphetamine is a colorless crystalline solid, sold on the streets as crystal meth, glass, ice, or crystal. It is also sold as less pure crystalline powder called crank or speed, or in rock formation termed tweak, dope, or raw.
posted by sophist at 1:18 AM on August 29, 2005