Meth "Epidemic" Turns Out To Be Myth

A new study disproves the myth of a Meth epidemic sweeping America. Meth usage is stable in adults and declining drastically among youths. Crack is still far worse than meth.

So what are we to make of the government and media pushing the idea of an "epidemic"? It reminds me of the SARS scare.

Has this been an organized effort to mislead the public about meth usage or is the gross exaggeration simply a case of media group-think?

Is this latest study to be trusted? It is put out by a group that advocates less prison time and more rehabilitation for criminals. (Not a bad thing by default)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199543,00.html

Slow news day, let’s scare the people into buying/watching. Says the media.

I will say that there is more coverage on the news about meth busts, but it could be the same amount as a few years ago just with more coverage than before.

Interesting.

I'm a little disturbed by the qualitative judgements on both sides of the issue. It does seem that there has been some hysteria whipped up about this by the media, but the report in the OP also makes some value judgements. The statistics it cites do seem to support the thesis that it is an 'epidemic' in some very localized regions. But the central point it makes is valid, I think, and that is that there has been a lot of unfounded hype about a wider epidemic.

I think it was William S. Burroughs who predicted, decades ago, that government would use the boogeyman of an epidemic of drugs to limit civil liberties, increase the size of police forces and demonize its critics. I recall those famous anti-marijuana commercials of a few years ago (anyone remember them?), where they showed a little girl drowned in a swimming pool, and said it was because her babysitter went to buy pot. Think of it. You could say that about ANYTHING: the little girl died because her mother went to buy milk! Also, remember the commercials where they told you that if you bought pot you were supporting terrorism? Unfortunately, this nonsense has now become standard fare in America. I blame Nancy Reagan, Bill Clinton and Bush. Reagan for beginning the hysteria, Clinton for continuing it and Bush for making it still more ludicrous.

The best one was where the guy was having fun smoking, and then out of the great blue, he hits a little girl on a bike; quite the shock, I must say. I've not heard about any meth epidemic, because I think I don't watch TV much and especially not TV where that kind of BS would be spewed and listened to. People will keep citing bad evidence though, and always have even years after the study has been disproven. It is often the case that if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes others' truth. Any laypersons conception of drugs, especially heroin, is derived in from the widespread lies.

Here the usual catchall seems to be that minor crimes can be used to fund Drugs and other criminal activities.

They appear to be saying that criminals will (for example) bother to sell used travel passes for about £1 to £2 to fund other crimes criminals don't subsidise crimes that don't pay - this isn't France and the CAP!

Just legalise the lot and reassign the narcotics department to sove more useful crimes.

~:smoking:

I'm going to have to throw in my hat with Hurin_Rules, especially on how drugs have been used as an excuse to expand police power.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Think of it. You could say that about ANYTHING: the little girl died because her mother went to buy milk! Also, remember the commercials where they told you that if you bought pot you were supporting terrorism?

---

But if you buy on the other hand high grade opium products you would be supporting either the CIA or the enemies of the Taleban! So be a proud American and make sure that white stripe is opium today! :dizzy2: :laugh4:

I personally liked the ones that said buying marijuana was giving money to South American drug lords which means you suppoprt terrorism.

BTW, did anyone catch the news that there is ABSOLUTELY NO LINK between marijuana smoking and lung cancer?

I wonder when, in this great nation of ours, our leaders will have the balls to make the necessary changes in law that recognize the different levels and types of "illegal drugs", and stop feeding the prison machine with people who are users.

Reefer Madnes!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Martyr_

Reefer Madnes!!!

---

https://img215.imageshack.us/img215/...eferman6nc.jpg

Yes, there has been quite a hype. Especially in the school system, attempts to "educate" us about drugs and how bad they are. I probably learnt more about how to get them and use them, than about staying away from them.

The media is very apt at blowing things way out of proportion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

Yes, there has been quite a hype. Especially in the school system, attempts to "educate" us about drugs and how bad they are. I probably learnt more about how to get them and use them, than about staying away from them.

---

Hence the problem with "educating" kids about drugs and sex. :laugh4:
The more you show someone how something is done the easier it will be for that person to actually do it.

It is the problem with politicians trying to coherantly defend the laws that are currently in place. Substances that are legal are so much more addictive and deadly than some of those that are not, authorities tie themselves in knots trying to square this circle.

Better, saner laws would allow a coherant message on such topics.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

ABSOLUTELY NO LINK between marijuana smoking and lung cancer?

---

There is, but not moreso then smoking plain cigarettes.

I'm glad that the Netherlands no longer prosecute marijuana possesion for amounts that can be said to be for personal use (5 gramms) and that some countries are thinking of following into our footsteps, but honestly we should just legalise pot and give the finger to countries that won't like it *coughFrancecough*