John Tierney picks up where Jack Shafer left off in his attempts to debunk the hysteria about meth use and abuse, and he pens a great editorial in the NY Times:
Amphetamines can certainly do harm and are a fad in some places. But there’s little evidence of a new national epidemic from patterns of drug arrests or drug use. The percentage of high school seniors using amphetamines has remained fairly constant in the past decade, and actually declined slightly the past two years.
Nor is meth diabolically addictive. If an addict is someone who has used a drug in the previous month (a commonly used, if overly broad, definition), then only 5 percent of Americans who have sampled meth would be called addicts, according to the federal government’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
That figure is slightly higher than the addiction rate for people who have sampled heroin (3 percent), but it’s lower than for crack (8 percent), painkillers (10 percent), marijuana (15 percent) or cigarettes (37 percent). Among people who have sampled alcohol, 60 percent had a drink the previous month, and 27 percent went on a binge (defined as five drinks on one occasion) during the month…
In Georgia they’re prosecuting dozens of Indian convenience-store clerks and managers for selling cold medicine and other legal products. As Kate Zernike reported in The Times, some of them spoke little English and seemed to have no idea the medicine was being used to make meth.
The prosecutors seem afflicted by the confused moral thinking that Mr. Bennett blames on narcotics. “Drugs,” he wrote, “undermine the necessary virtues of a free society – autonomy, self-reliance and individual responsibility.”
If you value individual responsibility, why send a hard-working clerk to jail for not divining that someone else might manufacture a drug? And why spend three decades repeating the errors of Prohibition for a drug that was never as dangerous as alcohol in the first place?
Are the authorities simply creating a new bogeyman in the never-ending war on your neighbor? Mark Kleiman says the concern over methamphetamines is appropriate.
*** Update ***
Any discussion of drug policy in the NY Times and other prominent publications gets the description of ‘great’ from me. Even if you hate John Tierney. This is an issue we need to discuss, so even if John Tierney is wrong (as Mark Kleiman asserts and I linked, because I trust Mark on these issues to honestly present facts), this is a great piece. Of course, I am sure there are some of you who would rather read a Maureen Dowd piece explaining that the plot lines in Desperate Housewives show that Bush sucks.
*** Update ***
Another piece here in the Chicago Tribune.
Joe Albanese
I am usually find myself diametrically opposed to whatever Tierney writes – especially his contention that we shouldn’t report on the suicide bombings and other mayhem occurring in Iraq. But on this one, I have to agree with him 100%. As a law enforcement officer for over 25 years, I have seen an incredible waste of energy and resources fighting this supposed “War on Drugs” when those resources could have been much better spent trying to deal with the negative consequences of the inevitable drug use that will occur in any society whether it be crack cocaine, prescription pain killers, meth, or the biggest problem drug of all, alcohol.
Kudos for John Tierney, but lets remember that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
BinkyBoy
Is this why Young Republicans arn’t enlisting? Are they so addicted to the Kool-Aid they arn’t functioning correctly?
Geek, Esq.
Meth is a very big problem.
I’m open to drug legalization arguments, but minimizing this drug’s destruction is not helpful.
ppGaz
The final report card on the American Experiment hasn’t been issued. It isn’t clear whether the people are capable of refusing to choose to do something wrong, because they don’t have the stomach for doing nothing, in the face of a problem. There are always demagogues and lobbyists there to push for doing the wrong thing. The WOD is an industry now, and an army of people make their living, and get power, from it. They’ll cling to their bonanza until the people decide they’ve had enough.
The WOD is also an example of what happens when society criminalizes the behavior of people it doesn’t like. Grotesque inequities and injustices are the direct result.
Liberty and justice for all is ….. well ….. hard work.
If we had leaders who were willing to do some hard work, instead of talking about it in endless rounds of self-justiciation, we’d be better off.
If you want an example of a pundit who is a solid conservative and who agrees with Tierney, look no further than William F. Buckley:
Buckley
That’s Buckley, not me, speaking.
ppGaz
Thought I’d add this blockquote, from the same article I cited above:
docG
The “War on Drugs” has become a self-serving, ineffectual bureaucracy. Forget the statistics hustled out on drug interdiction (this war’s “body count”), DARE successes, etc., whenever the effectiveness of the “War on Drugs” is challenged. Bottom line is that anyone in the U.S. who wants illicit drugs can get them anywhere, anytime. While I’m ranting, can’t help but notice that anything called a “war” that is not a military engagement between the armed forces of two or more nations is 1.) done so for public relations purposes (wars are threatening and urgent so we MUST act) and 2.) doomed to failure. Please see the “War on Poverty” as well as the “War on Drugs”. Hope to be proven wrong, but the “War on Terrorism”, as currently being carried out, appears to be headed for the same outcome as the previous two examples. Covert intelligence operations and policing efforts appear more useful in ending/limiting terrorism than the traditional war tools of infantry, artillery, and naval and air support. “War” is a bad metaphor for trying to solve the problems of drugs, poverty and terrorism.
rilkefan
Mark Kleiman tears this column into little pieces and tears the little pieces into dust.
SomeCallMeTim
John Tierney has never penned anything “great” in his life. I happen to agree with him on this, but tell me he doesn’t come off as a shill for Rush Limbaugh. He’s had several anti-drug war columns, and almost all of them have focussed on Daddy’s Little Helper drugs. AFAIK, marijuana remains the least scary of all of the widely used drugs out there; why not point that out? Ah, Rush didn’t have any pot in his house, did he? A pot’s a hippie drug, isn’t it?
Tierney’s an ass.
Guipo
I’m just going to pre-statements, that even thought i grew up in the 90’s, I dont know all that much about drugs, never really hanging out with that culture. So correct me if I’m wrong, graciously please. :)
Wait, as I understood it, meth is basically crack. Are they not the same thing. They do the same thing as I understand. That would make the addiction rate closer to 13 percent.
Any anyone who has ever set foot in my town(probadly the meth capitol of the world), and seen all the crack heads could ever say that it is a good thing, and shouldnt be eliminated from society, is a crank.
Mr Furious
How about the outcry from law enforcement that meth, not pot, is the problem…? That ought to count for something.
If the feds were picking up and attacking meth as an isolated policy, I’d have more objection to it. Since there is already a comprehensive “War on Drugs” supposedly going on, I think it’s fair to say they are seriously botching/ignoring a major front.
Doug
I think the War on (Some) Drugs is a horrible waste of time. But, my anectdotal experience working with and around county law enforcement officials in the Lafayette Indiana area and also coming into contact with sort of the underbelly of the area’s citizens, is that meth is a problem of greater magnitude than most of the other illicit drugs.
It seems to be a greater health problem for those who use it, it seems to cause users to be more violent than the normal drug user, it seems to be more rapidly addictive, and the manufacturing process makes cleaning it up a pretty nasty process. Maybe I’m wrong, I certainly don’t have any scientific data. But that’s the impression that I get.
rilkefan
Doug, check out the Kleiman link for evidence.
ppGaz
Kleinman is simply doing what all WOD-mongers do: Describing a problem, probably overblown, but that’s not the point.
The point is that the existence of a problem does not justify a wrong, wrong-headed and destructive response.
I dunno, was it second grade where I first heard the expression “two wrongs don’t make a right”?
Why did they tell us that, and then create a country where nobody pays any attention to it? Life would be more enjoyable if they had just said “two wrongs DO make a right” and then I could relax and believe that all the demagogues have everything right.
The WOD is an inappropriate, clumsy, draconian, beaurocratic nightmare of a program. It costs too much and accomplishes too little. It’s a vehicle for profit, and a stairway to power for government thugs masquerading as people doing good.
It isn’t just, it isn’t fair, it isn’t cost effective, it punishes the wrong people, it’s a big handle with “power grab” written all over it. It’s bunk, right up there with WOT and Patriot Act.
rilkefan
ppGaz, you apparently have no idea what Kleiman’s position is. Thinking meth is a serious problem doesn’t make one a “WOD-monger”. It’s not a binary world.
Another Jeff
I agree with Doug, Mr Furious, and Guipo.
I was in law enforcement for six years, and it’s possible to believe, as I do, that the “War on Drugs” is being fought in the wrong way on several fronts, and also believe that meth is a serious problem that doesn’t have entirely to do simply with it being illegal, and in fact i look at it as one of the few drugs that, were it to be legalized or decriminalized, wouldn’t have much of an impact. It’s too potent in it’s current form and legalizing it and watering it down would still leave a major black market for the “real” stuff, and that “black market” is usually the Pagans (here in the NE) and Hells Angels elsewhere.
The problem with the Newsweek article that Shafer responds to is that it’s not the kind of drug where soon everyone is gonna know someone addicted to it. It’s popular in certain segments and certain areas.
For instance, the gym I belong to in Philly has a large number of gay members, and on the public bulletin boards, i’ve seen at least five flyers for CrystalMeth anonymous.
I asked a friend of mine who also goes there what the deal was with all that, and he said meth is the new “in” club-drug, where people drink, then pop some meth, THEN pop a Viagra, and, well, I guess you can figure out what happens next.
ppGaz
The point is taken. However, we’d be naive to think that the WOD-mongers are not going to be quoting Kleinman all over the place.
The world is full of serious problems, in response to which we do not wage war on citizens and fill the jails. Rose garden, not promised, etc.
Where are the legions of anti-big-gummint conservatives crying out against this situation? Why do “conservatives” who are supposed to be for lightweight government seemingly get behind the ugliest power grabs?
Sorry, it’s frustrating.
ppGaz
Well, if the “meth” is in the form of “diet pills” then these people are just doing what their tv sets are telling them to do, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Drink, take pills, side effects may include the failure of your vital organs, and bleeding from the gums … enjoy!
BinkyBoy
As far as I understand, Meth is the new “speed”. Its originally being taken to “ramp up” performance, whether thats in business or in the bedroom. The problem is that its addictive, especially to those with a disposition for addiction. Take it because you’re run down on Day 1, when it wears off you’re run down again and suddenly you figure out that you need to take it again, and the next day and the next day and the vicious cycle continues.
Kimmitt
Meth is “speed;” they’re both the same category of drugs.
I’d like to start by simply legalizing pot and see if that takes some of the pressure off. Meth makes some people violent, which isn’t precisely great.
Defense Guy
I would be willing to watch Canada for a while before jumping to that conclusion. The US does have some historical precedent for this, and the outcomes were not exactly sparkling. Read up on the impact it had in Alaska.
It is a tough call for me, as my libertarian leanings tell me that I ought not to have a right to tell another what he can or cannot put in his body. The realization that the effect of this does not begin and end with the user is what keeps me from going full tilt towards legalization. Drugs and crime and drugs and poor decision making are not good for the individual or for society at large. Yes, that is easily applied to alcohol as well.
I do not think we should be locking up all the users for the simple fact that they are junkies.
My favorite take on the whole WOD issue is from Bill Hicks stating that ‘marijuana will never be legal becaue prozac could never compete with it’. Probably not that far from the truth.
Joe Albanese
Guipo said:
No. They are not the same drug at all.
jg
I think the biggest barrier we face in the WOD is that there is a group of people who seem to think that making drugs illegal does anything at all to stop people from doing them.
Defense Guy
jg
No offense, but that is fairly naive. If you make them legal, you can expect to see a jump in the number of people who will do them. However, I can tell you that when I was a minor growing up in the US it was far easier to get my hands on the illegal drugs than the legal one. Not sure how that makes sense, but there it is.
Rome Again
Any anyone who has ever set foot in my town(probadly the meth capitol of the world), and seen all the crack heads could ever say that it is a good thing, and shouldnt be eliminated from society, is a crank.
Funny, that’s what we used to call meth when I was in my early 20’s (before Crack came along). Crack is just a different type of refinement of the drug, as I understand it. I never tried Crack (I kicked my ex-husband out of my house right after our daughter was born because he was smoking Crack with some work buddies – I wasn’t having any of that). I don’t know the specifics of which is worse, but while I didn’t enjoy Crank, I did use it a couple of times (peer pressure) and it’s not exactly the same thing. Crank was either snorted (which was how I used it) or injected with needles, not smoked.
jg
I never said drugs should be legal. I said there are people who think this issue is solved by making the act a crime.
I think you’re being naive if you think there are people who think about doing drugs, or actually want to do them, but don’t because they’re illegal. No adults anyway and in a world where drugs are legal I think we could devise a system of selling drugs that prohibits the sale to minors. Smoking is legal and some people don’t smoke. Legals got nothing to do with it.
Jeff
If you made “meth” of some form legal and regulated, almost no one would choose to brew up their own out of Drano, any more than most drinkers mix up gin in their bathtubs, post-Prohibition. The point is not that crystal meth is harmless, but that the reason it is a problem at all is because safer forms of the drug have been made unavailable through criminalization. And the related point is, do not fall for the media hype over “meth babies” and what have you, when we are finally realizing what a crock the “crack baby” rage was.
I like Kleiman’s stuff usually, but he seems to have a hard-on for Tierney. He accused Tierney’s article attacking the DEA’s crack-down on pain doctors as a stealth defense of Rush Limbaugh. And maybe it was, but Tierney’s points are valid regardless of ulterior motives.
Rome Again
Not exactly true, I’m an example of someone who doesn’t do something simply because it is illegal. If marijuana were legal I’d smoke a few joints a week, I like the relaxation it gives me, I like the creativity that springs to the surface from it, and I don’t feel as if I’m harmed at all. I don’t do it because:
a. I could go to jail
b. I could lose my job
Both of these consequences are too much for me to take the risk. I need to work, and I don’t need a drug conviction on my record.
ppGaz
It makes sense for the same reason that smoking is legal, while the number of people who smoke is going down. Demand is not affected directly by criminalization. In other words, your first assertion is wrong.
Also, “illegal” is not the same thing as draconian criminalization. It’s illegal to spit on the sidewalk in my town, but I don’t think it’s a felony that would put you in prison for 15 years. It’s the severe criminalization that doesn’t work, not the fact that use is “illegal.”
IIANM, alcohol use is also going down. Legal.
A lot of criminalization is about screwing people you don’t like, not about any really effective control over the behavior.
Defense Guy
Of course, if murder was legal, none of us would be here to have this conversations. Legal may not be the end all be all of the subject, but it does have an impact.
ppGaz
Agreed on the criminal, with some obvious caveats to the use of violence or the sale of large amounts of the truly nasty shit (coke, meth, heroin). However, the legalization of this stuff in Amsterdam has not come without its problems. The effect of drug use does not begin and end with the user and each drug deserves it’s own consideration as to the effect on society.
As far as marijuana, I would be far more comfortable seeing it legalized if it carried the same obvious danger signs as the currently legal drug (ie hangover)
Tell me you’ve never spent a morning or late night praying/promising that you will never do this again.
ppGaz
You mean blogging, right?
(Yes, I have. And I haven’t done it again, I can’t take a severe hangover, where all one can do is pray for the sweet release of death).
Rome Again
I’ve never had anything that equates with a hangover from marijuana. What I have had a few times is a paranoid feeling, but that only comes from the fact that if I think about it being illegal, I know I’m doing something that could send me to jail, get me in a lot of trouble, “my parents would kill me” (they’re deceased now). It never made me say “I’m never doing this again”. If you took away the severe criminal penalties for pot, I can’t think of anything that I’d have to be paranoid about, (except maybe this neo-conservative agenda, which I personally don’t think would trigger the physical paranoid state that sometimes comes with smoking a doobie, it’s a different kind of fear).
Defense Guy
Rome
My point is that the hangover is a clear sign that what you are doing is bad. Pot is also bad for you, but the signs are less clear. Clear?
Defense Guy
This is like the ‘gay agenda’ only with less fashion sense right?
Rome Again
I dunno, does the gay agenda steal your sleep?
ppGaz
That would be the Gay Tarantella.
(Amore!)
Rome Again
My point is that the hangover is a clear sign that what you are doing is bad. Pot is also bad for you, but the signs are less clear. Clear?
Clear, but I’m just saying, I don’t get to the point where I say “I’ll never do that again”. No, rather, when I hear about someone actually having some weed, I grow nostalgic. That doesn’t mean I beg for it or anything like that, I just get nostalgic.
Rome Again
Sorry, forgive me, I didn’t blockquote.
Rome Again
Okay, sorry DG, I read your statement wrong, I thought you were equating the two. My bad.
jg
That’s like a doctors opionion from the Dark Ages.
Rome you are the exception that proves the rule. But then again it was illegal when you first tried it so that whole jail thing wasn’t that scary always I guess.
Rome Again
I figured out where that came from though, there is a sort of hangover warning, but only for some people. Pot makes some people (how can I say this politely) uhhh, “regurgitate”… and they do say “I’ll never do that again”. That’s partly why I equated the two, because I know a few people who have tried it and gotten sick. Of course the neo-conservative agenda IS keeping me up when I try to sleep as well, so I’m not as alert as I used to be. That and my new cat loves to teeter between laying right across my neck (boy is he heavy) and sitting outside the bedroom whining when I try to sleep. I get no sleep I guess. Apologies.
Defense Guy
jg
No, it’s like biology. Ask a doctor and he will tell you the same. Pain is the body’s way of telling you someting is wrong.
Rome Again
Are you trying to say that gays don’t sleep? Dude, check yourself, my impression is they were just like the rest of us. [/sarcasm]
Defense Guy
Also, I didn’t know that pot made some people puke. Pansies.
Not that I would know anything about that.
Anymore.
Rome Again
Ummm, no, not when I was 13 and invincible. When I graduated high school and had to work full-time for my living, it became more scary. Then, employers started doing drug screening, that became REALLY scary. I just applied for a new position with my current employer today, my previous position I didn’t need to be drug tested, if I get the new position, I will have to go through the test. It’s a good thing I haven’t done any drugs in years. Now, if I were someone who didn’t care about these ramifications, I wouldn’t be eligible for this new job.
Rome Again
DG, the only balls I have are in my attitude. I’m female, okay? But, even females can be gay and I don’t know how gay females sleep or don’t sleep since I’ve never been privvy to that information. My hubby would be upset if I spent my nights with gay women, he’s already jealous of the cat (but HE said we could keep him, I was going to take him to the pound, so I guess it’s his fault LOL).
So, then I have to ask the age old question…. DOES HE or DOESN’T HE? (70’s hair care commercial if you don’t get the reference).
jg
No shit. Its called dehydration. Ever hear the song ‘How dry I am’? You have to be coming from a religious angle to try to imply that the hangover is punishment. Cancer isn’t punishment for smoking.
Rome Again
Good analogy, I didn’t think of this. It makes absolutely no sense that my father who didn’t smoke cigarettes (he smoked an occasional cigar or pipe, not inhaling either) died of cancer while my mother smoked three packs of cigarettes a day for about 50 years, drank like a fish (also for about 50 years) and popped valiums like candy. She died of what? An aneurism in her stomach.
rilkefan
Did John have the Kleiman link up before I posted it? If so, my bad.
kaptinemo
The main point in all of this is that a major newspaper’s columnist has broken a taboo: calling the proverbial spade a spade in saying openly that drug prohibition doesn’t work. Once more media outlets ‘discover’ this fact, they’ll join their voices with Mr. Tierney’s. The prohibitionists who’ve gotten fat, dumb and arrogant will begin to see their motivations questioned in increasingly harsher light. Motivations that will become increasingly harder to justify…and fund, in light of the financial crisis this nation faces thanks to the drunken-sailor spending on the Iraq War. I may not care for Mr. Tierney’s diatribes but as has been mentioned before, a stopped clock is right twice a day.