Study Busts Meth 'Myths,' Says Abuse Is Not an Epidemic or Even Widespread

AP via Foxnews ^ | June 14, 2006

[discostu]

Again that's a sad copout. You made the assertion, you have the burden of proof, if you can't be bothered to get the information to present then that's you're problem and leaves your assertion unsupported and ignorable.

[Know your rights]

Then name a reliable source.

I can't speak for discostu, but for me any university-based study would carry weight. Do you have any such evidence for your claim?

[Know your rights]

So this was just one more way liberals part us from our money?

Yep, the War on Drugs is simply more big government. Real conservatives are against it.

[discostu]

A university would be excellent.

[Know your rights]

Without a firm belief that any data I present will be acceptable, it's not really worth my time and trouble to acquire hard to find data for an internet argument.

discostu named two possibilities: "a medical organization who's working the data in a way that's sane, a recovery organization that's not tightly associated with AA (who is famous for cooking data every chance the get)." So stop dodging and start supporting your claim.

[Know your rights]

And there's three. Get cracking, Anitius.

[kcvl]

Methamphetamine Use Research - Crystal Meth Addiction, Use and Treatment

The DASIS Report: Trends in Methamphetamine / Amphetamine Admissions to Treatment, 1993-2003

In 47 States*, methamphetamine was the primary drug in 86% of the combined methamphetamine/amphetamine treatment admissions in 2003.

Nationally, the rate of substance abuse treatment admissions for primary methamphetamine/amphetamine abuse increased between 1993 to 2003 from 13 per 100,000 to 56 admissions per 100,000 population aged 12 or older.

In 2003, 18 States had rates in excess of the national rate (56 admissions per 100,000 population). The highest rates were in Oregon (251 admissions per 100,000), Hawaii (241 per 100,000), Iowa (213 per 100,000), California (212 per 100,000), Wyoming (209 per 100,000), Utah (186 per 100,000), Nevada (176 per 100,000), Washington State (143 per 100,000), Montana (133 per 100,000), Arkansas (130 admissions per 100,000 population), Nebraska (118 per 100,000), and Oklahoma (117 per 100,000). All the rates for the States in the Northeast were 5 or less per 100,000 population.

*According to SAMHSA's Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), 47 of the 50 States distinguish between methamphetamines and amphetamines as primary substances of abuse in their reporting to TEDS. Arkansas, Oregon, and Texas do not distinguish between amphetamine and methamphetamine in their reporting of primary substance of abuse in treatment admissions.


******


Your brain on Meth...


http://www.nida.nih.gov/Testimony/Methslide2.jpg



Methamphetamine and HIV

Drug abuse remains one of the primary vectors for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission. The recent case of an HIV-infected METH abuser in New York City with a particularly virulent strain of HIV is a sobering reminder of the link between drug abuse and HIV. Methamphetamine is inextricably linked with HIV, hepatitis C, and other sexually transmitted diseases. METH use increases the risk of contracting HIV not only due to the use of contaminated equipment, but also due to increased risky sexual behaviors as well as physiological changes that may favor HIV transmission.



http://tinyurl.com/mns6z


******

Sep 26 2005

Rates of Use Remain Level, Survey Says

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) released data showing that the prevalence of methamphetamine use in 2004 was similar to the number of users in the prior two years. But, the new 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health also showed that the number of past month methamphetamine users who met criteria for illicit drug dependence or abuse in the past 12 months increased sharply.

In 2004, 1.4 million persons ages 12 or older (0.6 percent of the population) used methamphetamine in the past year and 600,000 (0.2 percent) used in the past month. These numbers are similar to numbers in 2002 and 2003.

However, the number of past month methamphetamine users who met criteria for illicit drug dependence or abuse in the past 12 months increased from 164,000 (27.5 percent of past month methamphetamine users in 2002 to 346,000 (59.3 percent) in 2004. Of these 130,000 (22.3 percent) had stimulants, primarily methamphetamine, as their primary substance of abuse in 2004.

"Methamphetamine is undeniably a uniquely destructive drug," SAMHSA Administrator Charles Curie said. "While rates of use have remained relatively stable over the past few years, these new findings show that an increasing proportion of methamphetamine users are developing problems of drug abuse and dependence and are in need of treatment." The survey questions ask about both illicit methamphetamine, as well as prescription methamphetamine used nonmedically. Dependence or abuse is defined using criteria specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) used by psychiatrists for their diagnoses.


318,000 New Meth Users
Information on symptoms of dependence and abuse is collected for alcohol and a number of specific illicit drug categories, including stimulants, but not exclusively methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is the most frequently reported stimulant used.
The survey found that in 2004 there were an estimated 318,000 new initiates to methamphetamine use, defined as having used it for the first time in the 12 months prior to the survey. This is approximately the same number of new users in 2002 and 2003.


Western States Highest in Meth Use
The data ranked 12 states in the West, including Nevada, Wyoming and Montana, among states with the highest past year use of methamphetamine. Connecticut, New York and North Carolina were among the states with the lowest rates. The rate of use was higher in counties in small metropolitan areas and counties not in metropolitan areas than in counties in large metropolitan areas.
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health is an annual survey of close to 70,000 people. The survey collects information from residents of households, residents of non-institutionalized group quarters and civilians living on military bases.

[Know your rights]

(0.2 percent) used in the past month.

Is that an "epidemic"?

[discostu]

See 167? That's good data from a reliable source. The only problem with this data is you have to extrapolate from the number seeking treatment to the number of overall users, but with illegal drugs you pretty much always have to do that. And while the data presented is kind of scary (real data on hard drug use is usually pretty scary, hard drugs are nobody's friend and having a measurable percentage of the population on them is always bothersome) it doesn't extrapolate to the numbers many throw around.

[Ken H]

But what are the ACTUAL numbers?!

Try here--

http://www.briancbennett.com/meth.htm

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/big-pic/compare/amphetamine-month.htm

[from occupied ga]

People aren't as stupid as you like to think they are.

Would you explain what the hell that means?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

You like to think that people are being fooled by some big government conspiracy.

You treat your fellow citizens with contempt because they don't believe in your theories. Truth is they are not stupid or easily lead or any of the other reasons you dream up in a desperate attempt to explain why more people don't agree with you.

I know you like to think that they are stupid but they aren't. They just don't agree with you.

[from occupied ga]

You treat your fellow citizens with contempt because they don't believe in your theories

Example?

You like to think that people are being fooled by some big government conspiracy.... know you like to think that they are stupid but they aren't. .

Remember the big media/government generated hysteria when the semi-auto ban passed back in the '90s? Looked like some sort of coordinated assault on my rights to me. The usual whipping up of hysteria in the media over an anrificial "crisis" and the rush to spand money or pass bad legislation because of it. happens time and time again, and if you can't see it get new glasses.

Remember the last election? 48% voted for Kerry. A little less than half of Kongress are Democrats. A significant fraction of the remainder like McCain and Chaffee are so left wing that they might as well be democrats, yet they were voted into office by the majority of their electorate. The social theories of the democrats and rinos (otherwise knows as socialism/statism/communism) have been show to fail EVERY TIME they have been put into practice, yet they idiots who elect these leftists keep voting for them. If this isn't stupid behavior what is?

They just don't agree with you

You are saying people like Sara Brady, Hillary Clinton, upChuckie Schemer, etc. just have a different viewpoint than mine. If this is the case then you are advocating moral relativism - saying that there is no correct viewpoint, only different equally valid ones.

[Protagoras]

Just get out of drug rehab again?

[TKDietz]

"We don't need to see results of studies - we see the manpower needed for the police to bust the labs - we see the labs spread throughout the rural countryside."

Don't you have the new laws in your state requiring that pseudoephedrine be put behind pharmacy counters? We used to have several labs busted every month in my county until the new laws passed. Now the lab busts are rare and the amounts they are cooking are even more minuscule than before because they have such a hard time getting enough pseudoephedrine for decent sized batches.

There is still plenty of meth, though. Most all of it on the market was coming from huge labs in Mexico or states out west even before the new laws passed, but it was a good thing to get rid of most all the local labs. They were causing a lot of problems and supplying a fair number of real problem users who because it was free or nearly free were just doing huge amounts of the stuff day in and day out, going without sleeping for days on end and really losing it. At any given time there were probably a dozen or more labs going in our small rural county and for every lab there were probably five or six people or more getting lots of free or cheap dope for doing things like going out and buying up or stealing pills, scraping red phosphorous off of matchbook strike pads, providing a place for the cook, or helping out in some other way. These people didn't all just quit doing dope, but most of them are doing a whole lot less now that they have to pay full price for it and we're seeing a lot less cases of crazy conduct brought on by the kind of insanity that comes from being wired for days without sleep. Those labs were a major problem in a lot of ways and I'm glad to see them gone.

A lot of people hate that they have to sign for their pseudoephedrine now, it's a minor inconvenience as far as I'm concerned. We got rid of most of the meth labs without spending tons of money on more law enforcement efforts that wouldn't have worked anyway, and are now actually saving a fortune we were spending investigating these cases, prosecuting and defending all these people, locking them up on long prison sentences, cleaning up their toxic messes, providing for their children, and so on.

[TKDietz]

"And if meth is such a problem, why not end the drug war? Because the drug war is fully to blame for meth ever being invented."

Meth was first synthesized in Japan in 1919. The drug war had nothing to do it being invented. I'm not a big fan of how we currently try to tackle the problem of drugs, but this notion that meth would not exist but for the drug war is hogwash.

[mysterio]

You think that meth would be the problem it is today were it not for the drug war? It seems to me that the drug war spurs innovation through its prohibition-black market pressures. And if there were no drug war, I seriously doubt you'd have these meth labs everyone is convinced are on every block in the midwest.

So while perhaps it was invented in Japan, the success it enjoys here is almost certainly due in most part to drug prohibition.

[TKDietz]

"But again, most arrest don't even result in charges being filed..."

What planet do you live on? If they arrest someone where I live it's rare that charges aren't filed, and if charges are filed it's rare that they don't get some kind of conviction out of it. There might be a slightly higher percentage of felony type drug arrests that don't result in charges being filed because of the way the whole snitch game works. People busted with something like meth always get hit up with a "set up three go free" proposal where they agree to wear a wire and go talk three of their "friends" into selling into selling them a little dope, but actually even in most cases where these people "help themselves out" by becoming a confidential informant, charges are failed and then reduced or occasionally dropped in the end. Maybe things are different elsewhere, but I've been working in the criminal justice system for a lot of years in my area and I can tell you with certainty that most arrests result in criminal charges being filed and most charges result in some sort of conviction, even if the charges are often amended in the end, or some counts of a particular charge or a charge or two out of a few against a defendant end up being dropped. Police aren't out there arresting people for nothing. They'd get pretty darned ticked off if they arrested all these people and only a few got charges filed against them. Most arrests do result in charges being filed. You are just wrong.

[TKDietz]

"Arkansas has a population of about 1 million..."

Not disputing that there is a meth problem in Arkansas but the population is 2,673,400.

[TKDietz]

"Arkansas has a population of about 1 million..."

Not disputing that there is a meth problem in Arkansas but the population is 2,673,400.