Meth Becoming a Threat in Many Cities

E-llusion

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
5,975
Location
ALASKA
Meth Becoming a Threat in Many Cities

Jan 29/2005

By MARTHA IRVINE, AP National Writer
CHICAGO - Already known as a rural scourge, methamphetamine is becoming a problem in a number of U.S. cities. Meetings of the 12-step group Crystal Meth Anonymous have increased in Chicago from one night a week a few years ago to five a week.

In the Atlanta area, methamphetamine users account for the fastest-growing segment of addicts seeking treatment. Rehabilitation centers there are seeing an uptick in the number of women meth addicts, while officials in Minneapolis-St. Paul say they're treating an alarming number of meth users younger than 18.

"Most people just think it happens in the farmlands and the prairies or out back behind the barn," says Carol Falkowski, director of research communications at the Hazelden Foundation in Minnesota. But that's not the case anymore.

Falkowski found that meth addicts now represent about 10 percent of patients admitted to drug treatment programs in the Twin Cities, compared with 7.5 percent a year ago and about 3 percent in 1998. About a fifth of those meth users who sought help in the last year were minors.

She and other experts who track urban drug trends for National Institute on Drug Abuse are meeting this week in Long Beach, Calif., to present their findings. Some have noted a big jump in the use of meth — particularly in its potent crystal form — in the past six months to a year.

"It's the new major drug threat," says Jim Hall, director of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Substance Abuse at Nova Southeastern University in Florida. He monitors drug use for NIDA in Fort Lauderdale and Miami, where crystal meth is often more sought after than Ecstasy and cocaine.

"Here, it's almost like the early days of cocaine, when cocaine was the chic, expensive champagne of street drugs," says Hall, noting that many users come to Miami's trendy South Beach strip in search of the purest, most expensive meth available.

Methamphetamine — long a problem on the West Coast — made its way across the country in the last decade, often taking hold in rural areas, where it's usually made because the process creates a noticeable stench. Increasingly, drug enforcement officials say that mass quantities are also being shipped cross country from "super labs" in the Southwest and Mexico.

Experts say the drug started to catch on in urban areas in the club and rave scenes and sometimes among particular populations, such as gay men. That's been the case in such cities as Washington, D.C., and Chicago, says Thomas Lyons, a research associate with the Great Cities Institute at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Often, he says, meth use has been associated with increases in sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

One recovering addict who helps organize Chicago's Crystal Meth Anonymous meetings confirms that the gatherings are frequented by gay men — but he says that, increasingly, he's seeing people from other backgrounds.

"It's become more common that I cross paths with people who say, 'This is my drug of choice,'" says Mike, a 34-year-old former meth user whose organization does not reveal last names to protect group members' privacy.

Experts elsewhere say their populations of meth users are diversifying, too.

Claire Sterk, an Emory University professor who tracks Atlanta's numbers for NIDA, says that while meth users there have traditionally been white, there are early signs that meth is making its way into the city's black and Hispanic communities. Experts in other cities also have noted that some young women are using methamphetamine as a way to lose weight.

"It's definitely everywhere," says Adam, a 26-year-old former meth addict from suburban St. Louis who also asked that his last name not be used out of fear of embarrassing his family.

"Though I'm not using anymore, I'm sure it would only take me three phone calls to find it" says Adam, who works in the retirement benefits industry and is getting a business management degree at Saint Louis University.

He also speaks on behalf of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, which launched education campaigns in St. Louis and Phoenix last year to try to combat growing meth problems there. The nonprofit plans similar campaigns in at least four other states in the next year, says spokesman Steve Dnistrian.

"Our fear has been that meth will catch on with a new generation of kids who haven't heard about it," he says.

But in some cases, that's already happening, says Dr. Rob Garofalo at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago.

"It's the drug that makes me cringe the most," says Garofalo, who's come across a growing number of meth users among the patients he treats at the hospital's clinic for older youth.

At first, he says, these young meth users see the drug as a "brightener" — one that helps them concentrate, stay up for hours and feel in control. In time, however, users become increasingly paranoid and aggressive.

It's also highly addictive — "such a slippery slope," Garofalo says. "You can't just dabble in crystal meth."

Link
 
If they would legalize meth all of the blackmarket crime surrounding it would disappear.

And before the flames start coming my way, I would suggest that you read this study:
http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/uitermark.amphetamine.html

Fear of the devil is simply that, fear.

Legal and controlled removes the crime element, removes all of the quality control issues, removes the high costs of drugs created by a black market (one of the reasons users turn to crime), and greatly reduces access to children (pot is easier for kids to buy than beer).
 
that is all very true. And i completely agree. But you have to admit, many meth adicts are FUCKING PSYCHO. Just ONE single crazy ass meth story is the guy in san diego that walked onto an army base and stole a tank then reaked havoc all over the city. He was eventually shot and killed. He was on a meth binge days on end. Yes it was a big screw up on part of the military, but how many more people do you want going postal on meth? Not to mention all the other endless gruesome horror stories. Hell one time back in the day i was up on my 5th day in a row, and i thought my cousin was the devil and i tried to kill him with a knife. Im not kidding.

The drug war is a very tricky issue. Or shall i say, the drug control problem. Legalizing drugs removes 90% if not more of the problems assotiated with them, but then think about how many potential fucking psycho nutcases would have cheap, readily available, endless access to any drug they wanted.

It scares the shit out of me. Though it would save me alot of paranoia and money. And I wouldnt be socially stigmatized for using.
 
I know what you are saying, but I would just like to point out that the psychosis is not drug induced. It is the result of going without sleep for days on end.

We already have problems with legal drugs. The whole "don't drink and drive" campaign is a good example. And for the most part the campaign has been successful.

If meth were legal having a "if you're going to tweak, be sure to get some sleep" campaigns would be required. Along with images of what happens to people when they don't get sleep, and the signs to look for when close to the "edge."

Meth is not the problem, the problem is that the meth using community has absolutely no sense of harm reduction. And there is hardly no harm reduction groups out there in the meth community professing harm reduction. And the harm reduction communities who focus on things like MDMA just go a long demonizing meth like everyone else. (A kind of "SEE! THOSE ARE THE 'REAL' BAD GUYS THERE!" finger pointing.)

Even many of the meth users do so under the mindset of this demonization. I see so many meth users here who speak from the voice of, "I am a sinner, but I still do it... I'm just a bad sinner..." 8(

With that kind of mindset no wonder people are freaking out. 8)

Hallucinations are the result of going for long periods of sleep, paranoid hallucinations are the result of going for long periods of sleep along with an underlying fear for one's safety. So you have people with one gram peaking out of their windows looking for black helicopters which are after them. Being convinced that the black helicopters are after them is the result of a poor understanding of economics. :D

But an educational campaign highlighting the nature of "overdoing it," showing what happens when you over do it, detailing the warning signs when it is time to stop, and why this is all important would go a long way to preventing the wackos from coming out.

Granted, the focus of this kind of public service campaign would be very different from one having to do with drinking issues. But I contend they are the same thing.

1) Legalize meth and the crime problem goes away

2) Promote harm reduction (safe use) and a lot of (but not all) of the usage problems go away.

:)
 
1) Legalize meth and the crime problem goes away

If you're up for days on end and wind up going psychotic and getting violent, it doesn't matter if it's legal or not.

Crime associated with funding habits would surely drop significantly, but having known a lot of meth users in the past, the legalization of meth would far from reduce problems with it as would happen with most other recreational drugs. Hardcore tweakers have a tendency to get into trouble.
 
Where did the people you know learn their drug using habits from?

I understand that this may sound odd, but all of these people learned their meth using habits from other meth users, who learned from still other meth users, who all get into trouble.

People have drinking problems, too. The ones who developed habits such as trying to drink each other under the table, also are the ones who tend to get into trouble with drinking.

People get into trouble with MDMA, too. But it ends up being a lot less people, and that is partly because the culture of MDMA users is greatly influenced by the harm reduction community. It is "cool" to be careful.

It is hard to see it from this perspective because most of the current users don't self regulate. But if you would please read the link from the Dutch study that I provided (a few posts up), you will see that once the social stigma, legal threat, and cost factors are eliminated, people start regulating themselves.

After 50 years of fighting a war on drugs, it has ended up being the government against the people. The US has the largest percentage per capata of citizens in prisons. 60% of those in prison are on drug charges. The US is also the most aggressive in funding and punishing drug crimes. In some places get caught for smoking a join, and on the third time you can be facing a life sentence.

Mandatory minimums have just got shot down by the Supreme Court, but that can be circumvented by legislature. The War on Drugs is turning the US into a police state. Even under the greatest of threats (loss of a lifetime of freedom) people will still continue to do drugs. Prohibition has proven to not work.

You can't eliminate the substances, the more "desirable" they are the more that there exists a market for them. Which attracts people to that market who will attempt to provide to that market underneath the radar (blackmarket). And the profits which are created by making the substances illegal (risk) produces incredibly high profits. And that attracts even more people into the market.

The drug war creates the blackmarket, which has high profits, that attracts lots of people due to these profits. Some get locked up, which opens up slots for more people to get into the market.

It's also not effective to legalize a subset of drugs, because the ones which are still illegal continue to attract users, and thus a blackmarket.

What is far worse is that the blackmarket produces secondary crime (turf wars, theft, murder, etc.). Crack houses and gangs can not exist if they can not make a profit. Take the "illegal" out of illegal drugs and crack houses are gone overnight.
 
Last edited:
This is a tough arguement. On one hand, yes decriminalization of Meth would reduce the crime associated with the production and distribution, however Meth isnt like any other drug I've known. I dont know many recreational Meth users and surely Meth causes people to do things they wouldnt otherwise do.

Harm reduction would go a long way, but I think the net effect would be less crime involved around the production/distribution and more crime from the acutal Meth binges from people that can not control themselves. Meth is something that can take hold of the most harden strong willpowered person and turn them into complete aggresive paranoid people. Its not there fault, the call of the Meth high and escape from the Meth crash is that strong. I'd much rather see all Opiates legalized before Meth.
 
^^^
Whether meth is legal or illegal, it is and will be highly available. Keeping it illegal does not solve the problem, it only adds to it.
 
I think Invalid Usename holds a fantastic point and i couldn't agree more. From what i've read, most meth psychosis stories revolve around fear of being found out or caught by the authorities. If meth would legal, there wouldn't be this problem (as he has already said).

Also, there are always going to be people that abuse every substance; people abuse alcohol no? There is simply no way of completely eliminating that, all we can do is merely try to minimise abuse as much as possible. The best way to go about this is harm reduction.

Peace
 
Meth *was* legal in the years after world war II. Why do you think it became illegal/controlled?
 
And look how making it illegal has "solved" the problem, too

Seems evident that prohibition has not "solved" the problem, but you didn't answer the question. If you are going to judge a public policy you have to evaluate the all of the factors that played a role in it's creation and implementation. The prohibition of marijuana has a different history and context than that of ethanol, for example.

"Context" is extremely important. Studies of users from a different cultures and backgrounds are not always going to directly cross correlate to other groups. America is not the Netherlands in many key ways. This study is interesting, but quite limited in a number of ways. The authors point this out:

Since the respondents were recruited through social networks, it is likely that our sample is biased.

I am not disagreeing with you here, but I am trying to understand where you are coming from. What do you think were the reasons that led to the control of meth? Why did the government decided to change it from OTC to prescription only? Why do you think that this decision was made?
 
Last edited:
Hi jdude3,

Meth was made illegal because it has an abuse potential, and has proved to instill the desire to over use in some people. In terms of the classical definition of "abuse" it is the use of a pharmaceutical substance in the absence of a medical need for it. So, from that definition, any form of recreational drug use is "drug abuse."


Meth is regulated because it has a proven abuse potential which exceeds that of elective use in some individuals. I decline to use the term addictive in this case because methamphetamine is not addictive in the classic sense of the word. Some people find that continued use of meth leads to obsessive thoughts and desire for the experience that it produces. If you look closely at the neurological mechanisms involved (at least what we know about them presently), meth obsession is very similar to the experience of being "in love." Except without any subject/object association, and without the social aspects involved in having such experiences tied to another person.

Under high dosage use, meth has the further effect of potentially damaging the efficacy of dopamine neurons, and up to the point of rendering them unable to produce and process dopamine. Many in the treatment community believe that these systems can and will be restored over time, while others do not.

Although there was far less known about the underlying effects of methamphetamine when it became regulated, it was obvious that some people show signs of abuse. This occurred in the US a few years after WW II, in the 1950's, while the nature of prohibition was already a part of the US legal climate (with reefer madeness still firmly in the minds of law makers). Patterns of abuse were also observed in Japan as military surplus methamphetamine became widely available for use by the public after WW II had ended.


There is no question that methamphetamine has an abuse potential. I am placing in question the entire nature of US drug policy, and the government's role in regulating the private lives of individuals.

Today, it is taken as a "given" that the job of government is to regulate our lives. In the case of recreational drugs, and with methamphetamine specifically, the government's argument is that: methamphetamine is "addictive," it kills rat brain cells in the lab, and will produce untold havoc if left unchecked.

There is still a great deal which we do not know about the effects of methamphetamine on humans who are chronic users of the substance. It is interesting to point out that in some of the medically supervised cases, doses can exceed 60 mgs. per day, yet show no signs of either a dependence nor the presence of neurological damage. It also appears that damage is produced at certain threshold levels, and that once the threshold is reached core temperature increases and damage occurs (see: American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, Chronic Amphetamine Use and Abuse, 2000).



We know there is abuse potential, we know that careless use can result in some kind of damage which may or may not be long term. But we have absolutely no evidence that methamphetamine availability will produce the social and mental disintegration as is claimed by the prohibitionist movement (and keep in mind that this is the same movement which brought you "reefer madness"). And there is, in fact, evidence suggesting that this is not the case in the Dutch report. Granted, Dutch society and American society are somewhat different, but the extend at which they are different is nominal when compared with many other cultures.


With all of that said, I come to this question: does the government have the right to regulate the private lives of the individual? No one can argue that methamphetamine use can venture into the realms of self damage. But does the government have the right to circumvent your own decisions of what you will and will not place inside of your own body? Still further, the way in which the government has elected to "protect" you from yourself is by placing you in prison and is essentially saying, "we are going to protect you from yourself, and to do so we are going to lock you up in a closed box for 10 years."

I don't know, there sure seems to be something wrong with protecting someone by confining them. They have not harmed anyone (except potentially themselves), and yet placing them in prison is incredibly harmful and expensive (between $40,000~$85,000 per year per prisoner).

There is no difference between the state of our society today and a completely unregulated drug culture. These drugs are highly available. The only additional factors now are the legal pressure, the tendency to take on criminal characteristics in the users, the artificially high costs of these substances, and the large victimless crime prison populations which the US has acquired as a result.

From that frame of reference, removing the legal climate removes the criminal element and reduces cost (both to the tax payer, and to the drug consumer).

But I am not suggesting an unregulated society, but rather, one which is regulated. These substances need to be kept away from children. They need to be controlled in the same manner as alcohol, and regulated in the same way as is alcohol (DUI/DWIs and all). Along with some of the profits (in the form of taxes) going toward drug education, treatment and promotion of safe drug use.

No matter how aggressively we try to institute a prohibitionist policy, the problem si not going to go away, and instead is pushed underground which makes it impossible to regulate.

If an individual wishes to use substances such as methamphetamine, so long as they are aware of the dangers, it is not the business of the government to restrict them. But that is a separate issue from addressing the black market crime resulting from high profits produced as a by product of the prohibitionistic policies.

Prohibition is too expensive to sustain, fails in addressing the problem, introduces a new set of problems, and results in drugs being available in a completely uncontrolled manner.


.
 
Last edited:
Well done and well said Invalid Usename. A prohabitonist I am not, but meth is an intersting animal. Quite detremental to the user, in ways unlike heroin or cocaine. Ercht... shoot gotta run.
 
jdude3 said:
Well done and well said Invalid Usename. A prohabitonist I am not, but meth is an intersting animal. Quite detremental to the user, in ways unlike heroin or cocaine. Ercht... shoot gotta run.
I won't say that it is a problem for everyone who uses it. But just as with alcohol, some people get into a great deal of trouble with it.

But in terms of people who use methamphetamine, I look at it as a lifestyle choice (albeit, a lifestyle who's safety may or may not be questionable for that individual). But that once again goes back to the question if the government has a right to restrict one's choice of lifestyle and use of one's own body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

Nowhere within the Declaration of Independence does it suggest that government is permitted to define the scope of the "pursuit of Happiness." Granted, the nature of such a high ideal does, in fact, include a scope of permitted activities. Victimizing another individual or group should never be permitted, but that is already covered by the very nature of the clause as such actions violate the victim's rights themselves in the "pursuit of Happiness."

The vast majority of drug crime in our nation is utterly victimless. If someone attains happiness by living the lifestyle of a drug user, where is it that the government has a right to step in and prevent them from doing so? I contend that the Drug War is a distinct violation of the United States Declaration of Independence (the first, and most fundimental definition delcaring the nature of the United States).

I will be the first to admit that I am not an attorney, but for the life of me I can not understand why the government's war on recreational drug use has not been challenged in the Supreme Court.


Freedom is the ability to make informed choice and to act on those choices, so long as another is not victimized in the process. Whether those choices place the individual at some form of risk is solely up to the individual who is making them.

If the goivernment whishes to be in the business of regulating the choices that an individual can make, then what is to stop them from deciding what we can or can not eat? There are many foods today which are widely available all across the US that are unhealthy. Should the government step in and arrest someone for eating a McDonalds hambuger? Smoking is certainly a high risk activity, so much so that each pack of cigarettes includes a health warning statement from the Surgeon General. Why is it that the government allows people to continue to smoke?


There is an incredible double standard in how American Federal laws attempt to control the lives of the individual. And it is not the business of the US government to superceed the private decisions of its citizens. The Drug War is an utter violation of the very foundations upon which this country was built. And such policies must be ended, and replaced by more useful and effective policies which allow further choices by the individual (such as the availability of treatment programs for those who wish to use them at them own discretion).

And for anyone wishing to point out that substances such as methamphetamine were not availiable at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence, I would like to remind you that substances of "abuse" were not unknown in the time of Thomas Jefferson. Alcholism, for example, existed then just as it does now. Yet no provisions were made permitting government intrusion.


How can law makers speak today of American freedoms when so many are in prison for exercizing the very rights spoken of within the foundations of this government as written just over 200 years ago?

.
 
Last edited:
Meth is one of those drugs that I understand why it is illegal. I have first hand seen it ruin allot of lives. Of all the drug scenes the meth scene is the sketchiest. Once people are up for a couple days they become quite unstable. One of my best friends owns a bail bonding company and I hang out there and play cards allot. I see all these people they are bailing out and about 75% of them got arrested somehow related to meth. The charges might not be actual meth charge, but they were usually doing something they shouldn't have while high are doing something so they can get high. Way too many are lab related though. I know very few functioning meth addicts. To hard to work when you get so little sleep.

You get a bunch of meth heads sitting around for a few days and I guarantee they will start plotting things against each other. It will usually be they think one is talking to the police. Or they will start believing that they are being plotted against.

I lived in Arizona in the mid nineties and there was meth all over. It didn't take over in South Carolina where I live now until at least five years later. And now the local drug scene is split, those that do meth and those that don't. Almost every other drug is interchangeable in those groups except meth.

As for meth being a victimless crime. If you really believe that, you really need to wake up and look around. Most likely the case is you are not old enough to know any better and you are saying that the drug war against your favorite drug is wrong because you like to do it, not even considering the social impact behind it.
 
Albert Walker,

If you would care to read what I wrote about harm reduction, you might be in a better position to discuss my viewpoint with me. I've taken the trouble of writing quite a bit here, and if you can't be bothered with completely digesting everything that I've said, then simply grabing a point that you see here or there and commenting on it is pretty senseless.

Your friend will continue to see a lot of people arrested, meth use is a crime. And when people stay up for days on end, they end up developing paranoia. That isn't all that difficult to understand, is it?

If you keep it illegal, there will always be a lot of it to go around because it becomes a high profit item and attracts the criminal element to the huge black market profits. You guys are trying to put out a fire with gasoline (and getting rich in your own right from the tax dollars they pay to keep putting that fire out).

Albert Walker said:
Most likely the case is you are not old enough to know any better and you are saying that the drug war against your favorite drug is wrong because you like to do it, not even considering the social impact behind it.
Appearently you don't know a great deal about chronic drug use. If my comments here were fueled by some kind of "drug seeking" rational, my arguments would be far from coherent. Especially given all of the points that I have made.

Incidentially, I'm 51 years old (and chances are that I am old enough to be your grandfather). I can even vaguely remember when Eisenhower was president.
 
I think albert walker put a lot of thought into his post, and that he read everything you had already mentioned. I think you personally, for some reason, fail to see the detrimental social impact meth use has on society as a whole. Now if it were legal, there would be a lot of good done indeed. And as long is it is illegal, the black market fueled by gang violence and crime (obviously) will continue to make shitloads of money off it. To be honest I do not have the solution to this in any way. It's a very tricky subject. And Albert is correct, at least in my experience, that meth use even puts great divides among the drug friendly communities. I always have a hard time even putting a little trust in a tweaker without being sketch about the whole thing. I used to be a big one myself. All I've seen it do is destoys lives, and shreds relationships apart.

"If you keep it illegal, there will always be a lot of it to go around because it becomes a high profit item and attracts the criminal element to the huge black market profits"

there would actually be MORE around and most likely MORE use if it were legal. Since it would be readily available, cheap, and in unlimited quantities.

You're 51 though, im much younger and have much more to learn.
 
Top