Break it down on the 1...
It's mostly a vague yet not-too-misleading article. It's a manufactured story with very little substance, which doesn't really tell much at all. The essence is "drugs are being taken more commonly, and therefore the probability of long-term side-effects becoming prevalent on a large scale, many years into the future, is increased"... that much is fairly sensible... "however we don't know what the side-effects will be, but someone said Alzheimers might be a problem"... therefore most people have either read the article with horror and believed every word about the evil xtc pills, or turned the page because they don't beleive a damn word the lying newspaper tells them.
In my opinion, the difficulty is that this article is trying to push a viewpoint, and therefore certain facts are presented in interesting ways, and certain omissions are glossed over to make that point.
Ecstasy users could account for new Alzheimer's cases
June 23 2003
BT: Headline, gotta sell papers somehow.
Partygoers who popped ecstasy pills could cause an avalanche of future Alzheimer's patients, the Federal Government said today.
BT: Brief 'qualfication' of the headline, lead in to the conjecture-a-thon.
Trish Worth, parliamentary secretary to the health minister, said many revellers were turning to party drugs such as ecstasy, speed and ice with no regard to the long-term effects on their brain.
BT: The above is true, many people do use party drugs without any regard whatsoever for their long-term mental health.
She said experts had advised her that ecstasy and related drugs could cause Alzheimer's disease later in life.
BT: "Experts" could tell her that the sun was blue and that cats say "woof", but unless she mentions WHICH experts and WHAT evidence they have, it doesn't mean much. The headline, and the rest of the article is based on this hearsay.
"Experts tell me they don't really know enough about it, maybe having quite serious impacts on the brain and there may be an avalanche of people in the future with Alzheimer's disease as a result," she said.
BT: The above is true, they don't know enough about it, especially not to be drawing and publicising these kind of conclusions. Maybe 'party' drugs do have quite serious impacts on the brain, however one defines 'impact', and whether or not we're talking long-term or short-term, positive or negative, physical or functional, real or imagined. There may be an avalanche of people in the future with Alzheimer's disease as a result. There may be a new race of superhumans created as a result. Only time will tell.
People who used psychostimulants such as ecstasy and speed became more aggressive than heroin users, posing problems for their families, friends and police, she said. "Although heroin has some terrible consequences, somebody whose dosed up on heroin is likely to be fairly quiet but unfortunately with a psychostimulant and the use of some of these party drugs, young people in particular can become quite aggressive."
BT: The above is true. Young people on some party drugs CAN become quite aggressive, particularly when inhibitions are lowered. MDMA and speed/meth (and cocaine, and pseudo/ephedrine, etc.) ARE psychostimulants which can make people suffer intense moodswings. Don't forget the drugs have comedowns too, and they cause you to stay awake for long periods. Neurotransmitter depletion and sleep deprivation can lead to paranoia, aggression, and a number of other behaviours that may pose problems to interpersonal relationships.
The lack of heroin in the market may be to blame for the uptake in party drugs which can be made locally.
BT: The above may be true; it's conjecture, but pretty reasonable, based on what Neal Blewett says below. There's heaps of drug users out there, if they can't get heroin they may turn to a different kind of drug.
"A lot of these psychostimulants can be manufactured just in a shed or a hotel room here in Australia," Ms Worth said.
BT: The above may be true, provided the shed or hotel room is equipped with the necessary laboratory equipment, and that sufficient precursor chemicals and skilled chemists are on site. These drugs don't just pop into existence just because the setting is a) small and cramped, and b) dirty and unhygenic, as seems to be a common misconception.
"We need to promote that it's not just an exciting drug to have at a party but it can give fairly unwanted consequences."
BT: The above is true. Party drugs can be exciting to have at a party (hence, the name), and they can give fairly unwanted consequences. "Fairly unwanted" is an entirely vague and anthropomorphic way of expressing the point they are trying to put across, unfortunately.
Neal Blewett, president of the Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA), said drugs went in and out of fashion. Heroin was on the decline and the number of drug overdose deaths had halved between 2000 and 2001. "As we know drugs go in and out of fashion," Dr Blewett said. "The evidence is pointing towards an increase in amphetamine related areas."
BT: The above is partly true, heroin was on the decline and drug overdose deaths halved. The apparent trend upswing in MDMA use, and therefore that 'club drugs' are in vogue doesn't necessarily correlate to the heroin shortage, or a reduction in the number of overdose deaths, in my opinion. But that's not his assumption, that's the assumption of the secretary to the health minister.
Dr Blewett said there was a need to remind young people of the health consequences of using party drugs at rave parties.
BT: The above is true. Those health consequences should be explicitly defined.
Amphetamines appeared not to have the same long term effects as heroin, Dr Blewett said, but experts were still unsure.
BT: Now we're in trouble. Note that the above is not a direct quote (hence the lack of quotation marks), nor is it specific in any way. To what long-term effects of heroin are they referring? Which experts? Why are they unsure? Has research been inconclusive, or not carried out at all? The article is left hanging on its only crucial point. Unfortunately, a headline saying "Amphetamines might cause side-effects different from heroin in the long-term" wouldn't really do the trick.
"We need to be very careful in the way we address these issues for young people and therefore to talk very sensibly... rather than in an alarmist or over the top way," Dr Blewett said.
BT: The above is true, it's a balancing act. In one hand you have a good solid 2-3 hour MDMA peak and a consuming passion for new experiences, and in the other you have 'fairly unwanted long-term side effects, maybe'. Without explaining both sides of the argument clearly, the truth is lost (in my opinion), and people switch off.
He said the government's rhetoric was sometimes in conflict with its policies. "Sometimes I think its rhetoric is too tough in public but on the ground I think it has very realistic policies and it's put very generous amounts into those policies."
BT: I reserve the right to refrain from comment on politics. Hehe.
BigTrancer
