The Methamphetamine Epidemic -- Less Than Meets the Eye

Drug War Chronicle ^ | August 5, 2005 | Drug War Chronicle

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

News consumers on the US East Coast can be forgiven for nervously glancing over their shoulders in search of that 20-foot wave of crystal meth rolling toward them out of the Midwest, leaving in its wake a shattered landscape of trailer parks turned into toxic dumps, runny-nosed neglected toddlers clutching worn teddy-bears, and good parents turned into crazed, toothless tweakers who take time off from cooking more meth only to commit heinous crimes, steal more supplies, or have sex with their children. After all, this is, with only a little exaggeration, the message trumpeted by an ever louder cacophony of news reports about the "methamphetamine epidemic" sweeping the nation.

black market methamphetamine

The rising Cassandra chorus was evidenced this week by Newsweek's sensational cover story on methamphetamine, which baldly warned readers about "The Meth Epidemic," referring to the popular stimulant as "America's most dangerous drug" and a "ruthless illegal drug" -- and that's just the intro.

Fortunately, there is less here than meets the eye. A review of the standard indicators of drug use, such as the Monitoring the Future (MTF) surveys of students, the National Household Survey (now known as the National Survey on Drug Use and Health), and the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) of hospital emergency room reports, does not show any rapid increase in methamphetamine use in recent years. In the MTF surveys, 15.4% of 12th graders in 1991 reported ever using amphetamines. By 1998, that figure had inched up to 16.4%, but by last year the figure had declined back to 15.0%, indicating that amphetamine use over the past decade has remained essentially flat. When MTF looked only at methamphetamine, which it separated out from other amphetamines only in 1999, it found that the percentage of seniors who reported ever using the drug actually declined from 8.2% in 1999 to 6.2% in 2004.

Similarly, the National Household Survey actually shows a tiny decline in reported non-medical stimulant use in 2002 and 2003, the most recent years for which data is available. According to the survey, 5.3% of people over 12 reported ever using amphetamines in 2002, while that figure was 5.2% the following year. That same survey found that the number of people who had ever used meth was 1.24 million in 2002 and 1.23 million the following year.

A longer-term review of reported life-time stimulant use from the survey is even more surprising. Going back to 1965, it shows hundreds of thousands of people reporting life-time use each year, peaking in 1974 at 646,000 and then dropping gradually over the next 20 years before bottoming out at 219,000 in 1991. [The drug-taking counterculture of the 1960s caught on quickly. Bob Dylan's slightly exotic speed user with "her fog, her amphetamine, and her pearls" was replaced by the end of the decade by Canned Heat's Amphetamine Annie: "Her mouth worked like a grinding mill, her lips were chapped and sore, she saw things in the windows, she heard things at the door." Ironically, Canned Head main man and lead vocalist Bob "Bear" Hite died of a barbiturate overdose shortly thereafter.] Since the early 1990s, the number of reported life-time users has climbed back to just slightly more than in 1974, peaking at 707,000 in 1999 and declining slightly to 697,000 in 2003. [Again, the new mood was reflected in song, with the Bay area band Primus singing of "Those Damned Blue-Collar Tweakers," whom they noted "are the backbone of this town." The tune is also notable for a swipe at then President Bush the Elder that applies again today: "And Curious George's drug patrol is still out there hunting snipe."]

A more direct measure of meth-related harm, the DAWN emergency room mentions, likewise paints a picture of flat -- not rapidly escalating -- methamphetamine use. According to the DAWN numbers, there were 17,537 methamphetamine mentions in 1994. Last year, that number was 17,696.

"There is no evidence of an increase in meth use. In fact, it's been flat for a decade or more or even declining slightly," said Craig Reinarman, co-editor of the groundbreaking "Crack in America," which debunked many of the myths surrounding that drug, and currently professor of sociology at the University of California at Santa Cruz. "To be fair, 2003 is the last year for which there is good data available, and this flood of meth stories appears to have really taken off in the last six months or so, so it is possible we are missing something. But most of these recent stories appear to be based on little more than anecdotes from law enforcement or social workers. It may be true that there is a small number of meth users who are getting in serious problems, but it looks like the press is falsely extrapolating to create a trend that is not supported by the aggregate numbers," he told DRCNet.

"This is the beginning of a classic scare where you have horrible anecdotes substituted for epidemiological evidence and the media going with those easy stories," Reinarman explained. "Story-based coverage can be very misleading. They pick the most dramatic story with the eye-catching headlines, but those sorts of stories distort the real picture. You don't want to mistake worst case scenarios for the norm, but that is what happens, and it's true of every drug scare. Instead of solid epidemiological evidence that can be tiresome and boring, you get these dramatic anecdotes."

"We in the field like to say that a Newsweek cover story is the surest sign the epidemic has ended," laughed Dr. David Duncan, chairman of the National Association for Public Health Policy's Council on Illicit Drugs and head of Duncan & Associates, a Kentucky-based epidemiological and statistical consulting firm. "We define an epidemic as an incidence significantly greater than the expected background level," he explained. "Five cases of bubonic plague in Chicago is an epidemic; 500 cases in Calcutta is not."

As for methamphetamine, said Duncan, "By that standard, we have experienced a methamphetamine epidemic for the past 20 years, where we've seen more meth use since the 1970s. But we are clearly on the downswing of the epidemic. Usage has been declining since 1999 and arrests have been going down since 2000. Despite all the publicity, they are actually arresting fewer people than they did five years ago," he told DRCNet. "Technically, it is an epidemic, but it is one that appears to be fading."

But even if meth use isn't on the rise, it's still a highly addictive drug whose users are not amenable to treatment, right? Wrong. "The research shows it's pretty much the same as any other drug," said Duncan. "If you look at usage information, you see that of all the people who ever used the drug, one in 10 used in the past year. Of those, one in 10 used in the past week. And among those past week users, the majority only used it once." It's the same story with treatment, he said. "All the data show the same success rate with meth as any other drug dependence -- except for tobacco, which is by far the most addictive drug. It doesn't matter if you're talking about meth or heroin or alcohol -- in each case most of the people who become addicted wind up getting off the drug."

"The data always lags behind reality," agreed Doug McVay, an analyst for Common Sense for Drug Policy. "By the late 1990s, feds and researchers were studying and publishing about rural meth use and talking about the escalation of the problem in the 1990s. Now, it seems to have leveled off. Instead of an increase in meth use, what we are seeing is an increase in the attention paid to it."

There are several possible reasons for this. While the numbers show that meth use is actually fairly flat in recent years, the wide dissemination of information about how to home-cook the drug, which began with books like "Secrets of Clandestine Meth Manufacture," by "Uncle Fester," and has now exploded via the Internet, has indisputably led to an increase in home meth labs. There appears to be some conflation of the rise in home meth labs with an actual increase in meth use.

"It is not meth use that we need to be so concerned about, but home manufacturing," said Duncan. "It is a serious environmental and public health problem, but it is one that is caused entirely by the war on drugs. If meth users could go to a pharmacy and get pure meth, not only would they be better off, but so would everyone else. This meth lab stuff helps feed the frenzy. It doesn't matter if it's just some guy with a Bunsen burner on his kitchen counter, you still get all these headlines about meth labs."

As for laws aimed at home labs, such as the ones either passed or under consideration in 40 states that restrict the sales of cold remedies containing pseudoephedrine, they are having unintended consequences, said McVay. "If you look at Oklahoma, which led the way with those Sudafed laws, what you are seeing is, yes, a 90% drop in lab busts, but the number of ice seizures has increased five-fold. Ice is the smokeable meth being imported by the Mexican gangs. In terms of overall meth use, these laws really do nothing except protect the market share of the Mexicans."

In addition to concerns over home meth labs -- which, according to the National Drug Intelligence Center account for only 20% of all meth consumed in the country -- the Bush administration's move to cut finding for anti-drug law enforcement task forces through proposed cuts in the Justice Assistance Grants program and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program has motivated law enforcement and elected officials to scream long and loud about how badly they need that money. For many of them, methamphetamine is exhibit one.

And the rhetoric has been remarkable. "Meth is the biggest threat to the United States, maybe even including al-Qaeda," warned Rep. Tom Osborne (R-NE) during a hearing last month where representatives ripped the Office of National Drug Control Policy over the proposed cuts and over its failure to sufficiently prioritize the "meth menace."

"We've got something right in our lap that is absolutely the worst kind of drug the nation has ever seen," said Umatilla (Oregon) County Commissioner Bill Hansell, president-elect of the National Association of Counties. "To not address it now would be a huge mistake." The association was the author of a much-hyped survey of sheriffs last month where 58% of sheriffs described meth as their worst drug problem.

What has been as remarkable as some of the overheated rhetoric has been the fact that the federal government has been a relative voice of reason compared to cops and congressmen. It is, after all, the Bush administration that initially sought the budget cuts that have excited such outrage. In that same hearing where meth was compared -- unfavorably -- to Al Qaeda, deputy drug czar Scott Burns steadfastly refused to call meth use an epidemic, telling the hearing that police in the Northeast "would laugh at me if I told them there was a meth epidemic." In deference to his congressional overseers, he did, however, call meth "the most destructive, dangerous, terrible drug that's come along in a long time."

There is one indicator that continues a steady climb, and that is the number of people receiving treatment for meth use. That number has increased more than five-fold in the past decade. "While the overall use figures are pretty much flat, we are seeing meth account for more than 20% of all drug treatment in some states, and I suspect that is what is fueling this," said Leah Young, a spokeswoman for the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. In 1993, there were 21,000 meth treatment admissions; a decade later there were 116,000," she told DRCNet. "Meth is taking up treatment resources like it never did before, and the states are paying attention to it because it seems to have burst on them out of nowhere."

But even the steady increase in the number of people in treatment for meth over the past decade does not necessarily mean more meth users are seeking treatment. Instead, alone with marijuana among all other drugs, a majority of meth users in treatment are there because a judge sent them there in a criminal proceeding. Nearly 51% of all meth users in treatment in 2003 were there as a result of criminal justice system referrals.

While the thrust of this article has been to deflate overstated claims of a "meth epidemic," there is clearly problematic use out there. "We have seen some increased use and we've seen an increase in HIV transmitted by male injection drug users who are having sex with men, and this public health issue is our real concern," said Luciano Colonna, executive director of the Harm Reduction Project, which is sponsoring the First National Conference on Meth, HIV, and Hepatitis C later this month in Salt Lake City. "But we have also seen increased law enforcement attention, more crackdowns, more arrests."

"We have to acknowledge there is enough of a kernel of truth in all these meth stories for people to be concerned," said Reinarman, "but instead of the big picture you get a rush to judgment."

And a distorted picture of who is using the drug and how often. The laser-like focus on the stereotypical tweaker obscures both the reality of who is using meth (and how) and the larger social context of problematic use, said Reinarman. "I don't doubt that some people are ruining their lives with meth, but how representative is it and what else is going on in their lives that could account for extreme and dangerous drug use? This has been a largely rural phenomenon, and these areas have been economically hard-hit. We are looking at people who have lost real jobs that pay enough to get by because of deindustrialization, people who are part of a working class that is seeing its life chances evaporate before its eyes," Reinarman said.

"The white, trailer trash guy with tattoos and a t-shirt, drinking beer, chain-smoking and shooting speed with dirty kids crawling around being neglected is the poster child," said Reinarman, "but there are a lot of different use patterns out there. "There is the middle class white woman who gets it from a psychiatrist's prescription, there are people who binge as a couple every few months, there are students who use it to study. So how representative is the stereotypical speed freak? I don't think anyone knows."

Jason Zeidenberg, executive director of the Justice Policy Institute, has been watching the meth numbers, too, and he added some perspective. "Meth is a real problem for some people, but it is an over-hyped problem. All you have to do is look at the use rates and look at sentencing. When 100,000 people a year die from alcohol, I'm still saying that's the most dangerous drug in America."

[Thombo2]

"Comments?"I agree with your observation.It(meth)does appear more prevelant in rural areas.Here in the city,crack is still king,out in the boonies,it's crank(meth)aka "poor mans cocaine".Why is it more of a rural/small town problem?"Cooks"prefer rural areas as surveilance is more difficult,and the smell is overwhelming,hence cooks prefer "out of the way" rural locations ie made locally,and consumed locally.BTW,if you've got outlaw bikers,you'll find meth.We've got lots of both:(

[durasell]

But true.

[Thombo2]

"When have psychiatrists been prescribing it?"He(she?)was probably refering to amphetamines.Meth and the amphetamines dr's prescribe(adderall,concerta,rialin,etc)are molecularly similar,but different.Methamphetamine is not only stronger,but the high is different(euphoric),more intense,and highly addictive.IOW's,Your right,docs don't prescribe meth.

[Thombo2]

Methamphetamine and amphetamine are different.That being said,amphetamine for ADD is overprescribed/abused,and i suspect(but can't prove)that these drugs act as a gateway or precursor to later drug abuse.

[subterfuge]

"are you saying the use of X was non existent and didntt happen? What about Crack? Those were mythical?

I'm just trying to keep up with which dope usage is of epidemic proportions.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Calling drugs chemical warfare agents stretches anti-drug rhetoric beyond the breaking point, and it cheapens the deaths of those innocents murdered by terrorists.

Drug dealers ARE terrorists. You must have never been outside of your sheltered yuppie suburban world or bothered to notice the proliferation of heroin and hashish in Europe coming from Afghanistan. You must have never bothered to notice all the narcoterrorists in Central and South America or Mexico.

If you want to talk “breaking-point,” just let me catch you contributing this filth to a minor.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

...people who do meth, coke, whatever, do want to ingest them.

Yeah right. The 13 year old runaway who gets beaten and raped repeatedly really loves the smack and meth the pimp forces on her.

The perverts who hang out by the highschool and junior highschool kids are really just providing a product? The hell I say!

The only way the dopers and the sex perverts can support their filthy habits is to go after the young ones. Most of this crap starts in the teen years.

It is chemical and psychological warfare by the enemy within...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Is it the drugs that make so many not see it?

I would bet most of those objecting to the “war on drugs” have some habit they hide or benefit from the habits of others.

I have said it before, and I say again, the only way they can continue to support this is by compromising the young ones and generating new clientele for whatever drugs or perversions they are obsessed with.

[coloradan]

Having teens forced into drug use by pimps is the extreme minority of cases, and is no more representative of the overall situation than is saying all black men are rapists, or all gun owners want to go shoot up schools. The fact drugs are prohibited creates huge profits for drug dealers, and these profits specifically go to criminal enterprises, including terrorist organizations. I'd rather a lot less money go to Roche or Pfizer, than a huge amount is split between gang members and Al Qaeda.

Incidentally, I'm not a drug dealer, and no thanks for the suggestion that I am. (Do ALL drug warriors HAVE to assume those who disagree with them are criminal?)

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I'd rather a lot less money go to Roche or Pfizer, than a huge amount is split between gang members and Al Qaeda.

For someone who argues drug dealing and terrorism is a false cause, non-causa and they have nothing in common, you readily make that comparison every time.

Since the psychedelic '60s, recreational drug use has been chemical and psychological warfare waged against the youth of America and the West.

[coloradan]

Drug use has been warfare? Tell me how many have died, from then to now, directly from drug use. Then, tell me how many lives have been ruined by long jail sentences, kids growing up without their parents, etc., as a result of prohibition, from then to now, and then add to that the number of people killed by drug warriors.

Drug warriors, waging war with military weapons inside US communities across the land - those are the terrorists, and they have a lot more bodies to their credit than drugs do.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Drug warriors, waging war with military weapons..

So, you are against private and law enforcement use of military “assault weapons.” What do you want to arm non-drugged citizens and police with, spitballs?

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Drug warriors, those are the terrorists,...

A lot of our policemen and other law enforcement are also active Reserve and National Guard. So U.S. military personnel are also terrorists according to you?

You sound like a liberal who hates our military and sides with whatever enemy is fashionable with the left. If you attack our police, you also attack our soldiers.

Dope is killing a lot of people and ruining the lives of others around those who use it. It is chemical and psychological warfare against the young people in this country...

[coloradan]

So, you are against private and law enforcement use of military “assault weapons.” What do you want to arm non-drugged citizens and police with, spitballs?

I didn't use the gun grabber "assault weapons" term; you did. Take your gun grabbing B.S. elsewhere. I think civilians should have the same rights to firearms as police and military do.

A lot of our policemen and other law enforcement are also active Reserve and National Guard. So U.S. military personnel are also terrorists according to you?

When they're defending our borders, or stopping violent criminals, or rescuing hostages, no. When they are shooting 11-year-old boys like Anthony Sepulveda in the back, they are. My calling them terrorists stems from their actions, not from their persons. Possibly a shade of grey too subtle for your discernment.

Dope is killing a lot of people and ruining the lives of others around those who use it. It is chemical and psychological warfare against the young people in this country...

I challenged you in my last post to come up with numbers: state how many people dope (in and of itself) is killing, and how many lives are being ruined (as a direct result of drug use). And then compare that number to how many people are killed by drug warriors, or how many lives are ruined by the prohibition, including incarceration, kids taken from their parents, etc. And then we'll see which causes the greater damage, drugs, or drug warriors. You WON'T like the comparison, which is probably why you avoided this point in your response.

[Conservative Goddess]

I just learned of this idiocy. Last night I tried to buy allergy medicine for myself and my two children, aged 15 and 17. I thought I'd make the most of my trip to Sam's club by buying a quantity to see us through a month. LOL.

What a worthless policy. By the time you consider my time, energy, aggravation and $3.09/gallon diesel fuel, it's cheaper for me to use insurance dollars to get a prescription version. What a waste.

[wanderingcoed]

We in the state of Minnesota are leaving hundreds of children behind everyday. These children are left behind because of their parents methamphetamine use. You say that our child protection agencies are too quick to remove a child from a home where meth is being used. We as a state should adopt a zero tolerance plan when it comes to meth use in a home where children are present. Parents who lose their children due to meth use should never regain custody. There should be no second chances when it involves the child’s right to a safe environment. You, as well as social workers and child protection officers, may argue that it is in the best interest of the child to reunite with their family. Much effort has been put on treating the family, not the addiction. I would like to agree that treating the family is the best approach but methamphetamine is a different demon. I do not believe that putting a child back into a home where this drug is being used is in the best interest of the child. Need you be reminded of the recent Minnesota case this past July involving a ten-year girl being scalded to death? This child was removed from her mother’s custody due to her drug use. The child was placed in foster care where she was thriving. The county then decided in would be in the best interest of the child to place her in her father’s home. The father and step-mother both had alleged drug problems. That young girl is now dead. She was scalded to death in a bathtub where the water was over 130 degrees (Adams 2). This obviously was not in the best interest of the child, wouldn’t you agree? There are many logical reasons that children should never be returned to a home where meth is used. The first reason is the manner in which meth is manufactured. Methamphetamines are made with a variety of hazardous chemicals. The chemicals used in the making of this drug are both harmful to people as well as the environment. Meth labs are often set up in the home of the user. These are homes where kids are present. In 2004, one of the 87 counties in Minnesota raided 17 in-home meth labs; five of these homes had children present (MEADA 1). This was just one county in Minnesota. Children living in these homes suffer from a variety of ailments from the exposure to these chemicals. It is reported that the kids suffer from physical ailments such as respiratory problems, skin disorders and malnutrition (Lonetree 2). The children being raised in these homes may test positive for the drug. A 9-month-old baby removed from a St. Paul meth house in February 2006 tested positive for meth (Meth 1). The child was not given a choice to use drugs or not. His parents made that choice for him by setting up a meth lab in his home. Secondly, children who live in home where meth use is prevalent, suffer physiological damage. A parent who is a meth user, according to the National Association of Counties, become so involved in their addiction they fail to parent. Young children are often left alone to fend for their own needs. The kids suffer from abandonment issues. These children also suffer from failure-to-thrive disorders. The children’s basic emotional needs are not being met, are not a priority. (Meth Epidemic 6) A parent, due to their addiction, is unable to feed or clothe their children. How can that parent be expected to provide for the emotional needs of a developing young person? Meth causes the user to behave irrationally and is often linked to causing mental illness. The addict may experience diminished brain function. Meth use can bring on feelings of paranoia, aggression and panic, in addition to hallucinations (NACO 8). I do not see as any of these symptoms as consistent with good parenting skills. It sounds more like a nightmare to me. Lastly, the cost associated with attempting to treat methamphetamine addiction is staggering. Last year $250,000 was granted to twelve counties and one Native American tribe for the prevention and treatment of meth addiction. It also cost $7 million dollars a year for one county in law enforcement and social services to combat the problem (Imrie 8). Minnesota Legislature has just approved $1.5 million in grant money for counties to use for meth related programs. Anoka County is piloting a program in which parents are highly supervised and the children attend the treatment program along with the parents. There are some good outcomes from these treatment plans. Some of the families are able to be reunited (Hawkins 8). The flip side of that is meth addicted parents need at least 18 months of in-patient care. Relapses are extremely common, about 96% falling back into meth use. It may seem that the only way a parent suffering from meth addiction stays clean is if they stayed locked up (Hawkins 6). When looking at the amount of monies spent, with so little effect on the recovery of the addict, is this the best we can do for the children? Would it not be better to spend our resources on providing safe nurturing homes for the children involved? It is my opinion that it is near impossible to help the meth addict so why not give a child a future instead. Children deserve a chance to grow up in a safe environment. That would be an environment where methamphetamines are not present. I know eight people who have destroyed a good deal of their lives with meth. All but two of those people have children. All of these individuals have used meth a minimum of two years. They all have been involved in drug rehabilitation at one time or another. One out of the eight has stayed clean for over a year. The children of these addicts have suffered a life of ups and downs and a life of uncertainty. They have lived the life of a drug addict, sometimes becoming meth users themselves. The saddest story of all, but one that illustrates my point of no second chances, is the story of a nineteen-year girl doing a fifteen year prison sentence. She was arrested for having a meth lab. This young girl was raised in a home where meth was a part of her daily existence. I may ask you, if she was removed from the home as a child would it have been different for her? Could she have been saved from the life of an addict? I have not read anything that gives me hope that in most cases a family can be put back together after meth has destroyed it. The cycle seems to continue. The kids of the meth addict are just along for the awful trip. Surely the only way to give these kids a chance is to give them a home where methamphetamines are not part of the equation. We cannot hope that the parents will beat their problems. I am not willing to take a chance on a child’s future, are you? Works Cited Adam, Jim. "Girl Scalded to Death." StarTribune.com 19 July 2006. 10 Dec. 2006. . Imrie, Robert. “Meth Menace Keeps Spreading.” Associated Press, 14 March 2006. 16 Sept. 2006 < http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/archives> Hawkins, Beth. “Little Court Of Horrors” City Pages, 21 December 2005. 10 Sept.2006 < http://citypages.com/databank/26/1307/article13972.asp> Kyle, Angelo D. and Hansell, Bill. “The Meth Epidemic in America” 5 July 2005. 12 Sept. 2006. Meth Is An Equal Opportunity Destroyer. “Meth Education and Drug Awareness Coalition of Wright County.” 20 Sept. 2006 < http://www.meada.org/main.asp> Lonetree, Anthony. “A Poison in the Family.” Star Tribune. 31 July 2005. 15 Sept. 2006. Online posting. "The Methamphetamine Epidemic--Less Than Meets the Eye."

[pinkpanther111]

OMG!

[Mjaye]

Yes, I have a comment. Meth heads shoot cops for the same reason that bootleggers shot revenue agents - because their drug of choice was illegal, and a conviction would net them years in prison, which they would rather avoid. Take away the prohibition, and the incentive to kill law officers (and witnesses) goes away. Neither meth nor alcohol are intrinsically evil, and neither do they cause people to become irredeemably evil. But they wanted a war, and they got one. People get shot dead in wars. On both sides.<<<<<<<<<<

Couldn't disagree more. Meth addicts will go after you if they think you are going to take their meth, or you might be coming to get them for some traffic ticket they had in '97, or you might be the person who's been listening to them through their air conditioning vents in their car. Are you saying that we would legalize crank to begin with, and if so, getting it legally would make them less paranoid and nuts? I don't think so.

And they sure aren't getting it from psychiatrists. There is a major difference between people on meth from the street and those taking a prescribed amphetamine, whick I might add has fallen out of favor for weight control.

If you ever worked with a significant number of meth addicts, you could not possibly think it's bad only because it's illegal. A devastating change takes place in people on meth, and the photos posted don't even show the half of it for many users.

[wanderingcoed]

Dear Mosquitobite: We in the state of Minnesota are leaving hundreds of children behind everyday. These children are left behind because of their parents methamphetamine use. You say that our child protection agencies are too quick to remove a child from a home where meth is being used. We as a state should adopt a zero tolerance plan when it comes to meth use in a home where children are present. Parents who lose their children due to meth use should never regain custody. There should be no second chances when it involves the child’s right to a safe environment. You, as well as social workers and child protection officers, may argue that it is in the best interest of the child to reunite with their family. Much effort has been put on treating the family, not the addiction. I would like to agree that treating the family is the best approach but methamphetamine is a different demon. I do not believe that putting a child back into a home where this drug is being used is in the best interest of the child. Need you be reminded of the recent Minnesota case this past July involving a ten-year girl being scalded to death? This child was removed from her mother’s custody due to her drug use. The child was placed in foster care where she was thriving. The county then decided in would be in the best interest of the child to place her in her father’s home. The father and step-mother both had alleged drug problems. That young girl is now dead. She was scalded to death in a bathtub where the water was over 130 degrees (Adams 2). This obviously was not in the best interest of the child, wouldn’t you agree? There are many logical reasons that children should never be returned to a home where meth is used. The first reason is the manner in which meth is manufactured. Methamphetamines are made with a variety of hazardous chemicals. The chemicals used in the making of this drug are both harmful to people as well as the environment. Meth labs are often set up in the home of the user. These are homes where kids are present. In 2004, one of the 87 counties in Minnesota raided 17 in-home meth labs; five of these homes had children present (MEADA 1). This was just one county in Minnesota. Children living in these homes suffer from a variety of ailments from the exposure to these chemicals. It is reported that the kids suffer from physical ailments such as respiratory problems, skin disorders and malnutrition (Lonetree 2). The children being raised in these homes may test positive for the drug. A 9-month-old baby removed from a St. Paul meth house in February 2006 tested positive for meth (Meth 1). The child was not given a choice to use drugs or not. His parents made that choice for him by setting up a meth lab in his home. Secondly, children who live in home where meth use is prevalent, suffer physiological damage. A parent who is a meth user, according to the National Association of Counties, become so involved in their addiction they fail to parent. Young children are often left alone to fend for their own needs. The kids suffer from abandonment issues. These children also suffer from failure-to-thrive disorders. The children’s basic emotional needs are not being met, are not a priority. (Meth Epidemic 6) A parent, due to their addiction, is unable to feed or clothe their children. How can that parent be expected to provide for the emotional needs of a developing young person? Meth causes the user to behave irrationally and is often linked to causing mental illness. The addict may experience diminished brain function. Meth use can bring on feelings of paranoia, aggression and panic, in addition to hallucinations (NACO 8). I do not see as any of these symptoms as consistent with good parenting skills. It sounds more like a nightmare to me. Lastly, the cost associated with attempting to treat methamphetamine addiction is staggering. Last year $250,000 was granted to twelve counties and one Native American tribe for the prevention and treatment of meth addiction. It also cost $7 million dollars a year for one county in law enforcement and social services to combat the problem (Imrie 8). Minnesota Legislature has just approved $1.5 million in grant money for counties to use for meth related programs. Anoka County is piloting a program in which parents are highly supervised and the children attend the treatment program along with the parents. There are some good outcomes from these treatment plans. Some of the families are able to be reunited (Hawkins 8). The flip side of that is meth addicted parents need at least 18 months of in-patient care. Relapses are extremely common, about 96% falling back into meth use. It may seem that the only way a parent suffering from meth addiction stays clean is if they stayed locked up (Hawkins 6). When looking at the amount of monies spent, with so little effect on the recovery of the addict, is this the best we can do for the children? Would it not be better to spend our resources on providing safe nurturing homes for the children involved? It is my opinion that it is near impossible to help the meth addict so why not give a child a future instead. Children deserve a chance to grow up in a safe environment. That would be an environment where methamphetamines are not present. I know eight people who have destroyed a good deal of their lives with meth. All but two of those people have children. All of these individuals have used meth a minimum of two years. They all have been involved in drug rehabilitation at one time or another. One out of the eight has stayed clean for over a year. The children of these addicts have suffered a life of ups and downs and a life of uncertainty. They have lived the life of a drug addict, sometimes becoming meth users themselves. The saddest story of all, but one that illustrates my point of no second chances, is the story of a nineteen-year girl doing a fifteen year prison sentence. She was arrested for having a meth lab. This young girl was raised in a home where meth was a part of her daily existence. I may ask you, if she was removed from the home as a child would it have been different for her? Could she have been saved from the life of an addict? I have not read anything that gives me hope that in most cases a family can be put back together after meth has destroyed it. The cycle seems to continue. The kids of the meth addict are just along for the awful trip. Surely the only way to give these kids a chance is to give them a home where methamphetamines are not part of the equation. We cannot hope that the parents will beat their problems. I am not willing to take a chance on a child’s future, are you? Works Cited Adam, Jim. "Girl Scalded to Death." StarTribune.com 19 July 2006. 10 Dec. 2006. . Imrie, Robert. “Meth Menace Keeps Spreading.” Associated Press, 14 March 2006. 16 Sept. 2006 < http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/archives> Hawkins, Beth. “Little Court Of Horrors” City Pages, 21 December 2005. 10 Sept.2006 < http://citypages.com/databank/26/1307/article13972.asp> Kyle, Angelo D. and Hansell, Bill. “The Meth Epidemic in America” 5 July 2005. 12 Sept. 2006. Meth Is An Equal Opportunity Destroyer. “Meth Education and Drug Awareness Coalition of Wright County.” 20 Sept. 2006 < http://www.meada.org/main.asp> Lonetree, Anthony. “A Poison in the Family.” Star Tribune. 31 July 2005. 15 Sept. 2006. Online posting. "The Methamphetamine Epidemic--Less Than Meets the Eye." StarTribune.com new york: 17 Sept. 2006. 10 Sept. 2006 .

[tacticalogic]

Should we take typing too fast to have time for paragraphing as further proof of the meth epidemic?

[mosquitobite]

good grief! welcome to Free Republic, but I'm not your professor. I don't need foot notes I've seen first hand the problems "state" agencies cause.
"it's for the children! think of the children! we need more government funds btw..."
You bring up the child who was scalded to death. I could bring equal examples of children being abused and killed in foster homes as well. I don't claim to have the answers I'd just rather err on the side of the parent, tyvm.

[Dov in Houston]

Thank you

Truer words were never spoken

sign this

an ex user.

Crank kills. What would you expect from something made from anti freeze, sneeze pills the list of ingredients is poisonous (do a search it will floor you) but to think that one would snort it up his nose.

I won and beat it but many don't. In fact many get killed over it