Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/ robtek
February 20, 2014
|
You might have seen the billboards or Facebook ads,
sponsored by the Montana Meth Project, depicting scabbed, wrinkled faces
with rotting teeth and the words “Meth: Not even once,” plastered
across the bottom of the frame. Or maybe you’ve heard the media horror
stories about how addictive methamphetamine, or “meth,” can be and how
recklessly it "destroys young lives."
It’s easy to fall for the
emotional hysteria surrounding meth, since these days it's the drug
warriors' scapegoat drug of choice, but there is no empirical evidence
to support the claims that meth causes physical deformities, rots your
teeth or that it’s even close to as addictive as it's made out to be,
according to a new report.
Columbia University psychology professor Carl Hart—author of the book
High Price—has released a
new report via
Open Soceity Foundatins titled “Methamphetamine: Fact vs. Fiction and
Lessons from the Crack Hysteria” to address the overstated perceptions
of the problems associated with meth. He argues that the dangers of meth
are exaggerated today just like the dangers of crack were blown out of
proportion three decades ago.
“I just want people to
understand that we’ve seen this movie before, so just be aware that’s
what’s going on [with meth] and try not to fall into that trap,” he
said.
Hart is known for
previous studies
focusing on crack cocaine and the overblown “crack scare” of the 80s.
Similar to what’s happening with meth now, crack cocaine was
hyperbolized in mid-80s as being so irresistibly addictive that even
first time users would fall prey to its wiles. The media warned of
“crack-crazed” addicts and, despite the virtual lack of any scientific
evidence for these claims, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
setting 100 times harsher penalties for crack than powder cocaine
convictions (even though the two are
essentially the same drug).
As
Hart points out, we know now that the crack panic stemmed not from
realistic concerns over the effects of crack, but from a systemic
racism. The laws disproportionately targeted black people, who were more
likely to use cocaine in its crack form because it was cheaper and
easier to attain. During the 80s, a whopping 85 percent of people
sentenced for crack cocaine offenses were black, despite the fact that
the majority of users were white according to the
US Sentencing Commission.
“Everybody
now kind of gets that we screwed up with crack cocaine, and that crack
cocaine was being used to vilify a certain group: black folks,” said
Hart.
Now, methamphetamine has replaced crack as the big, bad
drug. And this time around the targets of the smear campaign are poor
white people, and gay people.
Hart’s study examines the
available data on illicit methamphetamine, or “meth,” in an effort to
dispel some of the myths about the effects of the drug and its national
and international consequences.
The introduction of the
report states, “The data show that many of the immediate and long-term
harmful effects caused by [meth] use have been greatly exaggerated in a
similar way in which the dangers of crack cocaine were overstated nearly
three decades earlier.”
To assess the actual, direct
effects of meth on human physiology and behavior, Hart conducted a
series of laboratory studies in 2012. The studies were designed to
document the immediate and short-term effects of the drug on measures of
cognitive functioning, mood, sleep, blood pressure, heart rate and the
drug’s addictiveness.
For a study to
assess cognitive functioning, mood and sleep patterns, participants
received varying double-blind doses of meth, meaning they didn’t know
how much meth they were receiving, or whether they were receiving any at
all. Participants were given a baseline battery test, then received
doses of meth that could range from placebo to 50mg. The participants
were reassessed on the battery test at predetermined time points for
several hours after, and the results were charted.
The
experiment found that after receiving meth, participants reported
feeling more euphoric and their cognitive functioning was improved for
about four hours. The drug also caused significant increases in blood
pressure and heart rate that lasted for up to 24 hours. Hart's report
notes that “while these elevations were statistically significant, they
were well below levels obtained when engaged in a rigorous physical
exercise, for example.” The drug reduced the amount of time
participants slept, but it he didn’t keep people up for consecutive
days, it didn’t dangerously elevate their vital signs and it didn’t
impair their judgment.
To assess addictiveness,
meth-dependent participants were given a choice between taking a big hit
of meth (50mg) or $5 cash. They chose the drug about half of the time.
But, when the amount of money went up to $20, participants almost never
chose the drug. The results proved that meth is not so addictive that it
impairs rational judgement.
“So, it if its not as bad as made out
to be, how did we get to this place where we see meth as being so evil
and destroying all these lives?” Hart asked. “The thing we have to
understand is it’s associated with poor white folks.”
The report notes for example that in 1999, “then Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating characterized methamphetamine in this way:
“‘It’s
a white trash drug — methamphetamines largely are consumed by the lower
socio-economic element of white people and I think we need to shame it.
... Just like crack cocaine was a black trash drug and is a black trash
drug.”
Hart notes that poor white people, and gay
people, are two groups commonly stigmatized in American society. They’re
also the two groups most commonly associate with meth use, so the fact
that meth is vilified is no coincidence, he argues.
“Those are two groups that are despised in society, so anything they do that we can distinctly say is ‘what
they do,’ is vilifying,” he said. “This just becomes another one of the tools to vilify the groups that we don’t like.”
Hart’s
report also notes that, similar to the way crack was made out to be a
different and much more dangerous drug than the powder cocaine commonly
snorted from the tables and toilet seats of wealthy white people and
rock stars, meth is made out to be severely worse than its sister
amphetamines.
Like every other amphetamine, meth is a
synthetic stimulant. It is approved in several countries, alongside
d-amphetamine, to treat a variety of disorders including attention
deficit hyperactive disorder, narcolepsy and obesity. As Hart’s report
points out, “periodically there are statements in scientific and popular
literature attesting to methamphetamine’s greater potency and
‘addictive potential,’ relative to other amphetamines.” But according to
Hart’s report such statements are inconsistent with empirical evidence.
As it so happens, meth is almost an identical drug to d-amphetamine.
They both increase blood pressure, pulse, euphoria and desire to take
the drug in a dose-dependent manner.
Hart’s report states that
one reason for so many unfounded beliefs about meth is that it’s more
easily available on the black market than other amphetamines, due to
easier synthesis. According to internet searches and law enforcement
personnel, which Hart cites, the ingredients for meth consist of a few
common household products and some over-the-counter cold medicine.
Hart
said it’s important to consider why certain people use certain drugs.
For example, he says it’s clear why students use adderall, another
amphetamine: it helps them stay awake and focus when cramming for
finals.
“But once the study period and exams are over, we want to make sure they’re not using it recreationally, chronically,” he said.
When it comes to meth, it’s important to consider the reasons why people are using the drug in the first place.
“For
people out in the poor communities, the communities that we care about
when it comes to meth, we need to figure out why they’re using it and
when they’re using it, and try to understand where their use becomes a
problem,” he said. “I dont know. Maybe they work in factories or jobs
that require they work when they should be sleeping. In that case it
just comes down to making sure they’re attending to their sleep habits.”
The
report notes that while the proponents of scare tactics argue that
they’re successful based on short term results, over time such tactics
tend to be unsuccessful ways to mitigate drug use. This is because drug
users and their friends quickly get hip to how unrealistic and
ridiculous the billboards and media reports actually are. They’re not
based in fact, and they come off as phony, even laughable. Hart said a
better way to mitigate drug use and its negative impacts is to be honest
and approach it from a realistic, health-based perspective, asking
“What is it we’re really concerned about when it comes to meth?”
Hart said the two major concerns with meth are sleeping and eating habits.
“When
you don't sleep there are all kinds of psychological and physiological
effects that could happen that are negative,” he said. “So, one of the
things we can do is tell people we recognize the real concern with
methamphetamine is sleep—decreasing sleep and chronic sleep loss.
Therefore let’s make sure you're taking the drug at a time that’s not
near bedtime. And if you are, and you’re having sleep disruption, maybe
you should try and help them get some sleeping meds or something else to
make sure they are sleeping.
“Also, we know one of the things
that meth does is it disrupts food intake,” he continued. “People don’t
eat as much. We want to make sure that people are continuing to eat and
take care of themselves in that regard as well. So let them know that we
understand its an important effect of the drug, but they still have got
to eat. Those are the things that I would stress with methamphetamine
first.”
Hart said it’s important to remember what we
learned from the crack panic of the 80s when thinking about meth today,
and to be rational when talking about drugs in general.
“The
scientific literature on methamphetamine is replete with unwarranted
conclusions, which has provided fuel for the implementation of draconian
drug policies that exacerbate problems faced by poor people,” he said.
“Like I said, we’ve seen this movie before.”
April M. Short is an associate editor at AlterNet. Follow her on Twitter @AprilMShort.
No comments:
Post a Comment