Meth makers leave behind a toxic trail at motels

[riverdeep]

Source: AP via yahoo

They are places where drug-makers can go unnoticed, mixing the chemicals needed for the highly addictive stimulant in a matter of hours before slipping out the next morning. The dangerous contaminants can lurk on countertops, carpets and bathtubs, and the sickening smells produced can be masked by tobacco smoke and other scents.

Motels can be an attractive alternative for drug makers seeking to avoid a police bust in their own homes. "They can seize the trailer or seize your house but they can't seize a motel room," said Dr. Sullivan Smith, director of emergency services at Cookeville Regional Medical Center in north-central Tennessee.

The cleanups cost anywhere from $2,000 to $20,000. Even short-term exposure to vapors and residue where the drug is smoked or cooked can cause eye and skin irritation, vomiting, rashes, asthma problems and other respiratory issues.

"The smart ones come in about 10 o'clock at night and they make it all night and are out of there by 8 a.m," said Joseph McInerney, president and CEO of the association.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090223/ap_on_bi_ge/meth_motels

---

It wasn't just the cheap hotels that remnants were found either, it was some very good ones. I guess if you're making big money, you can afford it.

[Nickster]

1. That reminds me, Breaking Bad starts up again next month!

[DS1]

14. Hell yeah

:thumbsup:

[Zhade]

61. AWESOME!

Sooooo good.

[Jkid]

2. Another reason to legalize recreational drugs.

Regulate them under factory, health, and safety regulations. It can prevent incidents this from happening.

[pattmarty]

5. Well, I don't think I would classify "amphetamines" as a recreational.........

......drug. I believe in decriminalization or legalization of MOST now illegal drugs, but some of them like meth or heroine will still have to be strictly overseen.

[Javaman]

6. Legalizing meth, is not the road to success...

Meth is not pot. lumping meth in with pot is like lumping artillery shells in with .22 cal bullets and claiming they are both the same.

what needs to be done, like with Quaalude, is to make illegal a key component that is available over the counter.

Once that is done, it will become very very hard to make it.

Quaalude's almost vanished overnight.

[Kali]

10. I always wondered what ever happened to quaaludes...

saw a boyfriend on those once - slllloooowwwww

What were they or what did they make illegal?

[John Q. Citizen]

15. NPR has a great series on meth and they tell the Quaalude story. The key ingreidient

was some fairly obscure malaria treatment. It was only produced in about 5 major industrial chemical pharma factories. When they got the factories to quit producing the basic ingredient, Quaaludes were all gone in a few months. just gone from the equation.

And they could do the same with meth, except the basic ingredients (either ephedrine or pseudo ephedrine) are worth billions in cold remedies. So we have to put up with meth because somebody is getting rich.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Yep, There are just a handful of factories that make the ephedrine and pseudo ephedrine

from which comes all amphetamines.

The main difference with Quaaludes and meth is that ephedrine and psuedo ephedrine are used in almost every over the counter nasal remedy and brings in big money.

The basic ingredient for 'ludes wasn't that kind of a cash cow minus the 'ludes.


But you are right. If we gave up the cold remedies and shut down the 8 or so factories that produce those two compounds there would be little to no meth in a short time.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

73. I can't beleive this hasn't been made &/or imported from China yet...

everything else gets imported.

[KamaAina]

115. As a matter of fact...

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

The production of ephedrine in China has become a multi-million dollar export industry. Companies producing for export extract US$13 million worth of ephedrine from 30,000 tons of ephedra annually, 10 times the amount that is used in traditional Chinese medicine.

Ephedrine is, of course, the key ingredient in the manufacture of meth.

[paulsby]

81. it isn't just about "bringing in money"

it's about cheap, effective medicine for people who need it.

it's like you are blaming the corporations for making available (cheaply) drugs (ephedrine and pseudophed) that are very cheap and very effective.

the fact that they are available OTC is also important since it would be insane to require you to go to a dr. and get a script simply to get a medicine to help you with a cold, etc.

ephedrine (when combo'd with caffeine) is also a phenomenal diet supp, that congress tried to ban for sale as a dietary supp (and were successful for while) contrary to provisions of DSHEA.

[John Q. Citizen]

93. I think your premise is debatable. Meth is a much more effective diet suppressant

than is ephedrine.

It also keeps people awake better than no doze caffeine pills.


Have you ever snorted or swallowed some meth when you have a cold? man, you feel great and are out of bed fast!

Yet meth is about the money, just as ephedrine is. Both are big business.

To my way of thinking, it makes very good sense to put up with an occasional runny nose if it saves us thousands of ruined lives and billions of dollars in social costs.

Yes there was a time medicine couldn't have imagined getting by without the benefits of leaches. yet somehow, we did it.

[paulsby]

100. you're big business argument is flawed

since the INDUSTRY was behind congress and their attempt to ban the sale of ephedrine AS a dietary supplement.

why?

because pharma makes far MORE money off their patented expensive diet pills than they could ever make off ephedrine which is essentially a commodity.

comparing meth to ephedrine is also absurd. you might as well compare caffeine to meth. the analogy is roughly equivalent. they are both stimulants that make you feel good after all.

i used ephedrine successfully for dieting in powerlifting many many times. there was no risk of methlike addiction. it doesn't cause the MASSIVE euphoria that meth does, that is part of the reason it is so insidious.

every meth user i have ever asked about it (and i have spoken to scores) says it is 1) the best high they ever felt 2) and took control of their life quickly.

i have talked to longterm cocaine users, pot users, etc. who (correctly imo) say that the hype about their drugs is way overblown and they have been using responsibly for years.

doesn't happen with meth.

[John Q. Citizen]

101. This is from PBS Frontline

Why is meth called an "unnecessary epidemic?"

As The Oregonian's award-winning 2004 investigation showed, Congress and federal authorities could have contained the meth epidemic, and still can. Unlike heroin and cocaine, which are distilled from plants grown across huge areas of Asia and South America, meth requires ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, two chemicals used to make asthma medications or cold and cough remedies such as Sudafed.

Only nine factories in the world manufacture the bulk of the world's supply of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Tightening control over the supply of these chemicals has been pursued on and off over the past 18 years, but the regulations have contained loopholes which meth traders quickly exploited. Nevertheless, each time there have been new regulations it has made a real difference, as The Oregonian's investigation showed: the drug grew scarce and rehab centers saw fewer meth patients. What still has to happen is the implementation of sustained controls by government that could stop meth's continuing spread.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/faqs/#9




(snip)
How does meth differ from other stimulants such as cocaine?

Although both cocaine and methamphetamine are psychostimulants that trigger the release of dopamine, the drugs are quite different. For one thing, methamphetamine produces a stronger and longer-lasting high than the high produced by cocaine. Animal studies conducted at UCLA show that cocaine releases 350 units of dopamine, while methamphetamine releases almost four times as much -- about 1,200 units (See a slideshow on the neuroscience of meth). Similarly, smoking meth produces a high that lasts from six to 24 hours, while smoking cocaine produces a high that lasts only 20 to 30 minutes. And it takes the human body about 12 hours to remove about 50 percent of methamphetamine, compared to only one hour for cocaine.

In addition, drug enforcement officials have a better opportunity to limit the spread of methamphetamine than cocaine because of the way the drugs are produced. Cocaine is a natural (as opposed to synthetic) drug derived from plants that can be grown throughout the world. Methamphetamine is a man-made drug that requires a supply of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, chemicals found in cold and cough medicines and produced in bulk by only nine factories around the world. If drug enforcement officials could tighten control over the supply of these chemicals and to whom they are sold, experts says the meth epidemic could be stopped.

[paulsby]

108. excellent info thx nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

112. Yeah, that was a crap episode.

What the episode showed but failed to emphasize is that when they shut down the "superlabs" you only saw an increase of people cooking in their homes, in their cars, or in the case of the OP, in motels.

Classic cause and effect of prohibition.

[John Q. Citizen]

125. Is it your contention that Quaaludes have always been widely available since they were

first introduced back in the 70s?

If that isn't your contention, then why aren't they still available? They were sure popular. But i haven't seen or heard of any Quaaludes since the eighties.

Is that also a classic cause and effect of probation? If not, why not?


How many award winning documentaries have you been involved with writing, producing? Just so I know your background bonifieds as a judge of such things as whether an episode of NOVA is crap or not. Of course you have an opinion, but does the episode stink or is it your opinion that stinks?

i would have to say it's your opinion that stinks.

The shutting down of the central Valley super labs is years ago in the whole story. NOVA documents the switch that took place from bulk ephedrine to cold remedy obtained ephedrine, as well as the switch of larger labs to out of country locations.

But lets get back to quaaludes. It looks like prohibition worked extremely well with Quaaludes. They are effectively non-existent at this point and have been effectively non-existent since shortly after shutting down the factories that produced the necessary basic ingredient back in the 1980s. Would you agree?

I also believe that prohibition could work for meth, just as it did for quaaludes. The tweakers would switch to smoking or shooting coke. Just as determined fans of 'ludes switched to other frontal lobe depressants.

But smoking or shooting coke is somewhat safer than using meth in terms of physical and psychological damage from the drugs.

I will qualify that with the added numerical amount of administration needed of coke compared to meth. So yeah, someone shooting coke as a lifestyle will be doing it every half hour or so. So increased needle usage carries some risk.

My belief is that harm reduction makes more sense than either classic Elliot Ness prohibition or across the board legalization of any and all drugs.

If there ever was a nazi drug, it would be meth, invented by the Nazis in the 1930s. It's a very difficult drug to make because it requires extremely complicated procedure to convert plants that contain ephedra into ephedrine. Which is why there are only 9 factories in the world that do it. Yet there are tens of thousands of soap makers, beer brewers, bio-diesel makers, and meth cooks.

It's not like brewing beer, or making bio-diesel, or making soap, or even like cooking meth. It's much harder and far more extensive.

Look, if people could make ephedrine or pseudo ephedrine they would already be making it so they could cook meth. But they can't.

[christx30]

78. To combat meth,

they made it so where you could not buy cold medicine containing pseudo-ephedrine over the counter. If you have a cold, you have to go to the pharmacist and ask for it and they take down your personal information. And the amount you can buy at a time is limited. It's been like that for a couple of years now, at least in Texas.
The problem with meth is that it is made with a lot of very common ingredients that are hard to ban.

[paulsby]

80. the problem

is that key components (like ephedrine or pseudoephedrine) are cheap and effective meds and it would really suck to hurt legitimate users of these meds, by restricting their access to it, in order to punish/prevent the meth cooks.

kind of like how the DEA moved oxyconting from CIII to CII and put MD's under much more scrutiny for prescribing it, which makes MD's loathe to prescribe it, which hurts legitimate patients whoare in serious pain, because of the abusers who seek to divert it.

one of the problems with meth is that it is SO easy to make and only requires very common items.

that's a quirk of its chemistry.

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. Let's legalize meth in your neighborhood only.

Let us know how that goes for you.

Meth should never, ever, ever be legal, EVER, never.

[Ferret Annica]

23. I support legalizing many things called drugs and banned

But meth is an extremely dangerous poison that is a proven killer. Even those who don't die are 'perma-tweaked' by their use of this toxic crap.

many of those whom I worked in the woods here in Oregon years ago as a firefighter and tree planter who used it are dead from it. You are way off base in regards to this particular substance.

[Marrah_G]

24. meth is poison..............not a recreational drug.

[riverdeep]

31. I've heard tales of people doing meth recreationally,

but I have to say I find it hard to believe. Supposedly ravers will use meth in conjunction with MDMA (ecstasy) to keep them going through the night. My take is that nothing is free and if you're feeling tired and counteract that with a stimulant you will pay for it later. I've also heard that methamphetamine produces extreme changes to the brain, and changes the brain on the very first hit.

For example, in lab experiments done on animals, sex causes dopamine levels to jump from 100 to 200 units, and cocaine causes them to spike to 350 units. " methamphetamine you get a release from the base level to about 1,250 units, something that's about 12 times as much of a release of dopamine as you get from food and sex and other pleasurable activities," Rawson says. "This really doesn't occur from any normally rewarding activity. That's one of the reasons why people, when they take methamphetamine, report having this euphoric that's unlike anything they've ever experienced."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/body

Chronic users can wind up with severe memory and coordination problems like someone suffering from Parkinson's disease. After decades of propaganda about all kinds of drugs (like "Reefer Madness"), it's easy to dismiss anything that comes from the establishment as further propaganda, but this is real. It really is that bad.

[Marrah_G]

40. It is poison.

It's scary seeing what the drug does to people, physically and mentally.

They are literally injecting themselves with poison and causing irreversible brain damage.

People might say they use it recreationally, but I would be EXTREMELY wary of such claims.

I think those people are just fooling themselves. It's not like having a few drinks.

[tanngrisnir3]

50. You're the one who's fooling yourself with the usage of words...

like 'poison'. So is alcohol, but I don't see you making the same arguments against that.

Labelling something as 'scary' pretty much guarantees that there will not be rational discourse, and the claim that it causes irreparable brain damage has been debunked.

[Javaman]

51. whoa, you are comparing the effects of meth to alcohol?

Way to stay on topic. We are talking about meth not alcohol

And, are you saying there isn't a difference between the two?

So let me ask you, how long have you been using meth? And are you tweaking?

Please show us a link that "debunks" the brain damage part, since you brought it up.

[tanngrisnir3]

56. Let me ask you how long have you been beating neighborhood children?

We're talking generally about the consequences of the addictive properties of meth, or the lack of them, and there is a rational tie-in with other addictive substances.

I know about meth and the effects it has on others from having arrested people who suspected of dealing it/using it. And thanks for asking.

Here's your link: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/500/mcginty_methamphetamine_study_critiqued_by_john_calvin_jones

[Laelth]

103. Very interesting. Thanks for the link. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[JVS]

65. Clean meth made up to medical conditions wouldn't be as damaging

[Marrah_G]

67. There are a couple newbs defending meth.....makes you go HMMMM

As far as I am concerned only those who are Meth addicts would be defending it as anything less then poison that destroys people's lives.

[tanngrisnir3]

68. Yes, because you show an unwillingness to think and willful ignorance

As far as I'm concerned, only people who support pedophile priests hold your position.

See the inevitable consequences of the game you're playing?

[Javaman]

71. Wow, just wow.

man, so sad. you are now blocked.

[tanngrisnir3]

75. Ah, so rationality and logic are things you fear. Thanks for clearing that up.

Please enjoy your cowering in the face of reality and factual data.

[Marrah_G]

87. Hi Tann !

We are just going to go in circles on this one. We obviously have very different viewpoints on this particular drug. Hopefully there are many more issues we DO agree on.

Welcome to DU !

[Marrah_G]

66. Hello- It IS poison. It is made up of Poisons........

[tanngrisnir3]

69. So is alchohol. So are almost all prescription drugs. What is your point?

If you actually wish to discuss something, these cutsie-poo word games you're playing aren't contributing anything.

[Marrah_G]

88. Can you stop with the insults?

It's a really bad way to introduce yourself. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but you are making it tough, even if that's not your intention.

[tanngrisnir3]

94. I'm sorry, but when you state that only meth users could...

either opine the way I do or have the experience that I do, AND reference the utterly irrelevant fact that I am a new poster here (although I could have been reading this site for years before actually signing up), don't be surprised if I take the absurd argument you were using (only a meth user...) and turn it right back around on you.

[Marrah_G]

98. I will say again

I think you and I will never agree on this topic. I welcome you to DU and I am sure there are many other things we will find we are in agreement on.

[marksmithfield]

91. What the hell?

Meth is indeed a poison, what an unbelievable statement.

[tanngrisnir3]

95. Sorry, but to label meth a 'poison' while not doing so with other chemicals

is basically arguing from emotion, and that is part and parcel of the mindset that got us in this mess in the first place.

[paulsby]

82. i have spent many many years

as a cop and have dealt with dopers of all sorts.

meth is almost singular in the fact that i met very few recreational users. it is FAR more addictive than almost any other drug.

and plenty of people can lead responsible lives (apart from the war on drugs danger) while using pot, cocaine, LSD etc. recreationally.

it is very rare for somebody to use meth for any period of time and not completely spiral into hardcore addiction.

i've been in dozens of labs and dealt with hundreds of users/dealers. this is the drug yer daddy warned you about. it really does suck that bad.

[sendero]

90. While I agree with everything you said..

... I have a hard time believing that making it "illegal" accomplishes anything at all.

[marksmithfield]

92. I can't believe this defense of that drug

This isn't a soft drug we are talking about here. You wouldn't happen to be a shill for the reconstructive dentist guild would you?

[tanngrisnir3]

96. I'm sorry, but where exactly has this drug been defended?

People here who aren't buying the standard emotionally-based line of "Meth is evil!" are arguing that it's a philosophical issue regarding the double standards we have vis a vis intoxicants in this country and their various legal statuses.

No one here is advocating for drug usage, let alone meth usage, as far as I can see.

No one is 'defending' meth.

[sendero]

107. Try to think, if you can.

... how much good has the fact that meth is illegal done so far?

Probably about NONE.

My longest friend's life was ruined by meth, I would not touch the stuff with a ten foot pole. I'm just not STUPID enough to believe that laws accomplish anything at all when it comes to drugs, or guns, or, well lots of stuff.

Yes, wave your magic law wand and make the problems of society disappear. How's that working out for ya dummy?

[paulsby]

99. i am not for imprisoning users at all

however, across the board legalization is not the answer either, imo.

decrim, wih an emphasis on harm reduction is.

also, as much as i loathe "do it for the childreN" arguments (as some of the worst tyrannies from the right and left have come from that mantra), meth really does harm families, especially the kids.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

104. Meth isn't a recreational drug?

That's a new one.

[superconnected]

62. And yet another reason -

http://www.komonews.com/news/40096832.html

I always consider the problem with people on drugs driving. It always begs the question, why not legalize drunk driving?

[tanngrisnir3]

63. It's already illegal in every state in the Union to drive while impaired

Impaired due to any substance, including meth.

Those who are so inclined to do so most likely already are.

[marksmithfield]

89. Meth is a recreational drug?

alrighty then.

[SpiralHawk]

3. "The smart ones." ? WTF

What could possibly be smart about this?

[riverdeep]

18. Profit ratios.

"Meth has a cost/profit ratio that would engender envy in almost any business. Before it's sold, a pound of meth is usually "stepped on," or diluted with another agent. Diluting meth increases production: A pound of pure meth can become 4 pounds, and a $2,500 investment can become $20,000 in two days' time."

http://www.valleymeth.com/chapter_5.html

People take a lot of risks for less than that amount. Not ethical, not productive to society, but smart enough.

[SpiralHawk]

20. "What does it profit a meth freakif he should gain the whole world...

...and lose his teeth (and sanity)." - Wholey Bibble

[riverdeep]

21. You're assuming the ones making it are also doing it.

It's not always the case. But yeah, meth is bad, really bad.

[rolltideroll]

4. Another W for the war on drugs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVkk6fH2u0Y

[Dreamer Tatum]

9. Meth is one of the very few drugs there should be a war against

Maybe if more drugs were legal, meth would be less popular.

[rolltideroll]

12. Social Darwinism

I believe that every one should have the free choice to put whatever chemicals they choose into their bodies. Control it, regulate it, but basically we would be embracing the concept of liberty. If you choose to live your life in that manner, then it is your choice. In the long run, society wpould be better off.

[Dreamer Tatum]

13. I would support the death penalty before I supported "regulation" of meth

Is meth legal anywhere? Anywhere at all?

[rolltideroll]

16. Yea

Any ADD drug, basically that is speed. The Nazi's invented the stuff at the end of WW2 so their troops could stay up and fight. Look, I am just saying it is none of anyone's business what people do. After a period of correction, we would slough off the addicts naturally. Society would benefit.

[Dreamer Tatum]

17. I don't think there is a big latent demand for meth

but I also think the argument that "anyone who would do meth is already doing it" is incorrect.

If kids are going to experiment with drugs, let them smoke weed.

[rolltideroll]

26. Good point

I disagree, but you do raise some good points. Nice to see a reasonable person.

[corpseratemedia]

52. Sorry but I wouldn't want a relative "sloughed off" that got addicted to this

If we would "slough off the addicts naturally, and society would benefit," how did we benefit from Jimi Hendrix dying early? (I know, downers & wine but that's an example).

[Hannah Bell]

109. yes, ironically. it's ok for kids, but "poison" for adults.

i remember the speed epidemic of the 60s. followed by a heroin epidemic.

the meth epidemic is funded from the same pockets.

legalize it all, take away the profit margins from the drug/crime/covert ops kingpins.

reduce use by making it unfashionable - like cigarettes.

[Marrah_G]

25. That would work if it was JUST meth user that it hurt

But Meth has a huge cost to innocent people.

[tanngrisnir3]

28. Stupidity of any sort can or might have huge costs to innocent people

Why should it matter any more or less if it takes a chemcial form?

[Marrah_G]

29. Obviously you have never been around people addicted to Meth

It's a pretty horrific thing.

It's not like joe down the street who smokes some pot.

[tanngrisnir3]

30. Sorry, I've been around innumerable people on meth

And my question remains unanswered.

[Marrah_G]

37. I find that hard to believe if you think Meth is not causing innocent people alot of harm

The only ones who think Meth is okay are those who are doing meth and have convinced themselves there is nothing wrong with it.

[tanngrisnir3]

42. I find it interesting that you would assume that I believe that.

A. Your contention about 'those who think meth is OK...." is presumptive nonsense. No one here has said meth is "OK".

B. You assume that I think it doesn't cause innocent people harm. So does alcohol abuse. So does driving a car impatiently or recklessly..

C. You have yet to actually answer my question. If you're incapable of doing so, just say so.

[christx30]

79. True.. alcohol does cause harm

But making alcohol doesn't cause a great deal of harm to people that aren't involved. The manufacture of meth does cause harm to innocent people all the time from the toxic fumes. They aren't even aware of the problem at the time, but it does cause long term harm.
So the solution is to make it legal and regulate it? Then what? Not everyone that is making it now is going to accept that now that it is legal and is being professionally manufactured, they should stop. The crude car trunk and motel room factories will still be in operation, and will still have to be raided to stop the toxic fumes and very real risk of explosions. So not much will change, except for the acceptance of meth into our culture. I am in favor of legalizing some drugs like pot. But meth needs to be fought. Treatment, rather than jail, for those that do it, and the innocents harmed in the manufacture and sale of the stuff, but it needs to be fought nonetheless.

[tanngrisnir3]

97. Making it illegally certainly can, but rarely....

Stils have been known to (and do) explode, but it is, granted, rare. When alcohol was illegal during Prohibition, and very large public health hazard was poisoning from bad batches made illegally. Quite similar to meth now, actually.

If meth, or any other substance, is made legally under gov't mandated safety/health conditions, there would be no need for anyone to make it in a sink, a car trunk, etc... and any potential damage to the environment and/or its denizens would be vastly minimized.

Your contention that not much would change flies in the face of logic and demonstrable facts.

The contention that a drug can 'be fought' has been proven futile, ineffective and outright harmful since the Harrison Narcotics Act from the early part of the last century. Why would you actively wish to continue such utter foolishness.

[John Q. Citizen]

102. Where do you get your Quaaludes from? I used to see them all the time back in

the 80s but they disappeared off the face of the earth, and over night. After the factories that produced the necessary ingredients stopped making them.


Meth and Quaaludes are similar, in that they are entirely synthetic drugs. There are only 9 factories in the world that produce ephedrine and pseudo ephedrine, so if they were properly regulated or simply bombed, there would soon be no meth.

Just as there are no quaaludes.

I agree with you that outlawing natural plants is a bad idea. But at the same time I think outlawing plutonium production probably makes sense. And outlawing ephedrine production or highly regulating it makes sense, because we know it works from the Quaalude example.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are natural products.

They come from, wait for it... ephedra.

[Hannah Bell]

110. yes, & the same folks synthesizing meth could synthesize its components.

given enough funding.

[riverdeep]

114. But making the materials isn't a backyard operation. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

135. Actually, no.

People can make meth from ephedra in the same way they can make meth from ephedrine/pseudoephedrine.

They can even grow the plany in their back yard.

[John Q. Citizen]

137. Name me an underground ephedrine factory that's been busted. Just one. Thanks.

You know, where people are making ephedrine from the plant.

i just have to ask;

If that's an option, why would anyone go out and buy one or two cold remedies at a bunch of stores. Heck, they could just do it the easy way.

[John Q. Citizen]

123. You had better tell PBS NOVA. Apparently they did their whole series and

are under the impression that there are only 9 factories on the planet that produce ephedrine and pseudo ephedrine.

Won't they be embarrassed when you prove them wrong?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

136. People really shouldn't believe everything they see on television.

[tanngrisnir3]

117. I don't get my Quaaludes from anywhere.

Unless I'm mistaken, they are still made in Mexico (and available by prescription in other countries) but I never encountered them on duty or socially anywhere.

[John Q. Citizen]

129. There are no quaaludes anywhere anymore. Not in any commercial capacity.

Not sold in any pharmacy or on any street corner.

No, back in the late 80s the US government went and talked to the handful of factories that produced the basic ingredient necessary to produce quaaludes, and about three months after those factories quit making that ingredient, qualludes disappeared forever everywhere.

[Laelth]

105. Alcohol has killed more people than meth ever has.

Just look at the drunk driving statistics.

I am not defending meth, but to say alcohol doesn't hurt others defies reality.

:dem:

-Laelth

[tanngrisnir3]

118. Thank you. I have pulled over, been attacked by and arrested....

far, far more drunk people than I ever have people on meth, and I started out in one of the methiest (sp?) places in CA.

It's a scare campaign, much in line with the hysterical, breathless 80/90's campaign about 'crack babies', who, as it turned out, didn't exist.

Oh! The humanity!

[Laelth]

122. You're welcome.

I always try to defend reality. Being honest about the world is what separates us from Republicans.

Thank you for your service, btw.

:dem:

-Laelth

[christx30]

131. the problem with that statement is

I can go out and do a beer or two, get into a cab, and not hurt anyone. Then I can wake up and not think about alcohol, perhaps, ever. Meth is, from what I have read, about 1000 times more effective at making someone high, therefore more addictive. And meth isn't as ingrained in society as alcohol is (as in, alcohol is more in use than meth), meth is more addictive, and the long term effects are more pronounced and substantially more dangerous. I mean, just look at someone that has been drinking for 10 years versus someone that has been tweaking for the same amount of time. Odds are that the tweaker is living more of a messed up life than a drinker.

[Laelth]

133. I think meth is more addictive.

But alcohol has hurt a lot more people. That's all I was saying.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[LanternWaste]

44. Seems to me that although "stupid"..

Seems to me that although "stupid" (a most relative term) in and of itself cannot be outlawed, stupid behavior and the many things which contribute to "stupid" behavior can be made illegal and is, thereby reducing the costs the innocents are forced to pay.

[tanngrisnir3]

45. That brings up constitutional and liberty-based ideas....

and the notion of legislating prohibition and punitive legal measures based on probability,not actions.

Too Orwellian for my tastes, and it's caused, and still causes, immeasurable harm and expense to our country in the form of the WOD.

[LanternWaste]

48. Regardless of whether we ourselves...

Regardless of whether we ourselves may or may not think it's a good idea, or whether it offends our delicate sensibilities, it happens.

On Edit:
"...option of legislating prohibition and punitive legal measures based on probability,not actions."

Like bans on driving drunk, yes? I imagine we all maintain a sliding scale in our minds of things we believe to be common-sense bans (drunken driving, home made nuclear weapons) that are relative to the scales of others.

And until we all reach consensus on what should or should not be "banned", I imagine the debate will continue.

[ronnie624]

32. "Huge" costs?

Relative to what? How are these costs calculated? What is their source? Can you provide any information about them?

[Marrah_G]

36. Crime, violence, destruction of families.

Sorry no- I am at work and do not have time to come up with a long report every time I post.

Try googling "meth families" lots of information out there along with stories from the victims of this drug.

Meth destroys communities and families.

You may want to spin around in circles pretending it doesn't, but it does.

[ronnie624]

39. I'm not interested in anecdotes, but thanks anyway. n/t

[LanternWaste]

46. I'm sure if your interest in actually sincere...

I'm sure if your interest in actually sincere, you could easily get your hands on a few relevant copies of the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (Sept, 2005) which does indeed illustrate a social cost/benefit scale.

[ronnie624]

47. I guess you got my number.

I'm just not "sincere". Sorry about that.

[rolltideroll]

54. I disagree

I am merely arguing from a personal liberty, each person's body is their own perspective.I am also a supporter of choice based upon this line of reasoning. As to what people do if they choose to spend their lives in such a manner, no matter what the costs to society, it is their choice. Sociey should only serve as the protectors and guarantors of personal liberty.For what it is worth, Ialso support open borders and no trade tariffs.

[LanternWaste]

57. Then I imagine you're also a proponent of...

"no matter what the costs to society, it is their choice...."

Then I imagine you're also a proponent of drunken driving and allowing people to build their own home-made nuclear devices. If not, and without adding qualifiers to your statement, what is the precise and relevant moral difference?

Again, I've never met anyone-- even the most vociferous of libertarians (however, are there libertarians who are not vociferous? I seriously doubt it) who would maintain that any and all bans on what we as individuals do, regardless of whether they cost others or not, are a Bad Thing (well, after adding more and more qualifiers and exceptions to rules-- but by that point, they've watered down their own definitions to the point of absurdity)

[Hannah Bell]

111. the crime & violence is largely a component of illegality.

like w/ alcohol or any other drug.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

22. Maybe

make selling meth a huge felony but decriminalize possession of it. No need to punish addicts, imo.

[Marrah_G]

38. I agree with that

Although I would like to see mandatory rehab, but then again we dont have enough free rehabs and meth users usually don't have insurance.

[balantz]

7. This is small time manufacturing.

The big labs are south of the border.

[riverdeep]

19. Actually, a lot of the meth is made in the USA by the Mexicans.

They learn how to 'cook' in Mexico, and then export the cookers once they become good at it. To California usually, to a 'super lab'. From California, it goes all over. In Iowa, for example, it's trafficked by the Mexican meatpackers that work in Iowa's meatpacking plants.

But regardless of the overall scope, staying in a room that has had cooking going on is very bad news. Cops in the nineties that busted meth houses without proper protection are now suffering all kinds of diseases. That, of course, is from repeated exposure, but still.

[Tempest]

33. Not true

I work for Homeland Security and see the summaries of arrests and raids.

By a big margin the raids are in the southern states and the arrests are mostly whites.

[riverdeep]

43. Mexicans aren't responsible for most of the meth?

That's counter to what I'm looking at.

"Mexico-based groups are now believed to control 70%-90% of methamphetamine production and distribution in the United States."

("Trends in production, trafficking, and consumption of methamphetamine and cocaine in Mexico.")
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16603456

That's from 2006 but everything else I've looked at says it's Mexican cartels doing the bulk of traffic as well. Maybe the Southern States conduct more raids and the Mexicans are harder to catch?

[riverdeep]

49. Here's an interesting article showing domestic meth production is up.

To summarize, meth labs were on the decline for the last few years due to legislation in 2005 restricting sales of the one of the core ingredients-ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Like a game of cat and mouse, this led to 'smurfing', where people are paid to go store to store to buy just the restricted amounts and make one big pile. Mexico also started to restrict the key ingredients mentioned earlier, but that hasn't stopped the cartels.

"The NDIC report projects these trends – more and larger-scale smurfing operations, more small-time labs, and more labs moving north from Mexico – to continue pushing up meth production. It also warns of Mexican producers circumventing import restrictions by smuggling ingredients from legal sources in South America. And it notes that an increasing amount of Ecstasy, another illegal stimulant, is being made with meth to make it more addictive."

("New worries about meth trends")
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0116/p03s03-usju.html

[Tempest]

55. Mexico-based groups are "now believed"

Yeah, that's a real data set I can believe in.

:sarcasm:

The federal statistics come from federal actions and reporting from the states.

I'll take the real life stats over someone claiming they "now believe".

[riverdeep]

58. From the National Drug Intelligence Center:

"National Methamphetamine Threat Assessment 2008", Stategic Findings section:

"Available law enforcement and intelligence reporting regarding methamphetamine production in Mexico, the primary source of methamphetamine to U.S. drug markets, indicates that production was high and stable in 2006."

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs26/26594/strat.htm#start

[Tempest]

59. From 2006

The DOJ released a report in 2008 that showed a decline in international sources (importation from Canada is still big) and a big increase in domestic production.

And it's showing up in the decline of seizures at the border and more busts in rural parts of the country.

Pot and cocaine is the big importation from Mexico now.

[Maat]

70. I'm a retired social worker, and my sister is still active.

I was the worker who followed the cops on raids, and took the children into custody.

I began in the early 1990's. The meth trade, in terms of the current substance, began in San Bernardino County (in my territory), a decade before I became a worker.

Originally, those arrested were Caucasian bikers, for the most part; then, in the mid- to late-90's, I began noticing that those arrested were country boys from the countryside in Mexico. The Tijuana cartels had taken over, per my police friends.

The police officers posting in this thread certainly diverge from the opinions of my law enforcement friends of fifteen-plus years; none of them would EVER seriously compare meth abuse to alcohol abuse. The addicts I knew would literally sell their mothers for a hit of meth. It had to be the most powerfully addictive substance I ever encountered (or have since).

On one case, the cop and I took the toddler into custody without the strongest case made. Later, the father told me that he was so paranoid that, had the child not been taken into custody, he would have been dead. Dad had been planning to jump out a two-story window with the child.

I saw literally hundreds of people deteriorate from healthy people of normal weight to people looking like the pictures posted on this thread. These parents loved their children, but the addiction was so powerful they could do nothing but think of it. I'm sorry; my dad died from alcohol addiction. I observed his for decades. There is no comparison; meth addiction is FAR worse. The effects are much more dangerous. A meth addict is many more times likely to seriously harm someone than is someone addicted to alcohol. The effects upon the personality are much more deadly. An alcoholic is much less likely to be violent. This is my two cents' worth.

Out here in California, we direct first-time possession offenders into treatment. They get plenty of chances. I fully support this decriminalization; but, due to decades within the social services and mental health fields, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for me to support legalization.

[paulsby]

84. i strongly agree

"The police officers posting in this thread certainly diverge from the opinions of my law enforcement friends of fifteen-plus years; none of them would EVER seriously compare meth abuse to alcohol abuse. The addicts I knew would literally sell their mothers for a hit of meth. It had to be the most powerfully addictive substance I ever encountered (or have since"

i am a police officer, who is against (generally) the war on drugs.

i'm NOT saying meth users should be locked up, but meth truly is exponentially worse than almost any other recreational drug.

and i know this from many many years doing investigations, and some time undercover wherein spoke with user/dealers as a (believed) confidant.

meth is a nasty drug.

[Maat]

85. Exactly!

Take care, and stay safe!

:hi:

[paulsby]

86. thx nt

[paulsby]

83. i agree

i have been in DOZENS of labs and dealt with hundreds of users/dealers.

i don't think there is ANY drug that is as racially segregated so to speak as meth.

i have NEVER seen a black person in a meth lab, for instance, or in possession of meth.

other drugs, yes. but when it comes to meth it is about as lily white as a golf course in the 50's

certain drugs appeal (for various reasons) to different races, cultures, classes, genders, etc. and meth is about as blatant an example as you can get.

[ronnie624]

34. Oklahoma is, by far, the biggest producer of meth. n/t

[ronnie624]

27. Unadulterated fear-mongering.

Here is an interesting article on how studies, statistics and language are exaggerated and misused to support the "war on drugs".

<http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/500/mcginty_methamphetamine_study_critiqued_by_john_calvin_jones>


This is YOUR War on Drugs - and it's killing Mexico.

<http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/19519>


For the record, I'm not a regular drug user, and I've never even seen methamphetamine, much less ingested any. (On edit, I do drink 8-10 ounces of wine every night; Chardonnay and pinot grigio - yum.)

[riverdeep]

35. Interesting article.

Your first link. Overdosing mice and then extrapolating the results- not good. There are, however, real world results to go from. Brain scan images on actual human addicts show definite damage after cessation of the drug (a scan was shown in the article and didn't address this). Not to mention real world tales of what damage addicts do.

As to the overall theme of the War on (some) Drugs being one of the stupidest things this country does, I'm completely with you. BTW, alcohol is a drug, so you are a drug user. So am I, I drink tea.

[Xenotime]

41. Could we legalize this too?

Have it commercially produced and taxed?

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

53. So we could have a bunch of zombies with rotting teeth

and rotting brains running around? What about the children of these meth users? Meth is not weed and, while I do not support legalizing weed either (except for medical purposes), meth is in a class by itself. Check out pictures of meth mouth or better yet read the stories of countless meth addicts who ruined not just themselves but their families and the community around them.

[Codeine]

64. Meth is a nightmare.

Just a total serious nightmare. I deal with tweakers and ex-tweakers daily and the damage is mind-blowing. A dedicated tweaker will show obvious external physical and behavioral effects for the rest of his or her life. I've seen normal folks in their early twenties go from healthy vibrancy to looking and acting like they have full-on Parkinson's in a matter of a few years.

[rainbow4321]

60. And houses: Homebuyers encountering meth contamination that may lead to changes in Texas law

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/022309dntexhomemeth.221ccf9.html

Homebuyers are increasingly encountering unexpected problems – methamphetamine contamination – that may lead to changes in state law.

Experts say meth contamination of apartments, hotel rooms, houses, storage sheds and even cars is more common than people may imagine. Meth-making or heavy use can leave chemicals in carpets, air ducts and attics. And without proper cleanup, experts say, the chemicals linger and expose people to health risks.

"We get calls once a week from people who are the innocent victims – who have nothing to do with drugs or dope," said Kirk Flippin, owner of Texas Decon, a New Braunfels company that tests for meth labs and does cleanups.

Although Texas home sellers are required by law to disclose knowledge of a house being used as a meth lab, experts said the law is not strong enough to protect buyers.

[ronnie624]

72. More sensationalist nonsense.

You'd think every block in every city in the state of Texas has a house needing meth lab decontamination.

How Not To Report About Meth

Start your article with an anecdote, preferably one about a user who testifies about how methamphetamine destroyed his life. Toss out some statistics to indicate that meth use is growing, even if the squishy numbers don't prove anything. Avoid statistics that cut against your case. Use and reuse the words "problem" and "epidemic" without defining them. Quote law enforcement officers extensively, whether they know what they're talking about or not. Avoid drug history except to make inflammatory comparisons between meth and other drugs. Gather grave comments from public-health authorities but never talk to critics of the drug war who might add an unwanted layer of complexity to your story.

Finally, attach a sensationalistic headline, such as "The Next Crack Cocaine? As Meth Use Grows, Officials Fear Region Is Unprepared to Deal With It." That's what the Washington Post did on March 19 in a piece that landed on the front page of the Metro section.

In the universe of poorly reported meth articles, "The Next Crack Cocaine?," by Amit R. Paley, is not the worst. Newsweek took that honor and retired it last summer. But like Newsweek, the Post embraces meth cliché, half truth, hyperbole, and broken logic at every opportunity.

<http://www.slate.com/id/2138398/>

Methamphetamine Propaganda

<http://www.slate.com/id/2137388/>

Post-Boomers Take Over
Oh, the headlines they'll write! Plus, more meth-mouth misinformation.

<http://www.slate.com/id/2130664/>

Crack Then. Meth Now.

<http://www.slate.com/id/2124885/>

The Meth-Mouth Myth

<http://www.slate.com/id/2124160/>

[tanngrisnir3]

76. How dare you use reason and logic to support your claims!

Why, that's outrageous!

[ronnie624]

77. The articles to which I linked,

are loaded with real information, including links to reliable statistical data. Hopefully others will explore them instead of relying on asswipe like The Dallas Morning News (a rag that makes my lip curl of its own volition).

[riverdeep]

113. This post goes completely against everything commonly known about meth.

So, I think it's worth exploring in some depth. The links all basically point to one theme: that the talk about methamphetamine is basically a moral panic, no different to the horror stories told about marijuana in propaganda like "Reefer Madness" in the 30's or the tales of people jumping off buildings from LSD during the 60's or the crack babies in the 80's and 90's. According to this outlook, meth is now fulfilling that role. Also according to this outlook, meth can be used as a recreational drug:

"Life-ruining addiction is the exception, not the rule, for people who try methamphetamine. Is this truth too dangerous to admit?"

("Is Meth A Plague, A Wildfire, Or the Next Katrina?")
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36013.html

An article linked in one of the links above is from the weekly paper Willamette Week (a Portland newspaper), which says that apart from a identifying a connection to the international suppliers of the raw materials of meth, the Oregonian's reporting on meth was shoddy, and since the reporter who did the piece, Steve Suo, also consulted heavily on the PBS Frontline documentary about meth, that documentary is also terrible journalism.

("Meth Madness: How The Oregonian manufactured an epidemic, politicians bought it and you're paying")
http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3220/7368/



All of this runs counter to not only what has typically been reported in the media, but indeed runs counter to most people's experience on this thread who have claimed extensive involvement with the drug and it's effects, in a professional capacity or otherwise. What we have here, then, is an honest-to-goodness conspiracy theory. The media, as an (unwitting or lazy) auxiliary of the overall Drug War establishment, has painted a portrait of an epidemic that doesn't exist. My suggestion to ronnie624, or anyone that subscribes to this outlook, is to start a thread in GD about it, so it can be explored further.

BTW, calling 'meth-mouth' a myth is not really accurate as described in the above article. It exists, but the article says that the phenomena is not caused exclusively by the components of meth, but by the behavior that meth users engage in. Specifically: a lack of overall dental hygiene, decreased saliva flow which IS caused by the drug, a craving for sweets which IS caused by the drug, damage caused by tobacco which many meth users also engage in, and snorting the drug which DOES cause damage by decreasing blood flow to the upper part of the mouth. What they are rallying against is the idea that "acids in the drug wear away enamel" type of reporting.

[paulsby]

116. get real

i've been in law enforcement a long time.

i've seen lots of drugs.

heck, while undercover i bought lots of drugs.

meth is BAD. it is WAY worse than almost any other drug because it is phenomenally addictive, incredibly potent effects on the body (and brain), etc.

look at what "batu" has done to young girls in hawaii for instance. i saw girls at the age of 16 start using meth and by the time they were 20, they looked like they were 40, and many were whoring themselves out.


it's a nasty drug.

i could give a crap about anti-drug hype. i disagree with almost everything said about the "evils" of marijuana, cocaine, etc.

i've known many people who use both responsibly for instance. it just that this almost never happens with meth.

i'm one of many cops who thinks the war on drugs is largely a heinous harm on society.

but so is meth.

ask the frigging meth addicts themselves. i've hung with them for hours, both undercover, and later when i wasn't.

it's just a nasty drug.

[tanngrisnir3]

119. How odd. I have the same experience as you do, but....

come to utterly different conclusions.

[paulsby]

120. fair enough

i'm the first to admit that intelligent, informed, well meaning people can come to different conclusions about stuff.

[riverdeep]

121. Well, I'm not saying I buy into the conspiracy theory,

I'm just saying that that is what the poster is effectively proposing. Other strains of thought were believed to be conspiracy theories and then turned out to be right, (such as the President lied us to war; try bringing that up when Bush had 77% approval ratings, it was cause for death threats, yet turned out to be correct), while others, most others, just remain conspiracy theories.

My own experience with the drug is nonexistent in real life. All I know about it comes from other sources and just found the original story intriguing and thought others would too.

[paulsby]

124. i've spent scores of hours

IN meth labs, and hundreds of hours hanging with users and dealers.

is it as bad as the prohibitionists claim? no. nothing is.

they have an agenda.

just like NORML stretches the truth for their cause (which i happen to mostly agree with).

that's what advocates do.

but meth is truly awful. much worse than cocaine, for instance.

[ronnie624]

126. Thanks for your reply, conspiracy theory accusations and all. n/t

[riverdeep]

127. For the record, I use 'conspiracy theory' in neutral terms,

like in my example of the President lying us into war was, at that time, considered a kookie conspiracy theory by the rah-rah war monger crowd, which was a large part of the nation and almost all mainstream media. Maybe I should have chosen another phrase because most people tend to see it as a pejorative, but at this point, it's a pretty accurate description of what's happening here.

[ronnie624]

128. I don't think it is an accurate description of what is "happening here" at all.

The author of these articles, Jack Shafer, never mentions the word 'conspiracy', even once. He does, however, mention false or misleading statistics, the use of hyperbolic words and phraseology and attention grabbing headlines, all in the name of laziness and/or sensationalism. He also links to an excellent Mother Jones article on the "crack baby" hysteria during the 80s, which had little if anything to do with conspiracy.

I guess I'll just have to let the articles I posted earlier stand on their own. Other topics are calling me now, and I have little time to waste, responding to garbled prattling and deceit.

[riverdeep]

130. Alright, I'll scrap that phrase if you object to it so profusely.

But on one side you have PBS, Newsweek, Washington Post, The Associated Press, The Oregonian, The New York Times (in another article the NYT is a good guy), CNN, and the many smaller newspapers that get their feeds from these sources, basically the media establishment; and on the other side Shafer from Slate, Alvarez from Willamette Week, and Sollum from Reason, probably others. Obviously the former group has more power in shaping public opinions. Your thesis is: whether out of laziness or similar beliefs on the Drug War, the former group has made claims about methamphetamine and it's effects on our nation that are overstated by a wide measure.

It's a claim that goes against the mainstream view of methamphetamine as it currently stands and that's a fact; whatever you choose to call that, I don't care.

[paulsby]

132. just for the record

the media overstates the case, or in some case simply flat out speaks falsely about almost any drug, or even food supplement.

i am very familiar with ephedrine and creatine for instance (long time athlete) and the amount of misinformation is phenomenal.

this was facilitated (especially with ephedrine) by the pharma industry that LOATHES ephedrine as a diet supp because it is cheap and not a patented drug (which means they can't make serious $$$).

fwiw, biden was among the worst members of a nannystate misinformed congress when they held their hearings (contrary to DSHEA) to try to make ephedrine sound like a dangerous scurge. it was absurd and the AER's were ridiculous.

iow, it's a GIVEN that the media will overstate the dangerousness and underplay the benefits of any drug that is illegal or controversial.

and of course advocates for legalization will also overstate the benefits of a drug and understate the dangers.

thats the nature of advocacy.

however,

i have years of experience in drug investigations and i can say that meth is very bad. is it as bad as the media claims? of course not. NOTHING is.

but it's really a terrible drug, very addictive and much more likely to ruin one's life than about any other drug that exists.

lots of illegal drugs can be used recreationally and responsibly. meth is about the least likely to be used this way.

[ronnie624]

134. It does indeed dispute the "mainstream view" of methamphetamine,

which has turned out to be a bunch of hokum, much like the "mainstream view" of crack in the 80s and the "mainstream view" of marijuana in the 50s. As the group of articles I posted above, and the silly comments on the rest of this thread clearly illustrate, the "mainstream view" is not a good source of accurate information about methamphetamine - or anything else, for that matter. And that's a fact.

It is always best to keep in mind that the corporate owned media establishment in the United States, does not exist to inform the public, but rather, to serve the interests of the corporations that own and/or control it through advertising revenue. There is no shortage of information about this, both online and in the form of books.

I'm finished with this thread, now. If you post a reply to this message, I will read it, but I will not respond.

[ronnie624]

74. Meth Science Not Stigma: Open Letter to the Media

Meth Science Not Stigma: Open Letter to the Media

To Whom It May Concern:

As medical and psychological researchers, with many years of experience studying prenatal exposure to psychoactive substances, and as medical researchers, treatment providers and specialists with many years of experience studying addictions and addiction treatment, we are writing to request that policies addressing prenatal exposure to methamphetamines and media coverage of this issue be based on science, not presumption or prejudice.

The use of stigmatizing terms, such as "ice babies" and "meth babies," lack scientific validity and should not be used. Experience with similar labels applied to children exposed parentally to cocaine demonstrates that such labels harm the children to which they are applied, lowering expectations for their academic and life achievements, discouraging investigation into other causes for physical and social problems the child might encounter, and leading to policies that ignore factors, including poverty, that may play a much more significant role in their lives. The suggestion that treatment will not work for people dependent upon methamphetamines, particularly mothers, also lacks any scientific basis.

Despite the lack of a medical or scientific basis for the use of such terms as "ice" and "meth" babies, these pejorative and stigmatizing labels are increasingly being used in the popular media, in a wide variety of contexts across the country. Even when articles themselves acknowledge that the effects of prenatal exposure to methamphetamine are still unknown, headlines across the country are using alarmist and unjustified labels such as "meth babies."

<http://www.jointogether.org/news/yourturn/commentary/2005/meth-science-not-stigma-open.html>