"Methamphetamine is the most malignant, addictive drug known to mankind."

Dr. Michael Abrams - Broadlawn Medical Center, Des Moines, Iowa

 

Methamphetamine - "Epidemic" Or Simply Hype?

They Say It's An Epidemic

Those that see the meth problem as an epidemic call it the worst drug problem to ever hit North America, not to mention other places like Australia and New Zealand.  They describe it as a massive resource-drainer, causing an over-loading of emergency services with meth-related problems, foster care facilities at capacity or overflowing with "meth children," and treatment centers ill-equipped and/or under-funded to address the problem.  They'll tell you about small domestic meth labs still being a major problem, and while the small domestic labs have declined in numbers, there's been a proportionate increase in purer imported meth.  In short, they don't see methamphetamine as a mere "problem," they truly do characterize it as a full-blown epidemic.

They Say It's Exaggerated Hype

However, others say that the whole issue of methamphetamine has been overblown and that it's nothing more than a regional, localized problem.  To back their opinion up, back in 2006 they were referencing surveys and studies that indicated less people were testing positive for methamphetamine when applying for employment.  And through more surveys conducted by phone and door-to-door, they assured us that meth use was down and that treatment centers had more "marijuana addicts" than any other type of addict.  They said if there ever was a problem with methamphetamine, the indicators clearly showed we've won the war.  It was a "mission accomplished," if you will.  So what was the right answer?  Was, and is the meth epidemic real, or is it over-blown hype?

Are We Asking The Right Question?

Like just about everything else in life, if you ask the question properly, you get the right answer.  And in this case, the question is not whether methamphetamine is an epidemic everywhere.  The real question is whether meth is an epidemic anywhere.  And the answer is a resounding "yes."  Anywhere that meth becomes entrenched in a region or community, it behaves exactly like an epidemic.

Just witness the devastation meth has caused in the U.S. in places like California, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Montana, Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Louisiana or Kentucky to name a few.  In Canada, spend a few weeks in British Columbia, Vancouver Island, Alberta, or Southwestern Ontario and see the devastation meth has caused there.  Or go anywhere in North America and spend some time on Native lands.  In both countries, the prevalence of methamphetamine has now reached coast to coast.

And when you describe methamphetamine as an epidemic, you needn't confine yourself to North America.  New Zealand and Australia (among others) are overflowing with methamphetamine, causing both those countries to re-think their entire national drug strategies.  And in the U.K., they're just beginning to see the meth wave building.

And Are We Using The Right Term?

The point is, like just about every other kind of problem that affects us profoundly on a day-to-day basis, drug problems are inherently local and regional in nature.  Ask someone in certain areas of Virginia what the number one drug problem is today and chances are it won't be a stimulant like methamphetamine, it's more likely to be an opiate like Oxycontin.  Or ask someone in Pennsylvania about pressing drug problems and you might hear about the "epidemic" use of heroin and overdose by heroin laced with fentanyl.

The Word Isn't "Epidemic" - More Accurately, It's "Endemic."

The actual term we should be using to describe the meth problem and for that matter, any drug problem, is not epidemic," it's "endemic."   And that's because when you use the word epidemic, someone will always be quick to point out that it can't qualify as an "epidemic" because it hasn't affected their region or community.

So it's probably more accurate to describe the meth problem as "endemic," because that's defined as "something that is prevalent in, or peculiar to a particular locality, region, or people."  So it's accurate to say that in some areas of North America, abuse of opiates is endemic, whereas in other areas, abuse of methamphetamine is endemic.

But here's the bottom-line.  Just because something isn't a continental, national, or world-wide "epidemic," doesn't mean it can't affect a state, province, region or community on a level of "epidemic" proportions.  It can be clear and sunny everywhere else in the world, but if you've got a tornado bearing down on you in your community, that's what matters, because that's what affects you most.  And it's also what causes denial, which we'll discuss in a moment.

But What About The Surveys & Studies?

As we stated earlier, those who doubt whether meth is a significant problem offer "evidence" in the way of surveys and studies to back themselves up.  So on the next page, we're going to have a look at some of the evidence from some of those surveys and see how it stood up to scrutiny then, and how it stands up now. 

Top Of Page

(1) Previous Page<<<

                                                                                      >>>Next Page (3)