 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
"What I find surprising is that so many people think meth users are all welfare people living in trailer parks with sores all over their face.
There are lawyers, doctors, people in the service, athletes, housewives, successful musicians, and people who run businesses. You're getting a distorted picture of the meth user when all you're being shown is people who've hit rock bottom. Coke and meth users come in all sizes and descriptions."
Edward S.
In recovery from cocaine, no longer deals coke or meth,
and says he has never used meth himself
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Once you get a manufacturing conviction on your record, it stains everything. No one will rent to you and no one will give you a job.I don't regret that I got caught, but I do regret society's idea that people can't change."
Jason L. - Addicted To Meth For 23 Years - Now Clean & Sober Since September 2004
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"My crime was becoming addicted to a powerful drug. By doing that I neglected my kids, I became a thief and I made a lot of other mistakes. You can call me weak, you can say that I made poor choices. But I paid for those choices, I got clean and I earned my kids back. I don't think I belong on a list with professional drug dealers."
Marcia J. - 28 months clean and sober
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"There really isn't a typical profile for the meth user. It's not the homeless person sitting on the street corner. It's not kids going off to a park doing this kind of stuff. It's soccer moms.
You have just as much likelihood finding a meth house in a rural farm area as you do in a suburban million-dollar home."
Kelly Guertzgen, Health Education Coordinator
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
(Page 6 of 10 In This Section)
Meth Registries Several states within the U.S. already have, or are in the process of introducing state "meth registries." The DEA has also set up a national registry, all with the intent of making prospective buyers of homes aware of any prior meth-related activity related to the property. Presently here in Canada, no such type of registry exists for methamphetamine.
The second type of "meth registry" lists people who have been convicted of manufacturing meth, or selling it. And the third type that's being adopted by some jurisdictions is all-inclusive. In that instance, the registry will include anyone convicted of any meth-related crime, including simple possession. Oregon's bill would require the state to alert residents -- whether through an on-line registry or by other means -- when a convicted meth maker is released from prison into their area. And Montana has included meth makers in its sexual and violent offender registry since 2003, though it does not list them separately. The Problem With Registries Similar to the "Faces Of Meth" concept, we know that the intent with a meth registry is to offer the public "protection." Clearly, no one wants to move into a house or apartment that's been used as a meth lab until there are clear-cut, consistent laws, protocols and standards regarding meth lab cleanup. And while legislation is underway in the U.S. for national cleanup standards, it's not in place yet and in Canada we're not even close to even looking at anything like that. So any kind of a registry of such dwellings is a good stop-gap measure, providing that it's properly updated and accurate. But that's precisely where you have your first problem with a registry: Problem One: Proper updating and accuracy. As an example, look at the online sex offender registry in Austin, Texas. Now these people aren't novices when it comes to registries, they've been doing it for 15 years. But due to a combination of inadequate staffing and changing laws, they've lost track of 20% of the sex offenders in their database. No big deal if you don't happen to depend on that database being accurate, but it's a huge deal if you do, particularly if you're making critical decisions based on that flawed data. They say their registry is littered with outdated addresses for offenders who have disappeared either by failing to register with the department, by providing false information after moving to Austin, or by changing their address without informing police. They've got duplicate people with the same photograph, data that's inconsistent and contradictory to the state registry, and a host of other problems to the extent that people can't really rely on the accuracy of the data. And we're certainly not experts on the subject, but it seems to us that if a person wants to escape the stigma of being on a registry, they'll just move to another jurisdiction, or go underground. In either case, is the public more protected, or more vulnerable because they're depending on an inaccurate database? Or here's another example of how improper updating can create an improper perception or interpretation of the facts. In January of 2006, the U.S. Federal Government (DEA) reported the following figures on their web site for meth lab seizures: 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Then on the same web site, nine months later in October of 2006, it looks like this: 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
So how did the figures change? Or why did they change? How can numbers that are up to five years old change? We're sure it's a glitch, or an oversight, but suppose you were basing critical decisions on the data? So we hope the DEA will have full-time staff maintaining their database of residences that once housed meth labs, because it has to be accurate and properly updated. Problem Two: Are All Meth Offenders "Equal?" When it comes to registries of meth cooks and dealers, things gets a little stickier. For example, suppose someone was manufacturing an ounce of meth for their own personal use? Should they be on the same registry as someone that was manufacturing ten pounds of finished meth a week? Granted, both types of people are putting their neighbors at risk and probably damaging the environment, but are they the same type of people? Moreover, does a meth offender belong on the same database as a sex offender? Problem Three: When Have You Sufficiently Atoned? And when you begin talking about registries that will include anyone convicted of a meth related crime, including simple possession, isn't it getting a bit out of control? Once you've turned "citizen on citizen," "neighbor on neighbor," where do you draw the line? When has someone sufficiently paid their debt to society to have earned the chance at a new life, or does one transgression equal a life sentence of public scorn, ridicule and an inability to rejoin mainstream society, live normally again, and perhaps even contribute something? |
