Discussion:
Epidemic of Hype: Meth Hysteria Latest Excuse to Remove Children
(too old to reply)
Doug
2005-08-26 21:23:44 UTC
Permalink
EPIDEMIC OF HYPE

How hysteria over methamphetamine has become the latest excuse to

"take the child and run."

By Richard Wexler, President

National Coalition for Child Protection Reform

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/epidemicofhype.doc



"A cohort of babies is now being born whose future is closed to them from
day one. Theirs will be a life of certain suffering, of probable deviance,
of permanent inferiority. At best, a menial life of severe deprivation. And
all of this is being biologically determined from birth."


If that sounds like something you just read about methamphetamine, that's
understandable. It certainly sounds like the apocalyptic quotes that have
appeared in 2005 everywhere from The New York Times to Newsweek to CBS and
NBC News.

In fact, the quote dates back to 1989. Columnist Charles Krauthammer was
writing not about methamphetamine, but about crack cocaine.

None of it was true.

More than two decades later, it is clear that the horrifying predictions
about so-called "crack babies" were the result of hype and hysteria, not
science and scholarship. Indeed, as the website stats.org concluded in this
article: "Being labeled a "crack baby" appears to have done more harm to
these children than the cocaine itself did." Another Stats.org article on
media meth myths is available here.

But it wasn't just the babies who were stereotyped and stigmatized. We were
repeatedly told that crack was harder on children because of its special
appeal to women. We were told that crack was so addictive that it stole
these mothers' material instinct. And we were told crack addiction was
virtually untreatable.

None of it was true.

The false claims were used as an all-purpose justification for soaring
numbers of foster care placements, by child welfare systems whose response
to every problem can be boiled down to "take the child and run." The label
"crack addict" was thrown around with the same abandon as the label "crack
baby," and the assumption was that, since there was no hope for the mothers,
the only alternative was foster-care for the children. Any time anyone
questioned the high rate at which children were removed from their homes,
the child welfare establishment blithely labeled every case a "crack case"
and insisted there was no choice.

None of it was true.

Indeed, by October 2004, Columbia Journalism Review had published an article
ending with a plea to journalists not to make the same mistakes with "meth"
as they made with crack. But, it seems, few reporters listened. One need
only substitute "crack" for "meth" and the recent crop of stories sound
identical to their counterparts from the 1980s.

If anything, the term used for children this time is even more insidious: To
call a child a "meth orphan" writes off both the child and his or her
parents.

The problem is real, the solutions have been phony

There is something else that addiction to crack and meth have in common:
Both are very serious, very real problems. Addiction to either substance
requires intervention to ensure that children are safe. The issue is how to
intervene. Sometimes there truly is no choice but to remove the children and
place them in foster care. In other cases, children can be placed with
extended family members. But in many other cases, there is another option
that should be tried first: drug treatment, including inpatient programs
where parents can remain with their children.

Meth addiction is treatable

A review of the literature by Prof. Richard Rawson, Associate Director of
Integrated Substance Abuse Programs at UCLA's David Geffen School of
Medicine, concludes that addiction to methamphetamine is just as treatable
as addiction to cocaine. Furthermore, it takes no longer to treat meth
addiction than to treat any other drug addiction.

And Dr. Rawson is not alone in his assessment.

According to a letter signed by 93 medical doctors, scientists, researchers
in psychology and treatment specialists:

"[C]laims that methamphetamine users are virtually untreatable with small
recovery rates lack foundation in medical research. Analysis of dropout,
retention in treatment and re-incarceration rates and other measures of
outcome, in several recent studies indicate that methamphetamine users
respond in an equivalent manner as individuals admitted for other drug abuse
problems. Research also suggests the need to improve and expand treatment
offered to methamphetamine users."

Further evidence comes from a county often identified in media accounts as
hard-hit by meth, Sacramento County, California. According to the federal
government's National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare, the
county developed a comprehensive approach to such cases, emphasizing
treatment. Between 1998 and 2004, the number of children taken from their
parents actually has declined by more than one-third. The emphasis on
treatment has reduced the length of time in foster care for children who
must be removed from their homes. And the county actually is getting better
treatment results for parents addicted to meth than for those using cocaine
or heroin.

The notion that there is no point in trying drug treatment in meth cases
because it won't work or it takes too long is one more meth myth.

Why bother with treatment?

But why bother? Why bother helping a parent who is addicted to meth? Here
again, there are lessons from crack.

University of Florida researchers studied two groups of infants born with
cocaine in their systems. One group was placed in foster care, the other
with birth mothers able to care for them. After six months, the babies were
tested using all the usual measures of infant development: rolling over,
sitting up, reaching out. Consistently, the children placed with their birth
mothers did better. For the foster children, being taken from their mothers
was more toxic than the cocaine.

Still another study looked at foster care "alumni." Among the conclusions:

---Alumni of foster care suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder at a rate
more than double the rate for Gulf War Veterans.

---At least one-third said they were abused by a foster parent or another
adult in a foster home. (The study didn't even ask about one of the most
common sources of abuse in foster care, foster children abusing each other,
so the real figure almost certainly is higher).

---Only 20 percent of the alumni could be said to be doing well. (For more
on this study, see NCCPR's analysis, 80 Percent Failure, available at
www.nccpr.org.)

It is extremely difficult to take a swing at "bad mothers" without the blow
landing on their children. If we really believe all the rhetoric about
putting the needs of children first, then we need to put those needs ahead
of everything - including how we may feel about their parents. That doesn't
mean we can simply leave children with addicts. It does mean that drug
treatment for the parent is almost always a better first choice than foster
care for the child -- because it is urgent to save children from people in
the grip of another addiction: an addiction to foster care so powerful that
they would throw children far too easily into a system that churns out
walking wounded four times out of five.

Statistics abuse

Estimates of the number of cases in which drugs in general or any drug in
particular are "involved" in child welfare cases are just guesses - a
caseworker checks a box on a form because she thinks maybe there are drugs
involved in some way; a supervisor guesses how often that box has been
checked on the form, the p.r. person for the child welfare agency guesses
how often supervisors have told him they're seeing the box checked on the
form. And everyone has an incentive to guess high - since it's considered an
automatic justification for tearing a child from everyone loving and
familiar.

It's no wonder that estimates for the proportion of cases involving any
drug, range from 20 percent to 90 percent.

The term "involved" contributes to the hype.

Consider a case profiled in a thoughtful, careful way by the Portland
Oregonian. The mother used meth, but apparently was in treatment and doing
well. The father was not accused of drug use at all. The child was in foster
care because there was no drug treatment facility in the local community for
the mother, and because of child welfare systems' pervasive bias against
fathers.

Yet, for statistical purposes, this is a "meth case." And when child welfare
agencies claim that a huge percentage of their cases "involve" meth use,
that includes cases like this one.

But what about the labs?

Unlike crack cocaine, methamphetamine can be manufactured in home labs - and
almost every news account emphasizes the labs and children taken from those
labs. But such cases represent only a tiny fraction of "meth cases."

Between 2000 and 2003, child protective services agencies removed children
from their parents 1,188,000 times. During that same time period, 10,580
children were found to be "affected" by methamphetamine manufacture, with
4,662 living in labs and 2,881 of them placed in foster care. (Many of the
others probably were placed informally with relatives).

In other words, of all the entries into foster care from 2000 to 2003, at
least 99.1 percent of them had nothing to do with meth labs.

Even in Oregon, the substance abuse program manager for the state child
welfare agency says that ".the number of times that [child protective]
workers confronted actual manufacturing was rare in their practice compared
to the number of families affected by methamphetamine abuse and dependence."


Some states respond better than others

Oregon is one state that has been hard hit by meth. But, unfortunately, like
other states, such as Iowa and Colorado, Oregon also is a state addicted to
excuses.

---Oregon took away children, proportionately, at one of the highest rates
in the country as far back as 1985. Why were so many children being taken
then, long before any "meth epidemic"?

---Oregon, Iowa, and Colorado all take away children at a rate significantly
higher than California - long another state known for having a serious meth
problem.

---Alabama has a serious meth problem - and it's had an impact on the foster
care population, with increases in removals in recent years. But before meth
hit, Alabama was hit by a class-action lawsuit requiring the state to
thoroughly reform its system to emphasize family preservation. As a result,
Alabama gained years of experience in safely keeping children out of foster
care, making it better able to handle the influx of meth cases. So today,
despite meth, Alabama still takes away children at one of the lowest rates
in the nation. At the same time, re-abuse of children left in their own
homes has been cut by 60 percent - to less than half the national average -
and, an independent court monitor has found that, as a result of the
reforms, child safety has improved.

---Illinois also has a meth problem. Yet Illinois removes children at a rate
even lower than Alabama, and, again, independent court-appointed monitors
say as foster care has been reduced, child safety has improved.

And as noted above, by emphasizing treatment, Sacramento County, California
has been able to cope with a serious meth problem while reducing entries
into foster care.

A good child welfare system does such a good job of keeping other children
safely in their own homes, that when a new drug becomes the scourge of the
state, the system can handle it.


A political agenda

Hysteria over drugs has always been fueled by those with a vested interest
in taking away children, and the current wave of meth stories is no
exception.

In part, there is a political motivation behind the false claims about meth.
The federal government wants to allow states to use billions of dollars now
reserved for foster care for various prevention programs, including drug
treatment. But the child welfare establishment wants to hoard the money for
foster care.

Not only can this money be used only for foster care, the funding is fueled
by child removal. For every eligible child they put into foster care, states
get from 50 to 83 cents back on the dollar for foster care costs.

The child welfare establishment wants us to believe that methamphetamine is
virtually untreatable because they want us to believe the only option for
the children is foster care. They want us to believe the only option is
foster care in order to justify their demand that those billions of dollars
be reserved for foster care, and nothing else.

Indeed, the campaign against making foster care funding flexible has been
led by the Child Welfare League of America, the trade association for public
and private agencies. Most private agencies are paid for each day they hold
a child in foster care. Anything that threatens to close the "open spigot"
of federal foster care aid threatens the ability of states to keep doling
out per diem payments to private agencies for endless foster care. That
threatens the private agencies' existence.

And that's why the biggest addiction problem in child welfare is neither
meth nor crack nor any other drug. The biggest addiction problem in child
welfare is great big, prestigious, mainstream private child welfare agencies
with blue-chip boards of directors that are addicted to their per diem
payments for holding children in foster care.

And they're putting their addiction ahead of the children.



SOURCES:

Cited in Kendra Hurley, "The Crack Legacy: Ditch the low expectations for
'meth babies'" Newsday, April 14, 2004.

Maia Szalavitz, "The Media Go Into 'Crack Baby' Mode Over Meth," Stats.org,
http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=509

Mariah Blake, "The Damage Done: Crack Babies Talk Back," Columbia Journalism
Review, September/October 2004.

Richard A. Rawson, Ph.D, Challenges in Responding to the Spread of
Methamphetamine Use in the US: Recommendations Concerning the Treatment of
Individuals with Methamphetamine-Related Disorders (Los Angeles: UCLA
Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, David Geffen School of Medicine).

The letter was distributed by National Advocates for Pregnant Women. Copies
are available from NCCPR.

Nancy K. Young, Director, National Center on Substance Abuse and Child
Welfare, Fighting Meth in America's Heartland: Assessing the Impact on Local
Law Enforcement and Child Welfare Agencies, statement to the U.S. House of
Representatives Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy and Human Resources, July 26, 2005, p.4., available online at
http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Nancy%20Young%20Testimony.pdf

Ibid, pp. 15-18.

Kathleen Wobie, Marylou Behnke et. al., To Have and To Hold: A Descriptive
Study of Custody Status Following Prenatal Exposure to Cocaine, paper
presented at joint annual meeting of the American Pediatric Society and the
Society for Pediatric Research, May 3, 1998.

Peter Pecora, et. al., Improving Family Foster Care: Findings from the
Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study (Seattle: Casey Family Programs, 2005).

Bryan Denson, Emily Tsao and Lori Tobias, "Meth or Motherhood," Portland
Oregonian, March 27, 2005.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Trends in Foster Care and
Adoption, chart, available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/afcars/publications/afcars_stats.htm

Young, note 6, supra, p.12.

Cited in Young, note 6, supra, p.11.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children,
Youth and Families, Child Welfare Statistical Fact Book, 1985: Substitute
Care. (Washington, DC: Maximus, Inc.), pp. I-7 to I-11

NCCPR compares rates of child removal by dividing the number of children
taken away over the course of a year in each state by the total number of
impoverished children in each state.

Erik Eckholm , "Once Woeful, Alabama Is Model in Child Welfare," The New
York Times, August 20, 2005.

Ivor D. Groves, System of Care Implementation: Performance, Outcomes, and
Compliance, March, 1996, Exec. Summary, p.3.

Matthew Franck, "The Pendulum," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 1, 2005.



National Coalition for Child Protection Reform / 53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202)
/ Alexandria Virginia, 22314 (703) 212-2006 / ***@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
Doug
2005-08-26 21:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Hi, all!

George Mason University has for years analyized how the mass media misuses
statistics to sell myths to the public. The university calls its respected
project. "Stats." Such misleading information is the basis of modern day
urban legends that drive the hysteria claimsmakers rely upon to bilk
taxpayer dollars for more and more social programs.

The university calls its respected project, "Stats."
http://www.stats.org/index.jsp

Since Congress is now considering a bill that would make Title IV-E Social
Security funding for child protective agencies flexible, claimsmakers are
out in force to try and justify the old formula of restricting this money to
removing poor children from their homes. Led by their trade organization,
Child Welfare League of America, private corporations that run foster group
"homes" and "foster treatment centers" have joined state child protective
agencies in coming up with the meth scare to fend off the new legislation.
They will lose the battle and Congress will pass the new budgeting proposal.

However, in the meantime, thousands of children will be wrongfully removed
from their families under the banner of the newest myth.

What follows is an article from "Stats."

http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=509

The Media Go Into "Crack Baby" Mode Over Meth


August 10 2005
Maia Szalavitz


But NYT, NBC coverage may do more harm to children then good

When crack was the scariest drug of all, "crack babies" were the
culmination of the terror. Columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote of them in
1989, "A cohort of babies is now being born whose future is closed to them
from day one. Theirs will be a life of certain suffering, of probable
deviance, of permanent inferiority."

As it turns out, none of that was true. In fact, being labeled a
"crack baby" appears to have done more harm to these children than the
cocaine itself did. And with news stories popping up about "meth babies" in
our latest drug panic, we seem to be about to repeat this shameful pattern.

Children born to mothers addicted to crack cocaine did have serious
problems-but most of these were related to the fact that their mothers
lacked prenatal care, were extremely poor and drank alcohol, smoked
cigarettes and took other drugs as well as crack cocaine.

Women who do not stop using drugs or drinking during pregnancy tend to
be those with long, complicated histories of victimization and mental
illness (Over two thirds have survived childhood sexual abuse and/or are
current victims of domestic violence, for example). It's undoubtedly a bad
idea to use cocaine (or any drug, for that matter) during pregnancy-but the
damage associated with prenatal cocaine exposure is less severe than that
caused by alcohol and comparable to the harm done by cigarette smoking.

But being exposed to domestic violence as a baby or young child, in
fact, is a far better predictor of behavior problems and low IQ than cocaine
exposure in utero is. And, one study found that kids labeled "crack babies"
(though they were actually not) were treated far worse than those who had
not been tagged that way. When medical professionals thought they were
dealing with a "crack baby," they interpreted normal behavior as abnormal
and ascribed bad intentions to it.

Which brings us to the current methamphetamine panic. In a story with
a headline that could have been pulled from the 1980's crack scare, "A Drug
Scourge Creates its Own Form of Orphan," (7/11/05) Kate Zernike of the New
York Times reported that 40% of child welfare officials say that
methamphetamine has caused a rise in the number of kids taken into foster
care; but the national numbers for those in fostercare (which go uncited in
the Times article) have declined from 570,000 in 1999 to 523,000 in 2003-a
period during which methamphetamine use was supposedly rising.

Foster care numbers often show a lag of several years in relation to
drug problems because it takes time for people to become addicted, have
children and then come to the attention of child welfare authorities. But
during the crack epidemic, the number of kids in foster care went from
243,000 in 1982 to 400,000 in 1990 and it continued rising until 1999,
despite the far earlier decline in crack use. So it's clear that if meth is
causing an increase, it's nowhere near that associated with crack.

But Foster care trends tend to be fed more by perceptions and theories
than by the number of kids who are actually abused. Heavily reported
instances of kids abused by dangerous parents (the case of Elisa Izquierdo
in New York, for example) lead to increases in foster care admissions.
Curiously, however, highly publicized cases of abuse in foster care usually
don't lead to increased emphasis on "family preservation." Foster care
trends, unsurprisingly, are also connected to poverty; but even so, some
states tend to take more children from their families than others,
regardless of poverty and regardless of drug use trends.

Unfortunately, foster care itself can do harm. According to Richard
Wexler, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection
Reform, only 20% of kids leaving foster care do well by the standard
measures of employment and education and mental health. A study by Casey
Family Programs found that foster care kids have double the rate of
post-traumatic stress disorder seen in Gulf War veterans.

Of course, some of these problems are undoubtedly due to the reasons
that they were seen as needing foster care in the first place-but one third
of kids in foster care in this study reported being abused by their new
caretakers and the effects of moving from one home to another as foster kids
often do are uniformly negative. The average number of placements for kids
in foster care (how many transitions from one home to another they
experienced) was 7 in this study. As Wexler says, "The best evidence we have
is that drug treatment for the parents is almost always a better option than
foster care for the children."

Given that media coverage drives foster care trends, it behooves
editors and reporters to consider explicitly in their coverage whether
foster care could do more harm than methamphetamine. It's especially
important in this context to stop promoting the idea that meth addiction is
harder to treat than other drug problems. Amazingly, in Zernike's Times
article, she claims, with no factual basis, that treatment for
methamphetamine requires a longer stay in care than treatment for crack did
(treatment stays for all drugs are universally shorter since the advent of
managed care-and there's no evidence that this has reduced efficacy).

She says, also incorrectly, that because of a 1997 law, this means
that parental rights are likely to be terminated faster. The law makes an
exception for people who are doing well in treatment.
Zernike goes on to quote an Iowa child welfare advocate who says that
because of meth's longer recovery time, "We know pretty early that these
families are not going to get back together." But since this is based on a
myth about treatment failure-and unfortunately child advocates who have a
say in whether families get back together believe it-the Times is helping
create a self-fulfilling prophecy by reporting it.

There is also a financial battle underlying child welfare agencies'
relationship to methamphetamine, according to Wexler, that should have been
covered in reporting on it.

Federal budget efforts are underway to make foster care funding more
flexible-to allow some of it, for example, to be used to treat addicted
parents rather than to place kids in care. This, of course, would shift
funds away from these agencies and towards drug treatment providers.
Flexible funding wouldn't gain much support, of course, if "meth monsters"
are untreatable.

Coverage of this issue should not present foster care agencies simply
as disinterested child advocates, consequently.

It is certainly true that active stimulant addicts can be highly
abusive and neglectful towards their children-and there are absolutely some
cases where this should lead to custody termination. But because
interventions like foster care can sometimes do harm, the media needs to be
especially cautious when demonizing a drug to advocate them - or else
reporters risk hurting the innocent victims they are supposedly trying to
help.
Wexler has written to the Times' ombudsman to complain about the
Zernike story and a group of key researchers on addiction and children have
written an open letter to the media, but as this NBC news story
demonstrates, the hype appears to be unstoppable.

Why doesn't the media ever ask "Cui bono?" when it comes to drug
scares? Could it be because "we do" is one of the only truthful answers?
Doug
2005-08-26 22:13:49 UTC
Permalink
The Media's Meth Mania
August 04 2005
Maia Szalavitz
http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=508

The media's insistence that meth is the new crack is at odds with federal
data and drug strategy: so what's the real story?

With a weeklong feature on the Today show and a cover story in Newsweek,
methamphetamine has officially become the demon drug of the 00's. As in
earlier drug scares, the latest has to be more dangerous and addictive than
any drug before, so Newsweek headlined its story, "America's Most Dangerous
Drug." An Oregon DA called meth "an epidemic and a crisis unprecedented."
Fox News warned that so-called "meth babies" which Newsweek said are
"choking the foster care system in many states," "could make the crack baby
look like a walk in the nursery."

But curiously, this time, the drug czar's office seems reluctant to play
along. Rather than leading the charge against the new menace, the drug czar's
spokesman told the magazine, "I'm afraid there's an element of people
'crying meth' because it's a hot new drug."

So what's the real story about methamphetamine? Is it an unprecedented
"epidemic" and "equal opportunity destroyer" or is this just another wave of
drug war hype?

As Jack Shafer points out in Slate for coverage of a supposedly deadly
epidemic, Newsweek left out some very important numbers: The number of
meth-related deaths and whether meth use is increasing or decreasing. The
latter number was seemingly eliminated because it didn't fit the story -
meth use has generally been declining, with 4.7% of high school seniors
reporting use in the last year in 1999, compared to 3.4% in 2004. [Note
Shafer has it as 4.3% but the chart says 4.7]

There was a minor uptick between 2003 and 2004, with 3.2% reporting use in
03, but the research does not say whether it was statistically significant.
The mortality figures are genuinely hard to get, however.

Nonetheless, just as with crack cocaine, at the peak of the epidemic that
was supposedly ravaging the country, only 5% of the population report even
trying methamphetamine and just .3% report using it in the last month. For
the latest "most addictive drug ever," this means that just 6% of those who've
tried it are still using it. Of course, this survey may underestimate actual
use rates to some extent because it does not include the homeless and those
in institutions and because people may be reluctant to admit to illegal
activities, still, the same research reports 40% of the population has used
marijuana. And as for the notion that meth addiction is impossible to treat,
see our earlier article here: it isn't.

The supposed crime wave caused by methamphetamine is also hard to credit.
While cities between 50,000 and 100,000 in size do report a minor increase
in violent crime as do those between 250,000 and 499,000, the smallest towns
and the biggest cities are still reporting a downward trend and the overall
national trend continues declining. And property crime, which is often
linked to drug addiction, is down across the board. This was certainly not
the case during the crack years.

As for meth as an "equal opportunity drug," this is yet another myth. In all
addictions, the worst cases are concentrated amongst the poor, less educated
and unemployed. For example, the proportion of people with a diagnosable
drug problem of any kind in the last year is .15% for college graduates, but
more than double that - .32% - for people with less than a high school
education.]. The rate of addiction amongst people receiving food stamps is
four times that for those who do not require food assistance.

In terms of race, meth is a white and Hispanic drug: 2.3% of white high
school seniors report crystal meth use in the last year and 2.5% of Hispanic
12th graders do. But just 1.4% of black high school seniors used meth in the
last year - and not one black addict appears in the recent meth media blitz.

So why the wave of meth hype now? The "news hook" appears to be a poll,
conducted by the National Association of Counties, which surveyed 500 law
enforcement groups in 45 states and found that 58% rated meth as the number
one drug problem. This clashes, however, with the drug czar's obsessive
focus on reducing marijuana use.

But there's a money issue underneath it all: Counties are fighting a federal
budget cut which would take $634 million from local law enforcement for
anti-drug task forces. Is it any wonder the feds want to play down meth,
while the counties hype it up? Of course, a budget battle-between two law
enforcement agencies that haven't given us a drug-free America yet and don't
seem likely to do so - is a far less sexy story than "moms on meth." And so,
meth madness continues, without giving us greater understanding of either
methamphetamine or the people whose lives are genuinely ravaged by
addiction.
LLL
2005-08-27 02:11:35 UTC
Permalink
While the government has consistenly engaged in a "reefer madness"
approach that is foolish, I have seen the damage that meth can and does
inflict. In one community in which I lived where the meth was smuggled
in to the state from Mexico, we had a spate of Meth involved child
homicides. Where I live now, the meth is homemade and children face
exposure to some very toxic chemicals because the parents cook it right
in front of them. There is also a risk of explosion or fire. Some of
the problems I know about are severely damaged teeth, highe risk for
abuse nd neglect ad ohere helth problems. See, e.g.,
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:6HxYVvQGVUoJ:www.ksmethpreventionproject.org/children%2520at%2520risk%2520updated%2520Byrne.pdf++%22effects+of+meth+on+children%22+filetype:pdf&hl=en&ie=UTF-8.


It like cocaine and heroine, meth dependency is hard to treat, not
impossible just very hard. But I have personally known addicts who
relapsed several times despite the costs it was inflicting on their
life.

Also just for the record, while the fears regarding cocaine did not all
come to pass, SOME children are adversly affected for their entire
lives.

Surely no one thinks that pregant women or parents should be usig this
drug or cocaine or heroine ect ect ect.
k***@yahoo.com
2005-08-27 02:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by LLL
While the government has consistenly engaged in a "reefer madness"
approach that is foolish, I have seen the damage that meth can and does
inflict. In one community in which I lived where the meth was smuggled
in to the state from Mexico, we had a spate of Meth involved child
homicides. Where I live now, the meth is homemade and children face
exposure to some very toxic chemicals because the parents cook it right
in front of them. There is also a risk of explosion or fire. Some of
the problems I know about are severely damaged teeth, highe risk for
abuse nd neglect ad ohere helth problems. See, e.g.,
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:6HxYVvQGVUoJ:www.ksmethpreventionproject.org/children%2520at%2520risk%2520updated%2520Byrne.pdf++%22effects+of+meth+on+children%22+filetype:pdf&hl=en&ie=UTF-8.
It like cocaine and heroine, meth dependency is hard to treat, not
impossible just very hard. But I have personally known addicts who
relapsed several times despite the costs it was inflicting on their
life.
Also just for the record, while the fears regarding cocaine did not all
come to pass, SOME children are adversly affected for their entire
lives.
Surely no one thinks that pregant women or parents should be usig this
drug or cocaine or heroine ect ect ect.
Your observations are typical of those of the authorities that deal
with the fallout of Meth, and other chemical dependencies and abuses.

The truth about cocaine was never fully exposed to the public. The
medical research was obscured, but only because the media, for the most
part, tends to dumb down such things, as do the government types,
usually. They appear to just be ranting, but in fact there is hard
undeniable science behind their seeming "rant."

In fact, the article posted is a raft of misleading, weasel language
filled, nonsense. It's disgusting in what it suggests, and foul in the
assumptions it encourages, apparently without a moral perspective at
all.

I'll go through it when I have time and provide the proofs of my
accusation.
And I'll post it.

I've already accumulated more than enough data and information from
many scources to show how very wrong and mistaken the author is, and
the poster as well for putting such a minimizing monstrosity up for us
to read. He hopes no one will actually look up the claims, and he hopes
that no one will put the test to the "logic" offered.

Stay tuned.

Kane
Doug
2005-08-27 03:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by LLL
While the government has consistenly engaged in a "reefer madness"
approach that is foolish, I have seen the damage that meth can and does
inflict.
Hi, LLL,

I have seen the damage it does as well. Methamphetamine is a retched drug.
The point of the articles is that its use peaked a couple of years ago to
levels similar to the 1970's and is not a recent "epidemic."

One of the articles pointed out that once accounts of a "epidemic" were
published this month in Newsweek, it was sign it wasn't. <g> The articles
explain the funding issues that drive claimsmakers to jump on the issue
right now. This all began with a small "study" sanctioned by an association
of counties who were concerned about the federal budget cuts to law
enforcement. The chair, in Portland, Oregon, started banging the drum a few
months ago and claimsmakers are trying to use the study to fan the flames.
Post by LLL
In one community in which I lived where the meth was smuggled
in to the state from Mexico, we had a spate of Meth involved child
homicides.
As state legislatures pass laws limiting the precusors and major chains stop
carrying cold medicines, we will see an increase again in the meth from the
super labs in Mexico. That is already happening.

Methamphetamine most definately can cause acute psychotic episodes that
mimic symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. Users can become extremely
violent. However, the good news is that, for whatever reason,
methampetamine dependent people are seeking treatment in increasing numbers.
Post by LLL
Where I live now, the meth is homemade and children face
exposure to some very toxic chemicals because the parents cook it right
in front of them. There is also a risk of explosion or fire.
Extremely toxic. And the fumes from these chemicals permeate the walls of
the structures, presenting a danger to those who unknowingly move into them
later on. There are no laws requiring landlords to inform potential
residents that a house was formally a meth lab.

However, are these meth labs growing in the past year to epidemic
proportions? The evidence suggests otherwise. That the problem peaked a
few years ago and slightly decreased since does not make methamphetamine use
and manufacture less than a horrible problem. It is just not a recent
epidemic that errupted about the time county cops sensed they were going to
lose millions in war on drugs funding.
Post by LLL
Some of
the problems I know about are severely damaged teeth, highe risk for
abuse nd neglect ad ohere helth problems. See, e.g.,
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:6HxYVvQGVUoJ:www.ksmethpreventionproject.org/children%2520at%2520risk%2520updated%2520Byrne.pdf++%22effects+of+meth+on+children%22+filetype:pdf&hl=en&ie=UTF-8.
...Floods the brain with dopamine, so pleasure in normal things is vastly
diminished. There is some evidence that chronic users sometimes -- although
rare -- lose their ability to experience joy perminently. It plays havouc
with the limbic area of the brain, responsible for such minor things as
bonding,

I am familiar with the material you cite. In fact, I am a member of DEC and
did some extensive work on a video presentation with their material.
(Happen to remember the teddy bear, running mom, exploding house?) As the
author of the piece you cite points out, symptoms he identifies are his own
opinion and not necessarily those of the Department of Justice or Bureau of
Justice assistance. DEC uses an emotional appeal, which is not all that
uncalled for in prevention work.
Post by LLL
It like cocaine and heroine, meth dependency is hard to treat, not
impossible just very hard. But I have personally known addicts who
relapsed several times despite the costs it was inflicting on their
life.
Unfortunately, for many addicts of any drug, relapse is part of their
recovery. It doesn't have to be, but often is. There seems to be a dearth
of evidence that methamphetamine addicts are any harder to treat than those
with other drugs of choice. As the article points out, it is puzzling where
that supposition comes from. Given the nature of the population, it may be
that individual professionals get a biased perspective that meth addicts'
mannerisms indicate treatment resistance. But who knows? We need more
research -- more outcome studies. But you know how the field is about
outcome studies.
Post by LLL
Also just for the record, while the fears regarding cocaine did not all
come to pass, SOME children are adversly affected for their entire
lives.
I would like to hear more from you on these cases. I would appreciate the
opportunity to learn more about it.
Post by LLL
Surely no one thinks that pregant women or parents should be usig this
drug or cocaine or heroine ect ect ect.
Of course not. And current child protective statutes are pretty strict and
uncompromising regarding this particular drug.

Thank you very much for your post. Your contribution to the discussion is a
valuable one.

Again, the purpose of the articles I posted were to explain why all the
"epidemic" talk during the last month and to point out the evidence that
challenges it. In my opinion, hysterical bellowing about a recent, sudden
increase is just old-fashioned claimsmaking for funding. It is an attempt
to defeat reform legislation on Title IV-E funding in Congress, but this
ploy is unlikely to deter a reform that has been needed for a long time.
k***@yahoo.com
2005-08-27 17:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Yer lying again.

No one has limited the discussion to claiming the meth epidemic is
recent ... as I've pointed out clearly, it is some years old. Just NOT
sufficiently covered by the media until recently...my prediction was
exactly that.

The "reduction" you speak of is hardly a squeek in the real world. And
the cops are not lying to get funding. Crime is UP in the areas where
meth prevails. And it IS in fact fueled by meth, with addicts robbing
to get the money for their drugs.

You are, when you minimize, then come back and point out the horrors of
the drug, speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once. Ethically
indefensible behavior, Doug.

It's either serious or it is not. It cannot be both anymore than one
can be a little bit pregnant.

Oregon jails are overflowing with meth related crime violators. So bad
that they have daily releases from them of these very dangerous folks
YOU just admitted are part of the meth issue.

When I was last in Portand OR a few months back I went down to watch
the release from the city jail. It was like a crowed coming out of a
ball game. Noisy, some running, and I saw people get into cars with
friends and shoot up, and smoke a rock, right in front of the jail,
right on SW 10th street.

Inverness Jail, Multnomah county (Portland Metro Area), has the same
routine. Bernie Guisto, Mult Co. sheriff does releases (no, they
haven't completed their sentences) routinely and is in a battle with
his bosses, the county commissions, over it. He's got beds, he just
doesn't have staff to man them.

You people defy description. You base ALL your knowledge on second hand
bullshit, or you KNOW the truth first hand, but lie about it to
yourselves, and obviously others. ..and then reveal the seriousness in
your babbling like you just did in the post I'm responding to.

"Thinking Error" is such an understatement I'm embarassed I cannot
quickly come up with a stronger indictment for you.

http://www.portlandonline.com/police/

http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=38594

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=82500
116 meth labs busted in 2004. In a city of just 1.7 million people.
Certainly not a megopolis these days.

In the first three months of 2005 7 labs busted already. Slow time of
year, rainy and wet, outdoor labs in short supply.

Note that this isn't all labs there are, just all they find. And oddly,
the cooks try to hide their cookery.

What I find facinating in viewing the map is that "da 'hood" is
underrepresented given the racist claims about crime, and the
Westhills, Portlands upscale neighborhood, very expensive, is equally
represented to "da 'hood."

6 in "da 'hood" in 2005, and 5 in the Westhills, and whoa, in the
workin' class neighborhood, ALL THE REST.

Some rural counties, nearby and outside Portland in Oregon do much
better. Or worse, according to one's biases. 0:->

No, there's no explosion in 2004 and 2005... R R R R R

Take a look at the aftermath of a residential meth lab explosion, and
hope there were no children present.

http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=38594

http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=30283 for the data
files.

TOTAL ALL PORTLAND NEIGHBORHOODS
27 MURDER
392 RAPE/MOLEST
260 SODOMY
1292 ROBBERY
2307 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
4554 RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY
2589 NON-RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY
351 ARSON
13739 THEFT FROM AUTO (CAR PROWL)
1182 BIKE THEFT
12785 OTHER LARCENY
5939 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT
6381 VANDALISM
51798 TOTAL
98.8 YEAR-TO-DATE RATE PER 1000 POPULATION

Imagine what 98.8 crimes per 1000 people means in terms of the victims.


The distribution is amazingly even across a lot of neighborhoods
too...so there is no real "safe" enclave as we once had in most little
cities.

Portland became a destination point for LA gangs in the 90's. They
brought "business" with them. Along with about a death a week in turf
wars between them in the late 90's and into 2000.

It is still, along with Salem, the Capitol, a major Biker town...with
their known meth distribution activities as historical fact.

Salem is not much better.

At some point, Douggie Duplicitious, what the drug is does not matter.
What the effects are, does. By claiming the bullets aren't as dangerous
as mortars, you can get a lot of troops killed in a war. Claiming that
one drug or the other is less, or more, takes the point away from the
war. A lot of damage is being done.

At NO point in our discussions on this subject for about a year now,
have I suggest, not ONCE, that resources be withdrawn from the issues
of other chemical dependency problems, by CPS, or anyone else.

So your smarmy posting and manipulative wording is crappola, as usual.

Claiming that meth is "comin' up" is not inaccurate. And the entire
country, with the exception of a few duplicitous twits such as you,
knows it, accepts it and is bracing for it. And by golly, because of
FINALLY paying attention to it, and taking action, we see a small to
medium downturn. Now if we don't drop the ball because you ASSHOLES
minimize it out of the public consciousness, we may, we just may be
ready for the superlabs as they fill in the gap created by current
tactics to reduce local cooker opportunities.

I like it, however, when you fill your posts with claims that in fact
I've made, as though they were yours alone. Yer a cheap little shit,
obviously.

Yer arguments are specious, your conclusions filled with errors of
supposition that are proven again to be wrong, until you repost on the
subject and subtly change your old position to agree with the one I was
claiming in the first place.

Stay tune for my reply to the post you cite a long diatribe filled with
error, and mislead tripe from your favorite little propaganda mill.

I may take a day or two with it, during my leisure time. Not much right
now as I put up the wood for winter. 0:->
k***@yahoo.com
2005-08-27 18:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Oregon has been cited as a foul example of the state to use meth as an
excuse to
"remove children" accompanied in the citation with the claim that meth
really isn't the problem ( of course this negates other causes ...
right? )


Have a little peak, and this isn't an Oregon website:

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/oregon2004.html
"
State Facts
Population: 3,472,867
Law Enforcement Officers: 7,160
State Prison Population: 18,000
Probation Population: 46,063
Violent Crime Rate
National Ranking: 34

2003 Federal Drug Seizures
Cocaine: 49.2 kgs.
Heroin: 5.7 kgs.
Methamphetamine: 40.1 kgs.
Marijuana: 53.4 kgs.
Ecstasy: 9,567 tablets
Methamphetamine Laboratories: 375 (DEA, state, and local)
"

"Only" 375 labs in 2003. Hell, Portland alone had half that by 2004 and
in 2005 in the first three months they'd already, after making the
material for production more difficult to obtain, still busted 7
labs...just in PORTLAND and that during the rainy season when outdoor
sited labs, easier to spot and detect, had all moved indoors.

Here's what the DEA has to say about Oregon in 2004:
"Drug Situation: Oregon is a transshipment point for controlled
substances smuggled to Washington and Canada, as well as a consumer
site. Oregon is a source of marijuana and has a growing number of
clandestine methamphetamine laboratories." ...

"Methamphetamine: Methamphetamine is one of the most widely abused
controlled substances in Oregon. Two "varieties" are generally
encountered: Mexican methamphetamine, which is either manufactured
locally or obtained from sources in Mexico, California or other
Southwest Border states, and methamphetamine which is produced locally
by area violators. Of the two types, Mexican methamphetamine continues
to flood the market. Methamphetamine is available in multi-pound
amounts throughout western Oregon, and smaller quantities are available
in Eastern Oregon. Canadian pseudoephedrine, utilized in the
manufacture of methamphetamine, is frequently seized at clandestine
laboratory sites. Crystal "ice" methamphetamine is increasing in
availability and is the exclusive type of methamphetamine available in
central Oregon. In the greater Portland area a rise in syphilis cases
accompanied the popularity rise of crystal methamphetamine and health
officials fear it may fuel a surge in HIV infections."

Please remember that people have babies, and babies are in the thick of
this plague.

While the lab seizure rate is going down, in totals, there are two
factors to consider. Hidding, with much more sophisticated hiding
methods (large forests to hide in, and the car trunk mobile labs
becoming more popular) have been developing.

Then there is the consumer demand-supply gap that someone will fill. Do
you speak spanish? I do enough to listen to conversations on public
transport, one of my favorite ways to brush up my language skills.

And "super lab" is the same in spanish as english, on the street.

0:-p
PS, just a small observation, since I've followed this and simlar
issues for 30 years in the Pacific Northwest. The DEA missed a small
but significant point. They say I5 and highway 101 are the major north
south routes for some drugs.

I'm stunned they missed the major pipeline, HWY 97 through Central
Oregon from California. It branches off I5 eastward just south of the
Oregon California border. It goes on to little towns across WA state,
and on to Canada by lots of backwoods roads.

Tsk. I'll have to chat up the DEA, again, and point that out to them.
Of course they may be just withholding that they know very well, so the
bad boys will continue driving into that country, to be caught. K
LLL
2005-08-27 18:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@yahoo.com
No one has limited the discussion to claiming the meth epidemic is
.recent ... as I've pointed out clearly, it is some years old. Just NOT
Post by k***@yahoo.com
sufficiently covered by the media until recently...my prediction was
exactly that.
In the southwest, the problem is at least ten yers old with the meth
coming in through Mexico. The number of cook labs is a more recent
phenomenon. The drug has been dispersed furthe throughout the country
due to the cook methods being so readily available. Lab exposure is
extremely dangerous.
k***@yahoo.com
2005-08-27 18:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by LLL
Post by k***@yahoo.com
No one has limited the discussion to claiming the meth epidemic is
.recent ... as I've pointed out clearly, it is some years old. Just NOT
Post by k***@yahoo.com
sufficiently covered by the media until recently...my prediction was
exactly that.
In the southwest, the problem is at least ten yers old with the meth
coming in through Mexico. The number of cook labs is a more recent
phenomenon. The drug has been dispersed furthe throughout the country
due to the cook methods being so readily available. Lab exposure is
extremely dangerous.
Your timeline is off considerably. I doubt it would be much different
in the SW than other areas, where I found it a growing dangerous
problem in 1968..and I knew it was decades old then.

'Diet' pills were routinely abused by housewives, with the help of
their doctors many decades back. Beenies (or Bennies back then) were a
trucker's friend for even a longer time. I had meth in the military in
1958. Under orders. As required by my superiors.

Only once though, thank goodness. Or my brain might have been
fr@#$(@#$((#@$....let me see now, where was I?

0:->
Greegor
2005-08-27 21:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Please see my older posts about how agencies use
Meth as a Boogeyman to justify huge funding for themselves.

This "Chicken Little" act for funding is very old.

Agencies exist to support and enlarge themselves,
they often emphasize this priority even beyond
the performance of the agencies intended purpose!

It's almost universal for agencies!

It also happens in large corporations when a new
department is formed. It seems to be the nature
of competing for budgetary funding....
LLL
2005-08-28 03:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@yahoo.com
'Diet' pills were routinely abused by housewives, with the help of
t>heir doctors many decades back. Beenies (or Bennies back then) were a

t>rucker's friend for even a longer time. I had meth in the military in
Post by k***@yahoo.com
1958. Under orders. As required by my superiors.
Yes amphetamines have been around for ages, but meth whcih is related
poses special problems.

Doug
2005-08-27 22:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@yahoo.com
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/oregon2004.html
"
State Facts
Population: 3,472,867
Law Enforcement Officers: 7,160
State Prison Population: 18,000
Probation Population: 46,063
Violent Crime Rate
National Ranking: 34
2003 Federal Drug Seizures
Cocaine: 49.2 kgs.
Heroin: 5.7 kgs.
Methamphetamine: 40.1 kgs.
Marijuana: 53.4 kgs.
Ecstasy: 9,567 tablets
Methamphetamine Laboratories: 375 (DEA, state, and local)
"
"Only" 375 labs in 2003. Hell, Portland alone had half that by 2004 and
in 2005 in the first three months they'd already, after making the
material for production more difficult to obtain, still busted 7
labs...just in PORTLAND and that during the rainy season when outdoor
sited labs, easier to spot and detect, had all moved indoors.
Okay, so in 2004 Portland had 1/2 of the 375 statewide lab busts in 2003.
That's 137 lab busts in Portland during 2004. In 2005, Portland had 7 lab
busts during the first three months in 2005. That projects out to 28 lab
busts for all of 2005 (4 * 7). That would be a sizable decrease, would it
not? A 400% decrease. An "inverse epidemic"?
Post by k***@yahoo.com
"Drug Situation: Oregon is a transshipment point for controlled
substances smuggled to Washington and Canada, as well as a consumer
site. Oregon is a source of marijuana and has a growing number of
clandestine methamphetamine laboratories." ...
"Methamphetamine: Methamphetamine is one of the most widely abused
controlled substances in Oregon. Two "varieties" are generally
encountered: Mexican methamphetamine, which is either manufactured
locally or obtained from sources in Mexico, California or other
Southwest Border states, and methamphetamine which is produced locally
by area violators. Of the two types, Mexican methamphetamine continues
to flood the market. Methamphetamine is available in multi-pound
amounts throughout western Oregon, and smaller quantities are available
in Eastern Oregon. Canadian pseudoephedrine, utilized in the
manufacture of methamphetamine, is frequently seized at clandestine
laboratory sites. Crystal "ice" methamphetamine is increasing in
availability and is the exclusive type of methamphetamine available in
central Oregon. In the greater Portland area a rise in syphilis cases
accompanied the popularity rise of crystal methamphetamine and health
officials fear it may fuel a surge in HIV infections."
Ice is the *exclusive* form of methamphetamine in central Oregon? Odd. I
am not saying it is inaccurate, just odd that a whole region of a state
would be restricted to just one form of the drug.

The DEA says that some health officials "fear" it "may" fuel a surge in HIV
infections. No hard numbers there. I guess it is a "maybe" epidemic.
And it may come to pass. Or it may not.

What I was discussing, and what the author's of the articles I posted were
discussing, was whether there is a sudden increase of epidemic proportions
of meth use. The DEA figures do not support the contention that there is.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Please remember that people have babies, and babies are in the thick of
this plague.
While the lab seizure rate is going down, in totals, there are two
factors to consider. Hidding, with much more sophisticated hiding
methods (large forests to hide in, and the car trunk mobile labs
becoming more popular) have been developing.
Those large forests may have been there a few years ago, too, right?
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Then there is the consumer demand-supply gap that someone will fill. Do
you speak spanish? I do enough to listen to conversations on public
transport, one of my favorite ways to brush up my language skills.
Yes.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
And "super lab" is the same in spanish as english, on the street.
An ex-girlfriend of many years ago would remind me back then that the word
for beautiful was the same in Spanish and English. But then Linda was a
very self-confident lady.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
PS, just a small observation, since I've followed this and simlar
issues for 30 years in the Pacific Northwest. The DEA missed a small
but significant point. They say I5 and highway 101 are the major north
south routes for some drugs.
Yes, they did. For some drugs.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
I'm stunned they missed the major pipeline, HWY 97 through Central
Oregon from California. It branches off I5 eastward just south of the
Oregon California border. It goes on to little towns across WA state,
and on to Canada by lots of backwoods roads.
The DEA may not be as smart or observant as you are, Kane. They may have
missed Highway 97.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Tsk. I'll have to chat up the DEA, again, and point that out to them.
Of course they may be just withholding that they know very well, so the
bad boys will continue driving into that country, to be caught. K
Yep, most definately. Give them a call and inform them.

Do you think the agency may be witholding the number of meth lab busts so
that the cooks will keep on cooking to be caught? That could explain how
the epidemic is going uncounted.
Doug
2005-08-27 21:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@yahoo.com
No one has limited the discussion to claiming the meth epidemic is
recent ... as I've pointed out clearly, it is some years old. Just NOT
sufficiently covered by the media until recently...my prediction was
exactly that.
Hi, Kane,

You seem to be putting yourself in the center of this. You are not that
important. The authors of the two articles I posted were responding to
Newsweek article and the false claims made in it, not to you.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
The "reduction" you speak of is hardly a squeek in the real world. And
the cops are not lying to get funding. Crime is UP in the areas where
meth prevails. And it IS in fact fueled by meth, with addicts robbing
to get the money for their drugs.
It is a reduction rather than a sudden increase, let alone a epidemic, as
reported in Newsweek. In what areas is crime on the upswing? If we knew
those areas, the cause could be examined.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
You are, when you minimize, then come back and point out the horrors of
the drug, speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once. Ethically
indefensible behavior, Doug.
By pasting the published "stats" and NCCPR articles responding to the
hysterical overplay by Newsweek, I was not minimizing anything. By pointing
out the horrific effects of the drug on its users, which I have done many
times in this newsgroup, I was addressing the same issues I always have.
There is no inconsistancy in recognizing the horrors of the drug and
realizing that it is not a recent epidemic as Newsweek claims.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
It's either serious or it is not. It cannot be both anymore than one
can be a little bit pregnant.
I have repeatedly said nothing other than meth is a serious drug that does
serious damage. I have repeatedly said its use has not suddenly increased
into a "epidemic." Each comment has nothing to do with the other. That the
drug does serious damage does not mean it its use is suddenly epidemic.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Oregon jails are overflowing with meth related crime violators. So bad
that they have daily releases from them of these very dangerous folks
YOU just admitted are part of the meth issue.
How many people are in those jails for Meth related crimes? How many are in
those jails for other crimes?
Post by k***@yahoo.com
When I was last in Portand OR a few months back I went down to watch
the release from the city jail. It was like a crowed coming out of a
ball game. Noisy, some running, and I saw people get into cars with
friends and shoot up, and smoke a rock, right in front of the jail,
right on SW 10th street.
Kind of like going to a parade, huh? Well, where's the beef? How many were
released? Could you tell by watching them how many of the galloping
releasees were meth addicts? I don't know what this observation tells us
about any sudden epidemic, but it does say something about law enforcement
around the jail. Do you think it would be a good idea in the future for a
cop or two to look out the window from time to time . . . if you saw them
shooting up and smoking rocks at the same time, maybe the cops would notice,
too.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Inverness Jail, Multnomah county (Portland Metro Area), has the same
routine. Bernie Guisto, Mult Co. sheriff does releases (no, they
haven't completed their sentences) routinely and is in a battle with
his bosses, the county commissions, over it. He's got beds, he just
doesn't have staff to man them.
That says something about the jail, the way the county spends its funding,
and the general population and policy of the jail. What does it say about
the topic introduced in the two articles? Do you have some hard numbers?
Post by k***@yahoo.com
You people defy description. You base ALL your knowledge on second hand
bullshit, or you KNOW the truth first hand, but lie about it to
yourselves, and obviously others. ..and then reveal the seriousness in
your babbling like you just did in the post I'm responding to.
"You people?"

Who are "they."

I base my knowledge concerning trends of methamphetamine use on the
statistics supplied by the government agencies charged with gathering them
and cited in the articles. I rely upon these hard numbers because it is the
only way I can objectively measure nationwide trends. It is preferrable
fuel to the critical thinking necessary to evaluate mass media attempts to
paint pictures of sudden epidemic increases of drug use. It is preferable,
for me, to refer to these measurements than to jump to presumptions based
upon an hour of watching a few people in my neighborhood. You are right
that I have seen the seriousness of the drug first hand, by knowing addicts
individually. And I have spoken of that. But I cannot make any assumptons
of nationwide "epidemic" increases of use based upon that experience with
individual addicts or, for that matter, the seriousness of the drug. I take
great white sharks very seriously and consider their contact with humans to
be less than beneficial to man or beast, but that does not say anything
about whether there is an epidemic of sharks inhabiting my favorite beach in
Dana Point.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
"Thinking Error" is such an understatement I'm embarassed I cannot
quickly come up with a stronger indictment for you.
I can see why you would be embarassed. Since there were no thinking errors
involved, there was a notable lack of even a watered down indictment.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
At NO point in our discussions on this subject for about a year now,
have I suggest, not ONCE, that resources be withdrawn from the issues
of other chemical dependency problems, by CPS, or anyone else.
Nor have I. That is not the issue. The issue whether there has been a
sudden increase in methamphetamine use and whether that increase is an
epidemic. One of the points made in the articles is that Congress is
considering two measures that drive claimsmakers and financial stakeholders
desperately claiming there is a sudden epidemic. One, as the result of the
Pew Commission Report, Congress is preparing to change the distribution
requirements of Title VI-E Social Security Funding to state child protective
agencies. This funding will now be capped and made available to state CPS
agencies to use as they wish rather than restricted to foster care. The
former method of distributing these funds based on the number of poor
children the state put into custody was a perverse funding scheme that led
to . . . well, too many children being placed in foster care. The second
measure is a multi-million dollar budget decrease for the "war on drugs."
Post by k***@yahoo.com
I like it, however, when you fill your posts with claims that in fact
I've made, as though they were yours alone. Yer a cheap little shit,
obviously.
I tend to fill my posts with a lot of claims I have made before --
repeatedly. We happen to agree on many things. But your claims are no more
a dupication of mine that mine are of yours.

Again, you tend to consider yourself a bit more important than you are.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Yer arguments are specious, your conclusions filled with errors of
supposition that are proven again to be wrong, until you repost on the
subject and subtly change your old position to agree with the one I was
claiming in the first place.
Not at all true. First, you have posted nothing in this message that
challenges any of the data cited by either of the authors to the articles I
posted. Nor do you challenge in this post any of the comments I made
myself -- today, or on the same subject in earlier posts. I have said
nothing new here. I have said nothing in the past or currently to support
the idea there is a sudden epidemic of methamphetamine use in this country.
I don't believe such is the case. Neither do the authors of the two
articles. My position stands and, I would assume, so does theirs.

Have a great day carrying in the wood!
marika
2005-08-27 23:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@yahoo.com
When I was last in Portand OR a few months back I went down to watch
the release from the city jail.
I also heard it was dismantled because it was about to collapse and
create hazard
Post by k***@yahoo.com
It was like a crowed coming out of a
ball game. Noisy, some running, and I saw people get into cars with
friends and shoot up, and smoke a rock, right in front of the jail,
right on SW 10th street.
Inverness Jail, Multnomah county (Portland Metro Area), has the same
routine. Bernie Guisto, Mult Co. sheriff does releases (no, they
haven't completed their sentences) routinely and is in a battle with
his bosses, the county commissions, over it. He's got beds, he just
doesn't have staff to man them.
I still say a hologram. HA!
Post by k***@yahoo.com
You people defy description. You base ALL your knowledge on second hand
bullshit, or you KNOW the truth first hand, but lie about it to
yourselves, and obviously others. ..and then reveal the seriousness in
your babbling like you just did in the post I'm responding to.
"Thinking Error" is such an understatement I'm embarassed I cannot
quickly come up with a stronger indictment for you.
http://www.portlandonline.com/police/
http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=38594
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=82500
116 meth labs busted in 2004. In a city of just 1.7 million people.
Certainly not a megopolis these days.
In the first three months of 2005 7 labs busted already. Slow time of
year, rainy and wet, outdoor labs in short supply.
Note that this isn't all labs there are, just all they find. And oddly,
the cooks try to hide their cookery.
What I find facinating in viewing the map is that "da 'hood" is
underrepresented given the racist claims about crime, and the
Westhills, Portlands upscale neighborhood, very expensive, is equally
represented to "da 'hood."
6 in "da 'hood" in 2005, and 5 in the Westhills, and whoa, in the
workin' class neighborhood, ALL THE REST.
Some rural counties, nearby and outside Portland in Oregon do much
better. Or worse, according to one's biases. 0:->
No, there's no explosion in 2004 and 2005... R R R R R
Take a look at the aftermath of a residential meth lab explosion, and
hope there were no children present.
http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=38594
http://www.portlandonline.com/police/index.cfm?c=30283 for the data
files.
TOTAL ALL PORTLAND NEIGHBORHOODS
27 MURDER
I think a memorial is important. I think right now it is most
important to center on cleaning it up and to find as many remains as
possible
Post by k***@yahoo.com
392 RAPE/MOLEST
260 SODOMY
1292 ROBBERY
2307 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
4554 RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY
2589 NON-RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY
351 ARSON
13739 THEFT FROM AUTO (CAR PROWL)
1182 BIKE THEFT
12785 OTHER LARCENY
5939 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT
6381 VANDALISM
51798 TOTAL
98.8 YEAR-TO-DATE RATE PER 1000 POPULATION
Imagine what 98.8 crimes per 1000 people means in terms of the victims.
The people who have missing family, lots of them are really centered on
finding a real body to say bye too.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
The distribution is amazingly even across a lot of neighborhoods
too...so there is no real "safe" enclave as we once had in most little
cities.
resources should be given to dna identification for these people. that
should be the first priority...to get those people closure.

mk5000

"Please, don't lose faith
Don't lose faith
You say that the day never arrives
And it seems so far away"--i know it's gonna happen someday, bowie
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...