IN THE FIGHT AGAINST METH, NO APOLOGIES ARE NECESSARY

The Meth Epidemic Is Not A Myth, And The Effort To Stop

It Is Not A Replay Of Futile Wars On Crack And Heroin

We've been reluctant to respond to the tinny little chorus of media
critics and drug-control skeptics who claim this newspaper and others
have cooked up the nation's methamphetamine problem, in effect
manufacturing a drug epidemic where there isn't one.

After all, it's hard to argue with anyone who can look seriously at
Oregon and much of rural America, at meth use and addiction, at
meth-related crime and child abuse, and still insist that the problem
is a "myth."

What's vital is that the public and policymakers not lose sight of
the fundamental point of The Oregonian's reporting -- notably by
reporter Steve Suo -- which is that the meth trade can be disrupted
because of its reliance on legal chemicals, which can be controlled.

The few scattered critics keep trying to twist our meth coverage --
and, by extension, the government's response -- into a sequel to
"Reefer Madness," a wild exaggeration of meth's impact and a
hysterical demand for more cops and longer prison sentences.

But from the beginning of Suo's initial meth series, "Unnecessary
Epidemic," published in October 2004, The Oregonian has consistently
called for international, national and state steps to control access
to ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, the legal chemicals used in cold
medicines and the central ingredients in meth.

Virtually all the world's pseudoephedrine, Suo found, is produced by
a few Asian manufacturers. That makes meth far more vulnerable to
interdiction and control than drugs produced from poppy and coca
fields around the globe.

Suo used drug treatment statistics and other data to show that past
efforts to control ephedrine and pseudoephedrine had been successful,
before they were abandoned or subverted.

Those findings formed the basis of the newspaper's call on the
federal government to step up controls on pseudoephedrine, and launch
a new and more effective battle against meth. Congress and the White
House Office of Drug Control have responded. The first comprehensive
anti-meth law, enacted early this year, focuses on choking off the
supply of meth chemicals, not on toughening prison sentences.

Along the way, we offered strong editorial support for state efforts
to put pseudoephedrine out of easy reach of home meth cooks. The
strategy worked first in Oklahoma, which adopted it after a meth cook
gunned down a state trooper there. Oregon has taken this strategy
beyond what we thought was necessary, now even requiring a
prescription to get cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine. But in
state after state, the evidence suggests that such actions cut the
number of home meth labs.

Some critics have further suggested that The Oregonian and others who
call for meth controls have exaggerated the drug's impact, and
persuaded lawmakers to shift money from drug treatment, education and
health care into law enforcement.

But this is not a replay of the harsh, failed wars on crack and
heroin. There's been no push to put 100,000 new cops on the street,
or ramp up mandatory sentences for meth dealers and users.

Instead, the efforts to control the chemical precursors of meth have
been accompanied by expansion of drug treatment and education. Just
last week, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski awarded $5.5 million in federal
and state funds to expand or create drug courts in 13 counties. The
drug courts try to reduce drug crime by diverting users into
treatment and education programs, and helping their families
understand the addiction.

In Congress, members of the House Meth Caucus and the Senate's
leading voices on the meth epidemic, Democrat Dianne Feinstein of
California and Republican Jim Talent of Missouri, all say that their
top priority now is providing more money for drug treatment.

In the end, it comes down to this: Where critics see a media-driven
myth, we see meth addiction, crime, child abuse and damaged lives. We
make no apologies for bringing the meth problem into sharp focus, and
for insisting that by monitoring primary ingredients, it could be controlled.