TRUTH ABOUT METH: IMPACT IS DEVASTATING, BUT HIGHLY LOCALIZED

What Is The Real Story On The Threat Of Methamphetamine

Methamphetamine has ravaged communities throughout our nation. Meth users
suffer devastating mental and physical effects, and they often endanger
others. Paranoia, violence, family abuse and child neglect are behaviors
associated with meth use.

Equally devastating are meth labs, where toxic chemicals, mixed together by
people with no regard for safety, jeopardize neighborhoods. The results
have been explosions, fires, toxic waste and poisonous vapors that harm
children and first responders.

This drug has been a national nightmare, entrapping addicts and
overwhelming community resources. Meth is uniquely threatening because its
impact is so disproportionate to the actual number of users.

Perhaps because meth's effects are so shocking, or because it has hit some
communities that are not accustomed to drug problems, there has been a
proliferation of dramatic press accounts. Conversely, some media analysts
have suggested that meth has been "wildly overhyped" or is being "used for
political purposes." This seesawing coverage must not be allowed to distort
our policies. Notably absent from this debate has been the data underlying
our response to the methamphetamine threat, as it really exists.

Critics who seek to downplay meth cite its relatively low prevalence rates
(it's the sixth most common illicit drug). But this is misleading. The
crucial facts about methamphetamine are three-fold:

* First, the threat is regional. Appearing first in the West and Southwest,
it has spread. Major centers of production are now in the Midwest and
Southeast. Even in these expanded circumstances, meth remains localized.
However, its impact can be intensely concentrated. Communities at the
center of a hot spot find their response mechanisms (law enforcement and
public health) overwhelmed, while adjacent areas can be isolated from the
regional crisis.

* Second, the drug is so addictive and its impact on the brain so profound
that the number of people suffering from severe dependency and the need for
treatment have been rising steeply, even though the absolute number of
users has not grown. The impact on public health and treatment systems has
been, again, disproportionate to the number of users.

* Third, and most important, contrasting news accounts about
methamphetamine miss an important fact: It was rising and spreading quite
rapidly, but has just as rapidly hit an inflection point, and now looks to
be receding.

While the number of self-reported meth users has remained steady in the
last few annual surveys, other measures of drug use show another pattern.
Between 2003 and 2004, positive workplace drug tests for methamphetamine
soared 68 percent. But between 2004 and today, there has been a sharp
decline, falling 45 percent.

Likewise with meth labs. Their numbers spiraled upward from 2001 to 2004,
reaching a peak of 17,500 reported lab incidents nationwide. But that
number, too, has declined, with a 30 percent fall between 2004 and 2005.
Because of strong federal and state actions against access to precursor
chemicals, we are seeing this threat subside.

These data show that there has been a very real threat from meth, but they
also demonstrate that we have been effective in pushing back against it.
Even more encouraging, surveys of young people affirm our progress. Between
2001 and 2005, reported use of methamphetamine fell 36 percent. Prevention
and treatment numbers are comparably positive. While the threat of meth
smuggled from Mexico remains troubling, it's important to recognize that
progress has been made.

Data about drug threats need to be nationally comprehensive and free from
political agendas. As to the level of risk, there is always concern that we
not neglect a rising drug threat. But if we overreact to alarming but
partial information, we risk misapplying our resources as we chase from one
threat to the next without a strategic plan. The true story about meth
shows us that effective policy must steer a course between these extremes.
When it comes to the meth threat, we have been effective precisely because
our response has been targeted at its true dimensions.

JOHN WALTERS is director of National Drug Control Policy (often called
President Bush's "drug czar").