METH EPIDEMIC JUST MEDIA HYPE

Methamphetamines have become the drug of choice around the nation,"
reads the text of one recent newspaper story, while another proclaims,
"This epidemic can only be arrested, not cured." These stories and
scores more like them have created a climate in which many Americans
believe that meth has become the "next big thing" in the realm of drug
threats.

Make no mistake about it. Meth is a dangerous substance that, like
many other drugs, has wreaked havoc in the lives of many families and
communities. But although meth is a serious problem in some
communities, in most parts of the country its use remains rare.

Media coverage of meth has distorted the scale of its use, hyping it
as a national story while creating concern about problems in regions
where none exist. This approach threatens both communities struggling
with meth addiction as well as those addressing other types of
substance abuse.

Despite the media's dogmatic adherence to the narrative of a national
meth epidemic, an examination of key governmental indicators on drug
use reveals a very different picture. Nationally, only 0.2 percent of
Americans are regular users of methamphetamine. This is a rate four
times less than that of cocaine use.

And just last week, two reports were released showing a decline in the
number of lab seizures in 2005 and a decline in the number of
workplace drug screens testing positive for meth. These figures
suggest that, although meth does carry a high price tag for those who
use it, the nation is making strides in addressing the addiction.

But if meth is indeed such a dangerous drug, why does it matter if the
media have been misrepresenting the story? If these stories, however
embellished, succeed in keeping just a small number of people from
trying the drug, hasn't society benefited? The truth is that sound
policy of any type is never forged from rhetoric or misinformation,
and the misrepresentation of meth use has resulted in a number of
worrisome consequences.

First, if history is any guide, relying upon exaggerated claims about
the consequences of using certain drugs has exhibited little impact on
public perceptions. In fact, studies have shown that people exposed to
certain types of anti-drug advertising have actually demonstrated a
"boomerang effect," in which their attitudes about the drug become
less negative.

Second, the media's perpetuation of the message that methamphetamine
does not respond to treatment and results in irreversible physical and
mental damage is incorrect, irresponsible and dangerous. Studies in 15
states have demonstrated positive results in abstention from drug use,
reduced arrests and increased employment.

At a time when many communities are struggling with the challenge of
addressing substance abuse, this "nothing works" reporting fosters an
environment of antipathy toward treatment.

Why would federal or state governments invest in expanding treatment
options if they are constantly bombarded with the message that such an
effort would merely be throwing good money after bad? Such reporting
is a disservice to the individuals and communities suffering and
increases the likelihood that future responses to methamphetamine will
eschew prevention and treatment in favor of tougher prison terms but
no sustainable reduction in substance abuse.

Finally, if the discourse on drug abuse and prevention is
disproportionately dominated by meth, then communities struggling with
other types of substance-abuse problems are likely to have greater
difficulty obtaining necessary resources. We can see how this plays
out in different communities around the country.

In San Diego and Portland, Ore., rates of methamphetamine abuse among
arrestees have increased in recent years. Clearly, local officials
need to be concerned about the sources of the drug, the reasons why
people are using it, and the need to develop treatment programs aimed
at this particular drug.

But in Philadelphia and New York, meth is barely a blip on the radar
screen. Instead, those cities are grappling with the problems brought
about by cocaine and heroin abuse.

If national funds and public attention are increasingly directed
toward addressing meth, that leaves some cities even more vulnerable
to the problems caused by these other dangerous drugs. This is the
problem caused by a "one size fits all" drug strategy, one that has
been shaped in large measure by sensationalist media accounts.

Sadly, our national drug control policy has been woefully misguided
for more than 20 years, placing far too heavy an emphasis on law
enforcement and incarceration, while neglecting opportunities to
invest in prevention and treatment.

We now have an opportunity to address the problem of methamphetamine
in a rational manner. That should involve defining the communities in
which it is a significant problem, addressing the sources and factors
contributing to its use through evidence-based policy and investing in
proven treatment approaches.

The media can be a vital partner in educating the public and
facilitating a national discussion in which we define these problems
and craft solutions. But the first step needs to be a turn away from
sensationalism and toward responsible journalism.