METH: NOT THAT BAD

Your cover story on meth use couldn't have come at a better time.

I teach a college course about drug use and abuse in the US. Recently
my class has been discussing the history of American media coverage
of drug issues. Your meth story provided a perfect, real-life,
up-to-the-minute example of the exaggeration and hyperbole that has
characterized our media's coverage of drug problems for at least the
past 80 years.

Despite its utility as a teaching tool, the article's appearance
saddened me, since I normally find the Weekly a refreshingly honest
and objective source of information. But your claim that meth is "the
most deadly recreational drug" is simply false. That honor probably
goes to heroin, which has a much, much higher rate of fatal overdoses
per use. (If you meant death due to long-term use, the deadliest
still isn't meth, it's nicotine.)

Similarly, there is no good evidence that meth is now, or ever will
be, "the most popular" recreational drug in this county, or elsewhere
in the US. Evidence shows that marijuana is much, much more widely
used, and that cocaine, Ecstasy, hallucinogens, painkillers and
tranquilizers all have higher rates of recreational use than methamphetamine.

Nor is meth "lethally addictive," whatever your reporter meant by
that. Meth is neither instantly or universally addictive, nor is it
always lethal to users, abusers, or even addicts.

That local law enforcement think meth use is on the rise, that more
arrestees are testing positive for meth, or that there are more
meth-related arrests, tells us little about meth's actual popularity
or usage rates among the general population.

Clearly, meth is a dangerous and highly addictive drug that is
associated with property crime, severe health risks, environmental
damage, and family dysfunction, among other things. But exaggerating
its dangers and popularity is irresponsible. The Weekly can do better.

- --Ann Lucas

Salinas