Author |
Message |
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:20 pm
But which is more important, Herc. If the science says it isn't a problem so we just say 'ok, let's forget about it?' We have heard testimony hear, just a small sampling of the real world how devastating it is..why is that any less important?
|
Herckleperckle
Member
11-20-2003
| Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:26 pm
No, Annie, I think you are reacting Eeyore's quotes here. I believe that is a misinterpretation of her stance with respect to the media's reporting. I think she is saying that media will fan the flame of any story and that this one has been exaggerated. Regardless of whether the media has used tactics that could be considered (by some--evidently, including SLATE and Eeyore's professors) as inflaming public opinion, I think the information being presented in the media will be weighed by all of us---so that each of us can make decisions about what is right and wrong--and what is destructive or diversionary or not. That's what we do with all information anyway.
|
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:32 pm
I am trying to understand her stance. I guess I don't think the media is fanning the flames when here, on this internet site devoted to TV, we have seen how it has effected so many lives.
|
Herckleperckle
Member
11-20-2003
| Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:38 pm
Well, I read some of what is available on Slate, and if I understood one of their criticisms, it was that, for example, the reporting of stats for ER cases was slanted. Something about counting only certain hospitals (say, metropolitan vs rural), so that the percentages were higher. If that is the case about that particular stat, then that bears reporting. Doesn't change my personal opinion about the drug's dangers, though.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-31-2000
| Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 5:19 pm
I think what the hospital stats said was accurate in a sense, that the incidence of meth use (as documented by emergency room visits) is very high in rural areas. And rural hospitals are the ones which can least afford it. Many meth use studies bear out that the increases in meth use are in midwest and/or rural areas, versus more urban areas. I think the thing that most bothered me about other views was an understatement which is not borne out by the research, that addiction to meth was more about the person (and circumstances of that person) using it than it is about the drug itself. I think the research clearly shows that meth is highly physiologically addictive, quite moreso and more destructively so than many other recreational drugs. In addition, a comparison was made to meth and a legal drug used to treat ADD, stating that since one form of meth was used legally and did not have the addictive consequence, that the problem was not meth itself. Again, I think this ignores real life relevance, that anyone taking meth to get "high" (which is the only reason to take it, right?) would take a much higher than therapeutic dose. In addition, it also ignores the reality that people taking the legal drug are taking it because they have a physiological imbalance, and (at least in theory) the drug is used to correct that imbalance to something more normal. Those taking meth for recreational use are not in a place of physiological deficit, they have relatively normal biochemistry, so the effect on the drug takes normal to abnormal. That is quite different from a legally prescribed drug taking someone from atypical to more typical physiology. You cannot apply results from dissimilar populations fairly (diagnosed ADD versus non-ADD); nor can you generalize results from one type of use (regular, therapeutic doses) to another use (dosage sufficient to produce a 'high", irregular timing and regularly increasing dosage to get the same level of high).
|
Pamy
Member
01-02-2002
| Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 6:17 pm
Half, I couldnt believe they were doing that at the drug store, I was stunned. To me, restricting buying everyday drugs to the whole public tells me this meth thing is very bad, more so than any stats or faces
|
Tabbyking
Member
03-11-2002
| Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 6:31 pm
<<OK. I see what kind of debate we're having.>> i don't understand the 'anger', eeyore! it's as if nothing we say counts for anything.
|
Jbean
Member
01-05-2002
| Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 7:07 pm
yes, i went to buy some 12-hour extended release pseudoephedrine the other day, and the lady took my driver's license, started typing (for a long time), and i joked, asking her if she needed to know my blood type. luckily she knew i was just playing and said "and your favorite color". i asked what she was typing and she said everything on the DL. i also live in the state with the highest rate of methamphetamine use in the country. such a lovely way to be known. it's so so sad. 
|
Schoolmarm
Member
02-18-2001
| Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 7:16 pm
Eeyore, will you please check your use of "statistically significant" with your prof or TA? You are making a very common "young researcher" error. Statistical significance means that that numbers cannot reasonably be reached by chance. If your n is big enough, just about everything will have statistical significance. What is of more concern is PRACTICAL significance. (Is there an "it's a big deal" difference between the control and the experimental groups?) Read Advens posts above. He is spot on in his interpretetations. Qualitative researchers use case studies and narratives all the time. There have probably been enough posts here to do a qualitative study. I would post more, but tomorrow is thesis deposit deadline and I have to double-check my student's work before they upload it and take their comps.
|
Serenity
Member
06-28-2005
| Friday, April 14, 2006 - 10:50 am
I have been lurking on this thread, but the following statement Eeyore made on April 7th has made me feel the need to comment. I work in the restaurant industry, with a lot of party people. They do meth regularly, in a club atmosphere. Not a single one of them has lost weight, or has thrown their entire life away as a result. Every single one of them is completely functional, and uses the drug the same way one would use alcohol on a weekend. From everything that I have ever learned about crystal meth is that the drug can hit people HARD. They assume that it is relatively "safe" and become instantly addicted. I think we must make a distinction between a hit of meth and a glass of wine or beer as being significantly different. Your friends are very lucky, Eeyore, that nothing bad has happened to them. I pray that they have the common sense to quit meth before it attacks them. Meth is not a "user friendly" drug, and I would hate to advocate that its recreational use is not harmful.
|
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Friday, April 14, 2006 - 1:31 pm
I missed that comment about your friends, Eeyore. Perhaps that is why you think it's such an innocent drug.
|
Crzndeb
Member
07-26-2004
| Friday, April 14, 2006 - 2:27 pm
Maybe it's different in Canada than USA..or maybe it's just something all together different and they call it meth. Who knows?
|
Serenity
Member
06-28-2005
| Friday, April 14, 2006 - 5:43 pm
No Crzndeb. I am from Canada. We now have a program in my province to "crack" down on drug houses and clean up our cities. Meth is as big a problem here as in the U.S. Our pharmacies are also checking out which medications their customers buy. Canada may have fewer people than the U.S. but, unfortunately, we have the same problems with drugs.
|
Wendo
Member
08-07-2000
| Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 2:06 am
PBS Frontline show about meth use in the US. It's quite interesting, probative, and you can watch it online. Home page of the show: PBS Frontline show on meth use
|
Grannyg
Member
05-28-2002
| Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 10:41 am
Thanks for the link Wendo. I just finished watching it and I think it's very informative and those that think it isn't addictive really need to watch it.
|
Native_texan
Member
08-24-2004
| Friday, April 21, 2006 - 6:13 pm
I just discovered this thread and have read through it. To those of you that have suffered from the devastation caused by this drug, personally or through someone else, my prayers are with you. I have only known of two people who used meth. My best friend's two brothers lived in Henderson County, Texas, the "Meth Capital of Texas" and they did their part to give the county that title. I say "lived" because they are no longer there. They were relocated to a cemetery in Dallas within 5 months of each other. A few months after the second brother died a couple of the people who supplied these men with meth were killed when the trailer they used as their manufacturing center blew up.
|
Tigerfan
Member
11-06-2003
| Monday, April 24, 2006 - 9:43 am
The really sad part of this article is that her own father turned her onto it. . . http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0424meth-day2blomo0424.html
|
Mamie316
Member
07-08-2003
| Monday, April 24, 2006 - 10:12 am
That is so very sad.
|
Native_texan
Member
08-24-2004
| Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 12:08 pm
I wonder where her dad is now.
|
Jewels
Member
09-23-2000
| Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 1:33 pm
That is so sad.
|
Zachsmom
Member
07-13-2000
| Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:58 am
This has been an interesting thread. I have never used meth, nor been around anyone using the drug (well, knowingly), but I did combat my additition to prescription pain killers. I did not start taking them to get high, but was prescribed while in the hospital. They gave me dilatin for pain, when released they gave me vicodin. After many more trips to the hospital they gave me a duragesic patch (fenadryl) with vicodin for breakthrough pain. Thinking this was all supervised I had no idea my body was becoming chemically addicted. On one visit to the hospital, they took me off the dilatin (which is a morphine durivative) and gave me no other pain killers on release. I didn't ask because I was not in pain at the time. They took me off the pump at 5am, by 10:30am I was starting to feel sick but didn't say anything to the nurses because I wanted to come home. 11:00am I was vomiting, still didn't say anything. I was finally released. I went home and started shaking and vomiting. By 4:30pm my mother had to call 911 because I was going into convulsions, I had no control over my body whatsoever. This had to be one of the scariest times of my life. I was taken back to the same hospital and was treated like a drug addict, even though the hospital KNEW I was released that morning and taking off the dilatin pump that the doctor had ordered. It was not until they finally realized that I was not a "drug addict" but only that my body was chemically addicted to the drug that they gave me a shot of morphine, that stopped all of the withdrawl symptoms. I was also given a patch and sent home. I was then put on the patch & vicodin for a few months and then went to see a doctor about getting off the patch/vicodin. He put me on Oxycontin and vicodin for breakthrough. I was terrified of coming off these drugs, not because I became "high" or felt any pleasure, but my fear of the withdrawl. It took me 6 months to wean myself, with the aid of a very good and understanding doctor, off of these drugs. I am now afraid of even taking aspirin. My point is, it doesn't matter what the setting. Some peoples bodies are more supseptible to addiction. The scary part is, you never know if YOU are one of the ones who will become addicted. When weaning myself off, I still with through withdrawls, not as major as the one before, but still unpleasant to say the least. I would have to start on a friday and be in bed all weekend sweating it out. I had major mood swings, I was not myself for many many months. Drugs, whether prescription or not, if they have a tendencies to be addictive are not safe for anyone. I think that is why we have so many health problems today, too many chemicals are being put into our bodies by trusting pharm. companies and their hopes and promises. My son is on Concerta, it was not doing well on it for a while (he was still extremely hyper), so we switched to Ritalin. Ritalin made him a mean, angry and extremely violent little boy. Needless to say, that only lasted a few days before we switched him back to Concerta. These drugs are dangerous and you NEED to stay on top and work with a highly trained professional. I do not think there is any street drug that can be called "recreational", all of them have the potential to kill on first try. Period.
|
Juju2bigdog
Member
10-27-2000
| Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 2:02 pm
Welcome back, Zmom.
|
Lancecrossfire
Animoderator
07-13-2000
| Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 2:31 pm
Zmom--great to see you!!!
|
Zachsmom
Member
07-13-2000
| Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 3:33 pm
it's good to be back this is a very very very interesting thread.
|
Julieboo
Member
02-05-2002
| Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 3:53 pm
Isn't Concerta a form of Ridalin? Or is that Adderal?
|
|
|
|