TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . ABOUT US . CONTACT . CHAT  
Bomis   Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Archive through April 13, 2006

The TVClubHouse: General Discussion ARCHIVES: 2006 Mar. ~ 2006 May: The Faces of Meth: Archive through April 13, 2006 users admin

Author Message
Vacanick
Member

07-12-2004

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 12:24 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Vacanick a private message Print Post    
Thank you Adven.

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 10:47 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
So you're all saying CASE STUDIES are more credible than large sample scientific studies?

OK. I see what kind of debate we're having. Propaganda and personal testimonials, vs. scientific data.

Let's go the opposite way: If MTV started talking about how *!*!*COOL*!*!* jumping off a bridge was, and someone managed to jump off a bridge and LIVE, would y'all go jumping off a bridge in the face of scientific data that showed that jumping off a bridge would kill you?

Individual case studies carry no weight compared to significant scientific data. Meth is not used at a statistically significant level in the general population. While I do not debate the sad experiences a few people may have, I can't change my mind when the scientific method shows it is not a significant problem.

I also think it is wrong to discount any study because it was tested on animals. The animals chosen are used SPECIFICALLY because of their close genetic relation to humans. Rabbits are more closely related to humans than monkeys. I laugh, because a majority of the scientific advances we BENEFIT from have been tried on animals first, yet you guys talk like you can't bridge animal results to humans. Ummm.....that's exactly how it's done. Enough success on animals means it moves on to human trials (showing that the test would be of benefit to the human race, that is).


PS - Rat Park article is in PubMed:

Effect of early and later colony housing on oral ingestion of morphine in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1981 Oct;15(4):571-6.

I reiterate, I do not use this article to compare morphine and meth, I used it to show the effect of environment on drug use (that it DOES play a role). My TA just wrote me back, and I don't have time to go look up and read the article right now, as I have a final exam today, but feel free to have a look if you want.

Mocha
Member

08-12-2001

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 11:11 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Mocha a private message Print Post    
Eeyore I think this is a case where you need to get your head out of the books and realize what's actually going on with real people. Not studies, not rats, not scientific speculation. Because your science is not jiving with the real life experiences these people are having.

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 11:28 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
But Mocha, "science" is just a process, based on real-life observations. It is a process of determining validity of claims, claims from real life. It isn't from books, based on books. Science gets its facts from real life observation. Major institutions are not run on emotion, they are run on statistics, and the reliability of those statistics (i.e. - medicine)

Again, I have utmost respect for those who have overcome such hard times, and who are helping those affected by the drug.

Denecee
Member

09-05-2002

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 11:29 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Denecee a private message Print Post    
There simply is no way putting all the info in a box and label it this or that.
I appreciate people posting their personal stories and experiences with this drug because if it helps one person from ever trying meth then that is a good thing.

The government can't solve this problem, but I believe that the more they show those "faces of meth" especially to our younger generations then the less people would try it.

Adven
Member

02-06-2001

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 11:31 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Adven a private message Print Post    
No one's dismissing the value of animal studies, Eeyore, just the conclusions you have jumped to based on what you have read. Dr. Douglas Anglin of the UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center and Dr. Nora Volkow of Brookhaven Laboratories in New York - to name just a couple among many - two researchers with 15-20 years experience researching meth (not morphine) addiction in humans (not rodents) have drawn decidely different conclusions. For more information on their findings just Google their names.

The point is that research suggesting meth addiction is severe and potentially devastating is hardly anecdotal.

Spitfire
Member

07-18-2002

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 11:38 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Spitfire a private message Print Post    
I agree Mocha. I have not responded in this thread but have read it along the way. I've listened to both sides and decided that I still lean towards the majority feeling around here. It does not mean that I don't think scientific studies hold weight at all. After reading your last post Eeyore this is the best way for me to tell you my opinion....

Scientific Studies vs. Real Life
It's kinda like the "big boss" syndrome where they have the smarts and know the way it should work but the employee doing the real work knows it won't work from real life experience and knowledge.

Does that make sense at all?

Crzndeb
Member

07-26-2004

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 11:51 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Crzndeb a private message Print Post    
Amen to that Spitfire....dealing with that work issue right now. I think there will always be "book smart" and "street smart"...I am the Street Smart and dang proud of it.

Texannie
Member

07-16-2001

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 12:31 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Texannie a private message Print Post    
Science is wonderful if you are living in a vacumn.
And as always, Mocha, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Emeraldfire
Member

03-05-2003

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 1:01 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Emeraldfire a private message Print Post    
I'm at work so I'm probably going to get fired for posting but I can't help myself!

I would like to thank all of you posters who offered hugs and support for me and my family, it means alot to me.

I would also like to thank all of you who were brave enough to post what you have been through because of Meth and other drug abuse. Your messages are touching many people's lives who read this thread and those who they speak with later. All of you have earned my deepest respect.

I just had to respond to Eeyoreslament's post dated 4/13/06 at 10:37 am.

Ok. I see what kind of debate we're having. Propaganda and personal testimonials, vs. scientific data.
and
Individual case studies carry no weight compared to significant scientific data.
and
Meth is not used at a statistically significant level in the general population.

First, if you are referring that the propaganda is the pictures that were displayed of both the faces of Meth and Meth mouth, that's not propaganda that real pictures of real people who have suffered the consequences of Meth. As far as a debate, I didn't know there was one, Meth is dangerous, period. I don't need science to tell me that, I have seen it.

In regards to the "personal testimonials" and the feeling of them carrying no weight compared to scientific data. They should because they are not from a lab rat but from real humans who have lived through the experiences of Meth and in my opinion carry far more weight than scientific data from an academic book.

Finally, you stated that Meth is not used at a statistically significant level in the general population. How do you know that as a fact? So far you have heard from posters from California, Arizona, Washington, Maryland, Louisiana and possibly other states.

How large were the sample scientific studies? How were they carried out? Where did the data come from?

I guess the bottom line is those of us who have seen Meth abuse firsthand will never agree with science on the level of danger that it poses, we've seen the truth.

Texannie
Member

07-16-2001

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 1:11 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Texannie a private message Print Post    
Eeyore, I know you are in school. Is science your major?

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 1:14 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
I don't get it. The only scientific data you have noted is that meth is not used at a statistically significant level. When it comes to the devastation of a life, what is statistical significance? Now talk about thousands of lives devastated by meth. Because they aren't statistically significant, we should just shrug our shoulders and say, hey, it's only a couple thousand lives, no big deal?

We certainly study many seriously devastating diseases and illnesses and look for cures for them, even though they effect only tiny portions of the population. I think that's a good thing!

To go further, the scientific data we are relating has nothing to do with statistically significant "use" anyway. It has to do with how much more damaging and addictive meth is *per individual user*. I think it extremely important to get that message out, BEFORE meth reaches statistically significant use. Meth is an extremely dangerous drug, it is far more addictive, causes permanent physical damage with extensive use and has far more longlasting effects than many other street drugs, even with casual use. Let's let people know that, before they become statistically insignificant casualties.

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 1:59 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
Here is the sample I was siting. I don't have time to find "n" as there was more than one appendix. Feel free to peruse. I found the site after Googling "meth statistics" and haven't gone over the whole government site.

Kearie
Member

07-21-2005

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 2:01 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kearie a private message Print Post    
I just want to say that statistic can be interpreted to say various things. Who's interpreting the numbers. Is average mean, medium or mode? What is the chance of error?

Statistics are open to interpretation and therefore can be misleading.

I'm with Kar, every life is significant...whether statistics say so or not.

Heck, I'm a casualty of Meth and I've never used. But it has deeply effected me. Yet I'm not a statistic and it effected me emotionally, physically and financially.

Tigerfan
Member

11-06-2003

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 2:22 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Tigerfan a private message Print Post    
"Meth is not used at a statistically significant level in the general population. While I do not debate the sad experiences a few people may have, I can't change my mind when the scientific method shows it is not a significant problem."

Millions of people isn't significant?!?! How many does it take for it to be a significant problem?!?!

I'll bet you'd change your mind if you were directly affected by an addict...

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 2:30 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
NIDA (A division of the National Institute of Health), in a recent study, called meth use a *significant problem in the US"


quote:

February 14, 2006 -- A research update from the National Institute on Drug Abuse shows that methamphetamine abuse is a significant problem in the United States, however there is hope for the future.

• Approximately 12 million people 12 years and older have abused methamphetamine in their lifetimes; in 2004, approximately 600,000 were current users (NSDUH).
• Abuse appears to be increasing in certain areas of the country, especially rural communities.
• According to NIDA’s 2005 Monitoring the Future Survey, there have been significant decreases between 2004 and 2005 in methamphetamine abuse among 10th and 12th graders (Figure 1).
• Methamphetamine’s potent addiction liability and destructive health and social consequences make its abuse particularly dangerous.




Read More Here

12 million people seems pretty statistically significant to me....

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 2:32 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Putting on my administrator hat...

Hey, folks, let's remember to not make this personal. Keep your posts about the ISSUE and not about each other. Thank you!


Halfunit
Moderator

09-02-2001

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 3:19 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Halfunit a private message Print Post    
Unit just got a ton of pamphlets and informative material on meth sent to him at the police station. They are trying to be proactive, rather than reactive.

Fast Facts on Meth / DEA

Methamphetamine is horrible and the trends are alarming. You know it's bad when you are restricted from buying more than 3.6 grams of pseudoephedrine from the pharmacy in a 24 hour period, as I was two days ago. I had to list my address and sign a log for 2 boxes of 'OTC' sinus/allergy medicine.


Mamie316
Member

07-08-2003

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 3:28 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Mamie316 a private message Print Post    
I took my Mom to pick up her medicine today and saw the sign on the counter about limiting your purchase of pseudoepedrine. That speaks volumes!

Texannie
Member

07-16-2001

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 3:49 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Texannie a private message Print Post    
I guess what is really confusing me about your arguments/objections, Eeyore, is the clinging to science. I think we all agree it's a devastating drug, right? You do think so? So why then is it so important to statistically say it's ok? It might be statistically ok, but in actuality it's killing people and ruining lives.

Herckleperckle
Member

11-20-2003

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:01 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Herckleperckle a private message Print Post    
I think what Eeyore was taking on was what she (and I guess her professors) are deeming a slanted picture of Meth being the most worrisome drug out there. That certainly wasn't the big issue for me. My issue was that I knew relatively little about the drug and wanted to know more, since those pics really did make me pause.

I sure don't have a handle on which drug is most abused, but from what I've read, it depends upon the locale, the going street cost, and the age, race and gender of the user. So though I believe I read that ecstacy is a bigger problem in NY, Meth is a bigger one in CA.

Regardless of its popularity status on the drug use charts, I can easily see that using/abusing it is a destructive choice. And I think that's something we can all agree upon, even Eeyore.

Am I right, Eeyore?

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:05 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
I am not saying the what Eeyore is quoting is good science - I have no way of evaluating that.

However, I don't think that there is any clinging to science. Science is science and personal experience is personal experience. Each is valid, except that good science is more widely applicable and not affected by individual variables and emotion.

Meth is bad - I don't think that anyone is arguing that point.

Texannie
Member

07-16-2001

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:16 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Texannie a private message Print Post    
ok, maybe clinging isn't the right word. but like Karuna said earlier, I don't get it. Why is it so important what the science says in the face of real life devastating testimony?
I truly don't understand.

Halfunit
Moderator

09-02-2001

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:17 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Halfunit a private message Print Post    



Link

Maps

Herckleperckle
Member

11-20-2003

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 4:17 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Herckleperckle a private message Print Post    
Well, both are important.