Addiction is terrible, and some addictions are certainly worse than others. But the truth is that the vast majority of meth users, just like the vast majority of most drug users, are not addicts, or at least not addicts according to the UK definition, which I like a lot better than the US one (the UK definition discusses addiction in terms of damage to the person’s health and life, not just quantity of use).
There is a lot of hysteria surrounding meth these days, similar to the crack hysteria back in the 80s and 90s. But the truth is that meth isn’t all that different from another drug, one that is given to children on a daily basis: Adderrall.
I’m sorry if I painted you in a negative way, I just thought your comment was glib and made a huge assumption that a nation that has legal meth would lead to everyone being “on” meth.
So is the LA Times a real paper or is it one of these ‘satirical’ onion-ripoff sites where they forgot that you are supposed to have a joke in there somewhere as opposed to simply writing made-up news articles?
I would imagine that ignoring recreational drug use, especially mj, when you’re trying to keep millions of people brainwashed might be a practical consideration. From what I can find, DPRK signed on to the Single Convention in 2007 and no indication that they’ve recinded.
If you read my earlier posts I made it clear I’ve never tried the stuff and have no interest in it. And I never tried to claim that there aren’t some people whose lives have been ruined by meth. But its nothing compared to how many lives have been ruined by alcohol. And the vast majority of people who use meth don’t become addicts and don’t turn into scary-looking, toothless tweakers. There is hysteria surrounding meth, just like there was hysteria surrounding crack when I was a kid. Oh yeah, and I remember how ecstasy takes “ice cream scoops out of your brain”.
Again, I reiterate my original point: I agree with basically everything you’re saying except the idea that meth is just the latest boogeyman, on which the propaganda is misleading. Do you have any evidence for the claim that the vast majority of meth users don’t become addicts?
The war on drugs is fucking stupid, but don’t let its history of utter bullshit propaganda give you the idea that all information on drugs is scaremongering.
Fair enough. I’ve seen pictures of meth casualties and I know it can be a horrible drug. But I really don’t buy the notion that its more addictive than other drugs or that its more dangerous. If there was honest data on it I’d definitely check it out, but we heard the same things about crack back in the 80’s (one hit and your addicted!) and it was a pack of lies. I don’t have stats about the proportion of seriously messed up addicts (technical term) versus casual users, but logic dictates that if it was as deadly as the claims make it out to be the user base would’ve eradicated itself by now. And all these scaremongering stories do is work up legislators to pass awful, draconian laws while doing nothing to actually improve health and minimize the desperation that causes many to turn to such drugs in the first place. From what I’ve heard, the vast majority of meth users are hard working people who are forced to work two or three jobs and get no sleep, and meth is a wonder drug for that need. I’m sure some of them wind up getting in trouble that way, but if it were legal and cheap, and we had free treatment programs, that would probably take away the danger. But if we had those things we’d probably also get a living wage so people don’t have to work 80+ hours a week to feed their families. I can dream.
