The Tale of Two Journalists on the Meth Trail
Many years ago, someone once said that if one thinks one has made a new discovery, one should check history and found out whether someone in the distant past has already made that discovery. Steven Suo of The Oregonian in October 2004 found that Washington could have prevented the methamphetamine epidemic had Congress given the Drug Enforcement Agency the necessary powers to regulate both ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine. Unfortunately for Suo, his information is out of date even by October 2004 standards. Michael Specter of The New Yorker magazine found a greater epidemic has unfolded for the past six years among the gay men in major cities across America, namely the connection between the raise of HIV/AIDS cases among gay men and the use of methamphetamine and the search of sexual partners online. Suo failed to examine every possible angle before writing his articles including the work of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes. So, here is the story of two journalists working from different angles.
Suo was the guest lecturer for University of Oregon's Associate Professor Scott Maier's Power Journalism class on Thursday 11th May 2006. Suo has for the past four years worked and continues to work on the methamphetamine epidemic. Suo contends that the series of five articles entitled 'Unnecessary Epidemic' has directly contributed to the most recent U.N. resolution concerning the global spread of the methamphetamine. In pointed fact, any recent U.N. actions concerning any type of controlled substance was probably spurred by the 2004 and 2005 World Drug Report (see links section for complete report) with reports stating that the use of contaminated injection needles has significantly contributed to the spread of HIV/AIDS in other parts of the world. Although the world has long knew that sharing needles from recreational drug use has increased an addict’s chance to contract HIV/AIDS, what may not have been known is that recently, in major cities across America, gay men has contracted a new strain of the HIV virus. In the 23rd May 2005 edition of The New Yorker magazine entitled Higher Risk (see bottom of the entry for link to article) contends that methamphetamine user with the deadlier version of HIV might develop full blown AIDS in as little as four months when a person with normal HIV might not develop full blown AIDS for as long as ten years.
Suo further contends that the methamphetamine epidemic started in the West Coast in the 1970s and has been and continues to move towards the East Coast. In pointed fact, his computer-assisted and computer-generated maps for 2002 shows that less than five percent of all people in the East Coast entering rehab centers suffers from methamphetamine addiction. He said in today's class discussion that the super-labs had suddenly sprung all over California overnight. Any economist knows very well that such massive demands do not suddenly appear. In fact, the May 2005 issue of The New Yorker supports this premise. It claims that the drug is available on the streets, in bars and online for less than a good bottle of wine. Specter also said that a recent survey of gay men in San Francisco and Los Angeles shows that more than ten percent has used the drug in the past six months and the figures for New York is even higher. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this trend has been going on for more than the past six months, which means that Suo may have missed the bigger story, namely the raise of HIV/AIDS cases connected to the use or abuse of methamphetamine. More importantly, Jeffery Klausner, then director of the Sexually Transmitted Diseases Prevention and Control Services of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, identified this trend began in 1998 when small increases of gay men started coming in with syphilis cases. As a result, the City’s Department of Health began tracking the sexual activities of gay men and discovered a greater problem – AIDS.
However, Specter contends that gay men today using or addicted to methamphetamine has a higher likelihood to contract HIV/AIDS through finding sexual partners online. In fact, methamphetamine and the Internet, according to Specter, is 'the prefect compliment for high risk sex.' The results of The New Yorker investigation found that gay men who met online is more likely to use the drug, more likely to infect AIDS and less likely to use a condom.
Like a true egotist, Suo credited his reporting for any recent UN actions, when the evidence clearly indicates that global policymakers were prepared to support any impending resolution before any UN body. It is unhealthy for journalists to take credit for any global action when one should be aware that such actions frequently were impending as global policymakers are privy to far more current information that any journalists could ever be. Worse, Suo failed to investigate the work of some of his colleagues at other news organizations or explore other possible angles.
posted by Charlie at 12:01 AM
10 Comments:
First, who is the other journalist in this post? It sounds like Specter is talking about gays hooking up on the Internet and not using condoms. Suo is talking about meth use.
Second, I think you're way off base here. You're talking about something completely different than what Suo covered, and you spend a significant amount of time discussing UN actions against meth, claiming that Suo is responsible. I never heard him say this. He may have, but I didn't here it. He was talking about federal legislation. Whether that leads to UN resolutions is highly probable, and it could be traced back to Suo, but, again, I never heard this.
By discussing the gay community and HIV/AIDS you're addressing something irrelevant to the unnecessary epidemic that Suo reports on. The title speaks for itself, but I'll say it in laymans terms anyway: this is about what the federal government can do to stop the use of meth nationally. It is about the problem of meth in general, and it does not pertain to any one group. In that sense, Suo took it a step further than Specter.
Third, or fourth, or whatever point I'm on, you missed the greater issues with the article, which lies with accuracy, citing sources and advocacy journalism.
Fourth/Fifth, if you want to pursue what Suo didn't, than do.
You may be darn well right Nicholas that I am seemingly somewhat off point with what I had to say. Perhaps, I have been illusive, but I will not debate that point currently. What I was trying to say is that Suo’s entire series of articles is not news. As a participant of secondary school or high school Model United Nations, I have long been aware that governments on the federal or national level needed to do much more to curb the illicit importation of all psychoactive and psychotropic substances like methamphetamine and heroine and LSD. As a participant of the Model UN, I am long aware that there have been drug-related crimes in many countries, not only in America, and that the sharing of needles has increased the probability of contracting HIV/AIDS. However, my blog tries to address the more important point that methamphetamine has a far greater ripple effect than just the normal effects associated with mere substance abuse. Specter raised the frightening prospect that methamphetamine in gay communities in major cities across America, especially among gay men, may be a major factor in the raise of HIV/AIDS cases and, worse, it has created a new and stronger strain of HIV/AIDS.
If all methamphetamine does is to increase the demand for rehab treatment and increase the crime rate, then it is no different than any other controlled substance like heroine or LSD or cocaine. The fact is gay men who does not use methamphetamine is suddenly contracting this new strain of HIV/AIDS from merely using a sexual partner found online. Worse, this implosion of AIDS cases is going on currently within our society and people are not aware of it. That makes it different because the sole use of this drug is the only connection between the raise of HIV/AIDS cases among gay men and gay men looking for partners online. The underlying implosion of HIV/AIDS will devastate, not only the current gay community, but might also destroy gay youth community for generations to come because of their ignorance of the facts. I frankly do not know about you, Nicholas, but I think Specter is on the bigger story and there are legitimate comparisons that I could be made.
Suo only pursued the necessity for greater government action. Suo really could have said the same thing for all the other recreational drugs like cocaine or heroine and no one would have called it news. Specter shows the ripple effect of methamphetamine is having on one very specific community in our society and the devastating consequences. Now, if you are content to sit by and say that I am away off point, I accept. But I think Specter raises the more important issues that Suo fails to appreciate.
I think your argument is not necessarily off topic, but I think the relationship between these two reporters work is tenuous at best.
Spector's work, however important, did not show what Suo's work did. The main point I got from Suo's presentation was that he showed conclusively that the governments actions in trying to control meth were somewhat effective. As the article mentioned, the feds made a difference, they just didn't know it.
What Suo's work shows is that the government's actions can directly lead to a decrease in meth use, meth purity and the crimes related to meth addiction.
Spector's work found a cause, but this had little to do with the widespread meth market, which is where Suo's work was focused.
The fact is, even in five articles, Suo is not going to be able to cover every possible aspect of meth use, and I feel like this one, however important, would easily get dumped in favor of something that looks at the wider picture.
I think Aaron is getting there, but I have to add that the bigger issue here IS meth.
Charles, you say your blog post "tries to address the more important point that methamphetamine has a far greater ripple effect than just the normal effects associated with mere substance abuse."
You continue, "Specter shows the ripple effect of methamphetamine is having on one very specific community in our society and the devastating consequences." How is looking at one community -- without proposing a solution -- going to help anything?
Seriously, consider your points here, and answer that question. The only logical solution to your rant is banning gays from the Internet.
This is ludicrous. To say that the effects on one community are more important the the effects on all users is just plain wrong. Yes, it's spreading HIV/AIDS in the gay community, but exactly what can be done about that if you only look at that distinct community? The problem is meth, not gays on the Internet.
"Now, if you are content to sit by and say that I am away off point, I accept. But I think Specter raises the more important issues that Suo fails to appreciate."
I'm afraid I do have to say that you ARE way off point, Charles.
You say Suo "only pursued the necessity for greater government action" and that he could have done the same for all "recreational drugs." The fact remains that he helped create legislation to stop it, as he should continue to do with every other "recreational" drug. To say that he "only" did this is undermining to such an achievment, one that all journalists strive for.
In terms of the line "he could have done the same for all recreational drugs" I believe what we saw in his research was a pattern very specific to meth.
Looking at cocaine or heroine, there isn't as much the government can do, because anyone with basic gardening skills can make those. I'm thinking directly of the fact that math grew substantially in Oregon rehab centers, while cocaine remained steady during the same time period.
The difference between meth and other recreation drugs is that, as Suo showed in his pieces, the government is actually able to make a significant impact on the market.
yeah
If I have learned nothing from majoring in economics, I have at least learned that where there is a demand, there is a supply. If anyone believes that government action is effective in the long term, then one is clearly kidding oneself. Methamphetamine is the same as every other recreational drug because the only means of stopping the flow of these illicit drugs is by killing the demand. Once the demand is gone, the supply dies with it. Not the other way around. That belief is reinforced by my debating experience in the Model UN Conferences dealing with the issue of the illicit drugs trade.
If anyone seriously believes that such restrictions will succeed in the long term, 10, 20 years, I have late breaking news. Drug cartels are not sitting around waiting for government restrictions to curb their illicit activities. These people are actively finding ways around such restrictions and governments are traditionally reactive and not proactive. If one reduces the supply without reducing the demand, one has only increased the price of methamphetamine and in turn increased the desperation of the addicts to do whatever it takes to get their dose. It only takes a high school chemistry teacher with the right ingredient and a high school lab to make a pound or two of this stuff. It is not difficult. We have proved that point by raising the issue of home-made methamphetamine. I therefore would contend that, in the long term, certain individuals with the right equipment and access would take advantage of the very desperate people and fill the supply gap on an intermittent basis. I know this only because I sat through a three-hour lecture on nuclear proliferation in preparation for a Model UN Conference and, if a university physics professor could manufacture an atomic bomb in a physics lab in my old school, how difficult is it to manufacture meth, with the right ingredients?
If Suo believes that restricting the supply will have any long term effects, then he should rethink his position after taking into account the basic laws of economics. Every illicit drug on the street today is governed by the laws of supply and demand. One may think I am off-point, I think I am only taking this one step further by showing anyone interested the effects this is having on the public health system and for gay communities in particular. The relationship may be tenuous, perhaps. Perhaps, over time, I may be right to raise this point, but I think the point should be raised now, then wait for the new AIDS epidemic to right on top of us before we starting talking about it.
Economics or not, if there's no drug, demand doesn't matter. Suo showed that government action actually did slow meth use. Placing checks and sanctions on the four countries importing the main ingredient is plausible. It's not easy to make this drug in your home because the chemicals are no longer available over the counter and those who DO purchase them are required to show ID, which is documented. Further, the crackdown on meth houses in Oregon, mostly Portland, has added to the risk and difficulty of making this drug.
Lastly, you can bring up the gay drug use thing and AIDS all you want, but you're not writing anything that is mass circulated. So your point isn't out there. Further, you don't have any proposed solution to this problem. As far as I can tell, you think any government actions is futile. That is--my favorite word when replying to these topics--ludicrous. I realize now that this exchange is comparing apples to oranges. Actually, we're not even comparing the same kind of food anymore.
To begin with, once again to compare meth to other recreational drugs is overlooking the major fact that your average joe has a much easier time making other drugs than meth.
Suo himself showed that individuals making their own meth are in the vast minority, and it is fact a mythical epidemic itself, only sustained by the fact that it leads to dramatic front page stories.
Plus, Suo is not talking about the production of meth, but limiting the production of the chemicals needed to make meth. These chemicals are not being made by the dealers, they're being made by pharmaceutical companies. The average drug dealer can't make those chemicals.
This is the fundamental difference between meth and other recreational drugs. Other drugs CAN be made by your average joe, wheras meth production plants rely on the legal production of medicine to get their product. Cut that off, and they simply lack the ingredients.
Another element about meth is that the demand side is not financially well off. People use meth because it is relatively inexpensive. Raising the price has a dramatic affect on the buyer in this case, because raising the price leaves them without options. They can't simply cough up the high cost of the drug once it becomes expensive.
I think to predict that the government taking action in this case won't have any affect is ignoring the evidence we've seen so far, which shows that they do have a great affect, even more than their impact on other recreational drugs.
Myself, I can't simply dismiss the meth epidemic as uncontrollable because of economics. What Suo and the Oregonian suggests has not yet been done. Meth itself is a unique situation because of the ingredients it requires. It is not like other recreational drugs in many ways, therefor I think it's too early to dismiss these ideas because they haven't worked on other recreational drugs.
"I have at least learned that where there is a demand, there is a supply"
Or there is a massive price increase. Just look at the current situation with gasoline.
Demand in and of itself does not create supply. They are interacting elements, and do have an affect on each other.
In this case, meth I mean, I think what we're seeing is a shift on drug companies to find alternative decongestants, which will reduce the amount, if not eliminate, of produced pseudoephedrine. If they don't produce it, the meth factories can't buy it, if they can't buy it, they can't make meth.
Or, they have to produce the chemicals themselves, which I imagine will greatly increase the production costs and the price, since previously pseudoephedrine was produced at such great quantities to meet the demand of cold medicine.
Post a Comment
<< Home