"[...]he tried to put the dangers of methamphetamine in perspective, noting that the drug is a government-approved treatment for narcolepsy and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). He cited his own research finding that methamphetamine has “the same effects” as a more familiar ADHD drug, Adderall, which has a “nearly identical” chemical structure." The aesthetic appearance of chemical structure has absolutely nothing to do with the effect of a drug. I seriously question this guy's motives. I would recommend that no one ever try meth. Just like I would recommend no one try heroin. I think meth and heroin are much closer together on their addictive potential than crack, so I don't understand why he would lump crack together with meth, and leave out heroin. Something's fishy about this article.
The point of the article is that Hart is trying to stimulate a better-informed, less reactionary dialogue about these drugs. He isn't recommending meth, just trying to get people to try and separate drug from person from environment and realize that these all play a role in how a user interacts with a drug. This is true and there are indeed important distinctions between the two drugs, but the similar structure is what causes them to have such similar effects. His point in saying they have the 'same effects', likely an exaggeration not to be found in his published work, is to emphasize that the violence and insanity often associated with meth is much more related to the circumstances of its use, not inherent properties of the drug itself. As for why he didn't include heroin, it seems he's just focusing on amphetamines and the specific set of misconceptions about them. Heroin doesn't bring to mind the same picture of an amphetamine-fueled maniac. It's true that meth and heroin are probably pretty close on the addiction and life-destroying side and ideally he would discuss opiates in general as well, but it seems to me he's just focusing on what he knows and on doing one thing at a time, rather than trying to explain these complicated and controversial topics at once, potentially confusing his audience.it is easier to demonize less popular drugs such as crack cocaine and methamphetamine, which in the public mind are still linked, as marijuana once was, with addiction, madness, and violence.
His studies found that cocaine and methamphetamine do increase heart rate and blood pressure, but the effect of typical doses is not dangerous in otherwise healthy people. He argues that research linking meth to brain damage confuses correlation with causation and fails to show that meth users’ cognitive capabilities are outside the normal range.
The aesthetic appearance of chemical structure has absolutely nothing to do with the effect of a drug.
I don't like it at all. There is absolutely no reason to try to clear up the baggage of what meth is. I realize that some people can binge on it and have a lot of fun, and it's up to their discretion, but this comes with responsibility and being informed about what it is capable of. This guy is, for some reason, trying to clear up something nobody I've seen tries to argue. It just makes no sense to me why he would spend his time on this drug, as opposed to working about the glaring, and 100x more powerful misconceptions about much more important illegal drugs such as LSD and Psilocibin mushrooms. It boggles my mind why anyone would want to go the way of, 'oh, meth isn't so bad, we treat kids with it.' No. We don't. We give them amphetamines, and way too much of them as it is. It's incontrovertibly addictive and destroys people, and yet we should spend some time and divert our efforts from things that should be a priority. At the very least, the article in question is misleading. (this may have to do more with the author of the article, not the researcher, actually, now that I read it again.) This first paragraph mentions legalization as if it applies to meth and crack. No serious movement exists to support the cause. Also, it is off course because it says we should dispel the horror stories in order to fight the use of force when dealing with an addictive substance, completely failing to mention that it doesn't matter what the drug makes someone do when it comes to the war on drugs. It fails to mention that it is already apparent to a sober mind that treating addicts as if patients, rather than criminals, is much more effective. Effective, period. Again, off track, and a diversion. It then goes on to say that "only 10-20%" of people become addicted. Wtf? How is that a remotely low figure? Madness. Honestly, it's the reporter. Any neuroscientist working on illegal drug research is at the forefront of his field. The conclusions this article draws are ridiculous, though.Growing familiarity with marijuana has been accompanied by growing support for legalization because people discovered through personal experience that the government was lying to them about the drug’s hazards. But it is easier to demonize less popular drugs such as crack cocaine and methamphetamine, which in the public mind are still linked, as marijuana once was, with addiction, madness, and violence. Any attempt to question the use of force in dealing with these drugs therefore must begin by separating reality from horror stories.
FYI, you can do quotes but surrounded your quoted text in |example
I get what he's saying, and it's not that these drugs are safe. I've seen first hand people struggling and succumbing to drug addiction and it's not simple at all. But I agree that you can't just call it all bad or all good.The effects of drugs on human behavior and physiology are determined by a complex interaction between the individual drug user and her or his environment.
I really wonder who the "you" in the headline is imagined as, as the "everything" in the headline seems a bit limited. I also found it curious that it specifically mentioned people that snort meth. As far as I am aware, snorting meth is the least efficient (and addictive) way to get bang for your buck, with smoking and then injection being levels of escalation.