Montana Meth Project

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 11:08 am

I hope this ad campaign ends up doing a lot of good. The real-life testimonials should be strong messages for kids who would otherwise consider trying the stuff. As long as they stick to real-life stories and don't throw out the exaggerated myths and untruths that have been the centerpiece of many other anti-drug campaigns (that kids and adults alike look at, know the message is flawed/absurd, and then disregard the underlying point the ad was trying to make).

Kudos to Seibel for fronting the cash (despite the fact that I took a bath on his stock), and here's to hoping that it has a real impact on the target audience.

http://greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs. ... 10301/1002

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 11:12 am

When it comes to Meth it's pretty hard to exaggerate. I'm hoping they are cutting edge and graffic, unlike the stupid friking DUI commercials out now days.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:37 pm

This is completely random chance ... but I just read a thread on the reason blog that's about allegations of ... the government exaggerating the dangers of meth. This is on my daily reading list, so I wasn't doing research or anything (and not trying to be argumentative -- I'm just shocked that something so on-point came up shortly after I read pony's post). Here it is:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/08 ... tml#010767

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:20 pm

Where do you find these articles. They say the statistics are wrong but show no statistics of there own. To imply that Meth isn't dangerous, isn't just wrong, it's as or more dangerous than the drug.

The stats they did use are ones that I have never seen before. I believe and have seen other statistics backing the 1 in 7 high schoolers trying it, but the 99% being addicted after the first use is more like about 75% from the info I've seen, and I'm not sure about the death rate of meth users but I would say its at least twice as high as other drugs (no data to back that up but just my observations)

As for the Meth mouth link that article is dangerous and full of smoke and mirrors. Implying that meth tooth decay is no different than elderly tooth decay is asinine and irresponsible.

I'm so frustrated by that link that I don't know what to talk about next. by the way if anyone know the writers of the link posted or the slate article on meth mouth let me know because I've got some beautiful ocean front property in Montana I'd like to sell them.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:30 pm

I'm not sure that anyone is implying that meth isn't dangerous (or maybe they are -- they don't really opine either way), but I think what they are pointing out goes back to what I was griping about earlier. When people start throwing out stats that are clearly flawed and appear to be conjured up to scare people, then the people who need to be getting the information are just going to assume that nothing they hear is true, and perhaps ignore the real warning about the danger of the drug.

I don't know the exact number who get addicted after the first use, but I do know quite a few people who have tried it, and zero who have become addicted from one use, and although other people's observation will vary (and I know yours is going to be on the high side due to the group you have the pleasure of observing), I think most potential first time meth users will read that stat and realize from their own experiences that it just isn't right. So they might assume the whole "meth is bad" thing is just a big government lie, just like the bogus stats, and go ahead and try the drug.

I don't know what the real stats are (although there is a link in that blog to the actual government studies, which it indicates don't jive with the 99% stuff, but the site didn't look very user friendly), but I'm sure the real stats, although they might not be as impressive in terms of sheer big numbers, should be scary enough to make people think twice before trying the stuff.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:42 pm

If you do actually want to get in touch with the guy who wrote the blog entry, he seems to read every comment posted, and would most likey respond to anything you wanted to add to the thread. They usually have quite a bit of interaction between the bloggers and the readers in there.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:49 pm

I did look on the government site and it wasn't user friendly, and the stats and trends I did see were only to 2002.

I guees my frustration is with bloggers like the link who state something and expect people to accept it as fact. Similar to your frustration I guess.

But its a fact the Meth causes tooth and bone decay. Its a fact that it ruins your health and its a fact that simple 28-60 day treatment options do not work with meth ADDICTS.

Whats interesting about meth is its both Physically and Mentally addictive, and many of the commercials that try to warn of the dangers of meth only cause those who are trying to get off the stuff want to use again. Numerous addicts have told me they see anything associated with there past use and it makes them crave it again, ie. pipes, red headed matches, light bulbs.

Although I'm no entirely sold on this idea, there are those who talk about using the majority of resources to keep people from trying the stuff to begin with because once there on it there isn't much hope of them getting off it. I've seen some success stories but sadly far more failures.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:56 am

It looks like they took the meth blog entry and expanded it into a full article, complete with some additional stats:

http://www.reason.com/sullum/090205.shtml