Alright so I thought I had heard it all in terms of stupid drug laws but then I heard this (different version of story) on NPR. Apparently Tennessee has created a public database of meth dealers on the internet. Yes that’s right you can go on the internet and SEARCH FOR A DRUG DEALER (alright so you can’t technically google for one but close enough). Apparently the hare-brained idea behind this scheme is that meth manufacture is dangerous (explosions, fumes etc..) and this will warn others in the vicinity like the sex offender databases. Really though it seems like it is an attempt to curb the problem by shaming those who are caught. I’m not a fan of the sex offender databases but this seems even less likely to work. I just don’t see what method (aside from the minor effect of keeping people with previous cooking convictions out of hotel rooms) could possibly make this program effective at keeping the type of people who cook/sell meth from cooking/selling meth.

What I find most amusing though is that for all the carping by conservatives about the sex, drugs and other bad stuff on the internet a conservative southern state now lets you find a local dealer from the comfort of your own home. If you don’t believe me check it out. If I was looking for a meth dealer this sure would be a good place to start.

One of my pet peeves is people who hide their moral disapproval behind a mask of public concern. Two recent incidents on the radio reminded me this sort of faux good samaritan attitude is still alive and well. The first was a report about a safer kind of cigarette developed by a British company. Instead of cheering this result as potentially saving the lives of smokers anti-smoking advocates condemned it out of fear it would encourage more smoking. The second was a discussion about the number of highway deaths caused by drunk drivers which called for lower limits on blood alcohol content (BAC).

It is not that either position is necessarily wrong, it could be that the safer cigarette will actually increase smoking deaths and it could be that a lower threshold for drunk driving will save lives. What infuriates me is that both claims are made without looking at the statistics. It also could be that a safer cigarette would save far more lives than it would cost. It also could be (in fact I think it likely) that most alcohol induced accidents are caused by people already violating the drunk driving laws. It is entirely possible that stricter limits on BAC would cause people to take the drunk driving laws less seriously in addition to spending time and money prosecuting slightly tipsy drivers which could have been used to enforce the existing laws.

Contrast these knee jerk reactions to cigarettes and alcohol to the reactions people have to similar, but less morally charged, situations. Where are the condemnations of low fat cheesecake? After all that too could encourage people to engage in an unhealthy activity. What about laws making it illegal to drive on less than four hours of sleep? After all being sleep deprived can have just as severe an impact on reaction times as being drunk. The reason we don’t hear these laws being pushed is because the motivation behind these comments is as much moral disapproval as public safety. The reason the anti-smoking campaigners don’t feel the need to look at the statistics is because they find smoking morally distasteful. They want to eliminate smoking not make sure the enjoyment people get from cigarettes outweighs the cost. Many of these same advocates even oppose completely tobacco synthetic nicotine cigarettes which eliminate or drastically reduce the vast majority of smoking dangers.

Similarly the motivation to strengthen laws against drunk driving is as much to punish those bad people who drink and drive as it is to actually save lives. When people consider laws that restrict tired people from driving or old people from driving they worry about issues like compliance and inconvenience for these groups. In contrast people don’t consider the inconvenience to party goers or sports fans when advocating more stringent laws on drunk driving and instead of measuring costs and benefits they adopt the same ‘get tough’ attitude we see in other morally charged issues like drug abuse.

It is annoying enough when people try and unnecessarily force their value judgments on others. Just because you value your health more than the pleasure of nicotine doesn’t mean everyone does. However, it is absolutely infuriating when people do so in the name of public concern. This is especially outrageous when the attitude actually harms public welfare as I think is happening in the smoking situation. I’m not sure if that is actually the case in these two particular situations but the replacement of measured consideration with moral outrage tells me it is only a lucky coincidence if that isn’t happening here.

So I just heard a very well done interview on NPR talking about journalistic hysteria about drug use. They exposed the fact that respectable papers have reported on meth babies with arms growing out of their necks despite total absence of any first hand documentation. Additionally they attacked the newsweek story, asserted to be representative of much drug content, as inferring an epidemic of meth from anecdotal evidence despite the fact that governmental figures show no recent increase in usage. However, what really took the cake and inspired this post was the ridiculous statistics from the meth is death campaign. A campaign linked off of the DEA website and run by the Tennessee district attorney’s office.

Amazingly all on the same page this campaign claims the following:

• “First, there’s the fact that 99 percent of first-time meth users are hooked after the first try.”
• Amazing on the same page we see: “95% of those who are hooked on meth became hooked after the first time.”
• “Only 5 percent of meth addicts are able to kick it and stay away.”
• “From the first hit to the last breath, the life expectancy of a habitual meth user is only 5 years.”

There are plenty of other ridiculous claims on the website, for instance the argument that cockroaches will live through a nuclear disaster but stay away from meth labs (does anyone here think there was a peer reviewed study about cockroach behavior around meth labs?). However, the claims I mentioned (pointed out by the NPR report) really take the cake. Once you combine these claims with the easily locatable (not an endorsement) information that 4.7 million US citizens have tried methamphetamine one is lead immediately to the absurd conclusion that 4.5 million americans should be dying from meth related fatalities.

I realize that bad reporting about drugs is unlikely to surprise anyone reading this but it still drives me to rant. How the hell can such ridiculous misinformation be published by governmental sources and not generate outrage? What is it about illegal drugs which causes them to be regarded as moral infractions as well as potential health problems?