Meth Madness

For $5 million, Arizona can grow its population of meth users -- just like Montana

The voice wafting over the airwaves is identified only as Jen, 15.

In the flat tone of someone who's seen it all and hated every minute, Jen describes first using crystal meth as an 11-year-old.

Later, while using, Jen got raped, but she didn't report it, didn't even seem to care. After all, her rapist provided her with more drugs.

IMAGES COURTESY OF MONTANA METH PROJECT
IMAGES COURTESY OF MONTANA METH PROJECT

"That's when I started selling my body for meth," Jen says. "I don't know anyone who's quit using meth after they tried it a couple times, or just once."

It's a theme that's repeated, again and again, in the radio and television advertisements from the Montana Meth Project. Don't do it once, or you'll get hooked.

Each ad's tag line drives the point home: "Meth: Not even once."

The $5.5 million campaign, developed and funded privately by a software billionaire, launched in Montana last fall. It's been hailed by media across the nation as a brilliant and bold solution to the nation's meth problem -- in the words of journalists from New York to Missoula, a "shockingly graphic," "powerful" set of words and images that's virtually saturated Montana's airwaves and which is sure to show big results.

Arizona's leaders, who have been struggling with this state's own meth problem, couldn't help but notice. And now a team led by Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley wants to use an estimated $5.7 million in government funds to run the Montana advertisements here.

Three Arizona officials, including Stapley, flew to Montana last week to meet with the project's leaders. While the money hasn't yet been appropriated, the deal seems ready to close almost solely on its own adrenaline.

"I just don't think we have time to waste," Goddard told the Arizona Republic in a story published April 17.

But once again, it seems as if local leaders are grasping desperately at a solution to the meth epidemic that may sound great, but doesn't actually hold up under scrutiny.

Last year it was the idea that restricting sales of cold medicine will dry up the state's meth problem. Similar laws have now been passed in 28 Arizona cities; there's no evidence that use has declined ("The New Meth," March 30).

And while prevention is, indeed, an important piece of any serious strategy to deal with meth use, seizing onto the Montana project is the latest example of expecting an easy solution for a complex problem.

At the time when Goddard made his remarks to the Republic last week, the Montana Meth Project had yet to release any serious statistical analysis.

But now the data is out. And the state senator who first made contact with staffers at the Montana project, John Huppenthal, R-Chandler, is now expressing serious doubts about a number of the ads and their focus.

There's good reason for that. The Montana Meth Project's own survey, released for the first time April 19, hardly paints a glowing picture of success.

Instead, the survey indicates that, after the ads blanketed the airwaves in Montana for seven months -- at a cost of millions of dollars -- Montana teens are actually less likely to associate trying meth with "great" or "moderate" risk. The same teens were also less likely to associate those risk levels with regular use.

Some specifics: Before the ads ran, 96 percent of Montana teens 12 to 17 thought there was "great or moderate" risk associated with regular meth use.

After seven months of seeing the ads, however, only 91 percent thought the risk level was that high. And a full 8 percent reported that there was "no risk" to regular meth use -- an increase of 5 percent from the pre-campaign number.

Both changes, according to the researchers hired by the Montana Meth Project, are statistically significant.

That doesn't surprise Richard Rawson. As associate director of the UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, he's been studying meth addiction for years. He's also the point man on meth for the National Institute of Drug Addiction, part of the National Institutes of Health.

To him, the problem is the very core of the campaign: the idea that if, like 11-year-old Jen, you try meth once, you're going to get hooked.

The ads are a "classic example," Rawson says, of the Reefer Madness-style anti-drug ads that tend to backfire on savvy teens.

By the time they're 14 or 15, some of them surely know someone who's tried meth once. And maybe those kids aren't hooked. Maybe they seem just fine.

The viewers' own personal experience may convince them that the ads are gross exaggerations, Rawson says. And at that point, the very real message that should be getting through -- that using meth is apt to destroy your life -- is lost.

Rawson says that he personally urged the Montana group to rethink its message, and that other researchers did, too.

(Despite repeated attempts, the Montana project's Seattle-based public relations reps failed to produce anyone for an interview.)

"We warned them, 'Don't do Reefer Madness,'" Rawson says. "There aren't many facts we have in terms of drug-abuse prevention -- but one that we do have is that scaring people with inaccurate information is not useful, and it's counterproductive."

1
 
2
 
3
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
1 comments
michelle
michelle

*~Meth~*.I have done meth for 20yrs now and by no means am I proud to disclose this information!! I was 18 when I started,now I'm 38 and yes still very much addicted:(!! It is very addicting and not worth even trying that one time.If I would have know then what I know now I would have never even tryed it once.But back then you didn't hear or it wasn't really talked about because it was not the major choice of drug,cocaine was.Meth does not descriminate...once it has you its gonna be a long,miserable,F~UP ride with the "Devil" right by your side. You lose the true you,whats inside your heart and what you could have become or accomplised in life..and possibly even more than that..its pure evil:(!!I have to commend all who have won the fight:)I wish I had your strength or the money for rehab but 20,000 or more a month for in-patient what drug user can afford that??? So why is treatment so expensive??? I know I would like to get treatment but I need in-patient that I can't afford and I know out-patient isn't for me...also...I'm a total failure on my own:(!!So what's a drug addict to do????

 
Phoenix Concert Tickets
Loading...