Sources of Knowledge for Methamphetamine Abuse and Addiction - Term Paper Example

? Sources of Knowledge for Methamphetamine Abuse and Addiction Fjonald Cibaku  Drug and Abuse 110  Prof. Finkelstein  5/15/11  Until the last few years, there had been extensive media coverage of a wide-spread drug abuse and addiction problem with methamphetamine. The drug, known on the street as meth, crystal, glass, or snow depending on the way it is taken, is considered to be highly addictive. As the level of addiction to meth became more and more widespread, media coverage abounded, highlighting all the known details. Though the coverage has slowed down along with the usage, even today, websites abound with information on the drug (most commonly known as “meth”), how to recognize its use and abuse, and what the effects of both short and prolonged use are on the body. Two such websites, one hosted by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the other by PARENTS: The Anti-Drug, offer differing perspectives on meth. NIDA is an organization that was founded in the late 1990’s to conduct empirical research and provide scientific data on various drug abuse and addiction. The National Institute of Drug Abuse is a subset of the US Department of Health and Human Services, which continues the Department’s goals of “protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves” (“HHS.gov”). The idea behind the website is that with scientific data, widespread dissemination, and effective treatment tools, the people of this nation can identify, treat, and reduce abuse and addiction to drugs. In situations where NIDA has been unable to identify a satisfactorily effective treatment plan that can be undertaken on an outpatient or non-patient (that is, in home) basis, the site provides contact information to proper facilities that are equipped to handle the given situation. “NIDA InfoFacts: Methamphetamine” was not accredited to any particular individual or group within NIDA, and is assumed to be a compilation of efforts amongst the employees of the website. According to their page on meth “Methamphetamine is a central nervous system stimulant drug that is similar in structure to amphetamine” (“National Institute on Drug Abuse”). The site notes that the drug is highly addictive, and is therefore classified as a “Schedule II drug”, but it does not explain what it is about the drug that makes it addictive. Nor does the site detail how those addictive aspects affect the body, though the effects themselves are listed. When reading through the material, it is sometimes difficult to have a clear idea of what is being discussed, since so little clarifying and descriptive information is offered. For example, NIDA lists “meth mouth,” tremors, hallucinations, insomnia, and decreased appetite among the negative effects of using methamphetamine. While “meth mouth” sounds intimidating and unpleasant, no details were given as to exactly what comprises “meth mouth.” The reader is left to find out for themselves, or come up with something on their own. One can assume that “meth mouth,” since it is a visible symptom of methamphetamine abuse, causes some kind of problem with the teeth. Of course, that could be discoloration, rotting, or something that causes the teeth to fall out entirely. Again, without a clear description of the symptom, it’s difficult for the reader to really understand what they are being told. NIDA continues its article to say that in recent years (these being between 2002 and 2008), the widespread use of methamphetamine has been decreasing. According to the Monitoring the Future survey, meth use has reached an all-time low of only 1.2% of reported use by High School students (“National Institute on Drug Abuse”). More recent data is available elsewhere, but NIDA’s site was last updated in March of 2010, and so their data, though striking, is slightly behind. It should be noted that because the editors of the site included proper linking to the Monitoring the Future survey, which is consistently updated, an interested reader can go immediately to the survey’s home page and read the most current information available. Throughout the site, the information listed was interesting but largely unsupported by external evidence. That is to say, there were several instances of the site making claims that were not backed up by tangible evidence. For instance, the above-listed definition of methamphetamine, which does not indicate why or how the drug is highly addictive. Also, the following statement may be taken for example: Taking even small amounts of methamphetamine can result in many of the same physical effects as those of other stimulants, such as cocaine or amphetamines, including increased wakefulness, increased physical activity, decreased appetite, increased respiration, rapid heart rate, irregular heartbeat, increased blood pressure, and hyperthermia (“National Institute on Drug Abuse”). In this statement, there are no references to how much of the drug comprises a “small amount,” what other stimulants it is being compared to, or any quantifiable change in the listed physiological effects. There is no way of truly knowing the effects of methamphetamine if the reader is only using the NIDA site for information. Unfortunately, the other site visited was hardly better. In fact, one might say that it was in some ways worse than the NIDA site. PARENTS: The Anti-Drug is a website designed to give parents necessary information to know if their children are using and abusing various drugs. The site also provides information on how to deal with the problem if it turns out that there is one, in the form of where to seek treatment, and some at-home options. PARENTS: The Anti-Drug is sponsored by the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, which was founded in 1998 to “prevent and reduce youth drug use” (“ONDCP”). The Anti-Drug page on methamphetamine does not cite a particular author, and so is accredited to the site as a whole. The article, “Meth,” primarily focused on the uses of meth that appeal to kids, as well as the effects that those kids face when they abuse the drug. Much of the information listed on the NIDA site is also listed in this article. However, there is a slightly greater focus on connecting information about the drug to the way it can affect children. For example, “Adult methamphetamine addicts often become so obsessed with the drug that they neglect their children” (“PARENTS: The Anti-Drug”). Going in to greater descriptive detail than NIDA’s site, “Meth” explains the drug in the following way: Methamphetamine is an addictive stimulant drug that strongly activates certain systems in the brain. Methamphetamine is closely related chemically to amphetamine, but the central nervous system effects of methamphetamine are greater. Both drugs have some medical uses, primarily in the treatment of obesity, but their therapeutic use is limited (“PARENTS: The Anti-Drug”). The reader then finds a detailed breakdown of various physiological impacts methamphetamine can have on the body. The article lists neurological hazards, causes of addiction, and short- and long-term effects. However, the reader should be cautioned that none of the information listed is given any supporting evidence. Throughout the article, many claims are made, almost none of which are substantiated with external sources. The only outside source mentioned on the page is the Monitoring the Future survey which was also listed on NIDA’s website. Though information from the Monitoring the Future survey was used on the page, the source was not properly cited on the PARENTS: The Anti-Drug website, and no link was made to visit the survey on another page. Therefore, should the reader be interested in viewing that information for themselves, they would have to find the survey through a separate search. A final, large complaint about the PARENTS site is that there is no information on how recent their data is. Throughout both the article and the webpage, there is no reference to specific dates that would serve as a reference point for the reader. Without such a reference point, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the reader to come away with a solid idea of current information on methamphetamine. In my personal opinion, there were rather extensive problems with both of the websites I reviewed. NIDA’s site did not offer enough descriptive information, which would have been great for giving the reader a solid idea of what methamphetamine does to the body. To write an article about a highly addictive drug using mainly generalities seems like a waste of time, because it’s much harder to take data seriously when you can’t form a concrete understanding of it. Also, with the bulk of their data coming from at least a few years past, NIDA puts the duty of finding current information on the reader. The site mitigates this only slightly by linking their information to the source’s home page, which generally has up-to-date information. Though NIDA should take responsibility for providing the most recent information available to substantiate their claims, at least they offer an interested reader the opportunity to find the most current information on their own. The PARENTS site, while offering better descriptions, undermined their efforts by not citing external sources almost at all. Widespread use of the Internet has allowed everybody and their brother’s dog to log on and post just about whatever they want whenever they want. There is so much garbage and unsubstantiated information on the Web, it’s vital to cite your sources if you want to be taken seriously. Not only do you need to cite your sources, but you also need to ensure that the sources you cite are credible. A reader would be much less likely to trust in information on drug abuse that was offered up by a group of nuns who have never left the convent. Similarly, and as is much more likely to occur, one ought to be wary of accepting as true information that was written in blog form by some nameless person with no identifiable credentials. For all the reader knows, the author could be a middle school child completing a school project, rather than a knowledgeable professional with valid and useful information to offer. With that being said, I would have to say that I found the NIDA site to be more credible. They could certainly benefit from expanding the information they currently have listed, as well as update that information so that it is more current, but overall it was a good site. I found the information that they did list to be accurate (when double-checked on the cited sources), if not comprehensive. The PARENTS site seemed to write its entire article based on common knowledge rather than empirical data, and so it was hard to take their information at face value. References: "About HHS." HHS.gov. US Department of Health and Human Services, n.d. Web. 15 May 2011. . "Meth (Methamphetamine)." PARENTS: The Anti-Drug. PARENTS: The Anti-Drug, n.d. Web. 15 May 2011. . "NIDA InfoFacts: Methamphetamine." National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Institutes of Health, Mar 2010. Web. 15 May 2011. . ONDCP National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. ONDCP, n.d. Web. 15 May 2011. . Read More