Comments:

Mike - 2007-09-13 12:26:42
"95 percent of longterm meth users are hooked after one try." This is one of those statistics that really bothers me. Most people read it as "most people who try meth once end up hooked," which is not what the statistic is saying at all. This gets used with pot a lot to show that it is a "gateway drug," by saying that 98% of heroin addicts tried pot first. Well, of course, who tries heroin without hitting a joint or sipping a beer first. A much more relevant and descriptive statistic would be that 95% of people who smoke marijuana never go on to try heroin, and neither of those two statistics contradict each other. While it may be true that 95% of meth users are hooked after one try (however that was determined), it could also be true, without contradiction, that only 5% of people who try meth end up hooked (not that I'm saying that is true). You can convince people of anything using statistics that don't actually say anything.
-------------------------------
Laura (Ypsidixit) - 2007-09-13 13:19:32
Mike, you are absolutely right. The statement is totally ambiguous. It could mean either "95% of all people who try meth get hooked the first time they try it" OR (more likely, as you point out) "95% of the population identified as hardcore meth users said that, in their case, they got hooked on the first try" (a much smaller overall number of people!)

You make another important point: correlation is not causation.

Let me dig around and see if I can find some more reliable meth stats--and, as I infer from your comment, with this sort of thing you also have to consider the source and what their agenda is.
-------------------------------
Mike - 2007-09-13 14:57:15
Well, no, it couldn't really mean that "95% of people who try meth get hooked the first time they try it." That is also a statement that could, or could not be, true, but cannot really be extrapolated in any way from the original statement. The original statement is not ambiguous, but is rather just kind of a useless statement thought up by fearmongers to elicit an emotional response in order to gain unthinking support for their particular cause. For example, here is a completely true, unambiguous statement: 100% of alcoholics start out drinking water. For the record, I agree that meth is dangerous, I just feel that it, like most other drugs, is blown out of proportion by advocates of a drug war that does little to nothing to treat addiction, and instead mostly serves to increase drug use and violence.
-------------------------------
Ypsidixit - 2007-09-13 15:09:51
Oops. I see where I misunderstood that "95%" statistic. You wre right--sorry, I misunderstood it. Which illustrates how easy it is to misinterpret such a statistic.

Hmm. I do think that meth is in a somewhat different class then other drugs, based on what I've read. Much more instantly addictive--and the average lifespan for a steady meth user from first hit to last one is...5 years. That is all. That shocked me, but on second thought it wasn't surprising, given the way it accelerates heart rate and other body symptoms. Given that, perhaps the scary stories and dire warnings are less out of proportion with meth than with less unforgiving drugs.

I do see your fearmongering point, though. I lose respect for whatever cause is in question if I feel I'm being manipulated. I haven't felt that way, though, with the facts and figures I've read about meth, thus far.
-------------------------------

add your comment:

back to the entry - Diaryland