Propaganda Within the War on Drugs

A Rebuttal to Kristina Jones’s Article, “New Candy Drug Hits West Coast,” Published with Associated Content.com

BIRMINGHAM-Though perhaps unknown to Kristina Jones, the article “New Candy Drug Hits West Coast,” contains insinuations and falsities that actually hamper the prevention of the ongoing spread of substance abuse. The article is obviously well researched, investigated, and well written by a very talented writer, and the misinformation found there certainly is not the fault of the author. Within the misperceived “underworld” of drug addiction, there are many truthful facts concerning health, personality changes, overdose, neglect, the breakdown of priorities, alienation, and withdrawal. Still, no matter how shocking these truths are, they eventually lose their vigor when grouped along with the false and sometimes even preposterous claims from both authorities and health care workers fighting within the “War on Drugs.”

In view of that, let’s get one thing straight: just because someone has dealt or is presently dealing drugs (although it is absolutely not a commendable nor legal act but still, to an addict, sometimes a necessary evil and therefore justifiable to them), this in no way whatsoever should ever imply that the dealer is selling drugs to children. Having been a methamphetamine dealer before, and being enormously experienced in that “field,” if you will, I can be considered one who can relay the facts as they truly are. Yet, the reality that I have sold drugs before does not make my statements biased to any degree, due to having emerged triumphant from the crippling despair of drug abuse and the entrapping methods used to support a habit, especially one which many victims unfortunately find too difficult to lay down.

Further, in the eight years that I used and sold drugs, particularly methamphetamine, I knew of only two dealers of whom it was rumored may be selling their product to minors (meaning eighteen or younger). Both of these people were subsequently “cut off,” a phrase dealers use to convey the fact that the person is no longer allowed to purchase any drugs from that certain clique that they may then sell.

Education seems to be the answer to almost any widespread problem that we as a nation are facing. The propaganda used to label users and hinder progress and confidence in recovery has to be exposed for what it is, or we are damned to stay in one place as a nation, at least on a social level of responsibility, as we just keep on passing things over by declaring, “that’s not my job!” Therefore, the following paragraphs touch upon information that brings clarity into the growing fog of misinformation found within the claims of the “War on Drugs.”

While it is a common myth that many meth dealers “cook up” a batch in their bathtubs at home (or anywhere, for that matter), most dealers buy their product from larger-scale dealers. Most of those larger-scale dealers either pull in their product from California, Texas, or Mexico, or from a middleman who buys from a connection in California, Texas, or Mexico.

In addition, there have been statements in the past which claim that everything and anything from Clorox bleach to a well-known indoor roach spray is used to make methamphetamine. This is not the case with actual meth. Of course, there is no way to know what someone used in a batch they “whip up,” but there are ways to tell if you are getting the “real deal.” For instance, the product differs by a large margin between the “homemade” product and that made by a do-it-yourself-mom-and-pop-lab at home. When a user has purchased what they would call “real meth” or “ice,” it is different from mom and pop’s recipe in many ways. From the appearance, to the taste, to the way it melts down when heated, obvious, easily seen characteristics tell the user if he/she is buying something potentially more hazardous than “real meth.”

When classifying a drug addict or drug dealer, grouping them into the different categories of people ranked within a society, very seldom are we able to look at the person being labeled. On the news or in a magazine, one may hear of a drug dealer gunning down another person, selling drugs to kids, or committing any of the horrific and violent acts one may perpetuate on mankind. Understandably, it is then decided that drug dealers are of an unconscionable sort who beat their loved ones and howl at the moon. Though I have met two who were said to be without guilt of any committed act, the majority of the dealers I have known actually do have at least something resembling a heart. It is not the heart they had before drugs or before instant gratification became possible, no. It certainly is not the same heart that he/she had before shame and guilt gripped every moment. One thing is well known in central Alabama, at least: it is not cool to sell drugs to kids. Knowing that we Alabamians are not on a higher spiritual plane, nor do we boast intelligence quotients as being in a higher rank than the rest of the country. So chances are, there are other people across the United States who believe that dealing drugs to kids is a despicable act, even though they create their ethics among criminals.

The old gangster movies depicting a burly man in a black suit named Tony or Knuckles who breaks down a door searching for someone who owes his boss money just is not reality. Actually, the guy’s name is Roger. Seriously, people who become addicted to drugs and then find a way to support their habits through dealing are common folks, just like you. They are mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and even full-time jobholders. They are not necessarily a tattooed, bull-like man who takes a debt out on a person’s knees.

Very often, it has been my experience that a drug dealer will feel sympathy for a user. I cannot count the times I wiped away debt because emergencies developed within a user’s life. Although I took measure to ensure that I was being handed the truth (as drug addicts are the best liars on earth), I routinely came out “in the red, financially.” More often than not, due to me allowing a more affordable price, or turning money away because the customer had a utility bill due and the absence of power at their home would have affected their families. It could be said that the drugs affected their families worse than being without power would have, but the user would have found the drug somewhere else had I refused to sell to them. This could be said to have been an eventuality resulting from excuse on my part back then, but for which I would assume the responsibility to allow him/her to pay me back later.

Still, some dealers in America are very bad to the core, belonging in a prison, yes. But if I were ever asked to count how many out of 100 would ever create or market a drug with children as its target group, I would say that perhaps two of them would have been so brazen. And so financially stupid. Unbelievable? No. This is why: there is a much larger group of dealers who would see that kind of horrendous act as being unforgivable. Not only would someone like that be “cut off,” but also they may suffer on a greater scale of loss if they had done something like that here, in Alabama. Even though a manufacturer of the product, he/she would not be considered “top of the food chain.” It just would not have been tolerated. Moreover, I am quite sure that we Alabamians do not have a deeper emotional threshold than anyone else in this country. And it’s not something in the water, here, either, folks.

Which leads me to address the statements made in the “New Candy” article that are false, unsupported, and absurd. They are as follows:

Falsity: “This new drug is intended to hook kids….”

Truth (a): There are many methamphetamine users who partake of the drug by the method of oral ingestion. I myself remember that wrapping a chunk of it in a small, thin piece of tissue paper which kept the user from swearing and stomping about for ten minutes or so – yes, it tastes that bad. Many truckers I sold to preferred dropping some in their steaming coffee to begin their long hauls. Some of them said they could still taste a hint of it in the coffee, however, and would actually decrease the amount of the drug although they loved using it, due to the taste. Instead, they would drink more cups of “seasoned” coffee. These points in mind, it is completely obvious why someone decided to make it taste better.

Truth (b): No matter which type of evil form of methamphetamine that a user prefers, whether crystal meth (normally a powder form) or “ice,” (a harder, rocked form), the target group of buyers for the drug that the “chef” has in mind are the users who have the money to pay him for what he produces. Even if I were heartless enough to want kids to sample my drug, chances are, they would not be able to afford it! Compare the cost of methamphetamine to the cost of marijuana, in the measurement of what is called a “quarter-o,” (a quarter of an ounce): In Birmingham, a user will pay anywhere from $475-$550 for a quarter-ounce of methamphetamine, verses $40-$125 for a quarter-ounce of marijuana, the $125 being for what is known as “hydro,” top-of-the-line, “one puff’ll do ya” greenery. Now, keeping the price difference in mind, ask yourself this: could you easily afford a methamphetamine vice? Do you think a child could? Would a dealer want to practically give his product away, since his desired target group does not easily afford it? Dealers are normally a holder of that career choice because they must support their own habit(s). Do you honestly believe he/she will want to experiment with such a costly product, while the experimental “targeted” group is one that promises no immediate return or near-future gain? This could cause the dealer to possibly have to go without his own DOC (drug of choice) in order to afford to give it to kids. Drug dealing is not normally a career in which you decide to “take one for the team,” lest someone believes that a dealer would introduce a drug to a select group because there is a chance they may make someone else some money years down the road.

Truth Based on Falsity: “Attorney General Rob McKenna says, ‘It is despicable to market methamphetamine to anybody, but particularly abhorrent to consciously market it toward kids’.”

Truth: I could not agree more, Mr. Attorney General, if that in fact was a potential reality and not the attempted plot of a new spun-out B-movie. Moreover, I can say, from being on that end of the spectrum, that anyone who actually does consciously market it toward kids is an imbecile when it comes to financial endeavors, and will be out of “the Game” in no time, flat. Might this quote be from an archived political file marked “Let general public think I’m saving the day” speech, Sir? The War on Drugs, indeed….

Falsity: “Some have even admitted to cooking the drug with Coca-Cola and other flavors of soda.”

Truth: Someone may have actually found a group of teens that tried the drug; I will give in to that possibility, as I am not suggesting that there are not kids who do drugs. The problem is this, however: it is just as likely that the teens were acting out the “tough, experienced user” routine in front of their peers, due to the fact that the statement made about cooking it with cola unveils their ignorance to how it is made, though they claim to have done just that. To my knowledge, there is no way to cook methamphetamine with a carbonated liquid. But for argument’s sake, I called an ex-manufacturer who has now been in recovery and completely clean for three years. Given the scoop, he had this to state: “It wouldn’t work. I don’t think you should list why it wouldn’t in a formula for the world to see, Jeanne . . . . If somebody wanted to just flavor it, that wouldn’t be in the ‘cooking process’. It’s too tricky for a kid to make. They were just talking big. Now what they could be doing is flavoring some kind of cut, like a horse vitamin or something from a feed store.” (“Cut” refers to an additive that looks and appears to be the same as meth, cocaine, heroin, etc., but actually does not contain the drug. The real product is “cut” to lower the amount of the drug per whatever measured amount is intended to be sold, thereby raising the amount of profit. What Robert was suggesting may be taking place is that the teens are being sold or are making then selling cut, or essentially a fake product.

Robert also went on to explain that considering the challenge faced when “cooking” meth, any experienced manufacturer will tell you that the process would not be mastered in one’s teen years, not enough to create a product which not only acts, reacts (and by all other definition, is) in the form of actual methamphetamine, but which is also in a candied form that tastes like chocolate. He said this undertaking would challenge an experienced chemist (as far as being able to produce a product that burned, smoked, felt the way meth does).

Given the process of making methamphetamine, I have a hard time believing children master this volatile undertaking in any manner. That is not to say they absolutely cannot, it is just unlikely. Then, when paired with the cola claims, impossible.

Falsity: “Dr. Alex Stalcup said one of his patients did not know the substance was methamphetamine at all. The patient claimed he was told it was a solid form of the energy drink Red Bull. Dr. Stalcup said, ‘This is clearly a drug to be introduced to children’.”

Truth (a): I would be willing to bet that this doctor has seen this exact thing take place with other patients, other substances, and the same substance in a different form, many times over, in every age group. If the statistics calculated on how many folks have tried methamphetamine are true, his apparent surprise in the event is a bit strange. It also stands to reason that if an adult female is admitted to the ER with problems resulting from the use of “meth candy,” the target group could quite possibly be bored females with a sweet tooth. The point is, there is no way to prove his statement as being fact.

Truth (b): Though we all make mistakes in our teen years, it makes sense those teens that court abstinence over the lure of drug use desire to be with friends who also support abstinence from drugs. I am not suggesting that kids who do not leave an event that offers the use of drugs just deserves whatever happens to them (please do not misunderstand this). I do find it hard to believe that the patient Dr. Stalcup examined was in an environment including the illicit drug methamphetamine, but not question or even decline something he was offered, or not really have a clue that the illicit drug was available. Under those circumstances, would one actually be inclined to tell the truth to parents and doctors, especially knowing full well how society deems those who use illegal substances? If the young man was telling the truth, he would not have been as willing in accepting a substance with which he is not familiar. In light of the education on substances schools offer that generation presently, chances are, he knew full well what he was receiving, but over-did it and became frightened. That is very scary, and I imagine a teenager would be extremely frightened when the paranoia and possible delusional side-effects set in on one who does too much too fast. Further, if he really was aware of what he was ingesting, he will be more confident next time around because he essentially “got away with it.”

The “War on Drugs” is now like the visual representation of a sweat bee that will not give up on merely pestering a massive horse, no pun intended. There seems to be no answer in sight, especially since drug use is allowed to be glamorized throughout our culture, and the glamorization is protected as statements that have an amendment-stated right to be expressed to your children.

Sometimes it seems that the goal will be reached sooner if young people are told and taught anything that makes them fear drugs. To a degree, perhaps this is so. But when the statements and theories and claims being expressed during this war are so palpably false, enraging society against a group of people, what chance is there that the group of people will ever get a grip and go into recovery, which would make the larger difference? If you are labeled a child abuser, which is exactly what a person who gives drugs to a minor basically is, if not an attempted murderer (in my opinion), what are the chances you will ever believe in yourself to the degree it takes to leave the lifestyle and the drugs for which you will ever be remembered?

America must wake up! As long as ignorance is heralded due to a political figure’s attempts at satisfying his need for self glorification . . . . As long as unfounded notions are spread throughout America as the newest boogeyman . . . . As long as the red-herring-cloaked boogeyman is allowed to draw our attention away from real issues which are consequently ignored (i.e., why many kids actually accept at a young age that the only way out of poverty for them is to support and sell that which kills off their own people and creates dangers for those whom they love) . . . . Your children will be so confused over what is right and what is wrong . . . .

And that, in itself, could create enough inner strife while growing up in a world of authority and accountability that periodic escape from reality can actually be seen as, well, not too bad of an idea at all.

Source page:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/144391/new_candy_drug_hits_west_coast.html