Meth Fighters in Denial?
Meth Project Has Sparked Criticism, Questions, for Years
Ever since its 2005 launch, the Montana Meth Project has taken credit for big declines in teen methamphetamine use, saying its grisly ad campaigns are a success. But press reports -- and a scientific study -- suggest the claims are overstated. Or downright dubious.By Amy Linn, 7-06-09
Meth: not even once. That message—along with depictions of teens picking at imaginary bugs under their skin, prostituting themselves, beating up their mom, and other horrors—has reached up to 90 percent of the teenagers in Montana, according to the Montana Meth Project.
The ad saturation and scare tactics are a huge success, says the four-year-old nonprofit group. In a press release last week, the Project gave itself kudos for reducing the number of teenagers who are trying the deadly drug. According to the group’s press release, the Montana Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a poll taken every two years by the Montana Office of Public Instruction, “has found that Meth use among teens in the state has dropped by 63 percent since 2005, when the Meth Project first launched its prevention campaign.”
But has it?
A fine story published in the Missoulian this past weekend by Ed Kemmick of the Billings Gazette—and the award-winning 2006 investigation by Missoula Independent writer Jessie McQuillan—reveal that the Meth project isn’t answering hard questions about the program’s effectiveness, or apparently even discussing them.
Tom Siebel, the billionaire founder of the project, declined Kemmick’s request for an interview. This, despite the fact that Siebel’s peers—experts in the field of drug abuse—were expressing doubts about the Meth Project’s methods, statements and success rates.
One researcher, David Erceg-Hurn, an Australian psychologist, investigated the Meth Project and published his results in the December 2008 issue of Prevention Science, a highly-respected peer-reviewed journal. “The key finding of the study was that many of the claims the Meth Project has made are not supported by evidence,” Erceg-Hurn concluded.
Ninety three percent of teens thought using meth was dangerous and strongly disapproved of it before the Meth Project started, so the ad campaign’s usefulness is debatable, he found. The number of teens who strongly disapproved and thought meth was dangerous has actually increased slightly since the project started, Erceg-Hurn wrote. More damningly, “The Meth Project’s own surveys indicate that teenage meth use in Montana has not declined, but may have increased slightly ... If meth use has declined, there is no evidence that it is due to the ad campaign,” he found.
Instead, other factors might have contributed to the decline, such as Montana’s 2005 ban on over-the-counter sales of pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in meth. There’s also been a downward trend in methamphetamine use nationwide that’s attributable to generic upward and downward spikes in drug use, not linked to any one anti-drug campaign.
One would think, given that the Meth Project describes itself as a research-based program—and given that it is receiving $500,000 of public funds—that the group would be deeply interested in any and all research about meth abuse in general and the Meth Project’s effectiveness in particular. Instead, Meth Project Board Member Mike McGrath, the former state attorney general and current chief justice of the Montana Supreme Court, told reporter Kemmick that he didn’t even read the Erceg-Hurn study.
“I didn’t really feel I needed to,” McGrath is quoted. Erceg-Hurn is “just a guy from Australia,” McGrath adds.
Erceg-Hurn might be a guy from Australian, but he’s also a guy from Australia who started investigating anti-drug projects in 2007 to try and figure out how to combat the catastrophic problem of meth abuse around the world. He’d seen years of research about how “scaring kids clean” didn’t work (and sometimes even backfired and boosted drug use). He was curious about the Meth Project’s claims—and would have been happy if they’d proved true.
We’ll all be happy if they prove true. But we do need the proof.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
There have been no baseline controls for before/after comparison, no comparison of what has happened to meth delicne in other states, no factoring out of the natural decline of meth use nationwide. For the Montana Meth project to claim success without simple experimental protocols is dubious at best, fradulent at worse.
Yes, we all want Meth reduction. But the Montana Meth project is playing on fears to raise funds for their unscientific fear-based approach. They haven't factored out what would have happened in Montana without the Montana Meth project. You'd have to be on, well, on Meth to believe their data.
-Jon Cheever
Another low-cost, volunteer and PSA campaign in Oregon used real teenagers who wrote their own scripts from their own experiences and those of their friends. This was much more successful.
I'm afraid Tom Seibel has been taken for a ride by the commercial advertising salespeople. At least 90% of the $10 million he contributed to the campaign has been media buys. Plus, there is a paid staff which has every incentive to keep doing what they've been doing.
I recently met someone who works for Tom, and he offered to put me in touch with a former director of the MMP who has since parted company with the program. So far, I haven't heard back from that person. There's no doubt that Tom is public-spirited and very interested in improving schools and other opportunities for youth. I just don't think he's had enough oversight, or is listening to the right people about this program. I hope to meet with him sometime soon and give him some independent feedback about it.
Obviously, Gov. Schweitzer and other state officials are not entirely sold on the MMP, either. Yet, the person I talked with said it is being expanded to 8 other states.
Add to all of the above, the fact that there is now an epidemic of teenage abuse of prescription drugs, most of them supplied under the CHIP program to combat depression, ADHD, and other behavioral problems. I have been a strong critic of this "drugs in the schools" program since i was a teacher in the early 1990's, and also part of an ADD support group.
Drugging kids with taxpayer's money to "improve" behavior and classroom performance is a very bad idea from every perspective. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the real "gateway" to meth problems once the student is out of school and no longer able to get amphetamines for free.
But i have yet to convince a single teacher or school psychologist (let alone a Democrat CHIP supporter) of this. It's all just "anecdotal" to them, but no one seems to be interested in any peer-reviewed research, either.
http://www.missoulanews.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=533B1A41-2BF4-55D0-F1FB64E83ABDBD8B
Meth manufacturing in Montana has been declining ever since the Legislature outlawed the over-the-counter sale of pseudo-ephedrine, and teen use of meth was never that great. I drove a cab up to Oct 2004, and I talked with a number of meth addicts on parole or in pre-release. Those who were under 18 when they began using it were nearly all girls, whose (older) boyfriends addicted them in order to force them into selling it. Out of about 30 women in pre-release, nearly all of them were there for meth or pharmaceutical addiction (or for stealing money to support their habits).
When amphetamines were legal and widely prescribed (diet pills, truckers, and those who wanted to drink more without passing out), there were a lot more amphetamine addicts. Prolonged use makes you paranoid and otherwise dysfunctional. But there was practically no crime problem associated with it. Clean, pharmaceutical quality Dexadrine, Benzadrene, etc. isn't nearly as addictive, and doesn't destroy your health like home-made meth does. Even so, it can be "soaked down" and injected, which some of my friends did back in the 1970's.
Yes, young people did become addicted to it ("speed freaks"), but it was a small fraction of the recreational "drug culture." By lumping in marijuana and cocaine as "narcotics" and punishing their users and suppliers equally, all of the incentives go towards encouraging the cheaper and more powerful meth use.
And as the Independent article and all research clearly states, the damage from alcohol is far greater than that from any drug, although the recent explosion in teen abuse of pharmaceuticals is getting all the headlines, now. Why doesn't the "Montana Meth Project" address these issues, instead of beating what is essentially a dead horse?
Why isn't that campaign running in New York City, where they have many more meth addicts and recovery programs.
Siebel should not be patting himself on the back - he should be apologizing for having wasted lots of money that could have gone into ANTI-ALCOHOL ADS - NOW THERE'S A PROBLEM THAT MONTANANS CAN RELATE TO.