Full Court Press
One thing is clear as we come down the stretch on the funding questions for the Montana Meth Project: It’s much more about politics than facts.
Ever since Australian researcher, David Erceg-Hurn used the MMP’s own data to question its Raison d’être we’ve seen just about every justification for the MMP’s existence…other than a substantive, factual refutation of Mr. Erceg-Hurn’s findings. Now we’re seeing the full court press.
First, we see Peggy Shea, who apparently saw her MMP salary increase from $31,000.00 to $130,000.00 in two short years, write a letter to the editor of the Missoulian:
I have never spoken with Erceg-Hurn. He has never been to Montana, and has never bothered to sit down with me or anyone else to discuss his research or to ask questions about our data. He and his organization do not respond to calls or letters from researchers about their methodology. Although he presumes to study our young people and to tell our legislators how to spend our money, Erceg-Hurn has spent no time actually speaking with Montana teens. His article is based upon selective and misleading representations of studies that, in fact, show significant, positive changes in use and attitudes. I hope that in the future the Associated Press and the Great Falls Tribune will examine the facts more closely before giving a forum to other so-called experts.
How can he possibly analyze the MMP’s own data without talking to teens? Gosh, everyone knows that every study on, say, the efficacy of a new prescription drug involves personal interviews of every patient who took the drug, right? Every study of DUI deaths involves a discussion with the people in the crash, right? Balderdash…this is a simplistic appeal to emotion, and an attempt to minimize his analysis due to veiled diminishment as an ‘outsider.’
Then what? He shouldn’t even have a forum! The Associated Press shouldn’t even report his findings! Silence the nonbelievers!
Guess what’s missing. Any reasoned, substantive response to his study’s findings. Blather and yell…and distract. Seriously. If Mr. Erceg-Hurn is wrong, tell us why. Enough rallies on taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Erceg-Hurn has responded to the MMP’s letter to the editor. It hasn’t been printed in the Missoulian, yet, but here it is directly from the author:
Montana Meth Project Executive Director Peg Shea recently attacked a study I conducted that criticized the Meth Project (Missoulian, 13/2). The study was reviewed by independent drug prevention experts prior to being published in a prestigious scientific journal. I examined the Meth Project’s own research reports to try and verify claims the Meth Project has made about its ad campaign being a dramatic success. My study found that there is little evidence the ads are effective, and that the Meth Project has portrayed unremarkable and unflattering research findings as dramatic successes. This has resulted in many people incorrectly believing that the ads are effective. Shea’s letter suggests the Meth Project is unlikely to change how it promotes its ad campaign anytime soon.
In her letter, Shea criticized the Montana media for covering my study and stated they should examine the facts more closely. Examining the facts closely is exactly what I did in my study, by reviewing every research report released by the Meth Project since 2005. After examining this research, I criticized plans to allocate half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money to fund more Meth Project ads, because there is no proof the ads work. It is in the public’s interest for the media to cover all sides of this debate, rather than simply accepting the Meth Project’s position, especially in such tough economic times.
I was perplexed that Shea accused me of failing to respond to questions about my study. Numerous Montana residents, including school children, teachers, journalists, bloggers, drug counsellors, researchers and the Governor, have contacted me about my study. I have happily responded to their questions. Peg Shea has never contacted me. The researchers that have contacted me have praised the study, and encouraged me to make policymakers and the wider Montana community aware of its important findings. This is what I have endeavored to do.
“There is no proof the ads work.” Now, if the MMP actually had some proof, don’t you think the MMP might show it to us, rather than wrting letters to the editor complaining about an Australian who presumes to tell us what to do, or having pep rallies at the capital, or railing on the press for publishing his study?
But wait, there’s more.
Yesterday the Tribune printed this piece from Cascade County Attorney, John Parker. I know John Parker, and I think he’s a fine guy, but he’s just flat wrong on this one. In fact, his letter to the editor reads as though it was written by Ms. Shea. First, he takes a few potshots at the researcher (“it may be very exciting to adopt a critical posture regarding a valuable project he has not thoroughly researched and does not fully understand”). Then he spends a few paragraphs telling us that meth is bad stuff. Then he thanks law enforcement, and commends treatment programs, for helping to control the meth problem.
Then, he gets us with the kicker, the sole substantive statement he makes about the results of the Montana Meth Project’s efforts: “The Montana Meth Project in particular has played a profound role, teaching Montana’s children that meth is not “cool” – rather, it poses immense health risks, leads to violent crime, and tears families apart.” In other words, it’s working because…well…because it’s working. I’m not convinced.
He then thanks the project for results that no one can seem to demonstrate actually exist, takes another potshot at the researcher and signs off.
Just like the rest of it: all fluff…no stuff. Where’s the beef?
Not to be outdone after being called to the carpet by Peggy Shea, the Tribune follows up again, today with another piece about how effective the MMP is. There’s just one problem, though: no evidence. At least the two law enforcement officers tried to explain why they think it works:
“From the feedback I hear, it stimulates conversation,” [Detective Pat Brinkman] said. “It makes (potential users) think about it.”
That was also the observation of Sgt. John Stevens, commander of the Central Montana Drug Task Force.
“The biggest thing – meth was kind of taboo to talk about before the project,” Stevens said. “With the onset of the project, at least there’s been dialogue between parents and their kids.”
Stimulating discussion might very well be a good thing, but there is no evidence that it reduces meth use. Until that type of evidence is produced, the MMP should not be funded with tax dollars.
To anyone who wants to know why meth use has declined, I’ll tell you. It’s not ugly billboards or nasty tv ads. Meth use is down because in 2005 the legislature passed a law limiting access to an important precursor in the manufacture of meth, pseudoephedrine. Without this drug, it is virtually impossible to manufacture meth.
That is why meth use is down.
How do I know? I just do.
(For some excellent work on this story, see Pogie’s blog here or here.)
Senator Baucus was at it today, too, claiming that the Montana Meth Project made meth ‘not cool.’ I’d love to see the study that supports that, as I don’t think meth was ever ‘cool’ among teenagers in the state.
It’s just so transparent. Politicians, who have never been able to address any drug crisis-whether real or imagined- can use the Montana Meth Project to act like they are on the side 0f regular Montanas, who are concerned about the drug. Throw in a media that makes A LOT of money running meth ads, and you have a perfect storm of greed, naivete, and ineffectiveness.
If that won’t get funded, what will?
The Montana politicians’/bureaucrats’ response to David Erceg-Hurn reminds me of their response back in 1993 when I asked them to explain why they were using out-of-date revenue figures to project a general fund “deficit.” They never answered except in the form of generalizations and abuse, leading me to conclude that they were using out-of-date figures because of (a) incompetence, or (b) desire to make a case for some big tax increases, or (c) both.