With disturbing before and after photos of drug users’ faces, a new anti-drug campaign may succeed where others have failed, grabbing teens’ attentions by appealing to their vanity.
The pairs of mug shots, which graphically display the damage drugs can do to the face, were collected by the sheriff’s office in Multnomah County, Ore.
Skipjack wrote:Holy!
Those are some ugly dudes and gals!
True. Of course, what is not described is how lighting and posing can create a wide variation in appearance. Also, even a few years, especially under stress, but without drugs can result in significant differences. Pictures of presidents is a good example.
But the numerous open sores on several of their faces indicate heavy methamphetamine use. US presidents tend to go gray, loose their hair and get all wrinkly.
Not that this isn't good press for argueing against drug use to impresionable adolesents, but these individuals condition is perhaps as much to do with the social implications of their addictions, rather than the drugs themselves. Methamphetamine is a nasty drug, but mildly less harsh amphetamines are widely tolerated. Way too many children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder are fed amphetamines. And, many Dr Kildare types took huge amounts of amphetamines before their use was outlawed back in the 1950's-60's. Of course you then have to asked why they were outlawed then. And, of course you would then have to ask why they are being fed to children now. Other than the occasional stroke or heart attack, infections, hepititis, etc. the biggest significant point may not be taking the drug, but the dose you are taking, and what you have to do (to yourself or others) to get it.
While I have moralistic problems with handing out drugs to addicts, I sometimes wonder if it is less costly to society, and occasionally beneficial to the addict, to do this, as some European countries do.
D Tibbets wrote:Not that this isn't good press for argueing against drug use to impresionable adolesents, but these individuals condition is perhaps as much to do with the social implications of their addictions, rather than the drugs themselves. Methamphetamine is a nasty drug, but mildly less harsh amphetamines are widely tolerated. Way too many children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder are fed amphetamines. And, many Dr Kildare types took huge amounts of amphetamines before their use was outlawed back in the 1950's-60's. Of course you then have to asked why they were outlawed then. And, of course you would then have to ask why they are being fed to children now. Other than the occasional stroke or heart attack, infections, hepititis, etc. the biggest significant point may not be taking the drug, but the dose you are taking, and what you have to do (to yourself or others) to get it.
While I have moralistic problems with handing out drugs to addicts, I sometimes wonder if it is less costly to society, and occasionally beneficial to the addict, to do this, as some European countries do.
Dan Tibbets
It is reasonable to use drugs as medicine IF they are selected and administered by those who are trained and authorized to do so.
In this manner, direct control is taken out of the hands of the person being affected by the drug, but they still have indirect control by communicating with their doctor.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
