![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Ted Haggard, Meth Hero!
There are so many things that bug me about the Ted Haggard scandal, I almost don’t know where to start. I have a feeling that the more overtly conspiratorial aspects will most likely be covered better elsewhere, so maybe I will unravel one aspect of this story which I don’t think anyone else has yet picked up on.
Actually, that’s not true. My friend JK has pointed out that crystal meth has suddenly started to gain traction in the mainstream media. In fact, if I had to guess, I would say I have heard “meth” in the media way more times in this past year than any other drug. This could be read two ways: (1) that the drug is simply increasing in popularity, or (2) that there’s some kind of media agenda to make it into an issue. The truth could also be somewhere in the middle, and that is where I would locate the yarn I am about to spin…
A prominent and zealously self-righteous Christian pastor is more or less revealed to be a complete fraud, hypocrite, homosexual and drug user. This is the sort of thing that liberals live for, salivate over and I’m sure will speculate over for months to come.
There are many ways to take the whole thing, of course, but I wonder if one of them could be to look at the associations which are being drawn subconsciously by this occurrence. Let’s rephrase then what happened in a more simpler schematic diagram: hypocrisy (ie, truth) was revealed, and for many people this has created a pleasurable response. People like seeing hypocrisy revealed.
Smack dab in the middle of that equation, though, lays a drug - crystal meth. A drug which is incredibly addictive and destructive. If you’ve never seen them before, these before and after photos of “tweekers” are incredibly instructive as to the devastating effects of meth use. What these photos could be said to reveal is the hidden desparately in pain person that lays somewhere in each of us - the “me I am in secret” which I’ve called it elsewhere. Haggard’s story I think falls neatly into the pattern described by these photos, providing a before & after snapshot of his reputation and social standing.
Consciously, we seem to recognize this as a negative example - what not to do, in other words. And yet, somehow, we have begun to forge - by way of this news story - a narrative which could be drilled down to say something like: crystal meth destroys illusions. Meth, and not Mike Jones, has revealed hypocrisy in high places. In a weird way, Ted Haggard using (or not using - according to him) this drug has inadvertently allowed him to reveal to the world a side of himself which he was never comfortable doing before…
I wonder if this hiddenmessage will be heard loud and clear by those people who want to destroy illusions, who want to root out hypocrisy, and who themselves struggle with a dark doppleganger within them. Will they hear this story repeated ad nauseum in the media and spontaneously make the connection I have made here, yet on a far deeper level?
That is, instead of making meth look bad, is this story going to actually make more people start doing meth? I recognize I may be reaching here, which is why I’ve shared this reading of events with you. Does it ring true for anyone else? Has anyone reading this actually tried meth? I haven’t and don’t plan on it. I also don’t buy Haggard’s story that he bought it but didn’t use it. Meth, to me, has never seemed like one of those drugs you decide to simply dabble in. But I could be wrong about all this…
- Chinese Crystal Meth Explosion
- Ted Haggard Resigns Over Gay Scandal
- Ted Haggard on YouTube
- Richard Dawkins vs. Ted Haggard
- Are you a meth-head?
- Prev: Threading Together
- Next: Who Is Mike Jones?
November 6th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Montana (and other predominatly rual states) has seen skyrocketing meth usage statistics over the last few years. In responce Montana launched the Montana Meth Project with the slogan “not even once.” They purchased ad space in every concievable media and displayed made -up ravaged faces of meth users like those in the “tweekers” link only more graphic. On a recent road trip across the state I saw more billboards plastered with open-sore infested faces than I could count and every small town in state apparently had an anti-meth poster design contest in the schools and the wining poster was made into a mural on a prominant local building. the effect is somewhat disturbing.
Apparently measurements of it’s effectiveness are inconclusive this early in the project, nevertheless states around the country are adopting similar programs.
If this is anything like previous scared-straight type programs it will probably have the effect of actually increasing drug use. But the images are genuinely frightening, so maybe this one will be different.
November 6th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
What if Ted Haggard is making a “martyr” of himself, and trying to make the public think there is an association between extreme drug use and the homosexual lifestyle (whether he is faking or actually indulging doesn’t matter really … ). What if he considers himself some sort of modern savior and is willing to lose his respectability to demonstrate how the sins of Satan affect anyone.
November 6th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Hm, that’s an interesting angle, Garrett. Maybe there’s something to that! Isn’t it actually fairly well established, however, that meth is a pretty common gay party drug?
Jake, did you see this: “White House Cites Montana Meth Project as Model for the Nation”
http://www.montanameth.org/news_press.aspx
November 6th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
I’m not that familiar with the gay party scene …but I guess what I meant is that Ted was trying to make the point: “see … Indulginh in homosexuality leads you further and further down into debauchery…”. Then I started thinking that maybe he did this for a more mystical purpose. I remember hearing about tantric practices where you perform rituals like eating shit and rubbing decomposing-body pus on your skin. Or eat meat if you are a vegetarian for instance … So maybe he did this to explore the physical depths of sin … To publically fall and be humiliated, and then to seek a stronger rebirth.
November 7th, 2006 at 12:25 am
I’ve never taken meth, but the folks with whom I work use meth to increase their libido. It apparently has phenomenal effects on upping sex drive and giving one a sense of power (as a sexual/sexy individual)…although on the other end of the spectrum chronic use/abuse of crystal meth may lead to ED.
November 7th, 2006 at 12:28 am
That’s a really awesome interpretation of this Garrett!
November 7th, 2006 at 2:21 am
Well, I know that the anti-meth campaigns up here in Canada have been pretty ineffective, other than ex-addict speaker that they sent out while I was in school.
What really gets me is that Meth has a reputation as “scary shit” even among my more drug hardened friends. Guys who see coke as the start of a good night out won’t even chill with tweakers, it has such a bad rep on much of the streets.
As far as I’ve known it, it’s the dead-end drug - once a user has burnt out on everything else, meth is that one last fix. I know some people start straight into it, but I’ve heard of way less of those than people who progressed through pretty much everything else first.
November 7th, 2006 at 2:31 am
Were seeing a lot of meth or Ice as its know locally here in australia compared to even two to three years ago.
Even the H junkies and pill poppers have been switching across to it as it always seems to be readily available in a very clean pure form. Funny thing is as of late I have been hearing via my more shifty friends that a lot of the gear is coming in from china very very cheaply . Even the bikies who tend to control the speed / meth supply down here have stopped the back yard manufacture which has been the trend here for the last 20 years to buying off the chinese. They seem to be flooding the market atm with high quality and cheap produce . I’d also heard they were branching out to hit the steroid market as well , bringing in human growth hormone at $1.25US a vial . Normally thats about $1000 bucks AUS a weeks course in supply .
Sorry if thats a lot of track from Haggard but just thought it good to offer a trend thats happening here.
November 7th, 2006 at 6:58 am
I find it interesting that both Haggard and Foley turned to substance abuse as a deflection and/or excuse. So sex is more of a crime in their eyes than meth or alcohol abuse? The way Haggard phrased it, it sounded as if he was saying “I didn’t have gay sex, I just bought some meth.” Like that makes it somehow… better?
That seems odd to me. I’ve seen more lives destroyed by substance problems than I have by sexual dalliances.
November 7th, 2006 at 10:57 am
I can’t believe I’m coming to even the outskirts of defending meth. I’ve lived in Montana for fair amounts of time in the past, and to be sure I’ve seen it tear people up. I had to point out one bit about the before/after meth websites though. Keep in mind that these are people who’ve been jailed. You could get the same effect from going to a hospital near the ski resort and taking pictures of the battered people who come in after ski accidents. “Before Bobby french fried on the kiddy hill for the first time, and after. Please think of the children!” I suspect the amount of people able to really handle a meth habit are in the very, very, low numbers. But even so, going by sampling like the above can be a dangerous red herring when trying to get an accurate picture of an environmental factor.
That said, there’s another odd fact about meth. In some of the small towns, or at least the tiny little montana wonderland I spent the most time in, meth addicts are often treated as lepers. Which isn’t so much to say they’re treated like filth, though they often are. But even from well meaning people, they’re usually talked down to and addressed ‘as their disease’, rather than a person with an addiction. It’s a subtle difference, but in my opinion one of the major contributing factors to people not getting help. Not many people respond well to being talked to like a five year old, especially when they’re hurting and scared.
November 7th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
I was interested the James Dobson spoke at length about Haggard today but never mentioned the meth use. Is that because he thinks sexual immorality is worse than meth use or because he doesn’t want to promote meth by talking about it?
November 7th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Maybe for every instance that plant or chemical teachers consumed respectfully (of Mystery, self and all in all) shift someone towards true ecstasy and knowing (as in joining, as in sex-union) a ‘trickster’ parody of that tantric dance occurs in ordinary reality, especially wherever Trickster is repressed (oppressed). No matter which and either way this story is sung, more of what is hidden is being revealed and the truth is setting more of us free in a diverse harmony of waves and weaves as LIFE liberates Life in the amazing labyrinth of everyday mirrors.
One of my teachers paraphrases “Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger and frees and heals you, but first it has to kill you.”
November 7th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
P.S. I goofed up the italics - meant to leave the text plain and forgot one, it looks like. I relish reading this weblog BTW!
November 7th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Nasty stuff, love how he supposedly bought it, but doesn’t do it, maybe it accidently went up his nose as he tried to fling it into the trash.
Well, meth is bad stuff, however I find the exploitation of the diseased disgusting, people who have sores all over their face from meth are people with illness, and the only reason you see that at all is because we have no real healthcare system in the US.
All the money spent on the “war on drugs” could’ve gone to a healthcare system, where people would have somewhere to turn if they find themselves in crisis. Instead these unfortunate ill become the property of the state.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
methamphetamine is not safe for the weak-willed. however, in small doses it is actually one of the most effective cognitive & performance enhancers ever created (the problem being, it’s WAY too addictive for nearly anybody to maintain a small-dose habit.)
if you can keep your habit around a 1/4 oz. a month, & if you aren’t genetically susceptible to amphetamine psychosis due to abnormal catecholamine metabolism, & if you can maintain the attention to eat a healthy diet with lots of antioxidants, drink copious amounts of water, sleep regularly etc., it is actually totally safe and a year or two of use will permanently accelerate your cognitive functions, noticeable even years after quitting.
99.99% of the population should never touch it; however, pure crystal methamphetamine is actually very safe, in direct physical terms. it is dangerous only because it interrupts the normal positive-response feedback systems involved with basic-to-life functions such as eating, drinking, and sleeping. those people in the after-meth pictures don’t look like that because the meth directly destroyed their bodies, they look like that because it interfered with their ability to take care of themselves.
don’t demonize the drug, demonize weakness of will.
November 9th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Yeah, I’m really not sure that’s the socially responsible attitude to take and I certainly don’t espouse it.
Does anybody know when exactly meth hit the scene - what year and where it originated? More importantly: why?
November 9th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
it’s the only socially responsible attitude possible. anything else just mistakes the effect for the cause and further erodes our ability to act as informed, autonomous entities. i’ve seen plenty of lives ruined by this stuff, but demonizing it won’t do anything but draw more ignorant attention to it.
meth was the wonder child of the WWII era. the Japanese, who first synthesized it, practically gave it away to their whole socioeconomic class of industrial laborers. they gave it to the Germans, where it became a hit among the SS; Hitler was rumored to have it injected multiple times a day. militaries loved it, it could keep soldiers marching for days with few supplies and pilots alert for extended periods. housewives loved it, it could keep them happily cleaning away until the house was spotless, etc. doctors soon stopped giving it out, though, because it made a few too many people stark raving mad; to be replaced by less potent amphetamines which are themselves dangerously overprescribed today. military interest is shifting over towards the vastly safer and more effective 2nd generation ampakines and possibly some research is also being done on non-hallucinogenic iboga analogues as another alternative.
black market supplies have been steadily increasing the whole time, for the following reasons:
1. easy to make + cheap to make + highly addictive = dream product for the morally challenged salesperson
2. every other hard (non-psychedelic) drug has a restricted plant-based source. meth does not.
November 9th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
I think this conversation is worth bumping to its own post as far as the demonization/social responsibility thing is concerned.
But I think that’s a really fascinating point about meth not being derived from a plant. What other illegal drugs aren’t ultimately derived from plant sources? Would be interesting to put together a list.
November 9th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
clarification: it IS derived from a plant source. i meant it IS NOT derived from a scheduled (i.e. legally restricted) plant source.
November 10th, 2006 at 1:19 am
bravo pmp on the level-headed posts, both of them
as one of the .01% I can vouch for the accuracy of your reports
and i agree with you about mistaking the effect for the cause - what’s the point?
that said, it seems a liftime ago to me now, thank god…