We haven't looked at South Dakota's messaging about meth since our post, The first step to recovery is admitting there's a problem; or, Meth, We're On It in South Dakota.
One constant in the messaging campaign to stop meth in its tracks (as one public servants so felicitously put it) has been the notion that South Dakota teen meth use is increasing.
A new investigation by a Rapid City television station tweaks this notion in KOTA Investigates: Teen meth use may be declining, study shows:
A study linked to a viral anti-drug campaign suggests South Dakota teens try methamphetamines at a higher rate than the national average, but one long-lived survey implies something different.
The South Dakota Department of Social Services launched the self-deprecating "Meth. We're On It" campaign against use of the eponymous drug in mid-November. According to Gov. Kristi Noem, the intent of the campaign was to create "dinner table" dialogue on meth use in the state.
Noem's office linked a study to the campaign early in its life: they referred to troubling statistics from the 2016-2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) to drive home the prevalence of meth use in the state.
One such statistic mentioned that "in South Dakota alone, 12-17-year-olds who have tried meth is two times the national average."
As part of a weeks-long investigation into the numbers surrounding the campaign, KOTA Territory News dug into the data on teen methamphetamine use to solve one simple, initial question: "what exactly is the national average, and how many South Dakota teens are using meth?" . . .
However, the investigation did glean a new perspective on the drug campaign - a consistent decline in drug use among teens.
The Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) is an comprehensive study on risky student behaviors that comes out every two years. Associated researchers first began documenting methamphetamine use among high schools seven years after its inception in 1999. . . .
The latest YRBS data shows that 3.8 percent of South Dakota students used meth at least once in their life. The state average rests within less than half a percent of that, which indicates high school meth rates are statistically normal.
Other states and school districts are nearly double the national average: 6.0 percent of high school students in Mississippi and Arkansas have tried meth, while 7.9 percent of students in Baltimore, MD have abused the drug.
The YRBS also measures frequency of meth use. The survey's questionnaire asks whether a student has used the substance once or twice, three to nine times and up to 40 or more times, as well as if they have never used the drug.
Our state aligns with national averages related to frequency: 1.4 percent of South Dakota students have used meth one to two times - a tenth of a percent greater than the U.S. rate.
Also, an estimated 1.1 percent South Dakota students abused methamphetamines 40 or more times in their life, which is just two tenths above the national rate.
In stark contrast to the tone of the meth campaign, state teen meth use rates have actually declined over the past two decades. According to the 1999 YRBS, 10 percent of high school students in South Dakota tried meth at least once in their life. Two years later, that number decreased to eight percent. . . .
Interesting. Read or watch the entire report at KOTA.
Meanwhile, SDPB reported in Noem announces difficult year for state economy during FY2021 budget address:
Noem proposes $3.7 million for intensive meth treatment and enforcement in continuation of her anti-meth campaign.
“In South Dakota, twice as many 12 to 17-year-olds reported using meth in the last year, as compared to the national average,” she said. “Not only does it devastate our families, but it also cost our state millions and millions and millions of dollars each year.”
We're hoping that more of that cash goes for treatment rather than enforcement, after reading Nick Martin's Locking People Up: South Dakota’s On It in the New Republic:
. . .The essential question is why the state’s response has been to throw people, and overwhelmingly Native people, in prison rather than carve out the funds for prevention and rehabilitation.
All of the above trends continue despite the fact that, in 2013, the state legislature passed legislation aimed at addressing prison overcrowding by, theoretically, reducing penalties for nonviolent offenders. However, the South Dakota ACLU found in August that, six years out from the legislative updates, the overall prison population was just barely smaller than it would have been without the bills: a difference of 281 people.
The “on meth” public awareness campaign is accompanied by the announcement of a partnership between the state and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe to have the Sioux operate the only tribe-run Intensive Methamphetamine Treatment Program in the state. It’s a positive development that may yet prove to be merely cosmetic, particularly if the state continues to dedicate its resources to cracking down and locking up Native communities. “In the future,” CNN reported, “Noem said there will be commercials, billboards, Facebook ads, and state agencies working with nonprofits to bring relief to people who are dealing with addiction and the meth epidemic.” Neither these vague promises nor the Sioux-operated treatment program are remotely sufficient to address the drug crisis and the deep inequalities driving it.
Fighting the meth epidemic on sovereign Native land requires federal involvement that has been more than usually absent in the past three years. Some of the tribal nations within the state’s borders are operating on shoestring budgets, with their programs drastically underfunded by Congress and the Trump administration. On Tuesday, the day after the “We’re On It” rollout, a congressional hearing was held to review the 2018 “Broken Promises” report, which detailed how the federal legislature has failed to adequately fund Indian Country services over the last 15 years. The Trump administration cut funding to the Department of the Interior, which houses the Bureau of Indian Affairs, by 12 percent in 2017. That included funding for the Indian Health Service, after-school programs, and the Bureau of Indian Education. Trump’s 2020 proposed budget slashed the IHS “preventive health” budget by $53 million.
In a vacuum, the “Meth: We’re On It” campaign would register as little more than an innocent misstep, a sloppy attempt aimed in the right direction. But politics do not operate in a vacuum. This is the same state and same governor who planned on criminalizing future Keystone XL pipeline protesters just to save themselves and their corporate partners a headache. South Dakota locks up Native people at rates that are only matched by North Dakota and Alaska. What the state needs isn’t a public awareness campaign, but a total overhaul of its punitive approach to drug use in favor of a treatment- and prevention-focused public health program. What its Native nations need is federal funding for basic services that would help keep people from drugs in the first place. Without a serious plan to address these needs, the posters, no matter how many hotline numbers they include at the bottom, are a distraction.
Image: From South Dakota's startling and much-mocked anti-meth campaign.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.
Comments