New Yorker: Gays, crystal meth and the Internet

[bi golly]

There is a great article on the New Yorker web site at link

Klausner and others embarked on studies that concentrated on the use of the Internet, on attitudes about aids, and on the role of methamphetamine in gay life. The results were hard to misinterpret: the Internet has turned out to be a higher-risk environment than any bar or bathhouse—men who meet online are more likely to use the drug, more likely to be infected with H.I.V., and less likely to use condoms.

 

[onceburned]

Thank you for sharing the link. The story is well written, and although I didn't find anything new in it, the issue is one I have been aware of.

The article had only the barest mention of the damage to teeth and gums caused by meth. But treating "meth mouth' is a growing expense in prisons around the U.S., often exhausting the dental budgets of institutions. I suppose that losing one's teeth is small potatoes, but it is a more tangible loss than the danger posed by HIV.

 

[Raimondin]

There is a great article on the New Yorker web site at link

Well, of course. It seems any news, articles, or reports involving Gays is always something tragic, doom, or "high risk". (I'm being sarcastic here). Yeah, good article and depressing, but not much different news than some of the other high risk groups in our society. Every 10 years or so it's something new. Poppers are still around. Then the Cocaine thing of the late '70's and '80's. So now it's Meth, Crystal Meth, and so on. Extensive article, but again like anything written in magazines or journals, it's usually one point of view, biased or otherwise. Like tell us somethng new. Meth extends into every fabric of our new "computer-age" society today. Not just homosexual men. But more "awareness" can't hurt. I think we're all infected with the Internet.

 

[overthebow]

Well, of course. It seems any news, articles, or reports involving Gays is always something tragic, doom, or "high risk". (I'm being sarcastic here). Yeah, good article and depressing, but not much different news than some of the other high risk groups in our society. Every 10 years or so it's something new. Poppers are still around. Then the Cocaine thing of the late '70's and '80's. So now it's Meth, Crystal Meth, and so on. Extensive article, but again like anything written in magazines or journals, it's usually one point of view, biased or otherwise. Like tell us somethng new. Meth extends into every fabric of our new "computer-age" society today. Not just homosexual men. But more "awareness" can't hurt. I think we're all infected with the Internet.

I read the article too. Can you explain to me what the one point of view is? And its contra?

 

[Adrenaline]

Well, of course. It seems any news, articles, or reports involving Gays is always something tragic, doom, or "high risk". (I'm being sarcastic here). Yeah, good article and depressing, but not much different news than some of the other high risk groups in our society. Every 10 years or so it's something new. Poppers are still around. Then the Cocaine thing of the late '70's and '80's. So now it's Meth, Crystal Meth, and so on. Extensive article, but again like anything written in magazines or journals, it's usually one point of view, biased or otherwise. Like tell us somethng new. Meth extends into every fabric of our new "computer-age" society today. Not just homosexual men. But more "awareness" can't hurt. I think we're all infected with the Internet.

I too am not entirely sure what you're getting at here. Must every article you ever read contain detailed analysis on say, using this one as an example, homosexuals, straights and bis? He had a topic and he stuck to it. I don't know what could be "biased" about it, but he certainly mentioned throughout that the problem wasn't restricted to gays (but why, because they're a minority, the disease can become a "crisis" a lot sooner). He said this in his interview. Specter has also done previous articles on AIDs, outside of homosexuality, like the one he did earlier this year or late last year (can't remember which) on Russia.

Thanks for sharing the link bi golly.

 

[Raimondin]

I too am not entirely sure what you're getting at here. Must every article you ever read contain detailed analysis on say, using this one as an example, homosexuals, straights and bis? He had a topic and he stuck to it. I don't know what could be "biased" about it, but he certainly mentioned throughout that the problem wasn't restricted to gays (but why, because they're a minority, the disease can become a "crisis" a lot sooner). He said this in his interview. Specter has also done previous articles on AIDs, outside of homosexuality, like the one he did earlier this year or late last year (can't remember which) on Russia.

Thanks for sharing the link bi golly.

No, my comments were not meant to be negative, not at all. Nor was I trying to demean or discredit the article or Mr. Specter. There are always two sides to everything. To clarify my use of the word "bias" merely that it automatically becomes that only in the sense that it is written by one person. This is why I said "biased or otherwise." Probably the wrong word. I did say in the beginning that I was being "sarcastic." But sarcastic in a "tongue-in-cheek" manner to inject a "sense of humor" to such heavy and depressing information. And when I say "sense of humor" I mean that it makes things a little more easier to injest or bear, but at the same time instills a "sense of hope" to such dire statistics. This is already a crisis.
This was merely my own way of reacting to this article and if it came off "in poor taste" then that wasn't my intention. I'm a Gay man, and I've lived in the Castro. I now what it's like there. I understand everything mentioned regarding the Castro. Like I said in the end, "more awareness can't hurt."
Thanks for your feedback.