Just imagine what the current debate about funding for the Montana Meth Project would look like if a Montana newspaper had ever bothered to write a single story like this one, in the Idaho Statesman. It (imagine the concept!) covers both sides, presenting an even-handed look at the program. This is just good journalism, a story that actually informs its readers and lets them make a decision about the merits of the program.
Fascinating to see that the Idaho Meth Project people have adopted the same strategy to smear critics, though:
Ronk said she was familiar with the findings of Erceg-Hurn’s study.
"From my perspective, I think there were some things they missed," she said, but did not provide any details.
Lori Otter said Erceg-Hurn took a "very narrow view of a very broad subject without looking at the complete picture."
"Do I think it’s valid?" she said. "No."
If that isn’t scientific proof, I don’t know what is.