medium height... you described most of the majority of the men in america >> sometimes witnesses get it right >> when you have an eyewitness to say i saw him do it, that is the best evidence. >> and sometimes sometimes they don't >> no one is listening to us... george is innocent... >> the system with joe burlinger only on al jazeera america how does special forces pull off the mission to get boarl boarld bowt of taliban hands? reports of a meth epidemic in america wrong? hello, i'm antonio mora, welcome

to "consider this." here's more on what's ahead. >> new video of bowe bergdahl's handover. >> the two enemy force he meet face to face, exchange handshakes. >> the exchange took less than a minute. >> and he is whisked away. >> new fallout from obama administration's rules for climate change. cut carbon emissions from coal fired power plants by 30%. >> here is your meth, don't forget your meth face. >> crystal meth is made with things that will destroy you. >> how devastating is chris contaminatcrystalplet? >> the facmeth?

>> ufers blackhawk helicopter swept down to pick him up as part of a prisoner exchange. the sole american pow in the afghanistan war, questions mount regarding his conduct in the war and the high price paid for his release. five taliban leaders including the group's one time chief of staff and deputy minister of intelligence. one told bowe bergdahl, don't come back to afghanistan, if you do, you won't come back alive. >> they are going back to the insurgents side and they are starting fight again. against the afghan people and against the afghan national force. for sure when the five important commanders are coming out from the prison it's a kind of a victory for the taliban.

>> for more on the prisoner swap and the taliban video i'm joined by jack devine. he is the co-founder and president of the arcin group an international risk and consulting firm. and author of good hunting. spy masters. how do you arrange a swap like this? we know the qatari government was the mediator but could anyone else have made the switch? >> this is a top down decision so clearly, this has been in process for a long time, according to everything i've been able to acertain and faild to come the to fruition. it's complicated, vofs senior is

senior level of the taliban and qatar government also. >> would there be any sort of confidence building measures, points where if either side failed to do something, that the whole thing would be called off? >> that may be. are but i think it's more likely that both sides at the spoin pof exchange were prepared if it was a setup. in other words i think without a question of a doubt, the americans had considerable backup that if this was a reduce of any sort i think they would have made short order of it. i suspect the taliban on its side had an exit plan, whether it was executable or not. so i'm not sure about the confidence-building measures. i think at a certain point you know, you just have to bite the bullet. and trust that they show up. you know, so i don't think --

what are the trust -- the test, it's very hard to bring about. it's easier sometimes to just get the deed done than to go through trust-building measures. >> so was it all done at long distance or at the end, did the americans who were getting bergdahl have to communicate with the taliban who were turning him over? because there are reports there was an exchange over whether the taliban would use a green light or white flag to identify themselves. >> i have no doubt there was a good deal of communication back and forth setting it up. what that looks like it will be some time before we are able to acertain. but both sides probably spend a fair amount of time on the logistics. >> does it get turned over to people on the ground. >> i think on both sides, you go to in the case of the americans

special forces that was an elite group that showed up and i'm sure at the end of the day the taliban leadership had to turn to its rank and file to deliver bergdahl. >> but would you think the rank and file and the special forces were talking to each other at some point when it actually got executed? >> no, i don't think so. i think it was done, if i had to speculate, i would say that that was set in place and then a predetermined occasion and both parties showed up. and that's what it looked like on the video as well. >> what do you make about these bizarre comments about the narrator of the taliban video criticizing being impolite, shake hands with their left hands which apparently is insulting, did anything surprise you how this went down? >> it would have been a surprise if they didn't try to turn it

into a propaganda advantage. and using what i would consider rather petty arguments. when you look the it, it looks pretty straightforward. and i'm sure there was no deliberate attempt. we were anxious and nervous to get the job done. >> the taliban video showed u.s. war planes that were circling overtimcirclingoverhead as the - taking place. do you think there were drones or were we hands off completely? >> i think at the scene we had ample coverage, if anything went awry our special forces would have made short order of it. to not have backup we would have been remiss. >> you were at the cia for decades. did the taliban exceed in exchanging max effect for the sergeant? >> well, you know this is going to be the key question.

when we look in the rearview mirror about the price. it does look like a steep price but at the end of the day there was a principle involved in terms of getting back a exuferred soldier. but -- captured soldier. but i think the key for me and inform others, is will they return to combat, either physically going back to are afghanistan or engage in nefarious affairs in qatar? i think at any point there will be repercussions. but this is a costly exchange and you have to be in the negotiations to fully understand it. but from long distance it looks like a steep price. >> of course mullah omar called it a victory for the taliban. president obama has said the u.s. will be keeping eyes on these leaders but reports are

that the five taliban have residency permits in qatar, they will live with their families. they will not be treated like prisoners or monitored by u.s. officials, they are allowed to move freel freely within a yearn qatar and then return to afghanistan. are these terms giving these leaders that kind of freedom the right thing? >> well, i'd have to see the addendum on just how much freedom they will have. i don't doubt that their families will be living and they'll be moving around the country. and so on. i think it would be very imprudent for qatar government to just turn away and not keep an eye on them for their own sake. i mean you really don't want

terrorist groups planning in your country. the second is, if anything goes awry here, if they go back and it's negligence on the part of qatar government then i think we would expect there would be political friction over that issue and i'm putting it rather diplomatically. they'll do i think what has to be done when you have -- there's no one here that doesn't understand what these five terrorists are like. and including the government and qatar. >> jack devine, thank you for your insights. >> thank you. >> judging from the political fallout over the bergdahl swap, talking to the taliban may be easier for the white house than talking to congress. recent lindsay graham said that politics may are to blame. >> was this release designed to enhance the nowvment withdrawal

from afghanistan getting the one -- flowmen nowmentd announcl withdrawal from afghanistan? >> dianne feinstein didn't seem very impressed when the white house finally called her. >> i did have a call last night from the white house and they apologized -- he apologized. >> are they acknowledging that the law was broken in that apology? >> i didn't ask for that. it's obvious. >> we are joined by bill schneider, an al jazeera english contributor, at the centrist think tank third way. professor at george washington university. and rick wilson who served in the pentagon under then secretary of defense dick cheney. the white house is in major

damage control. administration officials went to capitol hill to brief senators reportedly showing videos of bergdahl where he seemed ill and needed to move quickly. but anything justified the fact that the white house didn't give timely notice of the release of the taliban leaders. you heard dianne feinstein said it's obviously, they broke the law. couldn't white house call capitol hill leaders and give them a couple of hours notice? >> apparently they did call leaders on capitol hill friday and saturday. but they didn't give them 30 days notice. the prisoner's health was very much at issue and also the taliban weren't going to wait 30 days to make this deal. the president claims that under his authority as commander in chief the constitution authorizes him to do this. and he was justified, legally, in ignoring that congressional

law. >> rick, the president does claim that the white house had been telling congress for a while that a swap like this could happen at some point quickly. democratic senator carl levin said, he did say that congress was bipartisan then thinking it was a bad idea. the reality though, the white house only had to provide notice. they didn't need authorization. so it shouldn't as bill mentioned shouldn't the commander in chief have the ability to take quick action in a situation where it's believed that there's some urgency? >> you know there's a lot of questions about the time line here. and this has long been an administration that is very -- they preach transparency and practice on security. and this has -- o obscurity. probation that the executive is

pursuing, that's one thing on the legal side. was it the 30-day notice that he session he had to wav waive it l had to happen so quickly, there is a formal and informal process that the national security briefs the gang of eight, it is not just a courtesy, but it is one of these things that makes washington work. where there's a trust between the executive ant the legislative side. in this case they could have made these calls and they could have given a time line. even today it is my understanding they are still refusing to provide exact time lines and exact tick-tock how these dealings took place. >> harry reid actually just got notice, doesn't dick have if points, these people knew on capitol hill about the osama bin laden raid and now you're

hearing feinstein and chambliss, top people on the senate intelligence committee, both said the white house called them to apologize but then it didn't really apologize. what's going on. it seems to be ultimater confusion. >> yes, it does, it's very murky. the white house claims it was an oversight. oversight is not quite an apology, set it was done inadvertently. they forgot to notify congress. president obama says he was justified in doing this. the political ramifications and the facts. we don't know all the facts. was this person a deserter? do we impose a character test after we extract a prisoner of war? those haven't been examined yet. >> some reports say that the white house was blind sided by the negative response that

occurred within 24 hours of the announcement. they thought it was going to be a positive story of a returning hero and then they sent national security advisor susan rice to some of the sunday morning shows and she said this: >> he served the united states with honor and distinction. >> and by monday when jay carney the outgoing white house spokesman was asked to comment, he wouldn't go there. backlash, questions what happened to bergdahl have been fairly well-known for some time. >> i frankly knew about the case only he was held captive. i had never heard any of the prior things on the rolling stone article, the former allegation. i'm a fairly well informed guy. it's shocking that the guys who were with him at the forward operating base to give their perspective, and to talk about his character to talk about what

they saw firsthand about this guy, and it really is an example of the official story collides with the eyewitness testimony that is now like i said empowered by the fact that that guy cody went on twitter and basically told his story. which 90% of americans never heard. and it shocks the white house because they're accustomed to having a press narrative that they deliver through the traditional yee medium, and susn rice gets them in more trouble than possible i think. >> we had one on our show last night coming out and being very strong, very negative about bergdahl. and it does seem some democrats now think the best defense is a good offense.

nbc's chuck todd is reporting that veterans are accusing bergdahl of swift boating. do you think that's a good idea? >> by democrats who say they're swift boating him without knowing all the facts, we don't know whether the testimony is correct or not. all that has to be investigated. but i will say this: i think most of the negative reaction wasn't due to questions about bergdahl's character. it was clearly a malcontent. it has to do with whether the prisoner exchange was worthwhile. whether we should have released these five obviously dangerous detainees from guantanamo. whether that was a reasonable exchange. that's what bothers people.

>> orient, senate majority leader harry reid says, they are publicizing bergdahl's return, when this is the time we should be coming together. some of the biggest republican critics are the ones who pushed the president in the past to get bergdahl home. >> as in most things, harry reid is flat wrong. i don't think there's one single american who would say, we should have left bergdahl there. that's absolutely ridiculous. but barack obama doesn't get ohave a press conference and say yay! i done good. was it appropriate to trade to get bergdahl back as an american soldier? i don't care what his background is, what his past is, we want him back. did you have to trade the five taliban all stars who were held? maybe not. these are things the congress needs answers to. it is incumbent upon the white house to be very straightforward candid and direct in a way they

are not used to doing. it is imperative that we get this before congress sooner than later. to talk about the mechanics of the swap, the time line and the tick-tock of this entire thing rather than playing the political game of oh, you hate the pow. it's typical harry reid partisanship. >> bill schneider, rick wilson, good to see you both. >> sure. >> thank you. >> now some other stories from around the world. we begin in hong kong where a vigil for 25th anniversary of beijing's tienanmen square drew 25,000 people. the chinese also tried to block commemorations through broad

censorship of the internet and international media. in the united kingdom a different kind of protest over a newly proposed law that would allow fracking by oil and gas companies under private land without permission. greenpeace u.k. responded to the proposal by turning david cameron's home into a fracking site. >> what a perfect day for fracking. >> i'm so glad david cameron is not a nimby, letting us frack outside his front door. that's real leadership. 3,000 year old pants, the oldest pair of pants ever discovered. they were found in tombs along with a whip and other riding equipment leading researchers to theoriestheorize that pants hadn first developed for riding. need to open their eyes, she

joins us next, christine todd whitman. did the nia put premature babies at risk? risk? >> i'm joe berlinger this is the system people want to believe that the justice system works. people wanna believe that prosecutors and police do the right thing. i think every american needs to be concerned about that. we do have the best justice system in the world, in theory... the problem is, it's run by human beings... human beings make mistakes... i'd like to think of this show as a watch dog about the system... to make sure justice is being served. wrongful convictions happen, we need to be vigilant.

with our personal liberties taken away from us, it better be done the right way. is justice really for all? you are

>> the so-called war on coal hah president obama's mandate to cut

carbon dioxide emissions at power plants by thrir 30% by 20. mitch mcconnell says it's a disaster. >> nothing even comes close to what this regulation will do to our state and its ability to compete. >> but as mid term elections and the 2016 presidential race loom large for candidates a former republican administerin adminisf environmental protection agency, difficult politics between the gop 2016 nomination. joining me in the studio is christine todd whitman. currently she is the co-chair of

the republican leadership council which supports fiscally conservative socially tolerant candidates. she is the author of the best seller, "it's my party too, the battle of the gop and the heart of maicialg." she is president of the whitman strategy group. you have a lot going on. >> i like to keep busy. >> great to see you. >> nice to be here. >> president obama putting out these new rules to cut powerpoint emissions 30% by 2030, mostly affecting coal fired plants. there is a big uproar bipartisan that this is going to hurt jobs. what is your reaction to the proposal. >> is climate change a real issue? i happen to believe it is. what is that costing us in premature deaths and children

with asthma and premature deaths. is this really going ocrater our economy? is it going to have an impact on these massive coal producing states? yes. do we have an opportunity to create even more jobs? think about it, nuclear power, no base power that releases no greenhouse gases, found had this country to be enormously powerful and safe, more jobs and more investment in the other forms of green energy. so we've got to look more at the total picture. even texas for instance which is a heavily coal-dependent state has -- they are saying that they object to the rule but then they are saying but we have a big investment coming in wind. we see a potential for this to grow our economy too, wind and solar. so you have got to look at the whole thing and the tradeoff. >> let's talk nuclear since you brought i up. i think there's only five nuclear reactors under construction in the united

states. >> right. >> is there really a likelihood at this point, given fukushima, three mile island, all the scare about nuclear that there will be the political will to move nuclear forward at a speed where nuclear will make a difference in the environment? >> right now nuclear is about 19% of our energy. but there are five new construction and one a tva restart of a facility. the jobs they bring with them are enormous and there are about 19 left in the -- over at the nuclear regulatory commission. what's really affected it wasn't fukushima daiichi orfully of of that. it's been the boom in shale oil. >> and made that investment cheaper? >> well cheaper for moment although interestingly enough during the winter with the polar vortex we saw prices start to spike again.

that is an up and down thing. it will take all of the above strategy and you shouldn't rule out nuclear because it takes so much yur uranium to knock in nuclear. >> environment taking too hard a position if you look at the numbers though most americans aren't paying that much attention to climate change. it's the 19th most important out of 20 taken on by the epa. how do you change that? because if that's the case, you're going to have republican candidates who are going to want to play to the base and not pay much attention to this. >> i can understand where they're coming from. but the problem you have pleem don't relate -- people don't relate to climate change. they do relate to weather because that has a direct effect

on their life. starting to make the connection, something is going on here. we're having ever more strong storms, it's coming at us pretty quickly. people are saying gee maybe we can slow this down. if you look back to the path of the environmental safety, our gdp grew very nicerly thank you very much. we increased our energy use, we riesd our amount of pollutants we were putting into the air, in the clean air act. it is not a zero sum game. >> anonymity a zero sum game. >> no. >> it does seem silly at this point with all the science, to completely dismiss the fact that human activity does have effect

on the environment. but you reduce the hyperbole from the other side, there are outlandish predictions that haven't come true. >> that's the thing. everything is looked at through a partisan prism. it's not how do i solve a problem, how do i get another vote, how do i get another percentage on reelect. you can't talk about immigration, you can't talk about really solving our budget deficit. nobody's coming up with real solutions. there are plenty of solutions out there, and individuals and some members of congress and the senate and the house both have come up with programs but they can't seem to get any traction because you immediately run into that partisan political robot. >> since you are talking about partisan politics let's talk about politics. you have been referred to as a rhino, a republican in name

only. you started saying the gop was going too far to the right as far back as the first few years of the century, way before the tea party was even in place. and we've seen now more rhinos or establishment republicans, except on tuesday we may be seeing a very ugly race in mississippi where the tea party candidate may be beating the establishment republican. >> i'm afraid it is going to continue. i say that because i've seen so many times in races where organization he like the tea party, let me step back for a minute. the tea party when it was originally formed to the extent that tea party was formed at all, was all focused on the economy. it was on the deficit. it was on spending. and i was 100% in tune with them on those issues. then it's kind of morphed to not just the social issues, but oh

by the way in order to sof the social issues -- solve the social issues, we'll sign these contracts saying we'll never ever do anything. which totally hamstrings you. i've seen you, we've seen the tea party sort of captured by the more extreme elements within it and i've seen them time and again when they lose an election it's because we weren't conservative enough. and when they win an election it's we need to be more conservative the next time around. >> joanie ernst, winning that primary -- >> castrating pigs. >> she referred to that in her ads. you are seeing somebody supporting an eclectic group. sarah palin, as tea party as you could get, and mitt romney, can the republicans all get together

here? >> well, if we can understand there are different horses for different courses. the kind of issues you run and the positions you take in new jersey or new hampshire are going to be different than you take in arizona and new mexico. that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that as long as you have a core set of principles around which you adhere. for republicans it used to be all about the economy and spending, balancing budgets, strong national defense, security at home and the concern for the shared environment. but we didn't try to define what means to be republican on every single issue you can think about all the social issues. that's where we have gotten ourselves in trouble. we either say you're with us 100% or not at all, totally contrary to what ronald reagan's approach was, or i don't know about you my husband and i have been married 40 years but not on the same page on every issue. but we get along just fine. >> paying more attention to

women candidates, you seem to have success on that front. before we go, i want to talk to you more about that, but we're running out of time. you have supported chris christie, you have supported him as governor of new jersey, supported his campaign financially, you've been a christie supporter, at the same time you were head of the epa under president bush, long standing ties to the bush family. if you were told if jeb bush around chris christie ran together it would be very awkward. what are you going to do? >> one of them is going to run. we're going to wait and see. it's hopeless to speculate. we'll wait and see, will either one or neither run? i just don't know. it would be awkward for those who are really part of the administration stayed with it the whole time and in a very

close long standing relations with the family it's tough to walk away from that. jeb was a very popular governor and chris christie is still a popular governor in new jersey. >> what will you do? >> wait and see. >> i can't pin you down? >> not going to get me on that one. >> christine todd whitman, thank you very much. straight ahead. did the nih put premature babies at risk without letting their parents know, one time zone, crazy facts about how the world keeps time. and later, has america's meth scare been exaggerated? a provocative look. tive look. it's us against the world. we have this fight and this pride to play for the country. >> pushing for success. >> we've gone so far forward, the game's really really grown. >> gaining popularity. >> people are crazy for it. >> is now the time for u.s. soccer? >> anything is possible. i believe that this u.s.

team, we can beat anybody. >> the stream, saturday 5:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america.

>> the national institutes of health is facing accusations of conducting a dangerous potentially deadly study on premature babies without informing their parents. the test between 2005 and 2009, was designed to find the maximal oxygen level for preemies. , interfearin interfering into e investigations. cheryl atkinson published aan

article, full disclosure, does government's experiment on premiupreemies? >> word of medical personnel who convinced them sometimes under cases of great duress when these women were rushed in for emergency c sections, telling according to the parents on a misleading basis that this was simply to gather forecast and data and would help their babies and future babies. in fact it was an experiment on 1300 babies that did a lot of things that didn't necessarily happen on prehad a chur babies including the oxygen monitors on the babies were giving false

readings and the parents were not informed of that either. >> that certainly was a big red flag as i read your article. if you think that doctors are doing that they are giving more importance to the study than the health of the babies. they wanted to make sure the gauges were not altered in any way to help the children. >> that is one of the ethical dilemmas here. researchers have a different obligation than clinicians when treating individual patients. your doctor is supposed to do what's best for you as a patient. researchers are looking more towards the greater good and what they do is not necessarily the best interest of the individual patient. that's not something study participants know. some ethicists say it should be. never let their babies take part in the study if they knew the

true risks of the study. >> larissa cook who is the mother of a child who ended up having all sorts of issues afterwards, said quote there's nothing that i would say, that would allow you to give my baby what he wants as opposed to what he need. in some cases, you point out the mothers weren't even given the opportunity to read them, she was asked to sign it when she was on her way into an emergency c section. how does that fit into the idea of informed consent? >> that's a very serious ethical question. when women are in medical distress and directed by medical professionals they trust to take part in something represented in a certain way, regardless of what the consent form says, they trusted, something that is not under investigation but perhaps should be is, how are those

medical professionals told to misrepresent in the words of these parents at least the study? the parents didn't know each other yet each one describes a similar misunderstanding or alleged misrepresentation eption how the study was shown to them. they were looking for greater good for something that would help future pre areemies for sure. extremely premature infants in this case, put them in a study that could introduce added risks is certainly an uphill battle. >> they were looking at too much oxygen could cause vision

problems, too little oxygen could cause death. the amount of oxygen given to the babies were still within the appropriate range of what the standard of care calls for so that they really didn't need to be that specific about informing them, ever these risks. >> a couple of dozen of our top hose involved in this and it's shocking to me, that anyone would argue that it's ethical to not give parents alt that information. -- all that information. >> well, there is a great deal of pressure from the research community that survives onists ability to, a great deal of pressure to actually be looser on informed consent rules rather than stricter for obvious reasons. on the idea of the standard of care they did argue as you said that the levels of oxygen given to the babies was always within the range of what's used and accepted in normal circumstances. but the difference here according to ethicists and watch

dogs, the level wasn't adjusted, the beaks were artificially maintained in a high level, depending on the group they were assigned, or low level, regardless of need. that is not the way it's normally maintained. those babies in the high oxygen level, had a higher incident of blindless, and those maintained on lower level of oxygen had a greater incidence of death. >> tried to hinder the investigation into those allegations? >> yes, it's problematic when the ethics body for the government which is assigned to watchdog and oversee these sorts of things faces pressure from the body that it's overseeing to not do its i don' job and that'e eatlallegation in this case.

after the ethics body for the government said this federal study our study violated federal consent rules that pressure was brought to bear from senior officials within health and human services and the national institutes of health to back off. they made their fierchgd but then -- finding but then shortly thereafter said we're not going to do anything about it. we can see how these rules could be confusing, we're dpog have a reexamination of them. that's over nine months ago by the way, there's been no resolution in the interim. some researchers have argued that this is a cause for action to loosen the rules. if studies were done with so-called standard of care protocol that maybe you don't ask the patients at all whether they want to take part, you can just put them in the study. there is a lot of debate going on about this. >> how we move forward with studies on humans in the future.

clarol axson, thank you. >> thank you prm. >> rethinking the meth epidemic. a provocative new book says the problem is not as bad as we have been led to believe. first, how much power does vladimir putin lolled in russia? he even controls the time. in our data dive. >> we're using the same failed policies in districts throughout the country >> are we failing our kids? fault lines al jazeera america's hard hitting... >> they're locking the doors... >> ground breaking... >> we have to get out of here... >> truth seeking... award winning investigative documentary series fault lines the school to prison pipeline only on al jazeera america

saturday on techknow. the earthquake business, it's similar to the weather business. understanding our earth. but everything happens faster.

limiting disaster. these are the guts of the early warning system. saving lives. having 30 seconds of advanced warning is like a lifetime. techknow, every saturday go where science meets humanity. this is some of the best driving i've ever done, even thought i can't see. techknow. we're here in the vortex. saturday, 7:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america. >> today's data dive springs forward on time. for many americans the summer travel season means dealing with jet lag because of traveling through time zones. but why do time zones exist? when clocks were first invented time was set locally based on

the sun. but advances and railways and telecommunications complicated things. allowing communication with far flung locations, insane facts about time zones, samoa skipped december 2011 entirely. a whole day went move, they did it to get closer to countries it regularly trades with including china and singapore. virgin islands and guam and other insular countries don't use daylight savings times. neither do hawaii and most places in the tropics. india is the seventh biggest country in the world but only uses one time zone for the sake of its vast railway network.

spain has been in the wrong time zone for decades. then francisco franco decided to align the time with that of his ally, adolph hitler. spaniards sleep 53 minutes less than the average european, work fewer hours and are more productive. russia has 11 time zones but only uses nine of them. vladimir putin decide to kill two of them. when moscow took over the crimean peninsula, because of a leader's whim. coming up. shows like breaking bad have chronicled the meth issue. issue.

>> this, is what we do. >> al jazeera america.

>> we all know meth am feet fte mees are highly addicted, highly destructive. met methamphetamines. nicholas l. parsons is the book's author. an assistant sociology professor, good to have you with us. you start the book with just awful examples of meth use. a man who allegedly beheaded his son because he thought he was the defendant. a man who stabbed several times because he thought aliens had inhabited his dad's body. exaggerated to scare the public. so is the conventional wisdom about how we have a meth epidemic wrong? >> well first of all i think the word epidemic is a bit overused.

the bubonic plague in europe killed over 1 third of its population, conversely, it is estimated that 14 million americans out of how many are alive, have tried meth once in their life. those anecdotes are at the extreme end of what has allegedly happened, when people use this drug. i think by focusing on them while they are interesting and fafnting on some level and certainly generate headlines does a disservice in understanding the complexities or nuances of the problem. >> when we look at the problem, u.n. estimates 27 million meth users worldwide, 1 million who use meth in the u.s. once a month, and you talk about those who might have tried it at one point or another, 530,000 people

over age 12 are regular users, still a pretty big number whether it's an epidemic or not, still a major issue. >> sure, any amount of meth use is something to be concerned about. but i think if you are trying to understand the problem from these extreme instances of violence or sadism or cannibalism, it's, i don't know, glossing over the fact that some people have used this drug and not experienced major life altering problems. again, it's not to say it's not harmful and i'm not condoning meth use. it's just to say that -- i mean for example there are other social problems that exist that affect more than 500,000 people. i don't know, homelessness or domestic violence. cocaine use is about six times higher than meth amphetamine use here in the united states. >> how do we get to this point where we talk about these

epidemics? because now the one that's being talked about now is how we have a heroin epidemic. >> uh-huh. sometimes in the case of the heroin epidemic, i think the untimely deaths of very famous people help draw the attention to the problem. obviously if phillip seymour hoffman's death didn't occur we might not be talking about that. when the autopsy was performed on him he had schooled heroin, he had five other drugs in his system, yet those wert citeat all as contributing to his death. so why is heroin the only thing that killed him and not some of these other substances? i can't give you stasks off the top of my hea --statistics off y head rite now, but it tends to,

when horrific things happen that really are extremely sensational. >> going back to meth, rehabs.com put together a famous campaign, about ten years ago, mug shots of meth users, the horrible impact kit have on people in short periods of time. and the pictures really shaped what a lot of us thought would happen if they got looked on meth. very frightening but you say these types of campaigns don't work? >> i don't know about research about the face he of meth campaign specifically. i have read some research about the montana meth project which has similar predictions, and some studies show that hasn't had much effect on reducing meth use. the faces of meth, the shock value of it, it's very powerful and draws people in to pay attention to that. but at the same time, again you

are only seeing the extreme end of people who when have university this drug. >> some people use meth amphetamine medically every day. >> indeed. that's one thing that's not talked about much on the use, plet is death and all of this, they're not referring to the prescription version. they're referring to the illicit street drug. it's often used for adhd, narco-helpcy, buthatarelepsy, ao with the stigma that has to do with meth. >> how do we get to the point where we call these drug problems epidemics, in the book it's called meth mania ahistory of meth amphetamine.

nicholas parsons, thank you for being with us. >> i appreciate it. >> the show may be over but the conversation continues you can also find us on twitter @ajconsiderthis. we'll see you next time. >> good evening. this is al jazeera america. i'm john seigenthaler in new york. it's 11 on the east coast. 8 in the west and you are watching the only live nationality news cast at this hour. a soldier's story. a tape the moment bowe bergdahl was released by the taliban, and the home town celebration is cancelled. the hero - we are live to the air force pilot who rushed from his passenger seat in a 747 when the captain suffered a heart attack.