Hacker News Reader

Comment by underlipton | Hacker News Reader

The "fundamental problem" is the breakdown of community (drug abuse being primarily being a function of the existence or lack of interpersonal involvement and responsibilities that would preclude spending time and money on them). People who are comfortable huddling in their cars, homes, and exclusive social clubs, and who would rather spend money on cops rather than social programs, aren't going to like the fix for that.

View on HN

Do you have a source for this?

> drug abuse being primarily being a function of the existence or lack of interpersonal involvement and responsibilities that would preclude spending time and money on them

AFAIK there have always been addicts in every culture. Alcohol, various drugs, and strongly self destructive behaviors are not recent additions to the human experience. But I don't know any if the numbers or the research on this root cause you mention.

I suspect they're referring to experiments like the famous "Rat Park". There is clearly a strong social and environmental component to addiction susceptibility, at least in rats.

I don't know if I'd go as far as to say it's the fundamental problem, but definitely a major factor.

"AFAIK there have always been addicts in every culture."

Surely you would agree that there the proportion of addicts varies by culture and society, that the US for example has a much higher proportion than many poorer nations? I don't know about the first comment's claim that lack of interpersonal relationship is the root cause, but a strong social component looks obvious to me.

Cite? Every nation has an underbelly.

Poorer nations, those folks tend to die pretty fast though.

There was this article about Iceland combatting teen drug abuse by providing alternative activities and social outlets:

https://www.naturalhigh.org/icelands-radical-transformation-...

Iceland isn’t really a poor country though, even if it doesn’t have a high GDP. It’s more like New Zealand.

cite for what? my comment is basically asking for a citation for the OP's (and your) claim that substance abuse isn't culturally dependent?

I didn't claim that it wasn't culturally-dependent. Both people turning to drugs to self-medicate, and people not supporting and funding effective interventions - people on both sides rejecting or not seeing the opportunity to engage in community-building - is absolutely a culture issue.

No, it's merely a personal observation. In that vein, I'd think it more correct to say that there are always addicts on the margin of every culture.

Not the OP, but bring back real jobs and real way of spending your time (like real family and friends) and much of the meth problem will get solved by itself.

> AFAIK there have always been addicts in every culture

Alcohol addicts are a totally different thing compared to drug addicts. You can die as a result of alcohol, but there's nothing like fentanyl in the alcohol world (I'm talking about the scale of the disaster, I know about the few alcohol intoxications here and there).

There is in countries where alcohol is illegal, like in the Middle East. There, wet have similar problems as we have in the western world with poisoned supply - people buying liquor, but it turns out to be bleach. So I'd say bleach in your liquor is the fentanyl of the alcohol world. We don't see that in countries where alcohol is legal though, hmm.

> social programs

Do you have any links to social programs that have successfully dealt with meth addiction?

Can't say I have seen any locally (New Zealand) and we are a country more likely to see such programs?

I don't, but I'll ask you to consider the following:

1) The implication of my statement wasn't that social programs would solve the problem single-handedly, but that they're more effective than enhanced law enforcement spending.

2) This would seem to be, at the very least, supported by the people who advocated for treating the (mostly white and middle-class) victims of the opioid epidemic in the US as suffering from a medical rather than criminal affliction.

> I don't, but I'll ask you to consider the following: 1) The implication of my statement wasn't that social programs would solve the problem single-handedly, but that they're more effective than enhanced law enforcement spending.

What do police have to do with the effectiveness of social programs? A fundamentally ineffective social program will be just about as ineffective no matter how much funding it gets - because the problem they are approaching isn't one that they can solve.

>A fundamentally ineffective social program will be just about as ineffective no matter how much funding it gets - because the problem they are approaching isn't one that they can solve.

Correct - ironically, as you're describing most law enforcement agencies. The money spent on police - particularly their generous overtime and pension pay, equipment outlays, and hilariously ineffectual training - could be used to fund social interventions that actually work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com