What causes drug abuse and how to stop it?

http://chasingthescream.com/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/portugal-drug-decriminalization/

I saw this guy (J Hari) on Maher last night and was pretty impressed with his reporting on the Western approach to the drug war, and how we totally botched it. It's pretty well-established that the US method of heavy-handedly attacking the supply and harshly punishing the consumers is an utter, expensive failure. We need to address demand, but what is the right approach - education, medical treatment, intervention?

Hari is saying that those responses could help, but they don't get at the root cause. Drug abuse is mostly driven by psychological distress due to environmental-social factors. Racism, violence, lack of economic opportunity, low self-esteem, alienation, and other negative influences lead an individual to turn to drugs for escapism, pleasure, release, etc. If a person has a comfortable home, decent job, loving family and community, and safe/positive surroundings, there is a very low chance that they will abuse drugs (unless they happen to be the minority of us who truly have an addictive biology, but then they would likely become addicted to something legal like booze or shopping).

Why is it that US drug abuse is highest in lower-income, at-risk communities and the youth? I think Rx drug abuse (which is a much bigger problem than illegal drug abuse) could be a different story, because that might be driven by over-prescription of those drugs by our health system. And since they're synthetic compounds, it's possible that the drug companies have engineered them to be very potent (and potentially addictive). But I'm not sure. Heroin is unanimously seen as the most addictive illegal drug, yet people get it legally all the time in the form of medical morphine. Anyone who has had an operation doesn't become a heroin addict, so the drug itself is not inherently the problem.

Portugal used to be the European nation with the worst drug problem (an estimated 1% of the adult pop. using). It is also a fairly poor and underdeveloped nation by EU standards. They tried the "US way" for fighting drugs, and it failed of course. So in 2001 they decided to scrap it - decriminalize ALL drugs and use the law enf. money on rehab and social development instead. Of course the conservatives predicted that all hell would break loose. But a decade later, needle drug use was down 50%, and so were OD deaths and drug-related HIV infections. Abusers were given medical rehab, but also given access to jobs, education, housing, etc. The former abusers were treated like humans and given a life, not like American convicts who are labeled as junkies and thrown in with the murderers and rapists. The Portuguese who employed and housed addicts were compensated by the gov't. It can work. A lot of the previous detractors came around and admitted that they were dead wrong.

Look at the countries with the worst substance abuse problems:

• Iran (heroin) - crippling sanctions and a repressive, fundamentalist gov't
• Russia (booze) - huge wealth inequality, corruption, and poor life prospects for many (interestingly the UK is also a big booze abuser)
• Latin America (meth) - huge wealth inequality and gang-police violence
• Afghanistan (heroin) - war, poverty, corruption, and fundamentalism
• US (mixed) - fairly large wealth inequality, some communities with racism/violence

So maybe the solution for winning the war on drugs has nothing to do with drugs. Just fix society to be more just, inclusive, safe, and prosperous - even for the most lowly among us. Actually I think a lot of ills could be indirectly fixed with that approach.

Why it's so hard to get out of poverty

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/linda-tirado-poverty-hand-to-mouth-extract?CMP=fb_gu

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/07/14/330434597/this-is-your-stressed-out-brain-on-scarcity

The situations and constraints that the poor find themselves in often lead to short-term thinking and counter-productive behaviors. They don't do it because they're irrational and/or like being poor. Even the "self-made Masters of the Universe" (conservatives like Romney, Ryan, Hannity, Trump, etc. who blame the poor for being poor) would likely do no better in their shoes.

Also, the ludicrous propaganda that the poor somehow live large off the rest of us and strategically exploit social programs when they could be working is really backed by no statistical evidence (but of course anecdotes exist). But stereotypes like that make it easier for society to ignore/dismiss/hate the poor, against our compassionate tendencies and the teachings of virtually every religious/moral code known to man.

Generosity only in good times?

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20081017_Annan__Nations_not_paying_hunger_aid.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/219724/122417271741.htm

World Food Day was last week, and with the rising costs of basic staples and fuel, the number of malnourished humans on the planet has almost reached a billion. 10,000 children will die of hunger today. The global financial crisis will only make matters worse. Reduced economic activity from recession pushes down sales and prices for exports like coffee that poor nations rely on to survive. Regardless of what losses we took to our 401(k)'s and home values, the poor in the Third World (and their struggling governments) will be hurt much more. Those making less than $1/day are much more vulnerable to the global fallout from an economic downturn, so we should stop feeling sorry for ourselves and recognize the other innocent victims of our greed. We might have to cut back on our summer vacations; they might have to cut back half their caloric intake. When compared to that reality, even people in danger of foreclosure can't really complain.

It's easy to give when our cups are overfilled, and yet America was stingier than Japan or most of the EU per capita during the economic booms of the 1990's and mid-2000's. But now, when the Third World will unjustly suffer from the mistakes of the industrialized world, is when we really need to step up and show our humanity. Is it more important to keep bank deposits insured, to cut economic stimulus checks, or to keep children alive? So far the industrialized world has injected over $3T in loans and other aid into their banking systems, but renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs estimates that we could virtually wipe out hunger with an investment of just $3B a year (1/1,000 of what was given to banks). Over half a billion more people (mostly in Africa) would be able to live to see 2009 and maybe improve their situations. All they need is literally some high-yield seeds, fertilizer, agriculture education/equipment, and maybe some medicine. No more than what the Amish have; it's really that simple. Loosening some protectionist trade policies would help a lot too, though as our wallets are squeezed, I suspect that the opposite will happen.

G8 nations already have a reputation for promising way more than they actually deliver in terms of poverty aid, including the Tony Blair-promoted UN Millennium Project ($50B for Africa by 2010). Recently, big names like Kofi Annnan and Sachs came out with scathing criticisms of rich states. In response to the price hikes and food riots in June (gotta love ethanol), the G8 et al. pledged an additional $12B to stabilize world food markets/supplies, but so far have only ponied up 0.4% of that ($50M from AUS). Unfortunately, sometimes the money that rich nations "pledge" is money that they already promised in the past (but haven't yet delivered on), or pre-existing aid money that they just re-allocated for this purpose. That's like your boss giving you a raise, but the money comes from next month's salary (or your friend's salary).