I would ask my readers, if they can spare the time, to go here and read this. Please. You may find it illuminating.
Addiction, this article asserts, is not caused by "addictive substances"--at least not by those substances alone.
This runs so counter to the established mode of thinking that it sounds ridiculous. Of course heroin is addictive, and therefore using heroin will made you addicted to heroin.
Except in hospitals. Take diamorphine in a hospital for pain relief, over weeks and months...get discharged, and odds are next to nil you will turn to the streets to support your "habit". Even more telling, the stuff you get in the hospital is a hell of a lot more pure than anything you can score on the street. If the 'addictive substance' model of addiction had any validity, you'd have junkies streaming out of every hospital in the country. You don't.
Further examples are cited in the article: it makes a persuasive case that the 'addictive-ness' of a substance has surprisingly little to do with how people get addicted to it.
So what does? Isolation. Loneliness. Lack of human connection. Note the findings when Portugal decriminalized all drugs: addiction to injectable substances dropped fifty percent. But it wasn't because the drugs were suddenly quasi-legal: it was because Portugal took a caring, nurturing attitude towards its addicts, who were virtually all broken human beings beforehand. They gave them subsidized housing. They found them jobs. They made them responsible for each other.
THEY GAVE THEM SOMETHING TO LIVE FOR. Besides the drug.
This dovetails rather well with the justice policies of another European nation: Norway. In Norway, the prison system would positively enrage a right-winger. The prisons look like spa retreats...so cushy you might be tempted to commit a crime so as to be sent to one. The recidivism rate? Sixteen percent. By contrast, Canada's is 28% and it's ALMOST 68% in the United States. It's pretty clear that if the object is to reduce crime, giving people every reason in the world to "act out" is not an optimal strategy.
It turns out, in case after case on topic after topic, that human connection is absolutely vital to our mental health, both as individuals and as a society. This used to be implicitly understood, as recently as the 1950s, when most people knew their neighbours and those who kept themselves secluded in their own homes were looked at askance. Now, precisely the opposite often obtains: you're considered mildly crazy if you talk to strangers.
Your friends and loved ones were once strangers, you know.
Now, I'm not certain this tells the whole story: There is an undeniable genetic component to addiction. But even that link posits the percentages at 50-60% genetics and the remainder "poor coping skills".
How do you develop good coping skills? Three guesses and the first two don't count.
I really have to be careful here, because I find myself solving every social ill under the sun with the words "empathy" and "connection". But you know...even if that's the wrong or incomplete answer to some of these things, it would still make the world a better place.
Life update: two days in, the job is pretty good. Classroom training again. This time I'm on a Windows system. I haven't touched Win...
Back in grade thirteen--back when there was a grade thirteen--I had one class that shaped more more than most of the rest of my educational ...
I had somebody stomp all over my go-to analogy for polyamory. Both of them, actually. It left me floundering for a minute. I saw an oppo...
Like many people my age, I live two lives that intersect: virtual and real. Many times I have thought of disconnecting, or at least rad...