←back to thread

Decline in teen drug use continues, surprising experts

(arstechnica.com)
349 points pseudolus | 10 comments | 17 Dec 24 23:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source | bottom
Show context
vouaobrasil ◴[20 Dec 24 19:19 UTC] No.42474017[source]▶
I wonder if the new drug of choice is actually technology. In some ways I think that the addiction to technology has some similar mellowing effects as drugs. Some research indicates that smartphone addiction is also related to low self-esteem and avoidant attachment [1] and that smartphones can become an object of attachment [2]. The replacement of drugs by technology is not surprising as it significantly strengthens technological development especially as it is already well past the point of diminishing returns for improving every day life.

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S07475...

2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S07475...

replies(27): >>42474251 #>>42474255 #>>42474258 #>>42474428 #>>42474552 #>>42474820 #>>42474840 #>>42475416 #>>42476573 #>>42476771 #>>42476830 #>>42477157 #>>42477286 #>>42477871 #>>42478303 #>>42478352 #>>42478504 #>>42478717 #>>42478824 #>>42478837 #>>42479083 #>>42479553 #>>42480244 #>>42481141 #>>42481485 #>>42482200 #>>42483991 #
tirant ◴[21 Dec 24 09:25 UTC] No.42478504[source]▶
I fear the (negative) impact of our current technological drugs goes beyond the impact of traditional drugs.

I’ve seen kids not even 3-4 years old already hooked to smartphone screens. Even toddlers around 1 year old with an smartphone mount in their stroller.

Main impact on kids is lack of socialization, lack of emotional regulation and a complete impact on their capabilities to keep their attention. Those used to be indicators for a future failed adulthood.

I remember traditional drugs only becoming present around 14-16 years old. Alcohol was probably the most prevalent, and probably the most dangerous. Followed by Cannabis, tobacco and some recreational drugs like MDMA.

Most of those drugs had a component that actually pushed kids heavily towards socialization and forming peer groups. Now looking back to the results of that drug consumption I would say that most of the individuals engaging on them were able to regulate and continue to what it seems to be a very normal adult life. Obviously tobacco with terrible potential future health effects, but beyond that, everyone I know turned up pretty healthy. Not only that, I remember some time later that the most experimental group (mdma, LSD, mushrooms) of drug users being full of people with Master Degrees and PhDs.

The new technological drugs scare me way more than the old traditional ones. Obviously it is a normal response of the known va unknown. Time will tell.

replies(7): >>42478959 #>>42479363 #>>42479388 #>>42479964 #>>42480188 #>>42480368 #>>42481281 #
jorvi ◴[21 Dec 24 12:46 UTC] No.42479363[source]▶
I’m very much for legalizing and regulating (almost) all drugs, but watch out with the confirmation bias of “everyone in my social circle who used recreationally turned out fine.”

I can’t find it right now but I read a great comment on legalization that pointed out that a kid experimenting with weed and cocaine in college is doing so for a radically different reason than a kid doing it escape the daily misery of his ghetto neighborhood.

This is also why you’ll often see staunch opposition to legalization in the lower socio-economic classes, with them having seen people close to them destroyed by drug use.

And yes, legalization and regulation would of course also allow harm reduction. But it is good to be able to take the opposition’s perspective :)

replies(4): >>42479580 #>>42479627 #>>42480327 #>>42481509 #
1. bluejekyll ◴[21 Dec 24 15:51 UTC] No.42480327[source]▶
The primary reason to legalize isn’t to make it easier to do drugs, it’s to not use the justice and court system for dealing with addiction problems.

Our goal should be to legalize use and then take the money saved from police enforcement and funnel that into programs that get people off drugs. In the US an issue is that the latter part is part of the healthcare system, and we all know that has a lot of issues in serving people who fall into the under-employed category.

replies(1): >>42480537 #
2. kQq9oHeAz6wLLS ◴[21 Dec 24 16:29 UTC] No.42480537[source]▶
Several states have tried that. Some have already repealed the laws because they were a disaster.
replies(5): >>42480720 #>>42480726 #>>42480730 #>>42480924 #>>42481168 #
3. remixff2400 ◴[21 Dec 24 16:57 UTC] No.42480720[source]▶
Not my area of expertise per se, but the counterargument that I've seen is that the states (e.g. Oregon) that tried it never got the backstops in place to help soften and support the transition (i.e. rehab centers, support programs, social programs). Instead, it was just a hard switch that went expectedly bad.

There's at least a theory that people believe will work that hasn't been correctly implemented yet, but whether or not it's feasible to implement at all, I'm not holding my breath.

4. righthand ◴[21 Dec 24 16:58 UTC] No.42480726[source]▶
When this happens the reason 90% of the time is usually not because the program wasn’t working but the opposition to the program has made sure to either gut the funding or put in measures that makes those programs not work (only hiring 2 people to handle all the work or excessive operating requirements.

Cops will fight tooth and nail against social programs because it reduces their budget when problems are solved.

Look up these programs and you will see centrists claiming the progressive program was bad, but never indicate reasons as to why.

replies(1): >>42481172 #
5. macpete42 ◴[21 Dec 24 16:59 UTC] No.42480730[source]▶
Works for Portugal since forever
replies(1): >>42481220 #
6. fullspectrumdev ◴[21 Dec 24 17:27 UTC] No.42480924[source]▶
Those states half arsed it.

They did the decriminalisation step and then never bothered with the “redirecting savings from policing into services” step.

They also fucked it in other ways.

For an example of where it does work - see Portugal.

7. AngryData ◴[21 Dec 24 18:11 UTC] No.42481168[source]▶
In numerous places those efforts have been purposefully sabotaged by police who aren't happy about the loss of court revenues and the eventual cutbacks on police funding for drug prohibition. With them literally refusing to enforce some laws like public intoxication or shooting up heroin in the middle of the street because their more profitable and super easy to get arrests for drug possession laws no longer existed.
8. directevolve ◴[21 Dec 24 18:12 UTC] No.42481172{3}[source]▶
In Portland, decriminalization was poorly planned, new treatment options were implemented badly, and the alternative penalties for possession were not meaningfully enforced. It was a failure of execution.

I don’t think it tells us much about how well an ideally functioning decriminalization or legalization effort would work. It does update us in understanding that it’s difficult to accomplish this transition successfully.

replies(1): >>42481412 #
9. directevolve ◴[21 Dec 24 18:18 UTC] No.42481220{3}[source]▶
We really don’t know that, they had terrible data reporting on drug use before the policy was implemented so we can’t even make a before/after comparison. We also can’t parse out the extent to which changes in drug use stats reflect changes in autopsies or in cultural attitudes and candor about drug use affecting self reports.
10. righthand ◴[21 Dec 24 18:49 UTC] No.42481412{4}[source]▶
Absolutely, Americans love saying “we’ll just send the cops after them.” Because then they don’t have to do any of the hard work of understanding or funding the programs. Americans are lazy when it comes to solving actual hard problems.