September 6, 2003
WINNING A WINNABLE WAR:
Survey Finds Millions of New U.S. Drug Abusers (Maggie Fox, 9/05/03, Reuters)
A redesigned survey of who uses and abuses drugs in the United States has found millions of "missed" users and addicts, with an estimated 22 million Americans suffering from alcohol or drug abuse.The study, released by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration on Friday, finds that 19.5 million Americans used illicit drugs in 2002. This works out to 8.3 percent of the population age 12 or older.
The report found that 54 million people, based on survey projections, would have been binge drinkers in the previous month -- defined as five or more drinks on the same occasion.
Nearly 16 million were heavy drinkers, downing five or more drinks a day for at least five days in the past month.
"The report highlights that 7.7 million people, 3.3 percent of the total population ages 12 and older, needed treatment for a diagnosable drug problem and 18.6 million, 7.9 percent of the population, needed treatment for a serious alcohol problem," the agency said in a statement. [...]
The report also for the first time includes information on mental illness linked with substance abuse.
"Among adults with substance dependence or abuse, 20.4 percent had serious mental illness," SAMHSA Administrator Charles Curie told the news conference.
Folks who oppose the war on drugs are fond of assuring us all that drug use has become so central to the culture that--like alcohol during Prohibition--it is futile to try and attack it through the legal system. This survey suggests that, to the contrary, drug use occurs at the margins of society--only about 8% of the population uses--that better than a third of users are addicts, that a fifth are mentally ill, etc. In fact, these numbers suggest the war has been largely successful, precisely to the degree that it has contained drug use to the margins. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 6, 2003 6:19 AM
This "five drinks equals a binge" business is silly. Why do they sell beer in six-packs, anyway?
Posted by: Random Lawyer at September 6, 2003 10:53 AMSo does this mean that most of the people I meet every day are just plain stupid, not debilitated by drug use as I had (generously) assumed?
Posted by: Jason Johnson at September 6, 2003 11:27 AMMr. Judd;
8.3% is quite a large fraction. That's quite a bit more than the rate of unemployment - are all of the unemployed on the margins of society as well?
Also, I've never actually read anti-Prohibitionists argue that drug use has become central to the culture* nor claim that as the reason it's hard to attack by law. On the icontrary, It's hard to attack via the legal system because it's a voluntary activity - there is no aggrieved party to complain to the authorities.
* There's a big space between "common" and "central to the culture".
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 6, 2003 4:51 PMAOG:
Of course the unemployed are marginal--jobs are going begging.
They themselves are the aggrieved party as are all of us they put at risk as is the entire society that ends up supporting them. Their right to ruin their lives does not exceed our duty to try and stop them.
Posted by: oj at September 6, 2003 6:15 PMAOG's point was well put and fundamental. Using legal means to deal with a problem where none of the participants want recourse to the legal system is virtually self contradictory.
As our duty outweighing their right--there seems to be a distinction between offering desired help, and forcing it when undesired.
Doesn't the Bible say we are not to be our brother's keeper?
Posted by: Regards, Jeff Guinn at September 6, 2003 8:54 PMJeff:
Cain asks the Lord if he's supposed to be his brother's keeper when the Lord is looking for Abel, who youll recall Cain has killed. Thus, the answer is obviously, yes, we are our brother's keepers.
Posted by: oj at September 7, 2003 12:19 AMWell, in this case, it isn't the least obvious.
If my brother doesn't want my help--whether in putting out his house fire, or stopping him taking drugs--there seems absolutely no reason to force that help upon him.
And at least one good reason not to. It seems a very short road from imposed help to statist tyranny.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 7, 2003 8:35 AMJeff:
I couldn'r have put it better myself; the demoralized society you seek is one in which we are so atomized that you stand by and let your brother die.
On the other hand, though you do believe you're a god, you are not the State: you can intervene safely without creating a statist tyranny.
Posted by: oj at September 7, 2003 9:36 AMOJ:
You probably won't see this, but.
Please stop misrepresenting what I say (in an earlier post, you accused me--completely wrongly--of believing everything is due to genetics). It is hard enough to convey complex arguments on difficult subjects without having to counter baseless assertions like the ones you made.
One may be ready to offer any amount of help to those who want it, while also recognizing the futility of forcing it upon those who don't. That is just what AA does, and I'm sure you wouldn't accuse them of desiring to atomize society.
All it takes is enough people to believe in forced help, and the Organizational Man will be right there to follow. Have you heard about the movie the Magdelene Sisters?
And please do me a favor. Don't ever again accuse me of believing I am a god. First, it is contradictory--I could scarcely believe I am what I don't believe exists. Second, when you make that sort of offensive accusation--which amounts to asserting I have even more hubris than religious people who claim to speak to, and hear from, God--you really ought to back it up with some sort of evidence.
Otherwise, it just comes across as an insult.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 9, 2003 1:04 PM