Interesting discussion. Just wanted to comment on this part, as I don’t think you would effectively remove this segment from society. Let’s assume, theoretically speaking, a lot of people ended up destroying themselves with unrestricted access to all the vices they liked (it would be horrific). What then?
Another generation would come along and do the same thing. The underlying circumstances that lead to addiction wouldn’t have changed, just the efficiency in removing/killing people who are trapped in addiction. The death toll would be enormous, and the affect on families and in particular children would be unacceptable.
I don’t think there is an easy answer, but part of the answer has to be improving the lot of people, such that they genuinely feel like they have a shot at a decent life. I know addiction affects people from all parts of the socio-economic ladder, but it feels like a disproportionate number are from the lowest rungs. Improve their lot, and maybe the outcomes will be helped?
This is what I alluded to in one my previous posts. Addiction is really a two pronged issue. There is the inherent addictiveness of the the substances that are the source of many addictions. But there is also an intrinsic response that occurs in the brain when someone does something that they have assigned value to. This is what you call the dopamine hit, and there are a number of people who develop addictions to that hit regardless of what it is that is causing it. This doesn’t need to be booze or drugs, and this is what explains things like addictions to shopping, porn, or even something as dumb as social media (that rush when you get a response to your shit-trolling tweet). So what we see is that the vast majority of people who develop booze or drug problems are wired to need that dopamine hit. That means part of successfully getting clean is finding a new thing to obsess over. Common ones are fitness and religion, but I also know numerous people who have gone down the body art route as well.
This intrinsic cognitive response does provide a potential target for pharmaco therapy in providing drugs that activate that portion of the brain, making the act of pulling the lever on whatever trigger someone has feel less like a hit. While I havent looked at the data in a while, there was interesting progress being made with a class of weight loss drugs for generalized compulsive behavior, which makes sense once you think of the trigger the person uses being irrelevent.
Gambling has an added layer of complexity because it really is the only one where there is a hole people theoretically have the chance to dig themselves out of with one more hit.
There are methodoligical problems with the series of studies, but I’d encourage everyone to read up on Rat Park. It’s likely the data dont align quite so tidily with the narrative the investigator created with the studies, but the overall idea is that the initial models of opioid addiction were generated on rats kept in isolation. One investigator read those studies and realized the critical flaw in that rats are social creatures, and so hypothesized that the presence and severity of the addiction that were produced in those studies was in large part because of the emotional misery of the test rats.
To test it he created a social environment for his rats called rat park. He allowed them to have normal level of socialization along with free access to liquid opiates and saw a completely different response. Rather than a uniform level of addiction he saw a wide ranging response. A small number of his test rats still became addicted and did nothing but use. But he also groups of rats who chose to abstain completely, and those who used almost recreationally…they’d spend the day doing their rat shit in rat park and come back and wind down with a few sips of opiate infused water and then get up and do it all again the following day.
As I said, the studies have been widely criticized, but the model is compelling and does have evidence in support of it.
Regulating the gambling sector won’t impact those that want to have the odd bet.
It would stop it being forced down people’s throats at every opportunity. It would move to stop the association that sport and gambling go hand in hand. It would stop gambling companies using algorithms to target promotions and communications to those who are clearly losing significant sums of money. It would stop them perpetuating the idea that the way out of the hole you’re in is by gambling more.
Clearly, for some people they aren’t fully in control of their actions. No one willing wants to lose so much money that they damage their life. Yes, they need to take ownership of their actions but so do the gambling industry. Addiction is as psychologically driven as something like depression. Your response is akin to telling someone who is depressed to cheer up and get on with it. If it was that simple they would have done it long before they got to that position.
Again no. This is about someone getting the proper treatment for it. Depression is a disease which has to be managed , the same way there are some people who manage other diseases.
I might have forgotten to mention that I take anti-depressants as well in tandem with the medicines i’'m taking to reduce my alcohol dependency (This was mentioned earlier in this thread)
This is about me and my personal experience , it might not be the same for everyone , but at the end of… People do have a choice. I stand by that
Similar Algorithms are used by E-Commerce and Food delivery aggregators to increase their profits. In what way is what they are doing be okay and what the gambling companies are doing be wrong ?
Sure. I think the framing of the question in the thread title is not helpful because everyone does have a choice. But the issue is over how much the deck is stacked against some people from making the “right” choice. This comes in large part from intrinsic psychological factors related to compulsion (the basis of calling addictions diseases and being able to treat them with meds). But any behavioral issue is also related to the built environment, and that means that the way businesses and industries are allowed to operate can make it all the more difficult for a particular individual to make those right choices.
I think Rab’s analogy was a good one. But the one I like is likening people’s expectations for addicts to just stop doing what they’ve been doing is telling a poor person to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Often the people who use that sort of language are those who were born with opportunities and security. Likewise, those who think addicts just need to make better choice are often those who are not in thrall to their compulsions and either because of where they live, or how the marketing algorithms ignore them, are not the target of predatory marketing.
So all companies have to abide by the same rules when it comes to their practices do they?
It’s pretty simple to see the difference between the two. With e-commerce and food delivery you exchange money for goods. You spend, you receive. The more you spend, the more you get. At no point might you give them money and not get anything (okay it happens but by fault rather than design). At no point do you get so good at ordering food that they say they’re going to now limit what you can do or bar you because it’s not longer good for them.
With gambling you aren’t paying for a service, you aren’t paying for goods. You are guessing on an outcome. Just because algorithms are used in all manner of things doesn’t justify using them to deliberately targeting people who have “spent” sums of money that only a tiny percentage of the population could possibly afford to spend with nothing in return.
I highly recommend you read the book I mentioned. He’s an ordinary bloke with a job and a house and a family. He doesn’t want to gamble away €10,000 but it becomes a compulsion that is exacerbated and perpetuated by the actions of the bookies.
They do. And they get past the point where they are able to pick one of the other ones even though they know it would be better for them.
I’ve had issues with depression. I didn’t want to feel like that. I knew I didn’t have to feel like that but I couldn’t stop those feelings. Exactly the same with the compulsions that come with gambling. People have choices, some fall into a place where they can no longer make the right one. That place is good for the bookmakers and they’re happy to keep you there and claim they aren’t to know you can’t afford it. At the same time, you take too much money off them and they’ll cut you off. That isn’t a level or fair playing field which is why it needs regulation.
I think it was Rat Park that I first read about, but there are also longitudinal studies about the prevalence of drug abuse in communities that have suffered economically, with the latter happening before the former. Again, I’m oversimplifying here.
But I am unsure about us all having choices in our lives, its not that simple. I am unsure if someone with a major addiction gets to make informed choices.
I think as society we facilitate (possibly wilfully inflict) harmful addition on broad swathes of the population. For example, there are more betting shops, off licences and fast food shops in poorer areas. What is the incentive for someone growing up in those areas to step outside of that? If you grow up where a parent (or parents if lucky?) smoke, drink excessively, do drugs, never cook healthy meals, where most peers are smoking, drinking and partaking in the odd joint by 11-12, what is the likely trajectory of those people? Do they have any choice other than the path to some form of harmful addition?
I think we all have a choice. It is wide and free and clear, especially early on in the cycle. If the circumstances are such that addictive behavior is modeled, say from a close family member, then the choices begin to narrow and there’s a sense in which we are steered in a certain direction. We still have a choice though.
Then let’s say we begin to partake. It might begin as recreational, and we still have a choice. It might be a form of escapism due to our circumstances, but we still have a choice, whether it is alcohol or gambling or whatever.
At this point, sophisticated advertising starts to have an asymmetrical effect. Earlier on in the cycle it is not as effective. But when we are in - hooked, but arguably still with a choice to escape - sophisticated advertising works to narrow the options.
It is at this point that I think careful regulation is needed, as it seems immoral, or at least unethical to prey on people when they are vulnerable.
Bottom line for me is that we have a choice, of course we do… but the further in we go, the more the choice is removed from a person.
I didn’t touch on the chemical side of addiction, or the propensity for addiction that is genetically passed on. I was mostly talking about the nurture part of it, not the nature.
Do we all have a choice regarding poverty?
And if we dont are our choices limited by our social standing? Our ethnicity? Our sexuality? Our health status?
Perhaps our choices are more limited by extenuating factors than we would like to think?
And with all if the factors combining our choices, poor choices regarding life are very much steered, coerced by factors outside of our control.
I think poverty may start to narrow the choices, in a behavioral sense, for some addictions. You still very much have a choice, but the factors are perhaps subtlety steering you in a certain direction.
For example, I grew up poor, council estate, tough circumstances. Both parents smoked heavily when I was growing up. It would have been very easy for me to do likewise, but I made the choice to not do that, not least for obvious health reasons. But I would imagine that if I had just copied my environment, an addiction to cigarettes would have formed.
My general point is the further in you go with something, the more the personal choice seems to be removed. You may have the appearance of choice, especially to people in the outside who aren’t addicted, but really you are trapped and depending on what it is, getting out is very difficult.
I think the biggest thing is something you alluded to in your previous comment, in that for a choice to be truly informed one must understand the full set of options available. Sure, some people are born to dream big but most people make choices based on what they think is available to them, and that is majorly determined by what they see. the reason the kids of Drs are more likely to become Drs than other kids is not because of intelligence, but because it is known to those kids to be a reasonable option to pursue in a way that working class arent aware of.
