Drug Use and Social Income

Why do some seem to stuggle more with their drug use than others?

Well, the neoliberal paternalist model would tell us to look at failures in the individual. But is this really all that is going on?

I will make an argument that alongside a persons personal choices is a lack of social income (support networks, good will, etc) for some but not others that can often make the difference in keeping one’s head above water.

Lumpen Precariat Stuck in Micro Debt Cycles

Neoliberal paternalist views on moral worth tend to lead people to separate “those who contribute” with “shirkers”. Little consideration is given to the persons financial position as if a persons values are the primary factor in a their ability to pay, not economic disadvantage.

Those deemed to be “morally worthy” are extended special privileges such as lower prices, more credit, and often other unquantifiable benefits. Those who are already disadvantage end up being nothing more than a customer base to exploit. They pay the highest prices (despite the fact that they are in the worst position to pay) and are dealt with in a paternalistic fashion – not as equals. This often leaves them in debt. If the debt becomes too large it can become crippling. The less exploitative among dealers may put a limit on the amount of credit a person can get, but this only really serves to perpetuate the lifetime of the exploitation and can hardly be put down to purely altruistic motives.

All this serves to create a class structure not that unlike the spread of inequality generally. A lumpen underclass of people in perpetual debt, an aristocratic class that get just enough benefits to make it in their interests to perpetuate the system and a tiny elite at the top who rarely get caught and remain mostly anonymous.



The people at the bottom are the most likely to have sanctions imposed on them for a range of reasons, not least getting caught by the police for possession, but also from the parternalist neoliberal state who will punish the drug user for not staying on top of their budget and will impose sanctions and behaviour modification techniques in an attempt to make the person more market compliant.

If the police or the government need to be seen to be “cleaning up the streets” it is often a member of the second tier that gets caught, but rarely if ever is it the people at the top of the supply chain. Each tier protects the tier above it, leaving the whole system undamaged by police interference.

Neoliberal Paternalist Arguments Against Charity for Drug Users

It is often said that if you give charity to a drug addict that you are enabling them and feeding their addiction. This is just another neoliberal paternalist argument that fails to take into account externalities in a persons life.

The argument goes that you are better off giving to charitable organisations who will make sure that the money is used to benefit the client in a healthy way. In reality this means behaviour modification, sanctions and punishments which often leaves the most in need breached, punished and deprived of support.

This argument of coarse does not hold up unless the organisations themselves are adequately funded, which they are not.



In the struggle against addiction it is wise to keep the addict population at least well-fed and in secure housing. It is tough enough tackling withdrawal symptoms under the best conditions. How much harder would it be to face if you are also malnourished, poverty stricken and in an insecure environment to boot. Instead of addressing these basic social, psychological and biological barriers, the neoliberal paternalist state will instead use a system of sanctions and punishments likely to both drive the addict further into poverty and also make it more difficult to stay off the drugs themselves.

This is where inequality in the real economy has an effect in the black market economy, because while the lumpen precariat at the bottom are dealing with all that, many of the people in the black market “aristocracy” (I’m rethinking this word, in the black market economy, far more profits go to the top than in the real economy, making even the second tier a difficult and unstable place to be financially) are also part of the aristocracy in the real economy.



They often have a support network with their families and with each other to make sure that when things do fall through, at least their basic needs continue to be met. They can crash with the family, with a friend. They might receive a bailout from their parents or a debt cancellation from a friend.

They or people in their support network may own property, and due to their extra social income they have a lot more latitude to re-organise their lives. They have more privacy, which gives them an edge in their illegal activities, as does property ownership.



For these reasons it is often hard to distinguish these people from non drug users. They make an effort to conceal their addiction, and thanks to their support network it is often enough to make them undetectable, even as parents and respected colleagues.

https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_levitt_analyzes_crack_economics.html;/discussion