The San Francisco Drug Economy
priceonomics.com
priceonomics.com
It would have been interesting to see if there was support in this study for the iron law of prohibition, which states that the harder the laws, the harder the drugs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition
Vice did a great job of showing this in the economies of illegal alcohol sales in the Canadian Territories, where people wanted to drink beer, but ended up drinking vodka instead, and they wanted to drink a little bit of it, but ended up being forced to drink a lot.
You can watch it here -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIhUhHbTJ_s
Unintended consequences is always fascinating reporting, as it would have been here.
As to the side effects of the tech industry on drug us, all I can say is that in my volunteer work at City Team, I see it everyday. And I think it's intentional. I think it's part hazing, part group dynamics, and part social psychopath testing, that alcohol and drugs play such a large role in most all the tech companies that I consult with.
And if that concerns you, consider volunteering at a place like City Team as well. They need help every night.
disaffected, loserish kids in the suburbs are doing it just as much as rich bay area yuppies.
SF is also the only place I've ever seen flyers advertising a Whipit delivery service (nitrous oxide).
Generally speaking SF seems to be much more loose with drug use than other cities in CA - although I will say, from what I've seen, the use of pharmaceuticals like benzos and adderal seem to be treated as lightly as alcohol these days.
The article calls these "high-powered, expensive scales" which seems like a weird thing for a blog that's all about prices of things to get so wrong.
My takeaway is that drug dealers/users use Amazon to buy their supplies just like anyone else. It makes sense, I mean, why wouldn't they?
Everyone buys everything on Amazon.
Tylenol?
Is this because it's being used to cut other drugs, or is it the persecution of schoolkids?
How the fuck is this acceptable? How are inhumane workloads like these legal?
It's certainly not an environment that everyone would like - neither is USMC bootcamp, a PhD program or an MMA gym. Why should that be illegal?
To quote Marge Simpson (regarding watching MMA): "Call me a killjoy, but I think that because this is not to my taste, no one else should be able to enjoy it."
Working in tech in SF, and the other scenarios mentioend, are the same thing - you are putting yourself into an unhealthy environment, in exchange for specific benefits, usually cash, but sometimes for more non-tangible benefits to your life, or simply because you believe in it.
If that is the choice people make, that is fine. People should have the freedom to make those kinds of choices as they direct their lives. But what worries me is that some young people are jumping into these situations without realizing it.
As with everything in life, a conscious choice to follow a path is a good thing, and will be respected. But falling into something without realizing the downsides can be dangerous.
Actions in hyper-competitive SV have a ripple effect on the rest of tech economy globally. If the only way to compete in tech is to use performance enhancing drugs, well that's exactly the sort of situation where I'd want the government to step in with regulation. I don't want to have to use drugs in order to stay competitive. It's a health issue, similar to professional sports and drug use. Performance enhancing drugs are banned for the health of the athletes, not for the "spirit of the game."
Tech is a positive sum game. If PEDs help get us the next Uber, AirBnB or OkCupid, it's well worth the price of some less dedicated people being outcompeted. It's insane to hold the world back simply so certain less dedicated developers can maintain their current high status.
It's a wonderful place to live actually, and to raise kids, as long as you can afford the cost of a good standard of living here.
And despite what the article connotes, most people in tech are not using illegal drugs frequently or ever.
I don't think the article suggests most tech workers are doing this, but I think you'd be surprised at the amount that are. Bear in mind that in an office environment, it's hard to tell who is a user and who isn't. I'm a heroin addict, but I don't have 'Junkie' tattooed on my forehead, instead I work at a startup, commit code to GitHub, and go to conferences just like everyone else. I would also agree that it's a problem, and for one other reason that I think the article missed.
If you're unemployed or working a low-end job, and want to quit an addiction, nobody cares if you disappear for a month to detox at a friends house out of town, or something like that. With a tech job, perhaps in a startup or other stressful environment, the responsibilities and pressures that come with it mean you can't just stop. You need the drugs to stay functional and keep working, there are people and businesses relying on your output. For example, if I were just to stop taking heroin now, then withdrawl means I couldn't work for quite some time, maybe a month or two, and there's no way I can just drop all my projects like that. So if you stop taking drugs you'll lose your job, or worse - word might get around that you ended up in rehab, and no more working in the industry...
So it's a little more complicated than they make out.
Quoth your startup god king:
Hoffman travels three or four times a year to China, LinkedIn’s fastest-growing market, and he is impressed by the Chinese work ethic. He told one conference audience about a startup in Beijing that was able to ship its first product in just six months, by renting a block of hotel rooms and requiring all employees to live there, taking breaks only to eat, sleep, and exercise.