Hacker News Reader

Comment by mundo | Hacker News Reader

All of the pessimism ("This only worked because Iceland is so small/white/etc, it would never work in the US") in this thread baffles me. Are there a lot of other wildly successful approaches we should try first? Did you not read the bits about the Icelandic approach working well in other cities?

If anything, it sounds like the lesson here is that what worked so well is not just the approach, it's the implementation. (It's not like "build a sports facility" or "pass a curfew" or "encourage parents to spend more time with their kids" haven't been tried in the US) What I took home is that those same approaches which have had limited success when done on a small scale work a lot better when they're well-funded and taken seriously and used consistently for a long time.

View on HN

Sure, some things are different, and it's important to understand why solutions work in one country, and how they may not work in others. But the US has a large problem with thinking that our problems are unique when they aren't.

The largest metropolitan area in the US, NYC, also has this same mentality.

Diversity is not the issue, poverty is; serious, chronic poverty the type of which Iceland doesn't have.

Reducing non-legal-substance abuse is considerably easier in Iceland as well; comparative to the US, it's quite difficult to find drugs in Iceland -- they don't have an equivalent Mexico[0] (or other similarly unstable country) for which narcotics can trivially flow through as Iceland is an island.

[0] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... see transnational issues, illicit drugs

Where there's demand, there's supply.

Mexico wouldn't be such a drug-trafficking powerhouse if it didn't have the world's biggest consumer market right above.

Without getting into a discussion of addiction, the choices of those at risk of addiction, decision making in young adults, or any other aspect of this kerfuffle, even if Iceland had the demand, they wouldn't have the supply -- it's incredibly hard to get high on drugs that aren't physically there. Access is a major factor.

They might not have anything that needs to be imported en masse, but they would still have drugs that are trivial to produce locally, like weed and meth.

Sure, weed or shake-and-bake meth is going to happen, but weed isn't very serious (compared to heroin or cocaine) and small-scale production of hard drugs will yield impure, weak product at a rate that won't support societal usage (and ramping up production requires infrastructure that _would_ get noticed on a small island).

I think you'd be surprised at how much can be produced locally when you don't have competitors with an economy of scale.

Bro, drug-dealing is a multi-billion enterprise. Drug dealers are using 747s, submarines, tunnels, speed-boats, etc to supply.

Trust me, there IS drugs in Iceland. And I can asure you, if there were a spike in demand drug dealers wouldn't fold their arms. Locals would grow weed/cook meth in their backyard and find ways to smuggle foreign product too.

> Bro, drug-dealing is a multi-billion enterprise. Drug dealers are using 747s, submarines, tunnels, speed-boats, etc to supply...Trust me, there IS drugs in Iceland.

Grammatically, 'there "are" drugs in Iceland', but that's besides the point. Anecdotally, I've been around them in Iceland and they were treated as a rarity and not like they are here (northeast US), where I could find them within 30 minutes of asking.

It's quite difficult to make a tunnel or a submarine that travels from Mexico from Iceland. There are few airports in Iceland and they take smuggling quite seriously as by-air is one of the very few ways to transport illicit goods. Finally, the social mores around production of methamphetamine are far different than hearing someone you know took a pill while partying. Ease of supply chain deeply matters.

edit: Also, please don't call me "bro"

> Also, please don't call me "bro"

Sorry, won't do.

> Grammatically, 'there "are" drugs in Iceland', but that's besides the point.

Welp, honest gramatical mistake from a non-native speaker. Even the best of us make mistakes sometimes, thanks for the correction.

Having said that, please don't correct me any more, I personally felt it more pedantic than helpful, and I think you can read over small issues like that to keep conversation centered on what matters (:

> Anecdotally, I've been around them in Iceland and they were treated as a rarity and not like they are here (northeast US), where I could find them within 30 minutes of asking.

Anecdotally, I go to school in the northeast US, and I know the density of consumers there is pretty high; I assume higher than Iceland. Unsurprising there's dealers all over too.

I see what debate we're falling into here; does supply create it's own demand? There's plenty of literature on the issue, and I will agree with you in that the easy of supply matters.

Your original comment and subsequent replies make me believe you think drugs is a supply-centered issue, when in fact thats far from true, and I know this for two reasons:

1. The US has for years been on a "war on drugs", and now they brought Mexico into it. Yet this hasn't been effective at all as a means of stopping drug consumption.

2. Island tackled drug demand instead, and it had fantastic results.

Is supply in Iceland constrained? For certain drugs perhaps. But this doesn't matter to the main point of the article. We can have a look at a point I made you didn't address; weed. Weed consumption is on the ground in Iceland, yet anyone could grow weed in their backyard to satisfy supply. Alcohol is legal in Iceland too, I suppose there is a lot of supply. 20 years ago, they were trying to cut supply and it didn't work. So now they did something different, and it worked.

Look, if you think the reason the US is in such a bad drug situation all because of Mexico, I can't convince you you're wrong, you'll have to figure that one out on your own. What would convince you of this? What data is needed to convince people like you of the fact the problem is in the demand and so the US should focus on the well-being of its population instead of paying lots of money so Mexicans kill each other?

> Having said that, please don't correct me any more, I personally felt it more pedantic than helpful,

And won't do :)

Didn't mean it to be pedantic -- I spend a lot of time around non-native english speakers and "correct mistakes in passing" without any sort of judgment. Likewise, they correct my grammatical/word-choice issues with non-english languages, but apologies if I offended as that was not the point.

> Your original comment and subsequent replies make me believe you think drugs is a supply-centered issue

Not entirely, but in first-time users or casual users, it definitely changes the equation of whether or not they get pulled into an evening.

> 1. The US has for years been on a "war on drugs", and now they brought Mexico into it. Yet this hasn't been effective at all as a means of stopping drug consumption.

I think Mexico has always been a part of it -- the US is quite effective in reducing/policing large-scale illicit drug production within its borders, but this doesn't really matter when we have a neighbor with no meaningful interest in doing so as long as the harm is extra-national.

> We can have a look at a point I made you didn't address; weed.

Sorry, I mentioned this in a different comment, but weed is a far different thing than what I consider to be serious drugs. It's still not something you can wildly grow in Icelandic climate or soil though.

> Look, if you think the reason the US is in such a bad drug situation all because of Mexico, I can't convince you you're wrong, you'll have to figure that one out on your own.

I didn't say that the US's addiction problems are fully because of Mexico (or other weakly policed nations), near did I think I imply it.

> What data is needed to convince people like you of the fact the problem is in the demand and so the US should focus on the well-being of its population instead of paying lots of money so Mexicans kill each other?

Do you really think Americans pay money for Mexicans to kill each other? I'm sorry, but this is absurd. Making something illegal will reduce its supply (drugs, guns) and create a market for criminals. If a country can't control the criminals within its borders, or worse, as is the case with Mexico, lets itself be controlled by crime and corruption, that's a demonstration of a failure of government.

I'm from an island nation, albeit a bigger one (Australia). The isolation does limit supply, cocaine is expensive here and I've been told availability is sketchy.

Meth is cheap and plentiful though, any redneck/bogan can setup a lab. Weed is practically given away.

Indeed. Just look at the painkiller abuse in USA to see that substance abuse is the problem, whether legal or not is irrelevant.

There's a marked difference between a xanax-popping soccer-mom and level of access required to create endemic addiction in teenagers.

Like how moms aren't "levels of access"? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

In a uniquely American way, the teenager doesn't have access to a doctor, may not have access to a car, almost certainly doesn't have access to public transportation. How then, do they get drugs?

Via slightly older drug-dealing friends from school, which is different enough from a mom who goes to the doctor, gets a prescription, and simply fills it from a pharmacy.

How is this relevant to the results of the program described in the article? Iceland was still an island thirty years ago, yes?

Also it's not clear how this is related to either parent comment. Seems like it was just tacked on here to be higher in the thread.

Netherlands is very prosperous but you can get any drug you can imagine here; one has nothing to do with the other

Getting drugs in Iceland is laughably easy there are facebook groups (many!) Where dealers post pictures of products, the product range and a list of prices and a phone number where you can reach them.

Drugs are expensive compared to elsewhere but you get free delivery. Any local would be able to access amphetamines, cocaine, weed, etc. Within an hour at almost any time of day.

The police monitors these groups but beyond that is rather ineffective.

???

Please tell me how drug-use is a poor people problem, and rich people who can afford all the drugs they want without falling into debt, destroying their personal relationships or themselves get by.

When poor people use drugs it's called a problem, but when rich-people use drugs it's called a party smh.

Golly. I wonder what we should try to fix.

Ok, so why don't we work on fixing that? ... Oh wait, it costs money, time, organization...

There. Exactly there. We have something they don't have, thus it won't work. Do you have any evidence that there is a link to poverty in any of this? Did you not read about results in Bucharest? Have you _been_ to Bucharest? No,you guys are no special snowflakes and until somebody has tried a similar program with similar funding levels, engagement and duration and has found it not to work, you don't get to say "we have poverty".

I agree with akytt, though I think there's a more general truth in play that hasn't been noted. Ongoing poverty perpetuates itself, which is why none of the short-term programs in the US have had lasting impact. We succeed, and find a way to uplift a cohort of people from poverty, but we don't address the root cause which would reduce the rate at which people enter into poverty. And so, a similar size group slides in to fill the uplifted cohort's place. When economic circumstances are favorable, fewer people are in poverty. Other times, more. Creating permanent economic booms would be great, but we don't know how to do it long-term.

What we do know how to do is to ensure that youths have the opportunity to learn, grow, and become self-aware before they enter the high-risk period of their adult lives. In the US, the focus is on access to academic education. We don't really address personal growth and self-awareness, except in using punishments to force youths to adhere to rules and conform to a certain degree.

Trill-i-am (GP) argues that perpetual poverty will engender escapism, resulting in drug use and reducing or neutralizing any productive effects of such a system in the US. Akytt (P) notes that the system is adjusted to fit the circumstances when implemented. I propose that on a longer time scale this program may result in a reduction of poverty because individual adults will be more likely to do something productive with their emotional energy and free time. The program puts kids in a situation where they can freely make self-directed choices that can improve themselves or uplift a team.

I have two questions. I would like to know what the average TV/[non-self-directed streaming] time is for kids in the US and Iceland. I would like to know what happens to local (adult and child both) poverty rates as well as adult drug use rates in sustained program cities and in comparable non-program cities over time.

Why do you believe we haven't tried this in the US?

The problem is the amount of money vs the number of students served. Midnight basketball and similar programs do indeed work, but the per capita expense is not small.

In addition, these after school programs come with a significant liability issue in the US. Many after-school programs have been nuked because nobody wants to have to hire police and security for when a bunch of drunk idiots show up and start a brawl.

People here aren't the only pessimists.

If you check the 2005 vs 2012 suicide stats for iceland you'll see that in the same period substance abuse might have decrease, however suicide rates in Iceland have significantly increased...

Sure, but Iceland is so very different from America in so many ways, that it's fair to point that out.

Alcohol for example - there was never any taboo about drinking in Iceland. It was never seen as a justice issue before or after the program.

Also - the communities as a whole were never failing. You had 'decent families', decent municipalities etc..

I'd imagine, in most of America where there is decent governance, decent jobs, good families: there is not a massive problem with smoking and alcohol. There might be issues with marijuana and hard drugs possibly, both of which represent a different kind of issue entirely.

To me - the 'Iceland' solution seems pretty straightforward on the scale of 'social malaise' to deal with. 14 year olds getting drunk and smoking - just by 'cracking down' a little bit on under-age serving, liquor stores/cigarettes - changing a few laws, trying to change social norms - you'd likely be able to move the needle a bit. A more integrated social program would yield even better benefits as we see.

But imagine an Aboriginal community trying to do the same thing: there is usually a lack of coherent leadership, lack of basic justice and trust in the justice system, lack of funds, and much deeper social problems (incidence of rape is through the roof, there's a lot of violence, suicide etc.), there's poverty, joblessness, and very few have any hope for the future. Now that puts alcohol abuse in a different category.

If there were 'normal suburbs' in America with vicious underage drinking and smoking problems, I'd say Iceland provides a good solution.

Outside of that, I think it's much more complex.

Sure, YMMV, but is America's current system putting up results positive enough that we shouldn't try something new? (I'd argue it's an abject failure anyway you measure it)

Aside from the fact that this is 100% speculation on 0 data and sounds to me to be both wrong[1] and more than a little bit biased, why would this complaint even matter if it were true? "It won't work as well in a shitty poor neighborhood as it will in a nice one" is very likely going to be true of every attempt to reduce every social ill. It doesn't follow that they wouldn't work at all or would not be worth the cost or should not be tried.

1. I can't find drinking-by-income data, but anecdotally, I think the idea that underaged drinking and smoking is only a problem in poor neighborhoods would make most Americans laugh out loud.

"[1] I can't find drinking-by-income data, but anecdotally"

Wow, your "non-reference reference" is a brilliant way to criticize that my comment was not based on factual reference!

I didn't say that 'drinking and smoking' is only a problem in 'poor neighbourhoods'. So your comment is not relevant.

In fact, I didn't even refer to 'poor neighbourhoods', I indicated 'Aboriginal communities' in particular - where the problems are systematic and acute.

What is 'laughable' is that anyone would consider that the total social break-down in Aboriginal communities - and the issues that some kids in wealthy areas are remotely related, or should be treated the same way.

In Scandinavian countries, as I mentioned, there is no 'taboo' about drinking. It's 'not positive' but nevertheless 'socially acceptable' to be a kid, drinking every so often. A 'drunk 14 year old' is nothing to make a huge fuss about. Of course, 'a community of drunk 14 year olds' is.

In America - there would indeed be much fuss over a single incidence of fairly underage drinking. It's not socially accepted.

There are basically zero middle or upper class areas in America wherein 42% of 14-16 year year olds have been 'drunk in the last month' and also none where 25% of 14-16 year olds are smoking.

In America overall, the data (which was trivial to find) has it at about 5% [1] (using average of 8th grade and 10th grade).

As it would stand America already has lower teen drunkenness than Iceland even after Icelands 'amazing social program'.

Iceland before: 41%, after: 7%. America now: 5%.

Whoops!

Also - smoking is definitely a much greater issue among lower economic classes, this is consistent in most advanced countries. Drinking - it's a mixed bag. College kids drink the most of any group.

[1] https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics...

> As it would stand America already has lower teen drunkenness than Iceland even after Icelands 'amazing social program'. Whoops!

That would be a real zinger if I had said it wasn't. Look, I'm not sure what you're on about, but it doesn't seem to be related to my comment. Could you go find someone who disagrees with whatever-it-is you think about Aboriginal communities and argue with them?

I see this common theme in thread, a sort of asinine pedantic appeal to "data." It's not as if those that recognize clearly that "solutions" for Iceland and it's, as others have correctly, very small and largely homogenous population will not bear the same results in the US do not somehow believe in science or "data."

It may seem like hand waving to those constantly repeating the "data" refrain but it is also very naive ignore the rather obvious qualitative analysis. World societies are not like ant colonies.

There is not enough time in the world to gather complete and precise sociological datasets and even if there were, it would, honestly, be a waste of time for those some, and this will unpopular, common sense about the problem.

It's sort of ironic that those crying most about the data are just shrugging off the several orders of magnitude quantitative difference between Iceland and the US across a panoply of population datapoints.

You cannot just try every single possible experiment for "completeness"; it is impractical and especially when it flies in the face of common sense (or substitute "good qualitative analysis" if you like).

Also, on some level it is a bit silly, do people think there have not been after school programs in the US already? It is hardly a panacea; I mean it is not even in the ballpark.

> a sort of asinine pedantic appeal to "data."

Aka facts and evidence, as opposed to wild speculation based on gut feelings?

You're just committing the same flawed reasoning I'm talking about. Human behavior is complicated, your view is, and I don't mind stating this absolutely, is very naive, if well intentioned.

You make it seem like alcohol and drugs are mostly problems of the poor / slums.

I've been to rich communities, and that's where I see perhaps the most drug and alcohol consumption, all in the name of "fun" (Hell, I even unfortunately know more than a few people who as teenagers got drunk on Moet, but that's a whole other tier). Of course, in troublesome communities people will seek refuge in drugs, but "normal" suburbs are not immune to it, it just manifests differently.

Edit: Gonna add, drugs are expensive. If anything, I think I'd assume economically troubled people have a harder time maintaining a drug-filled lifestyle.

>Alcohol for example - there was never any taboo about drinking in Iceland.

Over 60% of Icelandic voters voted for complete alcohol prohibition in 1915, and in 1933 much of the ban was lifted; however it wasn't until 1989 that all of the restrictions were removed. I don't know how you can say it was never taboo or an issue of justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_in_Iceland#Prohibition

Reply on news.ycombinator.com