Diversity is not the issue, poverty is; serious, chronic poverty the type of which Iceland doesn't have.
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.
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.
[0] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... see transnational issues, illicit drugs
Mexico wouldn't be such a drug-trafficking powerhouse if it didn't have the world's biggest consumer market right above.
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.
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"
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?
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.
Meth is cheap and plentiful though, any redneck/bogan can setup a lab. Weed is practically given away.
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.
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.
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.