So What Should We Do About Drug Addicts?

[nebo113]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/california-homeless-spending/index.html

[Stockmann]

I find the whole talk of the lack of affordable housing issue as a particularly American problem bizarre. Housing is insanely expensive compared to people's incomes almost anywhere anyone actually wants to live in, from Seoul to Vancouver to Moscow to London to Mexico City. Maybe Canada suffers from less Nimbyism, but definitely not from less unaffordable housing - Vancouver is one of the least affordable cities on the planet.
To me it seems blindingly obvious at some point almost every government on the planet stopped building, or subsidizing the building of, affordable housing. Combined with increasing requirements and restrictions (it's not enough to comply with health & safety requirements, you also have to please the Karens on the local HOA, for example), which increases costs, as a basic illustration you get soaring house prices. Making it easier for buyers to borrow makes it worse, as it means increasing demand (much like federal student loans allow tuition to go higher).

On the problem of drug use, it seems to me obvious different drugs require very different approaches, because some are much more harmful than others, and some are more addictive than others. An alcoholic can remain functional (able to hold a job and generally keep themselves alive) for years - there's at least one such alcoholic on my department. It's also possible to consume alcohol regularly but in small amounts that cause relatively little damage. It makes sense to keep alcohol legal because the costs of making it illegal outweigh the benefits - alcoholism is still a problem, but at least alcohol suppliers aren't shooting each other on the streets. For the "hardest" drugs, I'm not sure there's a better answer than giving addicts a rehab or jail choice.

[Kron3007]

This distinction between public and private goods seems a little Symantec.  Perhaps this is a technical definition, but it hardly seems black and white as there is often overlap.

There are no services that everyone benefits from equally, nor services that only impact one person without any public good.  Roads are a public good, but not everyone drives.  How my neighbour is doing impacts me.  If everyone in my neighbourhood is suffering, it impacts my life very much.

This is the whole point of harm reduction, public healthcare, etc.  It is also one of the major differences I see between the more libertarian minded American public and the Canadian public.

When I was younger I was conservative, largely on libertarian principles.  What shifted my view to being the bleeding heart liberal you now see was living in the Southern USA and seeing the results of it in practice.  This is why I completely understand the stance of many who think drug users, homeless, etc. should reap what they sow from a philosophical basis, but don't think it leads to the best outcomes for society. 

Public healthcare provides better care to the most people, for less money.  From a societal point of view it is better, but when I was in the USA people seemed more concerned about people taking advantage of it and having to pay for others.  Sometimes gut feelings get in the way of the best policies.

Likewise with drug use.  It may feel good for people to think we should crack down on them, and they should take personal responsibility, but none of the evidence suggests this has the best societal outcome.  Creating policy based on your gut is no way to run a country.

[marshwiggle]

This distinction between public and private goods seems a little Symantec.  Perhaps this is a technical definition, but it hardly seems black and white as there is often overlap.

There are no services that everyone benefits from equally, nor services that only impact one person without any public good.  Roads are a public good, but not everyone drives.  How my neighbour is doing impacts me.  If everyone in my neighbourhood is suffering, it impacts my life very much.

Picking up on this, consider this:
Would you rather live in a mansion in a war zone, or in a small apartment in a peaceful city?


I think many, if not most, people would choose the apartment, even though the mansion leaves them with more of what might be called "private goods". "Goods" are not (or should not be thought to be) simply economic. The psychological, emotional, and spiritual "goods" of living in a society with less wealth inequality and suffering are worth higher taxes for many people. In many American cities I've visited, I've seen more people begging, showing signs of chronic illness (like limping), homeless, etc. beyond anything normal for Canadian cities. That experience lessens my enjoyment of life when I'm there. So the taxes I pay here that pay for all of those social programs actually does provide a "good" for me, namely my ability to be comfortable in my environment.

So public healthcare is a public good because we don't have to see nearly as much suffering as is common in places without it, and that is personally valuable.

[ciao_yall]

This distinction between public and private goods seems a little Symantec.  Perhaps this is a technical definition, but it hardly seems black and white as there is often overlap.

There are no services that everyone benefits from equally, nor services that only impact one person without any public good.  Roads are a public good, but not everyone drives.  How my neighbour is doing impacts me.  If everyone in my neighbourhood is suffering, it impacts my life very much.

Well, not everyone drives. But they do receive mail that is delivered over public roads. Thy buy groceries that were trucked in over public roads at a much lower cost than if they were schlepped across dirt trails. So we all benefit from roads.

[dismalist]

Playing with definitions is unhelpful for analyzing anything. The precise technical distinction between public and private goods is useful  precisely for determining the best way of financing its provision, by taxation or by user fee [price]. They do constitute extremes, however. Between them are capacity constrained services. A classroom is a public good until it is full. Then it is a private good.

For combating poverty, we have a safety net that is far more generous than usually appreciated. Some people care more about this and some not at all. It is charity or forced charity, not a public good. I am for poverty alleviation not for what it does for me, but for what it does for the recipient. Hence, purely private good.

When the concept is bandied about with reckless abandon it seems that a public good is a good that I like, so I put the adjective public in front of it to justify the government paying for it. Well, it's public. All true by definition.

[Anselm]

Picking up on this, consider this:
Would you rather live in a mansion in a war zone, or in a small apartment in a peaceful city?

Interesting, since I have this same option in my meatpacking town.  This year I could have bought a 4500 s.f. home in the historic district for $280K, near the limits of what I can afford.  It is also close to some problematic homes based on published arrest reports.  The home today would cost $2M to build. 

Zoning laws today forbid affordable housing.  One example is New Lenox, Illinois where a single family home must be at least 1800 s.f.  There are many other factors involved with the federal government and lending practices.  In my cynical view, nothing substantial will change in our lifetimes.  Your only option is to live where housing is affordable and give up on the American obsession with owning the traditional single family home.

[marshwiggle]

Playing with definitions is unhelpful for analyzing anything. The precise technical distinction between public and private goods is useful  precisely for determining the best way of financing its provision, by taxation or by user fee [price]. They do constitute extremes, however. Between them are capacity constrained services. A classroom is a public good until it is full. Then it is a private good.

For combating poverty, we have a safety net that is far more generous than usually appreciated. Some people care more about this and some not at all. It is charity or forced charity, not a public good. I am for poverty alleviation not for what it does for me, but for what it does for the recipient. Hence, purely private good.

When the concept is bandied about with reckless abandon it seems that a public good is a good that I like, so I put the adjective public in front of it to justify the government paying for it. Well, it's public. All true by definition.

There's an interesting amount of behavioural economics in all this, illustrated by amenities. Simply put, are amenities "public goods" or "forced charity"?

In my building, the marketing materials identified amenities like a pool, gym, etc. This is pretty typical. Since I've lived here, from my observations only a small percentage of residents have actually used the pool or the gym. Developers build what will sell. So, if there were many people who didn't want to pay for amenities that they wouldn't use, there should be some buildings designed without these amenities. The reality is that the best-selling properties are the ones with the most extensive amenities. Why are people willing to shell out definite cash for access to services which they may use? In purely economic terms, people should opt for not buying into all of these communal benefits which they may not use, and instead just purchase their own gym  memberships and so on if and when they actually use them.

So, are amenities "public goods" or "forced charity"? And why do people choose those over only paying for things they themselves actually use?

[Kron3007]

Playing with definitions is unhelpful for analyzing anything. The precise technical distinction between public and private goods is useful  precisely for determining the best way of financing its provision, by taxation or by user fee [price]. They do constitute extremes, however. Between them are capacity constrained services. A classroom is a public good until it is full. Then it is a private good.

For combating poverty, we have a safety net that is far more generous than usually appreciated. Some people care more about this and some not at all. It is charity or forced charity, not a public good. I am for poverty alleviation not for what it does for me, but for what it does for the recipient. Hence, purely private good.

When the concept is bandied about with reckless abandon it seems that a public good is a good that I like, so I put the adjective public in front of it to justify the government paying for it. Well, it's public. All true by definition.

Perhaps it is, but I don't think there is a black and white separation between public and private goods.  As with most things it seems more like a gradient.  Trying to bin them makes things easy, but misses the nuance. 

[Kron3007]

This distinction between public and private goods seems a little Symantec.  Perhaps this is a technical definition, but it hardly seems black and white as there is often overlap.

There are no services that everyone benefits from equally, nor services that only impact one person without any public good.  Roads are a public good, but not everyone drives.  How my neighbour is doing impacts me.  If everyone in my neighbourhood is suffering, it impacts my life very much.

Well, not everyone drives. But they do receive mail that is delivered over public roads. Thy buy groceries that were trucked in over public roads at a much lower cost than if they were schlepped across dirt trails. So we all benefit from roads.

True, but this argument can be made for most items.  You may not go to university, but you benefit from the skilled labour they provide.  You may not have a cell phone, but our entire system relies on it.  Etc.

[Kron3007]

I find the whole talk of the lack of affordable housing issue as a particularly American problem bizarre. Housing is insanely expensive compared to people's incomes almost anywhere anyone actually wants to live in, from Seoul to Vancouver to Moscow to London to Mexico City. Maybe Canada suffers from less Nimbyism, but definitely not from less unaffordable housing - Vancouver is one of the least affordable cities on the planet.
To me it seems blindingly obvious at some point almost every government on the planet stopped building, or subsidizing the building of, affordable housing. Combined with increasing requirements and restrictions (it's not enough to comply with health & safety requirements, you also have to please the Karens on the local HOA, for example), which increases costs, as a basic illustration you get soaring house prices. Making it easier for buyers to borrow makes it worse, as it means increasing demand (much like federal student loans allow tuition to go higher).

On the problem of drug use, it seems to me obvious different drugs require very different approaches, because some are much more harmful than others, and some are more addictive than others. An alcoholic can remain functional (able to hold a job and generally keep themselves alive) for years - there's at least one such alcoholic on my department. It's also possible to consume alcohol regularly but in small amounts that cause relatively little damage. It makes sense to keep alcohol legal because the costs of making it illegal outweigh the benefits - alcoholism is still a problem, but at least alcohol suppliers aren't shooting each other on the streets. For the "hardest" drugs, I'm not sure there's a better answer than giving addicts a rehab or jail choice.

Sure, every drug is unique, but I think the general principles of how we approach them can be similar.  There are a lot of functional drug users, you just apparently don't know about it.  Alcohol use is just more open. As with alcohol, some people can use drugs and remain productive members of society, while others develop problem use.  The reality is that alcohol is among the worst drugs by almost any measure.

As for alcohol suppliers not shooting each other on the street, that was not necessarily true during prohibition.  Organized crime was a major benefactor of prohibition, and I'm sure there were related murders and other crimes.  This is one of the main arguments for legalization, it would reduce crime related to the drug trade.   

[dismalist]

Playing with definitions is unhelpful for analyzing anything. The precise technical distinction between public and private goods is useful  precisely for determining the best way of financing its provision, by taxation or by user fee [price]. They do constitute extremes, however. Between them are capacity constrained services. A classroom is a public good until it is full. Then it is a private good.

For combating poverty, we have a safety net that is far more generous than usually appreciated. Some people care more about this and some not at all. It is charity or forced charity, not a public good. I am for poverty alleviation not for what it does for me, but for what it does for the recipient. Hence, purely private good.

When the concept is bandied about with reckless abandon it seems that a public good is a good that I like, so I put the adjective public in front of it to justify the government paying for it. Well, it's public. All true by definition.

There's an interesting amount of behavioural economics in all this, illustrated by amenities. Simply put, are amenities "public goods" or "forced charity"?

In my building, the marketing materials identified amenities like a pool, gym, etc. This is pretty typical. Since I've lived here, from my observations only a small percentage of residents have actually used the pool or the gym. Developers build what will sell. So, if there were many people who didn't want to pay for amenities that they wouldn't use, there should be some buildings designed without these amenities. The reality is that the best-selling properties are the ones with the most extensive amenities. Why are people willing to shell out definite cash for access to services which they may use? In purely economic terms, people should opt for not buying into all of these communal benefits which they may not use, and instead just purchase their own gym  memberships and so on if and when they actually use them.

So, are amenities "public goods" or "forced charity"? And why do people choose those over only paying for things they themselves actually use?

Amenities? There's a good motto, addressed to professionals -- If you don't understand something about pricing, it's probably price discrimination! :-)

Here it take the form of bundling. Nothing special.

[quasihumanist]

There's an interesting amount of behavioural economics in all this, illustrated by amenities. Simply put, are amenities "public goods" or "forced charity"?

In my building, the marketing materials identified amenities like a pool, gym, etc. This is pretty typical. Since I've lived here, from my observations only a small percentage of residents have actually used the pool or the gym. Developers build what will sell. So, if there were many people who didn't want to pay for amenities that they wouldn't use, there should be some buildings designed without these amenities. The reality is that the best-selling properties are the ones with the most extensive amenities. Why are people willing to shell out definite cash for access to services which they may use? In purely economic terms, people should opt for not buying into all of these communal benefits which they may not use, and instead just purchase their own gym  memberships and so on if and when they actually use them.

So, are amenities "public goods" or "forced charity"? And why do people choose those over only paying for things they themselves actually use?

Neither - they are conspicuous (non)-consumption.

People pay for amenities because it enhances their (feelings about their) status to have a gym and pool they never use.  It's another form of the "I have money I can afford to waste on this certificate" certificate.

[dismalist]

There's an interesting amount of behavioural economics in all this, illustrated by amenities. Simply put, are amenities "public goods" or "forced charity"?

In my building, the marketing materials identified amenities like a pool, gym, etc. This is pretty typical. Since I've lived here, from my observations only a small percentage of residents have actually used the pool or the gym. Developers build what will sell. So, if there were many people who didn't want to pay for amenities that they wouldn't use, there should be some buildings designed without these amenities. The reality is that the best-selling properties are the ones with the most extensive amenities. Why are people willing to shell out definite cash for access to services which they may use? In purely economic terms, people should opt for not buying into all of these communal benefits which they may not use, and instead just purchase their own gym  memberships and so on if and when they actually use them.

So, are amenities "public goods" or "forced charity"? And why do people choose those over only paying for things they themselves actually use?

Neither - they are conspicuous (non)-consumption.

People pay for amenities because it enhances their (feelings about their) status to have a gym and pool they never use.  It's another form of the "I have money I can afford to waste on this certificate" certificate.

Some people go to a college with a football team but never attend a game. They are broadcasting that they are wasting money or buying status?

Some people don't eat all the meals served on a cruise. They are broadcasting that they are wasting money or buying status?

No, bundling exists wherever people have different willingness to pay for the components of the bundle. You like academics, but not football. I like football, but not academics. A college that offers both appeals to more customers. What the deepest motive for liking different components of the bundle to different degrees isn't important for practicing bundling. What matters is only that people differ.

[marshwiggle]

Playing with definitions is unhelpful for analyzing anything. The precise technical distinction between public and private goods is useful  precisely for determining the best way of financing its provision, by taxation or by user fee [price]. They do constitute extremes, however. Between them are capacity constrained services. A classroom is a public good until it is full. Then it is a private good.

For combating poverty, we have a safety net that is far more generous than usually appreciated. Some people care more about this and some not at all. It is charity or forced charity, not a public good. I am for poverty alleviation not for what it does for me, but for what it does for the recipient. Hence, purely private good.

When the concept is bandied about with reckless abandon it seems that a public good is a good that I like, so I put the adjective public in front of it to justify the government paying for it. Well, it's public. All true by definition.

There's an interesting amount of behavioural economics in all this, illustrated by amenities. Simply put, are amenities "public goods" or "forced charity"?

In my building, the marketing materials identified amenities like a pool, gym, etc. This is pretty typical. Since I've lived here, from my observations only a small percentage of residents have actually used the pool or the gym. Developers build what will sell. So, if there were many people who didn't want to pay for amenities that they wouldn't use, there should be some buildings designed without these amenities. The reality is that the best-selling properties are the ones with the most extensive amenities. Why are people willing to shell out definite cash for access to services which they may use? In purely economic terms, people should opt for not buying into all of these communal benefits which they may not use, and instead just purchase their own gym  memberships and so on if and when they actually use them.

So, are amenities "public goods" or "forced charity"? And why do people choose those over only paying for things they themselves actually use?

Amenities? There's a good motto, addressed to professionals -- If you don't understand something about pricing, it's probably price discrimination! :-)

Here it take the form of bundling. Nothing special.

Then I'd say universal healthcare is just more "bundling". Everyone is going to need some form of healthcare periodically; it's just not easy to predict in advance.