6 ms·

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 ot

by mundo 10y ago

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.

edblarney 10y ago
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.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  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)
- mundo 10y ago
  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.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "[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/underage-drinking-statistics/ https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics...
Trill-I-Am 10y ago
Diversity is not the issue, poverty is; serious, chronic poverty the type of which Iceland doesn't have.
- mjolk 10y ago
  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/geos/mx.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... see transnational issues, illicit drugs
  - aylmao 10y ago
    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.
    - mjolk 10y ago
      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.
      - flukus 10y ago
        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.
        mjolk 10y ago
        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).
CaptSpify 10y ago
America has this attitude in general, and it drives me insane. "Our problems are different so we can't use the proven (healthcare|internet|public-transportation|drug-abuse|poverty|etc) solutions that other countries use!" 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.
- deathhand 10y ago
  The largest metropolitan area in the US, NYC, also has this same mentality.
bsder 10y ago
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.
thinkMOAR 10y ago
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...

by mundo 10y ago

edblarney 10y ago

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.

mattnewton 10y ago
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)
mundo 10y ago
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.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "[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/underage-drinking-statistics/ https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics...

Trill-I-Am 10y ago

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

mjolk 10y ago
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/geos/mx.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... see transnational issues, illicit drugs
- aylmao 10y ago
  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.
  - mjolk 10y ago
    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.
    - flukus 10y ago
      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.
      - mjolk 10y ago
        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).

CaptSpify 10y ago

America has this attitude in general, and it drives me insane. "Our problems are different so we can't use the proven (healthcare|internet|public-transportation|drug-abuse|poverty|etc) solutions that other countries use!" 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.

deathhand 10y ago
The largest metropolitan area in the US, NYC, also has this same mentality.

bsder 10y ago

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.

thinkMOAR 10y ago

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...