I love your writing. This piece looks really comprehensive—thank you! I’m going to dig into it more thoroughly when I have a moment. However, after a quick skim, I didn’t see any references to the dynamics of the toxic culture of hyper-capitalism and prohibition itself as causal factors in the addiction crisis.
If we’re truly going to analyze the nature of the problem and its intractability, doesn’t that require us to highlight the root causes in order to find effective solutions? For me, this issue arises in the debate between the abstinence-only crowd and the harm reduction crowd. I believe it’s not a real debate because all of these approaches are part of the treatment spectrum, yet prohibition expenditures consume the vast majority of public funds. This creates a false dichotomy designed to benefit the powers that be.
I also wanted to acknowledge that, with such a quick skim, I might have missed the places where you refer to the disconnecting and dislocating forces of hyper-capitalism as trauma incubators and the true source of dysfunction that we see played out through the addiction crisis. I think incorporating perspectives on how hyper-capitalism contributes to trauma and how prohibition policies might exacerbate the crisis could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. Discussing these root causes might help in formulating more effective, holistic solutions.
Thanks so much for engaging with the essay—I really appreciate your thoughtful input. I see where you're coming from regarding hyper-capitalism and prohibition as root factors, and I think these are indeed important points that deserve attention.
That said, the intention of this article was to remain apolitical and to focus on the tangible, systemic barriers that are impeding real progress in Vancouver's addiction crisis. The goal was to steer away from ideologically charged analysis and instead present an objective look at how financial incentives, organizational interests, and policy failures contribute to the current situation. This approach was meant to keep the focus on the observable, actionable issues that exist, without veering into anti-capitalist political or economic theories.
I think the dynamics of hyper-capitalism, as you rightly point out, could be a very compelling factor in the broader context of addiction, and exploring these ideas could warrant an entire article of its own. However, for this piece, I deliberately chose to avoid framing the crisis through a political or socio-economic lens because I wanted it to resonate across different perspectives and not be boxed into a particular ideology.
I value your thoughts on how these larger forces like hyper-capitalism act as trauma incubators, and I do think these discussions are vital. But for this specific article, the scope was focused on the immediate systemic failures, unclouded by ideological rhetoric. I appreciate the dialogue and agree that there is room for more articles that dive deeper into those broader, structural elements.
Thanks again for contributing to this conversation
Excellent, sensible reply, brother—I get it. I’m also deeply invested in Gabor Maté’s philosophy from The Myth of Normal, and from that perspective, these issues can’t be separated. It’s like trying to figure out why someone is dying without acknowledging they’re swimming in poisoned water. I’m also a big fan of Bruce Alexander and The Globalization of Addiction, which has shaped a lot of my thinking.
I understand the need to address discrete issues when making specific points, but in my view, the analysis loses power without considering the broader systemic forces at play. That’s why I want to add this perspective—not to disagree, but to supplement what you’re saying.
In this post-truth era, communicating complex perspectives in a way the average person can grasp is more critical than ever. People don’t really understand the fentanyl crisis—it’s playing out on a global scale. We need to highlight the Iron Law of Prohibition: the harsher the enforcement, the more potent the drugs become. This is a key driver of the disaster we’re in.
Prohibition is also fueling many of the unhealthy dynamics in the psychedelic space. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but again, I think this perspective is worth reinforcing.
It’s essential in these discussions to identify root causes—otherwise, we lose sight of real solutions. Nonprofits are drowning under the tidal wave of despair caused by our toxic culture, and that deserves attention.
The pharmaceutical industry and the Western biomedical psychiatric model—co-opted by Big Pharma—are being driven by hyper-capitalism. You’ve emphasized that well, and it absolutely should be shouted from the rooftops.
That said, I’m not sure it’s accurate to say most people on substitution therapy are diverting their meds in a harmful way. The real issue may be that the program doesn’t go far enough—unmet needs and barriers might be pushing people toward diversion. There’s already so much resistance to harm reduction initiatives, and it’s important to clarify that they aren’t meant to solve the crisis. Their purpose is to stop people from dying while we work toward a larger shift in how we address these deaths of despair.
We have to be careful to draw the right conclusions from the wrong outcomes—otherwise, we risk missing the mark entirely.
To wrap up, I just want to emphasize again: this is a poisoned drug crisis, driven by unjust drug laws that serve the toxic ideals of our sick culture.
Hey Ivan,
I love your writing. This piece looks really comprehensive—thank you! I’m going to dig into it more thoroughly when I have a moment. However, after a quick skim, I didn’t see any references to the dynamics of the toxic culture of hyper-capitalism and prohibition itself as causal factors in the addiction crisis.
If we’re truly going to analyze the nature of the problem and its intractability, doesn’t that require us to highlight the root causes in order to find effective solutions? For me, this issue arises in the debate between the abstinence-only crowd and the harm reduction crowd. I believe it’s not a real debate because all of these approaches are part of the treatment spectrum, yet prohibition expenditures consume the vast majority of public funds. This creates a false dichotomy designed to benefit the powers that be.
I also wanted to acknowledge that, with such a quick skim, I might have missed the places where you refer to the disconnecting and dislocating forces of hyper-capitalism as trauma incubators and the true source of dysfunction that we see played out through the addiction crisis. I think incorporating perspectives on how hyper-capitalism contributes to trauma and how prohibition policies might exacerbate the crisis could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. Discussing these root causes might help in formulating more effective, holistic solutions.
What are your thoughts on this?
Thanks so much for engaging with the essay—I really appreciate your thoughtful input. I see where you're coming from regarding hyper-capitalism and prohibition as root factors, and I think these are indeed important points that deserve attention.
That said, the intention of this article was to remain apolitical and to focus on the tangible, systemic barriers that are impeding real progress in Vancouver's addiction crisis. The goal was to steer away from ideologically charged analysis and instead present an objective look at how financial incentives, organizational interests, and policy failures contribute to the current situation. This approach was meant to keep the focus on the observable, actionable issues that exist, without veering into anti-capitalist political or economic theories.
I think the dynamics of hyper-capitalism, as you rightly point out, could be a very compelling factor in the broader context of addiction, and exploring these ideas could warrant an entire article of its own. However, for this piece, I deliberately chose to avoid framing the crisis through a political or socio-economic lens because I wanted it to resonate across different perspectives and not be boxed into a particular ideology.
I value your thoughts on how these larger forces like hyper-capitalism act as trauma incubators, and I do think these discussions are vital. But for this specific article, the scope was focused on the immediate systemic failures, unclouded by ideological rhetoric. I appreciate the dialogue and agree that there is room for more articles that dive deeper into those broader, structural elements.
Thanks again for contributing to this conversation
Excellent, sensible reply, brother—I get it. I’m also deeply invested in Gabor Maté’s philosophy from The Myth of Normal, and from that perspective, these issues can’t be separated. It’s like trying to figure out why someone is dying without acknowledging they’re swimming in poisoned water. I’m also a big fan of Bruce Alexander and The Globalization of Addiction, which has shaped a lot of my thinking.
I understand the need to address discrete issues when making specific points, but in my view, the analysis loses power without considering the broader systemic forces at play. That’s why I want to add this perspective—not to disagree, but to supplement what you’re saying.
In this post-truth era, communicating complex perspectives in a way the average person can grasp is more critical than ever. People don’t really understand the fentanyl crisis—it’s playing out on a global scale. We need to highlight the Iron Law of Prohibition: the harsher the enforcement, the more potent the drugs become. This is a key driver of the disaster we’re in.
Prohibition is also fueling many of the unhealthy dynamics in the psychedelic space. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but again, I think this perspective is worth reinforcing.
It’s essential in these discussions to identify root causes—otherwise, we lose sight of real solutions. Nonprofits are drowning under the tidal wave of despair caused by our toxic culture, and that deserves attention.
The pharmaceutical industry and the Western biomedical psychiatric model—co-opted by Big Pharma—are being driven by hyper-capitalism. You’ve emphasized that well, and it absolutely should be shouted from the rooftops.
That said, I’m not sure it’s accurate to say most people on substitution therapy are diverting their meds in a harmful way. The real issue may be that the program doesn’t go far enough—unmet needs and barriers might be pushing people toward diversion. There’s already so much resistance to harm reduction initiatives, and it’s important to clarify that they aren’t meant to solve the crisis. Their purpose is to stop people from dying while we work toward a larger shift in how we address these deaths of despair.
We have to be careful to draw the right conclusions from the wrong outcomes—otherwise, we risk missing the mark entirely.
To wrap up, I just want to emphasize again: this is a poisoned drug crisis, driven by unjust drug laws that serve the toxic ideals of our sick culture.