I have worked with addicts from a range of backgrounds. The causal arrow does not point simply in either direction.
Addiction is a complex result of genetics and circumstance.
A background of poverty makes addiction much more likely. It is unquestionably harder to get clean if you do not have basic social security, let alone no secure shelter. Of course it is. The best indicator of whether you’ll successfully get clean is socio-economic background.
Once you are homeless (people generally prefer “unhoused” these days), being an addict makes it more difficult to get off the street if most state-provided shelter is contingent on getting clean.
So much state-provided shelter is completely inadequate as a secure base for turning your life around- look at the literal human warehouse that Vegas has just built.
A joined-up, personalised, and evidence-based system of care is required that does not exist where I live in the UK or in the US. Frustratingly, all evidence suggests that providing that system is cheaper than not doing so, whilst also relieving astonishing human suffering.
Providing an easy path off the street will help with addiction rates. Providing addiction treatment services will get people off the street. Do both at the same time as part of the same system of care and things really start working.
A google search will readily provide studies that confirm this.
Addiction is termed “persistent” rather than “permanent” by the NIDA. With respect for the net positive effect of abstinence-only programs, I have seen plenty of addicts stay clean long enough to create a stable life for themselves and then go on to safely use alcohol or drugs recreationally. Although, of course, plenty who have attempted that and then spiralled back down. Every individual is different, and tailored care works best.
Addiction is a complex result of genetics and circumstance.
A background of poverty makes addiction much more likely. It is unquestionably harder to get clean if you do not have basic social security, let alone no secure shelter. Of course it is. The best indicator of whether you’ll successfully get clean is socio-economic background.
Once you are homeless (people generally prefer “unhoused” these days), being an addict makes it more difficult to get off the street if most state-provided shelter is contingent on getting clean.
So much state-provided shelter is completely inadequate as a secure base for turning your life around- look at the literal human warehouse that Vegas has just built.
A joined-up, personalised, and evidence-based system of care is required that does not exist where I live in the UK or in the US. Frustratingly, all evidence suggests that providing that system is cheaper than not doing so, whilst also relieving astonishing human suffering.
Providing an easy path off the street will help with addiction rates. Providing addiction treatment services will get people off the street. Do both at the same time as part of the same system of care and things really start working.
A google search will readily provide studies that confirm this.
Addiction is termed “persistent” rather than “permanent” by the NIDA. With respect for the net positive effect of abstinence-only programs, I have seen plenty of addicts stay clean long enough to create a stable life for themselves and then go on to safely use alcohol or drugs recreationally. Although, of course, plenty who have attempted that and then spiralled back down. Every individual is different, and tailored care works best.