I'm often confused by discussions around poverty, addiction, and crime because they seem to focus heavily on society and not much on individual responsibility

[YourWaryPlumBalonz]

For context, I'm autistic, grew up in a low-income household, and my dad was largely absent and neglectful. He rarely showed up, wasn't particularly involved, and wasn't much of a support. Despite that, I never got involved in crime or drugs.
Instead, I used the support that was available. I got help from charities, received government support related to my disability and employment, and eventually found a professional job. It wasn't easy, but there were people and organisations willing to help.
So what I'm struggling to understand is this: if support exists, why are so many problems framed primarily as society's fault rather than the responsibility of the individual?
I'm not saying circumstances don't matter. Clearly they do. But there seem to be plenty of people who experience poverty, disability, family breakdown, neglect, bullying, etc., and don't end up addicted, committing crimes, or repeatedly making self-destructive choices.

Jesus H Christ. If you are addicted it's not as easy as "make better choices" because you are addicted. Why are you refusing/incapable of understanding that? Some children grow up to be adults that learn about healthy eating and change their habits. Others don't because they don't have the education level to understand it, or the money to build up that store cupboard of herbs, spices etc. Or packs of meat which cost more than a bag of nuggets. It really concerns me that people dont seem to understand how the poverty trap works.

And yes. Smoking weed with your DC is (IMO) shit parenting. So is rasing them on a diet of beige UPFs. But I'm lucky enough to have the skills and knowledge to cook decent food. With the occasional freezer meal thrown in, I'm not perfect.

Upthread I asked the question on this "good diet" thing, what has happened already to a persons body if they grow up with a bad diet, and there seems to be no answer. Just a repeat of the mantra " eat healthy".

So let me ask in a different way. Someone grows up with a cheap processed food diet. It's all they eat. They get to 20 years old, and start to eat steamed organic cabbage etc.

How long does it take for this change to somehow happen ?

What are you on about? Healthy food is a good thing. Can't cure everything but it helps.

I've never taken cocaine or ketamine. I saw them at a party I was at when at 21. It shocked me that it was even there. But I didn't even take any of it because I have self control.

If it helps (which I doubt) here's the definition of addiction.

Addiction is a chronic medical and neuropsychological condition marked by a compulsive need to use a substance or repeat a behavior, despite severe negative consequences. It physically alters brain circuits involved in reward, stress, and self-control, making it hard to stop without help.

Congratulations on being a better human than others. I assume that's what you want to hear?

Cool. So you seem to have started a few posts up saying good diet is the key, and when pressed on that you have amended that.

Good stuff. That is what discussion is about.

I mean it's not that hard is it. I just didn't take it.

Amazed either was actually offered to you, tbh. (You are suggesting you resisted temptation) Indeed, I’m surprised you hang out at such gatherings.

Like I said, congratulations on being better than other people.

FWIW I've been to many many parties where drugs are being taken recreationally. I've never taken them. I've only tried a cigarette once and don't drink alcohol. None of that means I don't understand why others do take/drink those things. None of that means I don't understand addiction and why it's not as easy as "don't try it in the first place" or "just give it up"

It was a uni friend's flat. It was out there in the open for this who wanted to take to do. I just didn't partake in it at all.

How old are you?

oh hang on - I can see you’ve been gifted 100k to buy a house when you’re ready.

You’ve zero clue what you’re talking about.

Unrelated to anything you’ve said but I’ve never liked how teen pregnancy is lumped in with addiction and crime in such discussions. Had two of my kids at 16 and 18 and have never done drugs, most serious crime I’ve committed is occasionally not scanning an item or two at the self checkout. Or that the kids of teen mums are expected to be failures when mine are both top of their classes for reading and maths.

Anyway just a personal bugbear of mine

no misunderstandings it’s not been an easy road I’m not one who got my mother to raise my kids for me, my parents disowned me for getting pregnant out of wedlock (this was the 2010s not the 1950s believe it or not)

Still never picked up a crackpipe to cope. So I do agree with you in 90% of cases OP but a minority of people have been through some serious serious shit and it’s understandable why they turn to drugs. But just being poor alone is not an excuse

They may have "reasons" for taking these things but it's ultimately their own choice and doing right? They took these things out of their own free will didn't they? You can't get addicted to something you've never had.

People need to stop making excuses for other people. The prejudice of low expectations is just as harmful as racism, sexism or other forms of prejudice.

Had my two eldest kids at 16 and 18. Definitely lower class af. Generations above me are irrelevant because I got pretty much disowned for getting pregnant out of wedlock (however old u think I am im multiple decades younger but religious zealots gonna zealot )

Both my kids are top of their classes for reading and maths (not a small school each class has over 30 kids) future phD material.

Ive never understood why people online are so insistent on blaming someone’s illiteracy and alcoholism on their grandma being illiterate and a toilet scrubber. Free your mind from this generations of the same class bs, we’re in Britain not India

Congrats on raising your beautiful and smart DC.

I guess the reason people compare them (and I don't like the comparison either) is because people who have less than happy childhoods are more likely to become parents at a young age (which in turn means more likely to be in poverty), or addicts, or criminals. Statistically that is.

The kids I was at school with who came from the worst homes either had baby's at 15, or were smoking weed on the way to school. I had my own DC young, and was a single mum by 25. That was, in part, to escape from my unhappy home although at the time I didn't recognise it as that.

Regardless of who did, or didn't, individually match the stereotypes, the statistics do mean something.

Well that's rubbish isn't it? Children are being born addicted to drugs because of their mother's habits. You think they grabbed a quick syringe full in utero?

Wrong thread sorry!

This is less than 1% of the total addict population

I daresay it is.

However, your healthy eating thing has been debunked, yet here we are. Any source for your data ? Just as a matter of interest My first web hit was this. A bit out of date.

"A BBC investigation has found that one in every five hundred babies born in England is addicted to legal or illegal drugs taken by their mothers while pregnant. The figures were obtained from seventy-two NHS hospital trusts on the back of a Freedom of Information request. Nevertheless, health experts were quick to point out that the numbers are decreasing."

That was between 2011 and 2015 apparently. Source -

Addicted Babies in England Continue to be Born | Recovery Lighthouse

When you say less than 1% of the addict population, do you have data on the size of the addict population etc, so we can get the whole picture.

After all, you did not present any science to back up your "good food" claim. For this claim it should be easy.

What healthy eating thing was debunked? Healthy eating is good for you.

You must not be very good at numbers.

1/500 babies is 0.2% of babies

Out of the total population of people who have drug addiction then this would be a lot lower.

Yes, but you said "you can't get addicted to something you've never had".

Clearly you can.

You said "This is less than 1% of the total addict population".

I asked what is the size of the addict population. They are different statistics. Because although the ifo I found is out of date, that 1 in 500 babies born addicted says nothing about the size of the addict population.

For example, 697,852 babies born in 2015. How does this all tie up to your claim ?

And your claim about good food was that it would cure addiction somehow. That was pretty much debunked. Or at least you presented no evidence to support it. Instead you walked back on it. I would call that debunking, of sorts. As in debunking the claim you made. That eating healthy is a cure.

I am not saying you are wrong here with your less than 1%. I am just interested to see the data. To get a feel for the numbers.