Meth-induced psychosis is a very real thing.
Suicide is an example. You can't "overdiagnose" suicide unless you outright lie that it happened. The rate for suicide was something like 10/100K in 2001 and is hovering at 14/100K now. This is a significant increase.
If more people are killing themselves, it's almost certain that there are far more people are also miserable or struggling than there used to be.
This seems like pretty direct reasoning, but I suppose it could be flawed.
People have been outright lying about suicides for a long time.
If it's counted as a suicide rather than an accident then maybe. I would then ask who is lying.
If it's faking deaths then that's the coroner system which you would have to question.
It's kind of undeniable that there's a rising mental illness crisis in the US and undoubtedly more suicides, but keep in mind that suicide, like all symptoms of mental illness, is hard to track accurately. Especially as the stigma towards mental illness is starting to cede.
When looking at data, an otherwise healthy 20 year old, and an 80-something with multiple chronic and/or terminal Dx's, would stand out.
The challenge in looking at population-level data is that the Dx may well not be available, though other indicia might suggest this (e.g., residence is an assisted-living or long-term care facility). In practice, studies are frequently limited to available data, and proxies are frequently used. These may not be appropriate for specific individuals, but at scale, the law of large numbers and general correlation are your friends.
In 1999, teen (15-19) suicide was at around 8/100k, and it's now around 11/100k. It's lower in absolute numbers than in the general population, but there's still a disturbing uptick.
https://www.charliehealth.com/research/the-us-teen-suicide-r...
But it would be extremely unknowable whether or not they had experienced suicidal ideations, and how long they had had them. Because the most you will get is a note in the medical chart, based on a verbal claim by an unreliable narrator.
The reasoning being that it's very difficult to hide bodies, and that statistics on suicide tend to point to some very deep-rooted pathology within a society.
Yes, it's possible to fudge those statistics somewhat (the distinction between "accidental" and "intentional" deaths being salient), but far less so than other indicia of psychological trauma, particularly at population levels (the focus of sociology).
But you can do that. Throughout much of the 20th century (in the United States, at least), the cops might be willing to just call it an accident (he was cleaning his gun) or an unsolved homicide. Ostensibly to spare the family shame or to allow the family to bury them in the cemetery of their choice.
Furthermore, there seem to be factors that cause upswings and downswings in the suicide rate. There were alot more people jumping out of skyscraper windows in 1929 and 1930 than there were in 1925 and 1926, for instance (though we might expect the opportunity to have been roughly the same). Now, that doesn't directly rebut your argument here. But it would mean you'd need to show that if there is an upswing today that it has lasted longer or otherwise been worse than similar ones in the past, or that it doesn't seem to have the same sorts of causes.
If possible, it might actually be better to pick some other measurable event/behavior than suicide. Psychotic breaks, schizo episodes, or voluntary commitment.
That's what addiction looks like to me, my wife and me were pretty shocked.
Social media has disconnected us all.
DNGAF. Amen.
As a recovered uppers abuser (sober over 14 years) I am grateful to care more than most peopls are willing to in such an unjust society.
"It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
I'm trying not to be insulting, but as someone who's social circle nearly universally consumes recreational drugs (not counting tobacco or alcohol), this comment is cringe-inducing how out of touch with reality it is.
To answer your question, 0% can be attributed to it. Alcohol has been legal forever, but medicine still recognizes what alcohol-related addiction, psychosis, and liver cirrhosis are. Medical diagnoses don't really care if the drug involved in a drug related symptom is legal to purchase or not. There are people who don't consume drugs of any kind and have many mental illnesses, and there are people who consume many drugs and don't have any mentally illnesses at all.
I think it's reasonable too assume that legalization of a formerly forbidden substance will increase overall use of that substance. I also think that it is reasonable to assume that increased use of a substance will increase the amount of people suffering the potential side effects.
That said, I think social media, the economy, the pandemic, pollution, and the war on terror drugs have done way more harm than legalized weed.
And then there are questions of whether you'll tell your psychiatrist. I've seen a quite accepting, non-judgemental attitude about recreational drugs, but can you count on this to be consistent? Do you want this on record in your medical chart? Do you want to try and consistently lie about activities quite germane to your mental health?
Throw in the 2008 recession and collapse in generational mobility worldwide.
Add to that global media/internet access and increasing alienation with the increase in inequality worldwide.
Finally top it off with a fat pandemic and you have at least two generations (X and Millennials) totally get their future put on hold while everyone older cashes out.
Everyone younger is looking at all this in horror and are just waiting us out while innovating humor in the most refreshingly gallows way.
which dispense drugs,
> make health care unaffordable
so patients can't afford drugs,
> getting access to treatment
which starts and ends with drugs.
"A much higher percentage of the population suffer from mental illness in more unequal countries; differences in inequality tally with more than triple the differences in the percentage of people with mental illness in different countries.
Rates of depression in US states are associated with income inequality (after adjusting for income, proportion of population with a college degree and proportion over 65). The more unequal the state, the higher the prevalence of depression."
Then is this the corollary to "Money Can't Buy Happiness"?
A lot of money seems to buy happiness, and when that pile of money is used to raise the price of housing / food / transportation - then those who do not have the big pile of money feel like they are hopeless and are often treated as such which has secondary effects.