|
I take the opposite view. I think it's more that when wealthy people use/abuse drugs, they have a way bigger financial, social, and medical safety net, so that their drug use ends up having a far smaller (and less publicly noticeable) impact on their lives and future opportunities. Yes, people with less access to financial security have more statistical drug use, but the statistics might also be skewed by 1. the fact that non-wealthy people have more interaction with State-funded services (police, rehab, therapy, prisons), which track and report drug use more systematically & robustly than the obscenely-expensive, private, and very discreet rehab facilities the wealthy have access to 2. because of the aforementioned safety net, there's simply less likelihood of a wealthy person being 'caught' using drugs by an entity that would report those statistics (police, schools, etc). The higher one's poverty rate, the more vulnerable one is to having their actions scrutinized, catalogued, and punished by the State. |
Almost all of our drug statistics are based on interactions with police which produce legal consequences for a medical issue. All that said, I'm not saying "drugs are more safe than previously thought!" just that most of our public knowledge and legislation is about incarceration and leaves out an invisible population. The study was a few years old, I believe it was done just as the opiate epidemic came into view and well before anyone knew what carfentanyl was. Opiates affected rich white people's children has widened out the understanding a bit and migrogram opiates put a lot more people in front of police and medical. Also microgram opiates pop up in a lot of drugs that aren't supposed to contain them so I think that changes some things too.
A quick google has not produced this study or related, but if I find it, I'll tag it back in an edit.