Looking In retrospect, if you were a policy maker today how would you try to prevent the new generation for having to go through this (today your path likely would not be viable due to fentanyl).
Almost everything is a choice. The difference is that sometimes you're making a rational one and sometimes you only think you're making a rational one and to outsiders and in retrospect it obviously wasn't the best choice, or event a good choice.
There are two aspects to the type of question that was asked. How do you prevent people from ha I g to make choices which are rational and good for their options but still really bad overall, and how do you convinve/educate people about available options they weren't aware of so they don't make outright bad choices when better ones are available that they are unaware of.
There are many possible answers to "why did you take off to the west and ride trains and sleep in parks and steak to feed yourself", but most of them aren't "well I just felt like leaving my entirely stable, loving and supportive friends and family." What to an outsider seems like a poor choice to a specific person imight seem like the decision that saved their life, even in retrospect.
This question jumps past the more fundamental question of whether policymakers, and the government in general, should prevent people from making their own choices.
Education is a very different story which ends with letting people make their own decisions after (hopefully) having more information about realistic outcomes.
I don't personally want a government preventing me from making my own choices. That line is blurry for sure, like if my decision directly negatively impacts someone else for example. But if packing up and riding the rails or sleeping in parks primarily impacts only me, the government shouldn't be able to stop me because they "know" its the wrong choice.
> This question jumps past the more fundamental question of whether policymakers, and the government in general, should prevent people from making their own choices.
When your choices include terrorizing businesses and being a public nuisance to everyone else, then yes, government should prevent people from making those choices.
We already have laws for theft and similar crimes. You don't need a government creating more rules preventing entire categories of choices from being made, especially if they already can't enforce the laws on the books.
In a healthy society there would be no need for intoxicants with so severe harms (BBC list for substances by harm is a good reference) and thus no exposure for a addictive substance.
Now the norm decides that, almost without exceptions, we must all be exposed.
And the substance abuse is a progressive lying disease so once we figure out "this has gone too far" the threshold for abuse has been crossed a long time ago in most cases.
First the close ones see the problem and the individual in question is the last to see it. Thus a lying disease.
I don't think humans are so straight forward. We have an instinctive nature to rebel that's not going anywhere, and we're all just so absurdly different, so what works for one person or family, may fail spectacularly for another. My opinion is that all you can do is be honest about things. DARE, for instance, ended up resulting in more kids trying drugs after all was said and done. It relied heavily on exaggeration and misleading statements - a lot like contemporary politics. And once people realized some of what was said was lies, the entire foundation fell apart and it all became seen as a joke.
So for instance I'll happily tell my kids that marijuana is enjoyable and relatively harmless in and of itself, yet you end up smelling bad, it ruins motivation, hurts your short-term memory, gives you the munchies, and is just generally is self-escapism, like most drugs. Gotta work on my exact pitch there, but that's the spirit of the point - honesty. They will make plenty of bad decisions in life, but I'd rather that with each one they see I was right, rather than see that I was lying or exaggerating - driving them further away from everything else I taught them.
> you only think you're making a rational one and to outsiders and in retrospect
In retrospect? It's really not hard to determine before the fact that petty crime is not a road to good things.
We have ways to prevent people from going down this path. It's called enforcement. He was more or less allowed to steal and sleep in the parks. If there was strict enforcement, this wouldn't have been a medium term viable option. Doesn't have to be throw the person in prison for the rest of their life, but either accept help, go through the criminal justice system or figure out another way to contribute to society in a positive way. It sounds like the author at any point could have found some kind of employment, but chose this because it was viable. And society wasn't doing him any favors by looking the other way
Enforcement is right of boom, essentially a safety net for the negative external affects of a person having already made a series of choices that resulted in an enforceable outcome. My impression from the thread is a query to identify the things that can prevent an enforceable outcome in the first place.
While one might say strict enforcement would discourage particular behavior choices. I would not disagree and add that suppression of behaviors is not as effective as replacement of behaviors.
Maybe also worth asking what he's doing along those lines as a father. Probably some interventions are in reach for the state, and there are some other things that parents are best positioned to do. He might have some insight into both.
(Lost my passwd to my throwaway so i had to create another, sorry)
Me? I have nothing to offer. My elementary aged kids will be in middle school soon and I am not looking forward to having to try and keep them on the straight and narrow. At home my parents afforded me a long leash and I rejected most of what my superiors at school/etc fed me. As soon I was able, I GTFO. Took many risks and things worked out okay for me in the end. I could tell my kids to do the opposite but I'd be lying and they'd know it.
This is a good and balanced reply. My brother was much more rebellious than me when he was younger. Not as crazy as your first post, but crazy enough for our relatively conservative family. When he got married and had kids later, he is -- to my great surprise -- a very strict, conservative parent. He has his daughters on the straight and narrow path. Sometimes I wonder will they go crazy as soon as they got to uni (move away from home). I saw more than a few crack during my first year of uni, living in dorms. You can probably find some books or blogs that people have written about their own journey as a parent, especially when they had a rocky start in life as an adult.
I am not a parent, but I have observed that the best style of parents adapt to the natural personality of each child. For example, I was very contientious from early childhood (I assume that part was genetic), and my brother was exactly the opposite. My parents really had to work with him to get him to take school seriously. Fortunately, he has a naturally high IQ, so it wasn't so hard for him.
> I saw more than a few crack during my first year of uni, living in dorms. You can probably find some books or blogs that people have written about their own journey as a parent, especially when they had a rocky start in life as an adult.
grew up around the military, ended up enlisting out of HS.
buncha my friends, all army/navy brats from outside of DC, all went off to college. easily 1/3 drank themselves stupid or otherwise went nuts.
off the leash they decided they'd rather be in a band and work part-time at the grocery store than keep going down the path they were forced. Most of them have since graduated and several are doing pretty well. Had to do that freedom thing, tho.
> Took many risks and things worked out okay for me in the end. I could tell my kids to do the opposite but I'd be lying and they'd know it.
Why do you think they'd know it? Working out in the end for you was the less likely option. Everything is possible but if you manage to explain the likelihood of each outcome compared to the expected payoff it could make the case clearer. Not an easy thing when dealing with small kids. It's hard because even adults are blinded by survivorship bias. Kids are easy victims, they can all become Cristiano Ronaldo, they can all launch the unicorn startup after dropping out of school, etc.
> I have nothing to offer.
Kids need guidance whether you think they'll take it or not, especially at that age. It's up to you to strike the balance between guidance, trickery, heavy handed rules, something works. Your teachers probably didn't care enough and your parents couldn't find the right button because it's not an easy job but it doesn't mean you can't or worse, that you shouldn't even try because you "have nothing to offer".
(Lost my passwd to my throwaway so i had to create another, sorry)
I dont know if you intended to reply to the OP/author or my reply. In my case, I dodged hard drugs for $reasons and can safely say that I chose my own adventure. I was had anxiety and apprehension about status quo and what was expected of a HS graduate circa 2000 so I said F it and did my own thing.
I guess one can only optimise the system for the majority following the beaten path. Some folks just have to find a way both through the world and through their own head.