Addiction & Consumer Choice under Neoliberalism

Judaka

Addictiveness increases consumer retention and engagement in food, pharmaceuticals, social media, gambling, tobacco, pornography, mobile gaming and other industries where companies seek to maximize their profits.

In the realm of food, companies have been known to use additives and flavour enhancers to make their products more enticing and addictive. They carefully engineer the taste, texture, and even the packaging to stimulate and trigger cravings. The goal is to create a cycle of desire and consumption that generates repeat sales and brand loyalty.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers have aggressively marketed highly addictive prescription drugs, such as opioids, without fully disclosing the risks involved. This has led to a devastating opioid crisis in many parts of the world, with severe consequences for individuals and communities.

Social media platforms and technology companies thrive on user engagement and time spent on their platforms. They employ algorithms and design features that exploit psychological vulnerabilities to keep users hooked and continuously scrolling. Notifications, likes, and other forms of instant gratification create a feedback loop that encourages addictive behaviours and constant online presence.

The gambling industry capitalizes on the human propensity for risk-taking. Casinos and online gambling platforms use various tactics, such as flashing lights, enticing sounds, and near-misses, to keep players engaged. The convenience of mobile gambling apps has made it even easier for individuals to develop addictive gambling habits.

This list is far from exhaustive, and companies think in terms of attracting customers and retaining them, which clearly incentivises making products & services addictive. But what about the consumers themselves? Who one might argue should have the freedom to choose what kinds of products & services they want to consume.

The failure of some to enjoy a product in moderation can be construed as a personal failure. Responsible consumers may resent that entire industries are heavily regulated or outright banned, depriving them of what they were enjoying in moderation. The idea of someone else coming into their lives and telling them what they can & can't do can trigger frustration.

To what extent should consumers be free to make choices about what products and services they consume in the context of neoliberal capitalism?

RogueAI

↪Judaka

Everyone knows the dangers of gambling, drinking, smoking and over-eating. The marketing and lying about opioids should have resulted in a lot of people going to jail for a long time. People trust their doctors, and their doctors and the medical industry totally failed them. I would say the pharmaceutical and quasi-legal recreational drug business needs to be heavily regulated. Social media too, as far as kids are concerned.

Judaka

↪RogueAI

Everyone knows the dangers of gambling, drinking, smoking and over-eating. — RogueAI

That's true, but people's decision-making within the context of addiction could be construed as being compromised, and that the poor decision-making of addicts is a primary cause for concern with addiction. What's your view on this?

RogueAI

↪Judaka

That's true, but what would we do differently (in regards to gambling, drinking, smoking and over-eating)?

Judaka

↪RogueAI

Governments could reduce the potential for addiction by regulating or banning the use of substances or tactics proven to cause addiction. Laws could incentivise the reduction of addictive tactics such as a sugar tax or warning labels. Limiting advertising. Limiting how many stores can sell such products within an area, or laws against establishing casinos in city centres or other hot spots. Reducing serving or cup sizes for unhealthy foods & drinks.

Options are nuanced & varied, but the commonality is government intervention since businesses aren't likely to do anything differently of their own accord.

Though I don't want to discuss the merits of the options, each one is complex and multifaceted. I am
investigating the conditions under consumer health trumps consumer choice, or vice versa.

Mikie

Really good OP, in my view. Kudos.

To what extent should consumers be free to make choices about what products and services they consume in the context of neoliberal capitalism? — Judaka

To me it’s less about freedom to choose as it is about what’s presented for choices.

We’re “free to choose” between a Honda, a Ford, a Chevy, etc. We’re free to choose Anthem, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Harvard Pilgrim, Cigna, etc. That’s supposed to be proof of the benefits of capitalism. Ditto Republicans and Democrats for that matter.

Very little talk about what most people really want: efficient public transit, a public option for health insurance, etc.

So the idea is: we, corporate America, will present you dumbass consumers with the options we’ve decided and a couple buttons to push. That’s freedom and democracy. At least it’s not that great evil, communism.

BC

Addictiveness increases consumer retention and engagement in food, pharmaceuticals, social media, gambling, tobacco, pornography, mobile gaming and other industries where companies seek to maximize their profits. — Judaka

Aside: In what industries are they NOT seeking to maximize profits?

I prefer to group drug or alcohol use and gambling as additions, and activities like shopping, gaming, social media, exercise. and pornography use as habituating behaviors. Some of the same brain mechanisms are active in both kinds of behaviors, but addiction (e.g., to meth) is a far more severe task master than YouTube.

That said, you are certainly correct in claiming that businesess use both addiction (e.g., Purdue Pharma) and habituation (e.g., FaceBook) to maintain and expand their customer base.

I'm not sure how Neoliberalism figures into the problem of businesses manipulating customers, except that government conducts oversight over the marketplace with fewer tools, fewer personnel, and greater passivity. Getting people to buy stuff they don't really need is fairly hard work requiring a lot of ingenuity and employment of every [not illegal] trick in the book. But... we are all in favor of a vigorous economy (growing GDP) are we not?

BC

Very little talk about what most people really want: efficient public transit, a public option for health insurance, etc. — Mikie

I'm not sure about how badly people want a public option for health insurance, but it certainly sounds like exaggeration to claim most people want efficient public transit. Some people do, certainly--I do--but it seems like the reluctance to use public transit -- even when it is efficient and accessible, is pretty strong.

BC

Governments could reduce the potential for addiction by regulating or banning the use of substances — Judaka

Tobacco is a good example of this. Over the last 50 years, tobacco use has been substantially reduced by a combination of price factors, banning indoor smoking, tighter policing of tobacco sales, and public health education. The unavoidable fact of lung cancer helped. Taxes have helped raise the cost of a pack of cigarettes in some states to over $9. Each cigarette costs at least 45¢ at that price. E-cigarettes have undermined some level of past reductions, and too many young people are taking up tobacco use in one form or another. But the thing is, smoking is much less common now than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

Intensive public health work costs money, and under neoliberal budgets, smoking cessation (and sexually transmitted disease prevention) efforts have been significantly reduced.

Mikie

I'm not sure about how badly people want a public option for health insurance, but it certainly sounds like exaggeration to claim most people want efficient public transit. — BC

68% want a public option; about 65% + favor public transit. Not hard to see why.

Hanover

But the thing is, smoking is much less common now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. — BC

I wonder if that has just been offset by vaping and now marijuana. That is, more alternatives.

Hanover

So the idea is: we, corporate America, will present you dumbass consumers with the options we’ve decided and a couple buttons to push. That’s freedom and democracy. At least it’s not that great evil, communism. — Mikie

Drugs have traditionally been through the black market, which isn't part of corporate America. I've heard that many still prefer to buy marijuana the old fashioned way and not at dispensaries.

The point being that addictive substances find their way into the most restrictive of systems, even in prisons. It hasn't been into recently that a legalization movement has been afoot.

I guess you can say that street dealing is the most basic form of capitalism, but I would think that sort of trade would exist even in Marxist system (assuming it is non-totalitarian).

Mikie

Drugs have traditionally been through the black market, which isn't part of corporate America. — Hanover

Both can occur. But I was responding to the OP, which includes the following:

Pharmaceutical manufacturers have aggressively marketed highly addictive prescription drugs, such as opioids, without fully disclosing the risks involved. This has led to a devastating opioid crisis in many parts of the world, with severe consequences for individuals and communities. — Judaka

BC

↪Hanover

I am pretty sure that vaping is accounted for in smoking statistics which are derived both from sales records and from health surveys.

Marijuana smoking is more difficult to track because there are no "standard" joints like there are standard cigarettes, and not all marijuana sales are through state-licensed shops. Smokable marijuana is sold in bulk (quite small bulk packages) rather than in standardized joints. Some marijuana smokers share their product with others.

Marijuana does not normally result in emergency room visits, so that data point is out. Doctors and hospitals ask about street drugs; I would guess the self-reports on street drug use are the very model of unreliable.

I think there is an assumption among many marijuana smokers that inhaling unfiltered smoke and holding it as log as possible is somehow without consequences. "Marijuana smoking is associated with large airway inflammation, increased airway resistance, and lung hyperinflation, and those who smoke marijuana regularly report more symptoms of chronic bronchitis than those who do not smoke." NIDA

jgill

68% want a public option; about 65% + favor public transit. — Mikie

Although public transportation is a high priority among Americans, only about 5% use it to commute to work. Outside the cities I doubt 65% want to move away from the private automobile.

BC

Pharmaceutical manufacturers have aggressively marketed highly addictive prescription drugs, such as opioids, without fully disclosing the risks involved. — Judaka

Manufacturers market to pharmacy wholesalers and to doctors. I can understand how medical staff might not be familiar with a totally new class of drug, but how the hell is it that doctors and pharmacists were not aware that opioids are addictive? Opioid addiction has been around for a LONG time!

Mikie

Outside the cities I doubt 65% want to move away from the private automobile. — jgill

That’s nice. Unfortunately I prefer going by polling, not personal feelings. It’s also worth remembering about half of Americans have no access to public transit. They’re not even given the option. Of the transit that does exist, it’s been systematically defunded over the years and next to comparable countries is a laughingstock. Which isn’t an accident.

I guess we can choose to believe it’s somehow human nature that everyone wants a car, but when looking at the history it’s just not true. It’s been manufactured, like many other things in American life and which the OP touches on.

Judaka

↪BC

I'm not sure how Neoliberalism figures into the problem of businesses manipulating customers, except that government conducts oversight over the marketplace with fewer tools, fewer personnel, and greater passivity — BC

Indeed, that is how it factors in.

Getting people to buy stuff they don't really need is fairly hard work requiring a lot of ingenuity and employment of every [not illegal] trick in the book. But... we are all in favor of a vigorous economy (growing GDP) are we not? — BC

Haha...

Since the ideas of neoliberalism and liberalism have been purposefully tied together, and the idea of freedom from government intervention also ties into freedom for consumers, I wanted to look at things from this perspective. Regulating industries would mean directly influencing businesses in what products & services they can provide to consumers and under what conditions. So, the freedom to do with your money, health, and time as you will, is undermined by government intervention, hence terms like "nanny state".

Can we draw a line on where attempts to regulate industries are right to be perceived as an attack on individual freedom? When do people have the right to make their own bed and lie in it so to speak?

Tobacco is a good example of this. Over the last 50 years, tobacco use has been substantially reduced by a combination of price factors, banning indoor smoking, tighter policing of tobacco sales, and public health education. — BC

To what extent did the effects of second-hand smoking influence political will? Would our liberal societies have been less keen on regulations if the harm of smoking only impacted the smoker themselves?

Perhaps instead of asking where regulation is an attack on personal freedom, the individual lens should be critiqued by emphasising the social cost of addiction.

Baden

Good OP. :up:

To what extent should consumers be free to make choices about what products and services they consume in the context of neoliberal capitalism? — Judaka

To what extent are consumers aware that more important than freedom to choose in this context is freedom to refuse? And that, as per your analysis, fostering addiction is the corporate war on freedom to refuse (because that freedom is an existential threat to them). But from freedom to refuse comes the self, so their war is on us and our capacity to understand our situation. Education would be nice but relative GDP is the dominant indicator of a "successful'' society, so it seems we're in a Moloch-type race to the bottom.

Baden

Imagine if we taught our kids, "the less stuff you have and the less material wealth you can get by on, the more character you are likely to have and the stronger a person you're likely to be. An important goal in life is to have less and do more with it and the route to that goal is exercising the freedom to refuse". That is, imagine if we taught them the truth, which is the exact opposite of the prevailing ideology.

BC

To what extent did the effects of second-hand smoking influence political will? Would our liberal societies have been less keen on regulations if the harm of smoking only impacted the smoker themselves? — Judaka

Such as, there is no such thing as second-hand alcohol, heroin, meth, cocaine, fentanyl, etc? Second-hand smoke helped the anti-smoking cause.

Some people (maybe a very large number) have little sympathy for the problems of addicts whose use is seen to affect only themselves. Until, of course, the deleterious effects of addiction do cause problems for other people. Then the response may not be empathetic.

Second hand smoke is harmful, of course, but the initial effort to reduce smoking was driven by the very high rates of cancer and heart disease among smokers. Second-hand smoke became an actionable issue in the 1980s/90s.

In areas where indoor smoking has been banned for some time, and the number of smokers has been reduced to a low 2-digit percentage of adults (like 15%), there seems to be increased hostility toward the remaining smokers.

BC

Imagine if we taught our kids, "the less stuff you have and the less material wealth you can get by on, the more character you are likely to have and the stronger a person you're likely to be. — Baden

What are you trying to do -- cause a world-wide depression? (joke)

I'm not sure that sparse possessions, in itself, builds character. Character may have to come first.

Education would be nice but relative GDP is the dominant indicator of a "successful'' society, so it seems we're in a Moloch-type race to the bottom. — Baden

We can practice thrift, minimal consumption, healthful lifestyles, and character building through rigorous moral calisthenics, but IF everyone is to be fed, housed, clothed, educated, cared for, usefully employed, etc., we best have solid-enough GDP.

Rather than Moloch, I prefer the view that we have been parasitized by rich people who always require MORE from the working class who always have to put up with LESS. To paraphrase Jesus, "the rich you will always have with you" but we can certainly substantially reduce their number and demands through the usual and customary Nordic democratic socialism, with just the lightest touch of soviet purge.

The US applied the Nordic model after WWII, through cooperation of labor, capital, and government. That happy arrangement lasted roughly from 1945 to 1970, them things went back to suppressing the working class, exalting capital, and neoliberalizing government.

Judaka

↪BC

Such as, there is no such thing as second-hand alcohol, heroin, meth, cocaine, fentanyl, etc? Second-hand smoke helped the anti-smoking cause. — BC

Another comparison could be of viewing obesity through the lens of the health cost it incurs on the public. The critical factor is that an individual's right to make choices at the cost of their personal well-being could only be undermined in the instance where their personal choices came at a significant cost to others. For smoking, that one's right to smoke infringes upon another's right to health and safety.

Neoliberal supporters often invoke concepts of personal responsibility, and this is the defence given against the regulation of industries. Since children can't be held to the same standards of personal responsibility, that becomes a critical factor in where regulation might be accepted.

Personal responsibility and the right of consenting adults to make their own choices, for me, fail to capture the nature of how processes such as addiction compromise rational thinking. The predominant narrative ignores the addiction aspect, and instead, focuses on the flaws and failures of the individual.

Though, I also disagree with the indifferent acceptance of brutal consequences for those who make bad decisions.

Regulation is often opposed on the basis of personal liberty and is not actually always that popular. For supporters, these issues are thought of through the lens of consumer choice and individual freedom.

jgill

Outside the cities I doubt 65% want to move away from the private automobile. — jgill
That’s nice. Unfortunately I prefer going by polling, not personal feelings — Mikie

bingChat:

There is no specific data on the percentage of people in rural areas who would prefer public transportation. However, it is known that rural demographics make public transit increasingly desired. For example, older Americans make up a larger portion of rural populations (17 percent) than in urban populations (13 percent) and rural residents with disabilities rely on public transit- they take about 50 percent more public transit trips than unimpaired people do 1. Additionally, there are 2.9 million rural veterans, making up 33 percent of the veteran population enrolled in the VA health care system. Rural public transit can help them access needed services

Judaka

↪Baden

Education would be nice but relative GDP is the dominant indicator of a "successful'' society, so it seems we're in a Moloch-type race to the bottom. — Baden

I'm extremely individualistic, in so far as I oppose collectivist thinking, but individualistic thinking that I disdain is where international, systemic issues are thought of in the individual context. As though, for instance, the obesity epidemic would be solved if people were just less lazy and had more willpower.

That if there was an improvement in the work ethic, wisdom, and capabilities of individuals, such issues would be resolved as people made smarter and better choices.

I think this mentality is actually the predominant one, it is perceived as pragmatic and intuitive, even by very intelligent people. Addiction is just another such issue. Unless the circumstance is one where no action could've been taken by the individual to avoid misfortune, any attempt to place blame on something besides them will be viewed as an unhelpful failure to take responsibility. That the pragmatic thing is to learn from one's mistakes and the mistakes of others.

Perhaps this is why cases like oxycodone are viewed sympathetically, because it's understood that victims can't be blamed, as trusting one's doctor isn't a mistake to be corrected.

This has, intended or not, the effect of putting all of the blame on individuals and not companies, and I think that's how we as a culture view it. To counter this way of thinking seems necessary to bring about meaningful change. I personally, see this cultural perception as the main obstacle to change, rather than misconceptions about economics, but I could be wrong.

Joshs

↪Hanover

But the thing is, smoking is much less common now than it was 30 or 40 years ago.
— BC

I wonder if that has just been offset by vaping and now marijuana. That is, more alternatives. — Hanover

The key question is if rates of lung cancer are continuing to drop or whether they are starting to move in the wrong direction.

Hanover

am pretty sure that vaping is accounted for in smoking statistics which are derived both from sales records and from health surveys. — BC

Not sure that's correct: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/27/health/cigarette-smoking-decline/index.html#:~:text=The%20percentage%20of%20adults%20who,are%20becoming%20even%20more%20popular.

BC

The key question is if rates of lung cancer are continuing to drop or whether they are starting to move in the wrong direction. — Joshs

New lung cancer diagnoses continue to decline because of a decades earlier and continuing decline in the number of active smokers. If, tomorrow, smoking became as common as it was 60 years ago, the pattern of lug racer would not change for maybe 20 or 30 years; then it would start to rise again.

Earlier detection and better treatment has reduced the certainty of death from lung cancer, but it is still the leading cancer in the US.

The American Cancer Society's estimates for lung cancer in the US for 2023 are: About 238,340 new cases of lung cancer (117,550 in men and 120,790 in women) About 127,070 deaths from lung cancer (67,160 in men and 59,910 in women).

Baden

↪BC

I'm not saying I know of any solution better than the Nordic model either. Which is what? Consumerist lite? I will continue to loudly complain though. :smile:

As though, for instance, the obesity epidemic would be solved if people were just less lazy and had more willpower. — Judaka

The approach is always on one level self-contradictory and on another totally consistent. Self-contradictory in that the solution tends to be dominated by some or other consumer context (buy a gym membership or low fat foods or this diet book or do this ad-laden online course etc) the logic of which is to process real willpower (freedom to refuse) into freedom of choice--while being saturated in talk of willpower. And totally consistent in that that is just what consumerism is, an attempt to process the will / freedom away to create malleable and reliable consumers that are as predictable, manipulable, and 'free' as farm animals.

BC

↪Hanover

What are you not sure is correct? Survey's are one way of estimating tobacco use behaviors; market data would be another way. A third way is investigation (observation). That's the sort of stuff public health surveillance does. Researchers end up with estimates, not head counts.

The information on middle and high school students use of e-cigarettes is depressing. Tobacco smoke (well, any smoke produced and inhaled under similar circumstances) produces a rich mix of chemicals, none of which are beneficial to health. Vaping doesn't involve incineration, but the fluid in which nicotine is delivered is chemically complex and not healthy. I don't have any information on long-term consequences of vaping (aside from nicotine addiction).

BC

↪Baden

The Nordic model may be as close to heaven as we are going to get. Soviet-style communism is not.

We could blame obesity on sloth, gluttony, and greed IF it were the case that fat people were uniformly lazy, gluttonous, and never satiated. They are not. Further, the obesity epidemic slops over into places that have no right whatsoever to have many overweight people (given the relative poverty of the place). It is estimated that 2 billion people are overweight / obese. Why? Bad food: high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt, energy-dense, and micronutrient-poor foods, which tend to be lower in cost. These are the kind of "foods" purveyed by many corporations in the food business.

Households can be found with children who are both undernourished (in terms of essential nutrients) and are overweight.

Addiction & Consumer Choice under Neoliberalism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions