Case study: why economics and addiction do not mix

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Let me start by saying that I’m admittedly an economics fan. So much so that I nearly threw away my science and writing training and ran off into the sunset for an economics PhD. It’s the cleanness of it, the logic. The economics of everyday life seems shiny, interesting and alluring, and I delight in reads like Freakonomics. It’s comforting to know that we as a people make sense, regardless of how complicated we like to consider ourselves. However, clean logic and addiction don’t always coalesce.

A recent headline on the Freakonomics blog proclaimed, “Cocaine Addicts Prefer Present Cash Over Future Coke” .. Well, yes. I would imagine addicts would rather have drugs now. If they’re given cash now, they can buy drugs now and don’t have to wait until later.

This struck me:


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“Until now, researchers believed that cocaine addicts valued the drug above any other commodity, no matter what the situation. Bickel’s findings however show that cocaine addicts place extra value on the drug only when it is immediately available, and future values of cocaine are heavily discounted.”

So a portion of this study gave addicts an option of cocaine later versus money now. Addicts do value the drug, in whatever way they can obtain it in their current situation. Our baser brains are creatures of the “now”: the amygdala in an addict’s brain screams for her drug, and she’ll get her fix as quickly as she can. If a woman is starving, she’ll obtain food. Addicts will too, but here their ‘food’ is a drug, a neurochemical deficit and need driven by the reptilian old brain.

When deprived of their addictive substance, addicts’ brains go into survival instinct mode with neurons ablaze and screaming "GET DRUGS NOW!" And yet we’re trying to put logic behind the value addicts place on drugs?

Focusing on “how addicts make decisions” is hammering the proverbial nail in sideways. Study how addicts’ brains work, thereby putting us on the path to stop this neurochemical nightmare, if you want to really get to the crux of it. If the study and post focused on the value placed on drugs by users, not addicts, it might make more sense.

And so, I kindly ask economics to stop trying to figure out what sort of logic addicts use. It acts as though thoughtful, tailored decision-making processes are involved, it insults any person struggling with addiction, and above all, it sends us two steps back in alluding that addiction is a logical disorder.

Economics, I do love you, but kindly get off addiction’s lawn.

About Cassie Rodenberg

I write, I listen, I research, I tell stories. Mostly just listen. I don't think we listen without judgment enough. I explore marginalized things we like to ignore. Addiction and mental illness is The White Noise behind many lives -- simply what Is. Peripherals: I write on culture, poverty, addiction and mental illness in New York City, recovering from stints as a chemist and interactive TV producer. During the day, I teach science in South Bronx public school.

More by Cassie Rodenberg

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe