Many are on low fixed incomes in poor rural areas. You can get a trailer home on 40 acres quite cheap if you are several hours from a Metro hub, and live even cheaper if you rent.
This is a long way of saying that intentionally matters and the choices and tradeoffs we make matter too.
There are vast teams of marketers and data scientists hard at work making things like food and social media more appealing and addictive. Of course more people are, on average, going to get more addicted to them, even if a few fish have the willpower to swim against the tide or the money to buy the chemicals to do it instead.
Im not convinced that money is the solution to addiction and just a few more purchases away. In fact, I think rampant consumerism and trained helplessness are the crux of the problem.
Does anyone remember when South Park had an episode about how evil some guy was for saying secondhand smoke was bad and how nuanced the topic was, and how it was people's right to smoke wherever they wanted?
I'm not saying that's everyone. I'm not saying that's solely why we fail at this. But it's an example of a culture that's broadly extremely individualistic and tolerant of aberrance from individuals. That has many advantages. One flaw of it, is that it becomes very hard, in such a culture, to tamp down on vices.
People who not raised with a strong defense in the form of a responsible role model that explains that beer is not needed for fun and commercials don’t tell the truth are much more susceptible to harmful influence. The same goes for sports betting.
Growing up I never wanted to do meth because meth tweekers were disgusting and had the lowest social standing. My aversion wasn't from of pro social behavior, it was rooted in self-interest.
There is a difference between tolerating aberrance, and refusing to make judgements about the world and others.
That's simply how humans learn and function. You can look at the life of an alcoholic or tv addicts and say that seems horrible and I don't want to be like that.
> I never wanted to do meth because meth tweekers were disgusting and had the lowest social standing. My aversion wasn't from of pro social behavior, it was rooted in self-interest.
Self-interest is not sacrificed for group interest in non-individualistic societies. Rather self-interest and group interest are aligned in such societies.
So, as an example, you didn't want to do meth, but you didn't think it your place to police the tweakers you saw. You didn't see them as a harm to society. And your self-interest was not the same as the interests of society.
(That said...yes, modern capitalism cares extremely little for the 99%, and the financial markets love the certainty of a "our customers are addicts" business model.)
You don’t have to be that rich to afford any of these except retreats. Moreover, you don’t have to be rich at all to eat healthy, exercise, sleep well, and raise your kids right (which are more effective than the above, except for rare cases like medical conditions).
Meanwhile many rich people suffer from addictions. In fact, it’s probably harder for famous people to get good therapists who they can and do trust, since everyone knows them and there’s big incentive to expose their secrets. And being rich offers new addictions, and enables existing ones since there’s no “rock bottom”.
