Somebody, somewhere knows how much misery costs. This person might be a business analyst, an accountant or lobbyist but they can put an exact price on the suffering that addiction must cause in order for the addiction industries to turn a profit.
Somewhere among the profit and loss reports, the spreadsheets and forecasts for the various addiction industries, an obvious truth will lurk; without addicts they would cease to turn a profit and therefore function.
Recently it was revealed in the Guardian newspaper that if drinkers actually stuck to the weekly recommended limits on alcohol consumption that doctors consider safe, the industry would lose £13 billion each year.
It seems unlikely that any industry could carry on with such losses and therefore healthy drinking would represent an existential threat to brewers, distillers and retailers. It could be argued that if the drinks industry did act responsibly and sell alcohol in line with government recommendations, it would simply shrink to the actual size that society can accommodate.
This argument, of course is never made because the alcohol industry, bound by the loosest possible 'responsibility deals', piles the responsibility for the well being of drinkers on to the drinkers themselves, irrespective of their circumstances. The £13 billion figure is evidence, as if any more were needed, that the industry privatises profits and socialises costs. Were the industry be presented with the bill to clean up the chaos it causes each year it would be unlikely to accumulate such enormous profits.
Thirteen billion pounds (give or take a hundred thousand here and there) is also the amount of money that the gambling industry makes in profits each year. A Canadian study in 2004 revealed that just under a quarter of all gambling profits came from problem gamblers, but more recent evidence would suggest this figure has rapidly grown. Problem gamblers bet, on average, seven times as much money as non addicts, gambling £98 and £14 respectively.
Here are two industries that are dependent for their profits on individuals who are deeply unwell with the illness of addiction and there is no legal sanction against such profiteering. It would be interesting to hear how the chief executives of these enterprises morally distinguish themselves from the cartel bosses of drug empires. No doubt they would start by placing the responsibility for addiction back onto the shoulders of the suffering addict and present their £13 billion industries as choices, not compulsions.