Reinventing How We Think

This is an excerpt from my just-published book, What's the Big Idea? 39 Reinventions for a Better America. 

As individuals and as a country, we make many bad decisions because we haven't paid enough attention to cost/benefit. Examples:

Anti-Terrorism

Requiring all airline passengers to take off their shoes has a near-zero chance of stopping a terrorist attack. Terrorists know that all shoes are screened so, of course, they'll put a bomb, for example, in a body cavity. Or they'll use an almost impossible-to-stop attack: Open a vial of communicable biovirus in the pre-screening lobby of the international terminal,  its parking lot shuttle, or in a sports arena. Or inject it in fruit in a supermarket or into a suburb's not-very-secure water reservoir.  Or detonate a suitcase nuke in a car trunk in a busy downtown. 

The shoe removal/re-donning ritual on top of other low-payoff, time-consuming airport screens such as double-inspecting one's boarding pass and ensuring that your toothpaste weighs less than three ounces, wastes countless hours of passengers' time and a fortune of our tax dollars in airport security personnel. 


In addition, lengthening security screening decreases demand for air travel, which hurts the struggling airlines and any employer that otherwise would have chosen an in-person meeting over a tele-or videoconference..

And more personally, it means that grandparents less often get to see grandkids, long-distance lovers to see sweetie. 


Our policymakers need to make decisions on cost-benefit.

Investing

Seventy-seven percent of mutual fund buyers choose actively managed mutual funds rather than index funds and exchange-traded funds, even though decades of data are clear that index investors do better.

Faith in God

A Google search on "Surrender to God"  yields 940,000 results. Millions of people follow the Bible's urging to be passive, to wait for God to provide. For example, 

Philippians 4:19 Be not wise in your own eyes; God shall supply all your need. 

Proverbs 3:1: Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

1 Corinthians 10:17  God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, 

Matthew 17:20  If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.

What are the odds that there is an omniscient, omnipotent deity who is watching the seven billion people's every move to ensure they all do okay? Forget about whether such advice will result in your landing a good job in this economy. Remember that billions of people, including newborns have died screaming in agony. And what about all those catastrophic earthquakes and epidemics? And if "God will provide," why do billions of the world's people lack basic food, water, shelter, and health care? Could anyone who makes decisions based on cost/benefit "surrender to God?" 

Global Warming

We're spending trillions to try to cool the planet. For that to be worth the costs and restrictions (e.g., pressuring people from their cars into the more time-consuming mass transit,) all of the following must be true.

1. The planet is warming. (estimated probability =.9)

2. The warming is substantially man-made  (probability = .9)

3. The warming''s net effect must be so negative as to justify the cost.  (probability = .6)

4. Here's a key one:  The world's 200 nations must all substantially comply with the severe restrictions on carbon footprint for the 50-75 years until alternatives to fossil fuels advance enough. (probability = .2)

 5. The money and human resources devoted elsewhere are less likely to do good for humankind. (probability = .2)

Of course, my probability estimates are just guesses. There are too many unknowns for anyone to make solid estimates, but I slanted my guesses toward the environmentalist consensus position rather than the more skeptical positions.  Alas, because of the many unpredictable variables, the models used to justify spending virtually without limit to cool the planet are also mere educated guesses, not solid enough to justify the massive expenditures.

The joint probability of those five occurring is 2%. In other words, the chances are 49:1 that the massive effort to cool the globe won't work well enough to justify the costs including the opportunity costs. Isn't such analysis at least worthy of a policy discussion on whether it would be wise to reallocate resources now spent on the least cost-beneficial elements of global-cooling policy? 

Unfortunately, the public and many leaders are swayed by the too broad-brush, non-analytic, "Well, what if we're wrong? Cataclysm!" Especially on issues as important and costly as this, the probabilities, the cost/benefit, deserve to be considered by the public as well as by its leaders. 

Attempting to Close the Achievement Gap

We continue to bet on education as the tool most likely to close the achievement gap. That, despite more than a half-century and trillions of dollars  (also see this) spent trying so many permutations and combinations of teaching style, curriculum, etc., and yet the achievement gap is as wide as ever. We have not been able to do better than to tout a non-replicable superstar teacher or pilot program: from Marva Collins (her school is now closed due to lack of enrollment) to Michelle Rhee's DC non-miracle, to bad-data KIPP , to the latest fad, Khan Academy. Go take a Khan Academy lesson and ask yourself if a year of that is likely to close the algebra achievement gap. They're boring. Only highly motivated students will learn algebra that way. Do you really think America's low achievers will learn algebra so much better with Khan lessons as to close the achievement gap?

Yet we continue to prefer to bury our head in the sand and bet a fortune and our children's future that the next classroom innovation du jour will close the achievement gap. Is it not time to start thinking cost-benefit: Could the enormous costs of those classroom programs, trainings, etc., be more wisely spent? For example, mightn't it be wise to accept that we aren't close to figuring out how to close the achievement gap and so rather than spending more trillions on unlikely-to-work classroom programs, isn't it time to reallocate those dollars to fundamental research aimed at figuring out the foundational bases for the achievement gap, and only then to develop programs based on those bases, and if there's money left, to return it to the taxpayer?

A Solution

The most important thing schools and colleges should teach is how to think rationally: cost/benefit, risk/reward, opportunity costs. But we're too busy teaching the periodic table of elements, the causes of the War of 1812, the intricacies of Shakespeare, and how to solve quadratic equations.

The Workplace Reinvented

If you're employed, you're probably asked to do more with less: harder, faster, better.

There's no reason to believe that today's employers are crueler than past ones. What's different is that today's employers have large new costs that make it ever more difficult to stay in business: mountains of paperwork to comply with federal, state, and local regulations, more employee lawsuits, and government-required employer costs: from worker's compensation to "non-worker's comp-"-the too-often abused Family and Medical Leave Act.  

And of course, employers are ever more subject to global competition. For example, in the not-so-distant past, U.S. car makers could get away with making inferior cars using parts with deliberately short mean-time between failure/planned obsolescence, and could afford to cave to the media-abetted unions and despite mediocre work, give assembly-line workers lifetime job guarantees and better compensation packages ($73 an hour) than most professionals receive.

As a result, a large percentage of the price you paid for for a car has gone to paying for inferior parts and very expensive not-great workers. Asian car companies such as Toyota and Honda offer higher-quality-quality vehicles (average labor cost: $48 an hour)

The U.S. keeps trying to prop up U.S carmakers: for example, a 25% tariff on foreign pickup trucks and a taxpayer-funded $60 billion bailout of GM. Regarding the latter, despite statements by the Obama administration, it has failed--the bailout occurred when the stock price was $34. The breakeven price is $53 but it closed today at 22, a $15 billion loss for you and me.

Yes, a small percentage of large American corporations are doing just fine and because their stock price is up, their executives make a fortune. But more broadly, because of the above factors, to survive, American employers, from auto makers to chip makers to small companies, and, yes even government agencies, must often ask workers to work harder, faster, better.

Alas, too many employees will crumble under the pressure. If you're lucky enough to have a job in this economy, you are ever more likely to get maxed out--you have no more blood to give. 

So what's the answer? I believe the U.S. workplace can be reinvented so as to make worklife better for employees, while net, improving employers' products', services and bottom line. 

Of course, no one model will apply to all workplaces but I hope the eight ideas in this proposal will at least stimulate your own thinking on how to improve your workplace.  

1. No one-size-fits-all treatment of employees. Unions and gender/race advocacy groups often demand policies that require all employees be treated equally. Yet it's wiser to celebrate diversity: Each individual employee needs more or less supervision, more or less accountability, more or less flexibility of hours, more or less telecommuting, more or less of a workload. Employers deserve broader latitude in individualizing approaches to employees.

2. Convert at least some cubicles into officettes. The noise and lack of privacy in cubicles is draining. Employees' worklives would be more pleasant and employers would probably gain more in profitability if at least some cubes were converted into officettes: Use standard wallboard to raise the between-cubical screens to ceiling height, and add a door. 

3. Expand telecommuting. With government having decided to try to force us out of our cars and into mass transit by not building freeways and thus increasing gridlock, commute times are growing. In many metropolitan areas, by the time we arrive at work, we've already dissipated a fair amount of our day's energy. Tack on the commute home and we're ever less likely to want to finish up any work nor have the energy to be a patient parent or domestic partner, let alone to do volunteer work. So, many employees spend most of their evening exhausted in front of a TV with a beer or something stronger.

Especially with the availability of free videoskype to augment phone and internet, more employees who feel they can be as or more productive working at home (or a Starbucks) should be allowed to do so, at least for part of the week. Not only would that reduce commute times, many employees are more relaxed at home, working in their comfies, and may enjoy reduced child-care expenses. And the employer saves money by not needing to build or lease as much office space. 

4. Allow pets. Yes, I'm aware that an inconsiderate pet owner could bring a fleabag to work. Solution: After one warning to use flea remedy, Fido's visitation rights could be revoked. Too, I'm aware that some people are allergic to or terrified of Fido. Solution: If Fido's owner's efforts to keep Fido away from Fearful fail or if Fearful's workspace can't be moved far enough from Fido, the doggie could be forced to turn in his employee badge. 

The benefits of pets in the workplace greatly exceed the liabilities. According to a survey by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, most people believe that pets in the workplace make people happier, reduce stress, contribute to a more creative environment, and decreases absenteeism. That makes sense to me. Besides, think of how happy Fido will be to have its owner close at hand for a hug--and a much appreciated walk. Already, 17 percent of large companies allow pets at work. More employers should. 

5. Relax the dress code. Sure, some people love dressing up every day to go to work, but many more find it time-consuming, expensive, and constraining. Personally speaking, I find a tie a mere step from a noose. And when I see someone (a lawyer, financial planner, etc) in a suit, I grab hold of my wallet--It makes me wonder if s/he didn't spend all that money on packaging himself to hide a lack of substance underneath. Dress codes should be more flexible. "Dress as you like" may sound extreme but I think that's wisest.

6. Improve the subtleties of workplace safety. Fortunately, the era of workplaces with toxic fumes and other noxiousness have largely been eradicated in the U.S. But more subtle but still very problematic safety hazards exist. For example, millions of desks/workstations contribute to repetitive strain injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome. Another example: research indicates that sitting too long can kill you. A solution: an adjustable-height desk or, less expensive, adjustible height keyboard tray and monitor arm. Those allow you comfortably to, for example, work on a computer, while sitting or standing. Improving workspaces ergonomically is a cost-effective way to improve workers' lives.

7. Make ADA requirements more flexible. As with many laws, pressure groups have filed lawsuits forcing expansion of the Americans with Disabilities Act well beyond the non-controversial improving wheelchair access, to everything from celiac disease to chronic fatigue so that now, for example, a person with a psychologist's note saying the employee is depressed is entitled to so-called "Reasonable Accommodation."  

On one hand, I understand the frustration of a person with a mental or physical illness or disability not wanting the additional burden of being persona non grata in the workplace. On the other hand, if employers are forced to assume the burden of employing such people, net, that causes harm:

• coworkers often must take on extra work to "carry" the disabled employee,
• all of us customers suffering from worse products or services. 
• the shareholders who have invested their savings in the company losing money, the employers. If an employer chooses to terminate any of the 43 to 54 million Americans now covered under ADA, the employer must prove that the employee wasn't fired because of the disability. As a result, many employers retain poor performing employees, make Reasonable Accommodations for them, and accept the resulting reduced profitability and increased risk of going out of business. The companies are more at risk of going broke because, in every other country in the world ("the U.S. is a benchmark",) employers are under less pressure to retain employees with serious mental or physical disabilities. And, of course, if a business goes bust, all its employees lose their jobs--devastating to their and their family's lives.

I believe that moderating the Americans with Disabilities Act would lead to greater net good. 

8. Make Affirmative Action policies more flexible. As with the ADA, no reasonable person could dispute Affirmative Action's original intent: to ensure that people of all races, religions, and sexual orientations are treated fairly.

But pressure from government and advocacy groups has converted the originally reasonable affirmative action laws and policies to, in practice, decreasing the weight of merit in hiring, promotion, and firing, and increasing the weight of non-merit-based criteria: aiming for proportionality in race, gender, age, and sexual orientation.

And government is now extending employment rights to the long-term unemployed and to ex-felons. For example, the Obama Administration has made it easier for ex-offenders to prevail in lawsuits by providing such legal weapons as the Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination. For example, in a biotechnology company, if there is a smaller percentage of African-Americans or ex-felons in leadership positions than in the general population, that is deemed to be evidence of discrimination! There's something Alice-in-Wonderland-like about pressuring employers to not give preference to applicants who haven't been felons nor been rejected by many other employers. 

Such policies are bad for coworkers, who thereby are forced to work with coworkers who are not as competent or easy to work with as those who would have been selected if hiring, promotion, and firing were based only on merit.

They're even bad for the protected classes: minorities, women, the disabled, sexual minorities. Too often, even fully qualified people in those classes are viewed askance: that they wouldn't have been hired if it weren't for their being, for example, an "underrepresented" minority.

Nor are such policies good for employers, whether companies, nonprofits, or government agencies. Their products and services have to be worse for feeling pressure to hire, promote, and fire, based on criteria other than merit.  And such companies are more likely to fail, costing all the employees' jobs, because their competitors in other countries such as India and China are under far less such pressure. 

Of course, a few foolish employers will refuse to hire and promote the best candidates because of non-merit-based factors but, for the reasons cited, far greater ill to society accrues from the massive so-called "equal opportunity" enterprise. America would be wiser to reduce pressure to hire based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and age, let alone having been long-term unemployed or committed a felony.

Instead, American law and policy should simply encourage people perceiving discrimination to seek mediation, and, if that fails, arbitration, with taxpayer-funded subsidizing of legal fees for low-income claimants. 

My Worried Musings on Media Bias

From personal experience and from conversations with others, it's clear that if you want to write for major publications, you are wise to conform to The Narrative: "Women good; men bad. Minorities good; men bad---More redistribution needed " 

Dare you stray from The Narrative, the iron curtain of censorship will likely slam down on your fingers. Here is a recent example of today's McCarthyism from the Left: The author, a Harvard graduate and former Wall Street Journal editor, dared question the value of the Black Studies major. She got fired Monday.

Not only writers believe the media is biased. A The Hill poll of 1,000 likely voters found that 68% consider the news media biased, with more than twice as many respondents believing the bias is leftward. Worse, 57%  believe the news media is somewhat or very unethical while only 39 percent see them as somewhat or very ethical.  In a Gallup poll, only 26% rated journalists' ethics high or very high. 27% rated them as low or very low.

And UCLA, no bastion of conservative thought, conducted a rigorous study that found that the media indeed is clearly leftist-biased.

The media exerts its liberal bias in ways other than censorship, for example, a double-standard. Recall, for instance, how the media destroyed Newt Gingrich by relentlessly reminding us of an old affair and by making exaggerated claims of his pomposity while giving Obama a free pass on his hubristic certitude that massive debt increases and redistributive "justice" is wise.  When George Bush decided  "No New Taxes"was unwise, the media excoriated him as a flip-flopper. Yet when Obama changed from being against gay marriage to for it, the media extolled him.

The media also gives Obama free passes on Big Lies. For example, he forced taxpayers to spend $60 billion to bail out GM, a company that makes inferior cars, and he now claims that has paid off. In fact, GM's stock price has plummeted from 34 before the bailout to 22 as of this writing. The breakeven point is 53.  

A broader example: Obama claims he's bringing the economy back.  Well, see this chart. (Do note that the chart does not provide sources.) Obama bragged relentlessly about millions of shovel-ready jobs that weren't, yet the media has pretty much ignored that inconvenient fiction. Articles calling Obama to account are relegated to little-read conservative websites. For example, this article by a Pulitzer Prize nominee points out that the taxpayer will have spent $1 million for EACH job created by Obama's "stimulus" spending.

The media gave Obama a free pass for saying the U.S. has 57 states while destroying Dan Quayle for misspelling "potato." The media endlessly trumpets Rush Limbaugh's drug problem but when Edward Kennedy admitted to being an alcoholic and womanizer, it was downplayed, now brushed aside as ancient history.

The media exerts its bias in infinite other ways, including the subtle. For example, when George Bush was president, the media so often called him "Bush," whereas they mainly call Obama "The President."  The media has adopted the Left's focus-group-tested self-descriptor "progressive" rather than "liberal." After all, "liberal" implies (correctly) a tendency to overspend, whereas "progressive" has a positive connotation. Who could be against progress? Regressives?

The Left has appropriated the lion's share of society's mind-molding vehicles: the schools, colleges, and media. Fox News and conservative talk radio have but a sliver of society's mindshare, especially among the intelligentsia.  

Not all wisdom resides left of center but, because the media relentlessly swings its censorship scythe, I cannot envision a plausible scenario that would bring the public to question The Narrative.  

And The Narrative so warrants questioning.

Five years after writing this, in Feb. 2017, I created a little video presenting my current views on media bias. HERE is the link.

This Obama Detractor Supports His Decision on Gay Marriage

Readers of this blog know that I have grave concerns about the core postulate undergirding most of President Obama's domestic policies: redistributive "justice."

But I want to applaud his decision today to support gay marriage. I have never understood why a couple consisting of an XX and an XY chromosome should be allowed to marry while a couple with an XX and an XX or an XY and an XY cannot.

Most of the opponents seem to draw most of their support from the Bible. In fact, the Bible includes passages both for and against.  HERE is a collection of Bible quotes viewed as pro-gay.

More important, public law should be based more on fairness than on what an ancient faith-centric text argues. After all, that text asserts that there is an omnipotent, omniscient God--which is--I'll be charitable--far from a certainty.

This straight, moderately libertarian-leaning guy believes we're wise to err on the side of equal opportunity.

The Discrimination Against White Men Accelerates Yet More

From the Center for Equal Opportunity:

In case you missed it, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently handed down new  Enforcement Guidance that greatly limits the extent to which employers can consider arrest and conviction records of job applicants, principally on the grounds that doing so can have a “disparate impact” on the basis of race and ethnicity...

In a press release earlier this year, the Obama administration announced that Pepsi “has agreed to pay $3.13 million and provide job offers and training”after an EEOC “investigation revealed that more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded black applicants from permanent employment.”

This appears to be a straight “disparate impact” claim. That is, there is no claim that Pepsi’s policy on its face treated applicants differently on account of race, or was designed to exclude blacks, or was not evenhandedly applied — just that blacks were, statistically, more likely to be excluded by the policy and that Pepsi, in the opinion of the EEOC, did not have a good enough reason for thinking that people without criminal records would be better employees than people with criminal records...

Businesses are, understandably, not happy about all this: “Many in the business community have complained that the Guidance was rushed through with no public rulemaking or the associated process for public comment—a refrain recently echoed by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for EEOC funding and Commissioner Constance Barker in her dissent.” I have been a frequent critic of the disparate-impact approach, but really—telling employers when they can and can’t consider criminal records?

My thought: Is a society really better when the government pressures employers to hire more felons and fewer non-felons? Is that fair to law-abiding job applicants?  Especially with so few jobs available? Is this not another frightening example of the Obama Administration's foundational belief in redistributive "justice," in egalitarianism over meritocracy?  My view is that this is Alice-in-Wonderland: So much of what's right is now deemed wrong. 

The administration has repeatedly promised to ramp up its use of disparate-impact claims not only in employment but in other areas of civil-rights enforcement — like mortgage lending, school discipline."

* * *

The Wall Street Journal, which ought to know better, has put together a “Women in the Economy” Executive Task Force, and recently held a “Women in the Economy” conference that was reported on in the Journal. As in the past, these folks seem not to have heard of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which makes it illegal for employers to engage in discrimination because of sex. Ignoring that little problem, the task force’s working groups included these recommendations:

• “Hold senior managers accountable by tying promotion and compensation to meeting diversity goals and requiring regular reports to the board.” “[T]his group advised setting diversity targets and holding the senior executives’ feet to the fire . . .” “[E]xecutives whose ‘pay or promotions are at risk’ are more likely to change.”
• “Post jobs regularly and ensure a diverse candidate slate. Hold regular succession-planning reviews and make managers accountable.”
• “Require a diverse slate of candidates, and include women directors on the nominating committee.” “Make gender diversity nonnegotiable.”
• “Find at least one female candidate for every technical job. Reward the C-suite for retaining and promoting women.”
• “Government should be a role model for hiring, committing to 30% women at the top and reporting on progress.”

It cannot be argued with a straight face that these recommendations are anything but a call for companies (and the government) to set and enforce quotas on the basis of sex.

All this is particularly ironic in light of the unemployment rate being higher for men and that, per my previous post, the reasons for any gender pay gap are mainly the choices that women make. 

A New Angle on the Pay Gap, Equal Pay, and Sexism: Should We Be Subsidizing People's Decisions to Have Children?

I consider myself a feminist, committed to equal opportunity for women and for men. I am not, however, a member of the subset of feminists who have dishonestly trumped-up statistics to further their cause.

One of the most unfair is the broad-brush statistic that women earn only 77 cents on the dollar compared with men. That unfair subset of feminists (and President Obama) asserts or implies that the pay gap is mainly caused by sexism. In fact, when one compares apples with apples, it's clear that pay gap is mostly or completely a function of women's choices.

For example, when women have children, on average, they choose to work fewer hours. Even if they claim to work full-time, women, on average, work fewer hours and, logically, parents are, on average, more fatigued and thus less effective than non-parent employees.

The claim of an unfair gender pay gap implies that parenthood should not cause a decline in pay. Really? When environmentalists believe (Also see this) that overpopulation may be the greatest threat to the environment, should employers cave to feminist pressure groups and be subsidizing childbearing--paying parents the same as non-parents? Should employers succumb to the pressure to provide on-site or subsidized child-care?  Or how about the too-often abused Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows, with minimum documentation, employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave every year to care for a family member and have their job waiting for them on return? The disruptive effect on workplaces is a major cost to employers. And now, those pressure groups want that leave to be paid leave! Indeed, paid family leave is already the law in California. and Washington, and 25% of large companies now give paid leave. Those additional costs to employers are passed on to you and I in higher prices. Is that fair, especially when, as I said, environmentalists assert that the #1 threat to the environment is overpopulation?

HERE is an article presenting an impressive assemblage of data debunking the claim that sexism is the main cause of any gender pay gap. Alas, unless you happen to read the Texoma Enterprise, you'd never see it.  An article of that quality is good enough for a national publication but because it doesn't conform to The Narrative--"Women (and minorities) are victims or heroes"--it's relegated to the Texoma Enterprise.

Do You Have a Substance Abuse Problem? If So, Options for Dealing With It

This is my next column in the Mensa publication, The Intelligencer. I thought you might like an advance look.

Smart people are particularly adept at rationalizing their substance abuse, for example:

"I can handle it."  Are you sure? Have people hinted that you might have a substance abuse problem? And look inward: Is your motivation, drive, and yes, even brainpower, not what it was? Might your substance use be contributing?

"I can stop whenever I want." For how long? Sooner rather than later, are you back off the wagon?

"Drugs or alcohol so help me cope with life that it outweighs substance use's liabilities."  Might you have less misery to cope with if you weren't so often under the influence?

"My life is unalterably miserable, so it doesn't matter if I kill some more brain cells." Most people's lives are alterable. Taking baby steps forward may help but it's hard to take them if you're often high.

"I'm more creative when I'm high." When you evaluate your creative efforts when you're sober, are they really better?

"I'm more likeable when I'm high."  Would your friends and family say that?

"I'm smarter than most people. I have brain cells to spare."  In this job market? With life ever more complicated?

"My kids won't be affected." Do you really believe you're as good a parent when you're under the influence? And we all know that kids imitate their parents, so it's likely that your kids will follow in your substance-abusing footsteps. Is that okay with you?

The most frequent rationalization: "I must satisfy my urge to feel good right now."  Really? Must you? And is there no better, less side-effect-ridden way to feel good than to get drunk or high?

As a former drug counselor and now a career and personal coach for 26 years, having worked with 3,900 clients, I have so often seen substance abuse damage people's careers and personal lives. Even a high IQ may not be enough to compensate. Sure, most Mensans have enough brainpower to avoid being permanently unemployable, but many admit that drugs or alcohol have made them so much less successful and happy than they otherwise could have been. Yet most of them can't kick the addiction for good.

How to know if you have a problem? So many people with a substance abuse problem claim they don't have one. Take a step back and think about the complications that substance use has brought into your life. It may also be helpful to ask those who care about you for candid feedback on your use of drugs or alcohol.

The following offer reasonable prospects for getting clean and sober. One size does not fit all, but I'm hoping you'll find at least one suggestion on this list that is worth trying. If necessary, treatment should also address your mental and physical health concerns.

Moderation? Some people can be functional alcohol/drug users--if they have the discipline to keep it moderate. Others cannot function well-enough with even modest drug/alcohol use.

12-Step programs.  These programs, for example, Alcoholics Anonymous and Drug Addicts Anonymous tend to work better for people of faith or who prefer a treatment that addresses emotions as well as the rational. To find a 12-step program for yourself or someone you care about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_twelve-step_groups.

Cognitive behavioral therapy helps correcting people erroneous thinking such as those rationalizations listed above. It also includes teaching the person abuse-prevention skills, for example, having a scripted response to, "Would you like a drink or a joint?" "No, I've had enough." or, "I'll have to drive," whatever. To find a non-12-step self-help group, you might try SmartRecovery: www.smartrecovery.org.

Medication? A physician can prescribe a medication that often is very effective in helping you stop your abuse. Such pharmacotherapy can be particularly effective when someone you're living with starts each day by thanking you for committing to being clean and sober that day, then gives you the pill and a hug.

Picture how your life would be better? Keep front-and-center the ways your life would be better if you stopped, and the price you've paid for your substance abuse. San Francisco cognitive-behavioral therapist, Dr. Michael Edelstein recommends going further: "Five times daily, without fail, vividly read and write the pros and cons of kicking. Don't stop this discipline when you're doing better."

Can a relationship help? Sometimes, a partner's help is the most effective. If your partner has a substance abuse problem, yes be a good listener, yes praise their strengths, and don't be an enabler. For example, don't do their work for them to keep them propped up. They do need to experience the consequences of their abuse.

Some people stop only because of a relationship: for example, they fall in love, get pregnant, or their sibling stopped using drugs and the person didn't want to be the only family member with a substance abuse problem. 

Do you have to hit rock bottom? Alas, some people stop only when they've hit rock bottom: They're so exhausted from the toll of living the addict lifestyle that they just are sick and tired of being sick and tired. Edelstein urges, "Refuse to give up. You can succeed on the 100th try."

Is there a better way to derive pleasure? At the risk of sounding like a goody two-shoes, there really are ways to get high on life without drugs. For example, I get real pleasure from helping my clients, writing, hosting my radio show, playing in the garden, my wife and I having a couple over for dinner, walking my doggie, Einstein, indeed in writing this column. How could you fill your life with enjoyable activities that don't have negative side effects?