Key findings
Data from the National Vital Statistics System
The age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths increased from 8.9 deaths per 100,000 standard population in 2003 to 32.6 in 2022; however, the rate decreased to 31.3 in 2023. Rates decreased between 2022 and 2023 for people ages 15–54 and increased for adults age 55 and older. From 2022 to 2023, rates decreased for White non-Hispanic people, while rates for other race and Hispanic-origin groups generally stayed the same or increased. Between 2022 and 2023, rates declined for deaths involving synthetic opioids other than methadone, heroin, and natural and semisynthetic opioids, while the rate for methadone remained the same. From 2022 to 2023, rates increased for deaths involving cocaine by 4.9% (from 8.2 to 8.6) and psychostimulants with abuse potential by 1.9% (10.4 to 10.6).
Yes. That's pretty much how you'll hear anyone in the UK using it, it's the common idea of what is activity that harms the average person living in an area vs what does not. Prosocial behaviour would be activity that actively benefits the people of an area in contrast.
Your typical antisocial household is either a specific family of unemployed troublemakers, that daytime drink and often get into local violence. This can be the kids of the family or the parents themselves, sometimes both. Or it can be places that have become drug hangouts, often a small council house or flat where dozens of people from the local area come hang out and take drugs. These places start of mild but often (but not always) deteriorate over time into much harder drugs, if then left to themselves this spreads around the area because nearby neighbours that disapprove of it are driven out of the area. Dealing usually then occurs. The issue spreads.
The "antisocial" here is not at an individual level, but at a collective level. Antisocial to others collectively in the local area. The people in the specific drugs-problem area can all be very social with one another, but it is antisocial to the average person trying to live a relatively normal (by social standards) life.
Obviously none of this applies to the well-functioning drug users where it has not become the central point of their lifestyles.
This is an interesting difference in language choice. I wasn't really aware that the phrase isn't used the same way elsewhere. We have lingering elements of collective mindsets within society that I wasn't even aware differ I suppose. I am painfully aware of just how different British culture's views are to the poor, homeless and needing compared to America though. The default attitude here is that it's not their fault. The default attitude in the US appears to be gas chambers for them... At least from the impression I get online.
One thing you have to understand about British culture I suppose is that we'll be quite blunt and use the word "addict", even recognising that these addicts are fucking assholes, but that doesn't mean we consider them to be at fault for their problem, or that we don't think they need help. There's a certain element of honesty in the language that I like, a desire not to mince words around issues. I can totally understand how the american perspective might be to assume someone using that language would want the worst for people in those conditions though. We have quite a large amount of cultural differences between the UK and US that often don't get examined much and can cause issues or misunderstandings in conversations like this one.