When it comes to uber addictive drugs like Cocaine and Meth that hook people on their first try-Is it really logical to say that if there wasn't a demand for the drug then the drug problem would go away....
Pushers are called pushers for a reason...they offer and pressure impressionable people into "just trying it" and that creates addicts... Addicts are demand and continue the cycle.
So if the supply is the source of the demand isn't the real solution to get rid of the supply first while reducing the demand at the same time?
2007-10-15 09:01:06 · 5 answers · asked by TG79 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
To clarify my question....
-----------Am i correct in what I believe?--------
2007-10-15 09:02:20 · update #1
Well I did not ask for your uber support...But now that you mention it...
How would you fix the problem?
2007-10-15 09:08:00 · update #2
I guess getting even a psuedo intelligent response on YA is impossible.
2007-10-15 09:16:25 · update #3
Finally some serious answerers...THANK YOU
2007-10-15 09:18:06 · update #4
PFO---Using them once can get you addicted...not in every case but it was that way for me. Thankfully i am clean now.
2007-10-15 09:20:11 · update #5
Well in my area that is how meth has been being eradicated (until it started coming in from Mexico).
Ephedrine is no longer for sale but in restricted quantities to people holding valid state issued id. It has made it very hard for people to manufacture meth as they used in this region-
We have had far fewer meth arrests since this law went into effect 7/06.
However, you have to remember where there is a will there is a way- if people are determined to have it they will get it.
Monitoring the border of Mexico a lot more closely would make a real dent if our government was really serious about it's war on drugs the fence would already have been built.
2007-10-15 09:12:49 · answer #1 · answered by tnfarmgirl 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are correct: if there was no demand, there'd be no supply. Unfortunately the potential of opiates, coccaine and methamphetamines are known and are quite profitable for dealers. If you could squelch demand, you'd have to keep the existence of these substances secret because they are too attractive of money makers for the types that deal in them. I don't think you could do that at this point in the world without majorly clamping down on everyone's freedom.
BTW: Using those things once won't get you hooked. When you spread rumors like that, people will try them once and not feel addicted. Then they think they can keep trying them, and addiction will slowly set in.
2007-10-15 16:14:14 · answer #2 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you want to take the monetary value out of something....you have to make it legal.
For example... you probably wouldn't be seeing people on street corners pushing meth on 12 yr olds if it were legal.... because..... if it were legal it would be completely worthless and there would be no underground drug industry. People sell drugs to make money....they sell illegal drugs because people will pay for them....if they are legal they are worthless and the business doesn't exist anymore. Additionally you would have "semi safer" street drugs available. Now that the pusher's are off the streets, the only ones left who are actually doing these types of drugs are adults who are basically hopeless and worthless to society anyway... In essence... a crackhead will always be a crackhead whether it's legal or not..... but you can cut his illegal "street" supply and reduce the street crime that follows by making it available to him at a pharmacy.
2007-10-15 16:14:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
the source is human stupidity, solve that and demand for the "uber drugs" will disappear. Although the demand for good weed will probably go up.
2007-10-15 16:08:09 · answer #4 · answered by Alan S 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If that approach had not been such an uber failure for the last 50 years I might support it more.
2007-10-15 16:05:44 · answer #5 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋