Drugs sell themselves - Only a willingness to supply

Do illegal drugs pull people?
Or do lowlife pushers push drugs?

[size=200]Drugs sell themselves.[/size]

No ifs ands or buts about it. Demand is driven by the users
Curiousity usually drives people to try. But the repeat use of drugs is entirely driven by demand.

MOF there is always more demand than supply.
People talk about there being lots of good ‘dope’ on the street.
– but they just want the best dope.
That drives the demand for quality.

It is a well known fact that the quality of ‘weed’ has gone up severalfold.
So who and which party is evil??

agreed. Drugs sell themselves, but whos to blame? You or me? Politics or Pushers? I have this to say on environment and nature though.

From an environmental standpoint, if no one did drugs, no one would feel outcast. And the only people to have the impulse to do them would most likely refuse it. People can change because of their enviroment. Give a homeless person a million dollars and he’ll be talking upper-class with his dinner friends in no time. Vise-versa.

From nature- deep down we are primordial and self-centered. Only worried about what makes us happy. Screw everyone else, law, and health.

So what do, who do we stop, and who’s to blame?

nos dice ud que eres un re-puto? or que reputas algo? no entiendo

yo entiendo and I think we should narrow the problem down to

* Which sinner is the greates sinner - the User or the Dealer???

I say the User is the devil when it comes to drugs.
I think you are questioning what causes peoples desire for drugs.
(I think that is rather eeasy in that it comes from our societal suppression of youth. Youth (USA life in general) falls severely short in creating satisfactory outlets for human energies)

currently prosecution in the US is focused on the “pusher” but as I mentioned above it is a demand driven product (especially as an illegal commodity).
thus as a demand driven product users should be equally punished in the penal system. We should understand that it is impossible to stop the supply line of a product in demand and valued at greater than the cost of distributing. The war on drugs at the distribution level is largely a failure because the supply is still there. You cannot stop the influx of black market goods at the supply level. Prohibition likewise was not stopped on the distribution level.
I just think that heavier fines for distributors of drugs is not justifiable when users get off for less.

The Dealer because he’s the one who has the power to stop the circle of addiction. The user is the addicted one.

The Dealer is usually a user.

Even if he is not… you refute the principle of Supply & Demand??

westsan i think your plan to decrease demand has given the wrong message. youre right in that the war on drugs is a failure because when there is a demand, a supply will form. however i dont think punishing buyers will discourage them from buying any more than it discourages people from selling. i mean the sellers, they can sell a lot of things that are easier to get away with or wont get them in so much trouble, but theres only one marijuana.

your italicized parentheses statement said it best: what the hell else is there for a bored group of teenagers to do? tv? going to eat? some kind of cheesy school sponsored non-sports program? unless its as fun as pot, its not helping us.

If he’s the user too, he’s still the greatest sinner because he’s still feeding the vicious circle of addiction. If all the dealers would stop supplying, it would break the vicious circle cause they are the one who have the power…

Anyway, what’s the use of doing drugs ? to forget problems ? A human being, with all its intelligence, is not able to overcome stress or have fun in a non-dependent way, need to rely on a dependency ? I can understand someone really sick with AIDS using it for pain, but a healty being …


Are you saying that being a user and a dealer simultaneously, compounds the problem?
Are you saying the viscous circle is the ultimate sin because it is the compound of the 2?

If the latter then could it be viral in nature and not specific the user nor the dealer??? Is it not possible that it is an inatimate viral object?
In which case… can we stop it by stopping either distribution or usage??

This is the problem with drugs. If we accept supply and demand as an undeniable universal law, then how can you blame the dealers!
Holding this true a realists POV would easily conclude that fault lies with the USERS!

In order to believe that fault is with the dealers then you must refute the LAW of Supply and Demand! Can you do this?
Perhaps, one can conclude, that there is a skiff between demand and supply??? If you could put a “name” on this skiff what would it be???

And Future Man,

I must ask you: Why is the war on drugs “a failure” is there absolutely no reason? or is it a whole slew of reasons that cannot be counted…?



Can’t be viral because it doesn’t spread by itself. Maybe i don’t understand what you are trying to say by viral object. It’s a physical addiction, so are you trying to say that this addiction is viral ?

Hard to stop something that gives people pleasure and gives them the impression that it ‘fixes’ their problems temporarily. If it was free there would not be dealers because it would not be profitable, then prospective buyers would realize that they will be left without the goods they wish to buy.

well the current war is aimed at supply instead of demand. ECON 101 will tell you that when the number of suppliers decreases, such as when one big heroin dealer gets busted, the quantity available to be sold decreases, but everybody still wants to buy the same amount. there is no actual, direct, measurable correlation, but most of the remaining dealers will choose to raise their prices since they know that there is less competition and people will still buy at the higher prices since they all know that somebody was recently busted.

ive questioned my boss myself about this and how theres still plenty of weed to go around, we arent affected by those guys who got busted, why are our prices higher? because they can be higher is what he said.

thats because if you do drugs, you do it, it doesnt matter if it costs $10 more for a little while. the more the gov busts people, the more often dealers can raise their prcies, and the more often more dealers will jon the business to fill the hole that was created. the demand is always there, no matter how many dealers you bust.

what they need to do is attack the demand. i dont know how they would do that. i think they would have to try and attack poverty first, attack the unhappiness of bums, or the boredom of teenagers.

i dont know what high school was like for you, but it was god damn boring as hell for me. maybe an hour or two of running around or some kind of nerdly extra-curriculars could cut it for you, but i tried and failed to be amused by those things. i cant say pot made my life fun, but it made it slightly less boring. it put an item on my to do list that i actually looked forward to.

perhaps if the government attacked my empty to do list instead of innocent peaceful teenagers and their future as well as the overcrowded jails they saturate, the world would be a better, drug free place.

My point exactly FutureMan.
fio does not seem to understand that:

  • supply and demand are a law
  • the drug market is demand driven.

so what else does that lead us to conclude, except that to erradicate drugs one needs to address usage.