Replies

"Without the supply first there would be no demand --- addicts of course have a demand but they wouldn't be addicts if the drugs weren't first available long enough for them to become addicted. I wonder how many addicts started from legal prescriptions and how many addicts intended to maintain control over the drug --- maybe using it to stay alert working 2 jobs or for a graveyard shift job?"

But Fitz, you imagine somehow that there is a way to cut off the supply of a drug like meth. That is ludicrous. It's absolutely impossible, especially with a drug like meth that can be manufactured anywhere in a few hours by toothless morons with a recipe and either a couple of hundred bucks or the wherewithal to steal the supplies they need. They bust meth labs every week where I live but there are so many people cooking the stuff they aren't even coming close to putting a dent in the supply. They can crack down and double and triple prison sentences but it really doesn't do a bit of good because by the time these guys start cooking it they are too far gone to care about what could happen to them if they get caught.

You can go after supply to keep the market from becoming absolutely flooded with the drugs, but that should not be the main focus because realistically there is just so much that can be done in that regard. Our main focus should be in reducing demand. We need to be educating people, finding out who the addicts are, getting them clean and teaching them how to stay clean.

Meth will run its course. It takes people a while to comprehend the seriousness of a drug like that but there will be a time when everyone knows that meth is more addictive and dangerous than even a drug like heroin and the popularity of the drug will drop off sharply. But still we'll be left with addicts that we need to deal with. Putting them in prison keeps them off the streets for a while, but it rarely changes anyone for the better and often it screws people up worse than they were already screwed up. Many even continue to use drugs in prison. There has to be a better way and I would suggest that at least a big part of the better way would be a combination of community/church/government sponsored voluntary rehab programs along with drug court type programs for those who can't or won't quit voluntarily.

We need to be educating people, finding out who the addicts are, getting them clean and teaching them how to stay clean.

Who has to pay to rehab the addicts? The working, taxpayer types? Or would the addict at least pay their own rehab? Some addicts have too high a failure rate --- something like 90% for meth addicts --- it's too futile, too expensive to teach them --- they aren't teachable.

I've known cocaine and alcohol addicts who were only able to start their rehab after going to jail --- it gave them a time out on their drug, allowed their minds to clear for once and think about rehab --- plus the fear of being locked up without the drug seemed to motivate them to clean up --- and none had signed up for a voluntary program until there was jail time. It seemed like they must have thought if they keep on the way they were going they were going to be locked up without their fix -- and being locked up is horrible so they might as well try to get some control.