mystery wrote: ↑June 16th, 2021, 3:38 amI know, that's why what I have seen done worked, removal of both. And fear for life that could break an addiction. I have seen it, it worked. The cost is much.LuckyR wrote: ↑June 16th, 2021, 2:27 amWhat you are proposing might make some sense if the suppliers created the demand. If that was true, getting rid of the suppliers would decrease the demand thus there would no market for replacement suppliers. Unfortunately that is not true. As long as there is demand, applying pressure to the suppliers without addressing the demand is an endless game of whack-a-mole.mystery wrote: ↑June 15th, 2021, 8:20 pmTen times worse is relative. I know most will not accept it, I understand that.
Most big win require big risk and big change.
Many US cities if that is what you call regular, and those not like your city are called not regular.. Those ones perhaps one in 5 houses have some drug problem on average. Go sometime and make friends with the local police, they know. Even in suburbian smaller towns, many meth houses exist. Public schools are full of it. Ever visit a university party.....
If I have to choose between a middle-aged corrupt businessman and a teenager that is just starting to open their mind, I will defend the child. If I do nothing the older one wins. Not perfect solutions for not perfect world.
To be clear, I don't like it but it is what it is.
We are for sure off-topic now But this situation is part of the cost of health care.
Is a better solution available, that will work and is more kind? I hope.
But how can killing criminals stop desire for illegal activities?