SOMETIME during the past week, a close friend posed an interesting question.
“Who is really to blame? The addicts or the dealers? If there were no dealers, there would be no drugs right?”
This issue of drug abuse has long been a matter close to the Eye’s heart. Several times over the years, the Eye has expressed views on drug addiction. And in more than one article, the Eye has pointed to the money-crazed dealers as the main culprit of this whole menace.
Some friends have argued that it is the existence of addicts that facilitate the drug trade — if there were no addicts, the lure of quick money to sell drugs would not exist, and hence, no dealers.
So it becomes the chicken and egg story. Which one really comes first? The chicken? The egg? Logically, you would need a chicken to produce an egg.
There are those who will liken the chicken to the dealers and the eggs to the addicts. There are only so many dealers, while addicts come in bigger numbers — like the chicken and eggs.
Based on this argument, if there were no chickens around, no eggs would be produced.
Others may resort to the economics of things to explain the menace — the supply and demand chain. If there was no demand, there would be no supply. As such, there must be addicts before there are people willing to go into the dangerous, illegal but lucrative business of selling drugs.
The illicit trade of drugs is probably as old as time itself. Once upon a time, most illegal drugs we find today were used as medication. Until 1914, cocaine was freely sold over the counter in the United States. And of course morphine was and still is used in the medical field.
Back in the 17th and 18th centuries, opium and heroin dens were common sights in most countries. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle even casually mentions the use of drugs by his famous character, Sherlock Holmes. And those who follow the famous detective will of course know that Holmes’ drug of choice was cocaine.
Back to the chicken and egg argument. Another point of view is that both the dealers and addicts co-exist and one cannot really say which party is responsible for the menace.
These days, the Eye understands the drugs of choice for abuse are ganja and syabu (or better known as ice or meth) and are the ones that demand a higher price. These are the preferences of hardcore addicts who equate popping pills to child’s play. Then there are those who do a combination or take cocktails of whatever is available.
We often read about the police busting drug dealers in the newspapers. So why is there still a supply of drugs out there if the dealers are getting caught?
The Eye was told that there’s a whole chain of supply out there. If one or two dealers get caught, it is only an opportunity for small-time dealers to rise and take over the market.
Where do these drugs come from? Are they smuggled in? Are there local ‘labs’ producing these drugs?
It is easy these days to get formulations or ingredients for cooking up some drugs over the Internet. Just Google ‘meth ingredients’ and you’d find that you can practically cook up meth in your kitchen with everyday items found in grocery stores.
Some may ask, if it is that easy to cook up your own drugs, why aren’t the addicts doing it themselves instead of spending their money paying for it? Because they would be too zoned out to do so and the people with the money to buy the ingredients in bulk are the dealers. Another reason is they’d rather just risk getting caught for abuse than for dealing, which carries a mandatory death sentence in Malaysia.
And most times, the dealers are not serious abusers of drugs. They may allow themselves a little hit now and then, but would rather liken themselves to businessmen who need a clear head to run their high-risk illicit trade.
So, which comes first? The chicken or the egg?